I am not into conspiracy theories. However, when you think about the millenium bug,the salinity exaggeration of a few years ago, the continual threats to the Great Barrier Reef (whatever happened to the Crown-of-thorns-star-fish?) and now the global warming beat-up, you wonder.
The term 'climate change' is much better than 'global warming', as you can win allround. You can even blame the current record cold in the Northern Hemisphere on human activity.
The "climategate" hacked emails scandal has revealed that the central scientists advising the IPCC have understated historic temperatures,have threatened to boycott publications that run contradictory articles, have omitted from the Russian temperature data all the centres that showed no warming, and have had a captive scientist re-write all the global warming definitions on Wikipedia, so as to highlight warming.
In the light of these facts how can all those alarmists at Copenhagen speak with such confidence about containing warming to 2 degrees C? Further, the evidence suggests that increases in CO2 levels follow warming periods-they don't precede them.
The Rudd Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme should be permanently consigned to the garbage bin. In any event CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential part of life.
Tony Abbott must be urged to stop trying to have a bit each way and stick to his Beaufort Declaration-"global warming science is crap"!
22 December, 2009
14 December, 2009
Christmas Greetings
9th December,2009
Another year has rolled by and we are still here. For that and all our other blessings we should be thankful. We wish you a very Happy Christmas and a safe, healthy and prosperous (post GFC) New Year.
There is just so much of interest around us and, of course, it all keeps changing. I have sometimes philosophised (is there such a word?) that one of modern mans’ great challenges is the sheer weight of data (for want of a better word) which surrounds us and the ever changing nature of all that stuff. We can only deal with this mass by making generalisations (and categorisations) and sticking with them. That then carries the seeds of its own destruction as fixed generalisations don’t allow for the fact of constant change.
So, does that mean that it is all too much. Not so, say I, as I find it very stimulating and its great that I now have the time to pursue the things that I am really interested in, without having to attend to the things that my employment required of me. If you wish to be bored witless and see at first hand what my major issues are, have a read of other items on this blog. You will soon realise that global warming/climate change and water management loom large.
The highlight of the year was our retirement trip to Hong Kong and the UK in July. My wonderful erstwhile employers (Swires) really turned it on for us-you can read all about it on this Blog.
The trip coinciding with the Lord’s Test Match was very fortunate and not entirely coincidental. Unfortunately, the wrong team won. But, after their 5-0 drubbing in Australia in 07/08 (which I never heard mentioned in London), the Poms needed to regain some self-esteem. I will always remember with great pleasure, the scene at the end of the Test. Me standing on the balcony of the Bowler’s Bar of the Lords Pavillion, with pint in hand, surrounded by up market Poms (members) who as they glowed with sheer ecstacy as Flintoff cleaned up the Australian batsmen, discovered that there was an Australian in their midst! The banter was really great. My companion was a delightful liberal Anglican cleric, (one of my mob), who is one of the Canons at Westminster Abbey and who very kindly gave Gail and me a personally conducted tour of the Abbey the following day before we lunched at the House of Lords with our friend and Swire colleague Lord (Mark)Marlesford.
Gail continues to dote upon her first two grandchildren, Charlie and Heidi, and sticks with her never to be missed Thursday child minding.
We are both excited by the scheduled arrival of Susie’s and Hagen’s son at the end of January. We have gained great pleasure from S and H’s enthusiasm for their new home-Gail’s late brother Brian’s old unit at Mosman. It responded wonderfully to a facelift.
Kate has spent all of 2009 living on her own (when she is not here or on the ‘phone). We don’t like her being on her own and continue to seek a “flatmate”. However, being alone has demonstrated to Kate and us, just what she is capable of. Her ongoing employment at Woolworths, St Ives continues to be very important to her.
My formal association with Swire/Clyde has concluded. I came off both Boards in the latter part of the year. I strongly disagree with the strategy for Clyde and with the new management style, but as the kids say I need to “get over it” and “move-on”!
