Here is a commentary from a man who lives on the shores of Lake Alexandrina

Here is a commentary from a man who lives on the shores of Lake Alexandrina-it is worth reading.

Science and pseudo science – the sleeping giant

Our opinions can diverge after we agree on the facts, because facts are facts are facts. 
 
I am comfortable with an artificially fresh Lower Lake in front of my house at an artificially raised level - for the convenience of it (a preference/value judgment based upon my own selfish agenda) and I would not spend time and mental energy trying to defend this personal preference to anyone. But the barrages are there and with strong river flows that we have right now, they can maintain a fairly fresh artificial system against the tidal pressures which would otherwise push estuarine salinities a long way into the lakes - just as they did for the thousands of years before the barrages were built and before there were any upstream diversions. 
 
And I accept that others who may not live on the shores, or have irrigation licenses, or front lawns to water may prefer the notion of a full time natural estuary with the barrages removed or permanently open - and again I would not spend time and mental energy trying to persuade them instead to agree with my preference - value judgements are just that.

But when anyone, whatever preference they are promoting, makes statements that are false to encourage others to agree with them - my sense of 'fair play' is greatly offended - as a science educator for over 50 years I know the strength of the scientific process to guide our thinking towards outcomes that are meaningful and valid. Science I believe is 'a fair go for thinking'. Observable facts (evidence) and rational thought (logic) give rise to conclusions which make sense.
 So! - there is some serious nonsense being promoted out there at present by people who should know better but who may just themselves be misinformed - and the nonsense suits their purpose so they resist exposure to the evidence which refutes their assertions.
The environmental fundamentalists and their followers (who include South Australian politicians of all persuasions, not least the incumbent Premier and his government, who quote all the environmentalist clichés as they threaten to demolish the very aim of the Water Act and its Basin Plan - to revert back to legal challenges to uphold the old order of the Constitution's State Rights.  For what purpose?-- to go back to where we started which does not make sense - because they are also saying that the old order has put the river and the environment in crisis.
 
What do they really want?
And what are they saying that does not make sense?

• They are saying that the river is in crisis, that salinity is a major issue in this crisis, ("2 million tonnes of salt etc etc "), "rivers die from the mouth up", and that over extraction is the cause of this crisis.

But what does the evidence actually tell us - the hard cold facts - (2+2=4 type facts with not an opinion in sight)?In fact the salinity trends in the lower reaches of the River Murray have shown a continual and significant improvement over the past 30 years since salt interception schemes were introduced - the salinity levels in the Lower Lakes during the recent extreme drought were the result of just that - extreme drought - with upstream extractions for irrigation virtually shut down. Not my opinion but Murray Darling Basin Commission data – so why is this not known, understood and accepted by these impressively credentialed people?

Apart from the drought which needed management considerations unrelated to upstream extraction issues - but which was managed into catastrophic ‘dry down’ - the river is not in the salinity crisis that is claimed and over extraction cannot be blamed for the effects of the drought.
-and

•  They are saying that the Lower Lakes have always been fresh (and by implication should be kept that way).

But again, what does the evidence actually tell us - blatantly biased amateur historic collections aside - the diatom evidence is often quoted - and yet the Professor and internationally renowned leader of that research project, Peter Gell, has publicly disassociated his own conclusions from the data from those being claimed by the 'freshwater only' lobby – and so the diatom data can hardly be deemed to be conclusive - either way.

But to settle the argument once and for all - supporting the little known research of South Australian oceanographer Professor Rainer Radock who observed and measured reversal (through the Murray Mouth) of the strong river flows of 1974 by tidal pressures when meteorological conditions increased tide heights - we now have telemetry monitoring of salinity and water levels accessible to home computers which have demonstrated multiple incursions of saline water from the ocean to a considerable distance into Lake Alexandrina - well north of Point Sturt, despite strong river flows in the order of 30 to 40 GL per day, whenever a high tide 'catches' the barrages with open gates and therefore has connectivity with the Lakes.

There can now be no doubt at all - the numbers tell the story - that without the barrages even in times of strong river flows, the estuarine mix would have extended well into the Lakes - and in times of average or lower river flows , would have extended to where in 1830 Sturt detected a distinct line between freshwater and saltwater (brackish) at Pomanda Point, where the river enters the Lakes.

As recently as July 2002 the Murray Darling Basin Commission's 'Living Murray' major 'discussion paper' booklet stated matter of factly (on Page 18) "The barrages have also changed the ecology of the Lower lakes, reducing the estuarine area of the Murray to 11% of its natural size" (my emphasis), using Jensen A. et al 2000, p19 as its reference. – meaning that 89% of the original estuary was upstream of the barrages.


So clearly, this rewriting of the 'popular' scientific wisdom has occurred within the past 10 years - presumably under the pressures of political influences - science has been 'bent' to fit political/ideological preferences and is therefore no longer science. And yet the scientific 'establishment ' seems to be dancing to the tune of the ideologue and has not engaged - indeed seems most reluctant to engage with the relevant facts - the evidence which so clearly there.
 