Mike had a job change mid-year. He is fortunate being in the digital communications business and his skills are in great demand. He is now working four days a week for a digital advertising agency and freelancing on the other day.
Given my concern with information overload, this is already longer than I intended. But, it carries our very best wishes to you for the festive season and beyond.
Another year has rolled by and we are still here. For that and all our other blessings we should be thankful. We wish you a very Happy Christmas and a safe, healthy and prosperous (post GFC) New Year.
There is just so much of interest around us and, of course, it all keeps changing. I have sometimes philosophised (is there such a word?) that one of modern mans’ great challenges is the sheer weight of data (for want of a better word) which surrounds us and the ever changing nature of all that stuff. We can only deal with this mass by making generalisations (and categorisations) and sticking with them. That then carries the seeds of its own destruction as fixed generalisations don’t allow for the fact of constant change.
So, does that mean that it is all too much. Not so, say I, as I find it very stimulating and its great that I now have the time to pursue the things that I am really interested in, without having to attend to the things that my employment required of me. If you wish to be bored witless and see at first hand what my major issues are, have a read of other items on this blog. You will soon realise that global warming/climate change and water management loom large.
The highlight of the year was our retirement trip to Hong Kong and the UK in July. My wonderful erstwhile employers (Swires) really turned it on for us-you can read all about it on this Blog.
The trip coinciding with the Lord’s Test Match was very fortunate and not entirely coincidental. Unfortunately, the wrong team won. But, after their 5-0 drubbing in Australia in 07/08 (which I never heard mentioned in London), the Poms needed to regain some self-esteem. I will always remember with great pleasure, the scene at the end of the Test. Me standing on the balcony of the Bowler’s Bar of the Lords Pavillion, with pint in hand, surrounded by up market Poms (members) who as they glowed with sheer ecstacy as Flintoff cleaned up the Australian batsmen, discovered that there was an Australian in their midst! The banter was really great. My companion was a delightful liberal Anglican cleric, (one of my mob), who is one of the Canons at Westminster Abbey and who very kindly gave Gail and me a personally conducted tour of the Abbey the following day before we lunched at the House of Lords with our friend and Swire colleague Lord (Mark)Marlesford.
Gail continues to dote upon her first two grandchildren, Charlie and Heidi, and sticks with her never to be missed Thursday child minding.
We are both excited by the scheduled arrival of Susie’s and Hagen’s son at the end of January. We have gained great pleasure from S and H’s enthusiasm for their new home-Gail’s late brother Brian’s old unit at Mosman. It responded wonderfully to a facelift.
Kate has spent all of 2009 living on her own (when she is not here or on the ‘phone). We don’t like her being on her own and continue to seek a “flatmate”. However, being alone has demonstrated to Kate and us, just what she is capable of. Her ongoing employment at Woolworths, St Ives continues to be very important to her.
My formal association with Swire/Clyde has concluded. I came off both Boards in the latter part of the year. I strongly disagree with the strategy for Clyde and with the new management style, but as the kids say I need to “get over it” and “move-on”!
Mike had a job change mid-year. He is fortunate being in the digital communications business and his skills are in great demand. He is now working four days a week for a digital advertising agency and freelancing on the other day.
Given my concern with information overload, this is already longer than I intended. But, it carries our very best wishes to you for the festive season and beyond.
12 December, 2009
Submission to Productivity Commission
Submission to Productivity Commission on Water Recovery
Overview
This submission is brief, long on assertion and short on evidence. This is not because the assertions are not defensible, but rather because of limited resources. I would be happy to enlarge verbally should the Commission be interested.
Assertions
1.The key characteristic of Australia’s inland rivers (where most irrigation takes place), is massive variability. For example, the Darling River at Bourke has an annual average flow of approximately 2,500,000 megalitres. The spread around the average is zero (no flow whatever for 12 months) at the bottom end to a flow of 12,000,000 megalitres at the top end. Whilst this may be an extreme example, it is indicative of Australia’s highly variable rainfall and run-off.