I believe that this scientific data - the 'salinity improvement in the river' data which refutes the 'salinity crisis' claims  - and the 'tidal intrusion against  strong river flows’, data which refutes the 'always fresh' claims are the sleeping giant which will, when woken - devour the political, scientific and environmental reputations of many high profile activist/advocates - and the giant is stirring.
 
Let's spread the word and give SCIENCE the boost it needs to overcome the bent pseudo-science which is currently holding sway.
 
Trevor Harden
Clayton Bay, Lower Lakes, SA
1st April 2012

The Ord

I visited Kununurra and 'The Ord' two years ago. Barnaby Joyce visited three weeks ago. He 'wrote it up' much better than I! I quote:-
"Why water means wealth
 Last week I made my first trip to Kununurra to see the astounding Ord River scheme. Lake Argyle holds the equivalent of over 20 times the size of Sydney Harbour all year around.

The Ord has had its problems and controversies over the years; however we now have a government in Western Australia that finally has the courage and vision to build the Ord to a scale that might at least give it a chance. At the moment only 15,000 hectares of land around the Ord is irrigated. This is vastly too small to be efficient.

Just around my home town of St George there are 76,000 hectares of irrigation. That is supported by a 101,000 ML dam, the Beardmore dam, although there are much larger private storages as well. Last year those storages helped produce over $600 million of cotton, $200 million of grain and then there are melons, onions, grapes, beef and kangaroo meat as well.

All produced by just around 5,000 people. If the rest of the nation were this productive, we would be the richest nation on earth.

Lake Argyle is 100 times the size of Beardmore dam yet it only supports an irrigation area roughly the same size as the government irrigation scheme in my area and vastly smaller than privately developed farms around St George.

Whatever you think of the past economic success of the Ord, there is no doubt about the environmental benefits that can be achieved when you dam something.

Before the Ord was dammed it was a seasonal river, retreating to a series of disconnected pools in the dry season. Now it flows at 45 cubic metres per second, all day every day. Lake Argyle is now one of Australia's 64 internationally recognised Ramsar wetlands.

Some bureaucrats from the Federal Department of Environment, more familiar with the variable rivers in Australia's south east, asked how often water is released from the Ord. The response came back "every bloody day". It took the Ord Corporation 8 weeks to convince the bureaucrats that this was actually the case.

This is only a minor example of the bureaucratic interference that has occurred in the attempt to expand the Ord River scheme.

Because Lake Argyle is a Ramsar listed wetland, any plan to use its waters must be approved by the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This meant that environmental bureaucrats from Canberra had the final say on whether the project could go ahead. The environmental legislation over an environment created by a man made structure which would not have been created if today’s environmental legislation was in place.

Reportedly this process was drawn out and frustrating. Department officials asked the Ord proponents to provide evidence that a road they were intending to build would not limit the migration of finches. The reply came back, finches can fly! So we intend them to fly over the road, like every other (invective) bird!

In the end, to get the project approved, the Ord had to agree to pay $1.5 million to fund shark research in the Indian Ocean as an “environmental offset”. The shark research had nothing to do with the Ord scheme; it was effectively just a tax on this project. A shark tax on the outback. Green legislation is an emotion followed by a paradox with the goal being lead weight." End quote.

Note how massive is the size of the water storage and how relatively small the developed irrigation area. Comments such as those we hear from Senator Bill Heffernan about moving our irrigation to the North are, in my view, nonsense. I am all for developing the North and for further growth in the South with additional storages.

 I do not underestimate the challenges of developing large scale tropical irrigated agriculture, but Australia has not baulked at similar challenges in the past. However, we are very good at temperate irrigated agriculture and northern development should  be an addition not an alternative. 

No Wedding,but Four Funerals

The last month has been a sad, contemplative four weeks with no less than four funerals. To me funerals are always sad, yet are very much part of the cycle of life. They provide an opportunity to acknowledge the deceased’s contribution and to honour them, to offer some comfort to those closest to the deceased, to recognise our own mortality and importantly, to interact with mutual friends and family.

These days most Christian denominations take the line that funerals should be a “celebration”. I sometimes think this is overdone, particularly when the person has died tragically and/or prematurely. However, it was appropriate for each of these four. The youngest was 81 and the oldest nearly 96.

David Boyd

The first and youngest was that of my namesake, David (Hopetoun) Boyd. David was my first cousin-the son of Dad’s eldest brother-Hope. After my father died when I was eight, we had very little to do with his brothers and the first time, that I am aware of, that I met David was at the Warren Races in the mid 1990’s through his second wife’s long friendship with Robin Englert, one of the Clyde Station Manager’s wives. Whilst I really didn’t get to know him very well before dementia sadly set in, he struck me as a very gentlemanly, warm, humble man who had suffered more than his share of life’s disappointments. His wife, Loretta, is a delight in every respect and she adored David. She was wonderful to him in the difficult years since his dementia caught hold.