In such circumstances it is really nonsense to ask CSIRO to calculate “Sustainable Water Yield” which I take to mean the annual amount that can always be extracted. Likewise the setting of Sustainable Diversion Limits makes no sense unless these are set at zero. Such an approach appears to take no account of variability. A fixed extraction amount in a year of high flow could be miniscule in terms of its impact on the environment. The same amount in a low flow year would be excessive.
2.This variability is dealt with by the use of allocations. Water licenses give irrigators the right to extract water when allocations are made and this only happens when flows are sufficient to allow this.
Thus, the purchase of water licenses by the Government will do nothing to increase water supplies when river flows are low and when there are no (or very limited) allocations and will only restrict production when flows are significant.
Much is made of providing irrigators with greater certainty. However, the facts are that Australian irrigators, like graziers, know and accept the risks involved in farming in Australia’s highly variable rainfall environment. The only achievable certainty would be a policy of zero extractions.
3.If Australia is to responsibly and environmentally sensitively maximise agricultural production, we need to take two key approaches. We need to conserve (read efficient storages) at time of high flows and build infrastructure that is flexible. This flexibility mainly manifests itself by way of storages that can allow smaller flows to pass unimpeded. These two key words (conservation and flexibility) need to drive our thinking.
An approach which uses fixed amounts, as with “Caps”, “Sustainable Yields” and “Sustainable Diversion Limits” seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of Australia’s inherent rainfall and run-off variability.
David Boyd
12.12.09
Overview
This submission is brief, long on assertion and short on evidence. This is not because the assertions are not defensible, but rather because of limited resources. I would be happy to enlarge verbally should the Commission be interested.
Assertions
1.The key characteristic of Australia’s inland rivers (where most irrigation takes place), is massive variability. For example, the Darling River at Bourke has an annual average flow of approximately 2,500,000 megalitres. The spread around the average is zero (no flow whatever for 12 months) at the bottom end to a flow of 12,000,000 megalitres at the top end. Whilst this may be an extreme example, it is indicative of Australia’s highly variable rainfall and run-off.
In such circumstances it is really nonsense to ask CSIRO to calculate “Sustainable Water Yield” which I take to mean the annual amount that can always be extracted. Likewise the setting of Sustainable Diversion Limits makes no sense unless these are set at zero. Such an approach appears to take no account of variability. A fixed extraction amount in a year of high flow could be miniscule in terms of its impact on the environment. The same amount in a low flow year would be excessive.
2.This variability is dealt with by the use of allocations. Water licenses give irrigators the right to extract water when allocations are made and this only happens when flows are sufficient to allow this.
Thus, the purchase of water licenses by the Government will do nothing to increase water supplies when river flows are low and when there are no (or very limited) allocations and will only restrict production when flows are significant.
Much is made of providing irrigators with greater certainty. However, the facts are that Australian irrigators, like graziers, know and accept the risks involved in farming in Australia’s highly variable rainfall environment. The only achievable certainty would be a policy of zero extractions.
3.If Australia is to responsibly and environmentally sensitively maximise agricultural production, we need to take two key approaches. We need to conserve (read efficient storages) at time of high flows and build infrastructure that is flexible. This flexibility mainly manifests itself by way of storages that can allow smaller flows to pass unimpeded. These two key words (conservation and flexibility) need to drive our thinking.
An approach which uses fixed amounts, as with “Caps”, “Sustainable Yields” and “Sustainable Diversion Limits” seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of Australia’s inherent rainfall and run-off variability.
David Boyd
12.12.09
05 December, 2009
Climate Change Debate
In Toronto, Canada this week there was an excellent debate on the issue of climate change-(Google Monk Debates). I watched it all live and much of it a second time. I remain convinced that like with the Millennium Bug, much of the world has been the subject of a huge "con". Allbeit that most of the "conners" genuinely believe what they are saying.
In saying this I am not referring to the scourge of what I would call general pollution, where much needs to be done, particularly in the developing world. It is the narrower issue of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the minute level of less than 400 parts per million and the claimed link of this to an increase in global temperatures, that I find hard to swallow. The UK "climategate" scandal does not surprise me at all and only adds to my scepticism.
If I am wrong, I still don't think creating a big "money churn" by putting a price on carbon is the way to go. I don't trust politicians with another revenue source (tax). In Australia we have just voted down (in our Upper House) an emissions trading scheme. It took a change in Opposition leader to do it, but I am very glad we did. There could be an election on the issue and I have a feeling the 'conventional wisdom' might at last be changing.
In saying this I am not referring to the scourge of what I would call general pollution, where much needs to be done, particularly in the developing world. It is the narrower issue of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the minute level of less than 400 parts per million and the claimed link of this to an increase in global temperatures, that I find hard to swallow. The UK "climategate" scandal does not surprise me at all and only adds to my scepticism.
If I am wrong, I still don't think creating a big "money churn" by putting a price on carbon is the way to go. I don't trust politicians with another revenue source (tax). In Australia we have just voted down (in our Upper House) an emissions trading scheme. It took a change in Opposition leader to do it, but I am very glad we did. There could be an election on the issue and I have a feeling the 'conventional wisdom' might at last be changing.
01 December, 2009
Email Sent to Ian Macfarlane MP at 8:30AM on 01.12.09
Dear Ian,
I have watched the development of your political career from QGGA to Minister for Industry, with admiration. However, to hear you as a genuine "bushie" refer to the CPRS as a "cimate change solution" truly shocks me. I am afraid that you and my friend Malcolm Turnbull have been playing populist politics on this issue because you believe that's where the votes are.
Consider this:
Electricity bills forecast to increase by 60%-half due to the ETS.
"Climategate" getting big coverage particularly in the UK-the key scientific global warming alarmists have been "fiddling the numbers".
and this:
Under the proposed CPRS in Australia we will reduce our emissions from 550 million tonnes per year to 520 million tons per year by 2020
China will take their emissions from 7 billion tons this year to 10 billion tons by 2020
China will increase by 3 billion tons a year and we will reduce by 30 million tons per year at a cost of some $200 billion.
How crazy is that??
It's never too late-Messrs Minchin and Abbott are on a vote winner and are prepared to show leadership in challenging conventional wisdom. Please get with them.
I have watched the development of your political career from QGGA to Minister for Industry, with admiration. However, to hear you as a genuine "bushie" refer to the CPRS as a "cimate change solution" truly shocks me. I am afraid that you and my friend Malcolm Turnbull have been playing populist politics on this issue because you believe that's where the votes are.
Consider this:
Electricity bills forecast to increase by 60%-half due to the ETS.
"Climategate" getting big coverage particularly in the UK-the key scientific global warming alarmists have been "fiddling the numbers".
and this:
Under the proposed CPRS in Australia we will reduce our emissions from 550 million tonnes per year to 520 million tons per year by 2020
China will take their emissions from 7 billion tons this year to 10 billion tons by 2020
China will increase by 3 billion tons a year and we will reduce by 30 million tons per year at a cost of some $200 billion.
How crazy is that??
It's never too late-Messrs Minchin and Abbott are on a vote winner and are prepared to show leadership in challenging conventional wisdom. Please get with them.
Email Sent to Certain Senators on 30.11.09
Senators,
Just look at the Breaking News:
Electricity bills forecast to increase by 60%-half due to the ETS.
"Climategate" getting big coverage particularly in the UK-the key scientific global warming alarmists have been "fiddling the numbers".
Messrs Minchin and Abbott are on a vote winner and are prepared to show leadership in challenging conventional wisdom. Please get with them.
Just look at the Breaking News:
Electricity bills forecast to increase by 60%-half due to the ETS.
"Climategate" getting big coverage particularly in the UK-the key scientific global warming alarmists have been "fiddling the numbers".
Messrs Minchin and Abbott are on a vote winner and are prepared to show leadership in challenging conventional wisdom. Please get with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)