George Lackay

The second was that of an old mate at Bourke, George Lackay. I put together an obituary which I hope ‘The Land’ newspaper will run. I extract-

Bourke has lost one of its great characters in the death of George Lackay, on the 9^th March in Darling River floodwaters. He was noted for his tremendous work ethic and it was typical of the man that at age 83 he died on his way to work.

I first met him in 1960, when as a raw youth Dalgety sent me to Bourke Branch and one of my responsibilities was to keep the Drover’s Book and pay the drovers on behalf of clients. George was one of the drovers and he struck me as a most personable character who I immediately warmed to. He had a most engaging personality and a keen sense of humour.

George was born at Neckarbo Station,Ivanhoe. His father is believed to have been a Scottish immigrant and his mother part Aboriginal and part Maori.

He came to Bourke in 1946 where he fell in love with Eva Wilson. This was a highly successful union. George adored her and they produced eight children-Jean, Geoffrey, Cheryl, Lynne (deceased), Carol, Toni, Dennis and Ivan. He had 24 grandchildren. George instilled in all his children the need to work and support their families. He was proud of the fact that he was still working at 83 and that he had never claimed a welfare benefit in his life.

 When in 1988 I renewed my association with Bourke as C.E.O. of Clyde Agriculture, I was delighted to find George was an employee. He continued as such until his death. He often gave me unsolicited advice on the Company and its performance. He was fond of telling people that “I knew that Davy Boyd when he was just a shit-kicker”! Too true.

Bob Young

The third was that of my great friend and mentor Bob Young of Walcha, at age 86. The funeral was held in the magnificent garden at “Glen Collin” and he was buried alongside his wife Bev on a hilltop about 200 metres away, in what I think was the most aesthetically beautiful funeral I have ever attended. I was asked to deliver a eulogy and again I extract-

Bev and Bob were true family friends-our closest. Our three kids-all of whom are here today- loved them and they were important figures in their lives. Bob is Susie’s Godfather. Bob was a unique individual. A deep thinker, yet a practical man who could turn his hand to so many things.

He was quite the best farmer I have ever known. He had a huge influence on my thinking.

50 years ago this country you see around you was wet, heavily timbered, flukey country where you were lucky to fatten a bullock by the time he was four years of age. Now what you see is beautiful, sustainable, balanced pastures. Some are over 40 years old and as good as the day they germinated.

Bob always had his priorities right, particularly in commercial terms. Pasture fencing and waters came first-every acre of Glen Collin was ploughed and sown. Then accommodation was built so he could hire a permanent man, and then, and only then, did they build this house-the house of their dreams.

Bob was an achiever with a vision, coupled with enormous energy. Everything was done for the long term.

He didn’t accept things at face value-he questioned and reached his own conclusions.

Their most important legacy is their children-Barb, Rick, Kate and Jim and their grandchildren. All different, and all achievers. All people of substance.

Second this land and the example set. In his early Walcha days, they had only been here for three years when we arrived in 1970, there was scepticism. I distinctly recall a member of the local establishment saying “there’ll be a big crash out there this year, you can’t run those numbers of stock in this country”. Over the intervening 40 odd years I have watched scepticism move to respect and admiration. Bob became the “guru” and people came to him for advice. He directly helped people and his indirect impact by way of example was enormous.

Bob and Bev were staying with us when our daughter Kate was hit by a car coming home from school and were wonderfully supportive.

After Bob’s accident I observed the rapport between Bob and Kate, the two victims, grow stronger and stronger.

If you want an example of Kipling’s man who “filled the unforgiving minute, with sixty seconds worth of distance run”-you have one in Bob Young.

“Jack” Tyrrel

The fourth (and last for a while-I hope) was that of a man who, on reflection, was probably the closest thing to a father that I had after the death of Dad. He was the Reverend John Tyrrel of Canberra Grammar School, who died at the grand old age of 95.

“Jack”, as we boys irreverently called him behind his back, was my English teacher, Chaplain, Hockey and Cricket coach. He taught me a broad theology, an appreciation of the English language, and appointed me School Hockey Captain when I was only in Fourth Year. When he heard I was planning to leave school and go jackerooing after the Hockey season and not stay on to matriculation he quite rightly, but unsuccessfully, tried to talk me out of it.

“Jack” was the real “Mr Chips” and influenced the lives of so many boys. Born in Kent (UK), a farmer’s son, University educated (M.A. and Th.L) at Cambridge, a Naval Chaplain during WW2, he spoke with a very upmarket “pommy” accent. He once told Mum, who was the House Mother of the junior boy’s boarding house, that in contrast to UK schoolboys, he really appreciated the way Australian country boys would tell you what they really thought. (In the 1950’s Canberra was a country town and most of the students were boys from Southern Tablelands and South/West slopes farms).

Amongst the many pearls of wisdom he passed on to us was that if you were considering marrying a young lady, have a good look at her mother. Because her daughter will probably be very like her in thirty years time!

In a very pleasant coincidence we re-connected in the 1980’s. When Dalgety purchased Winchcombe Carson my counterpart in Winchcombes was the late Lance Earl and we became very good friends. Lance was “Jack’s” brother-in-law, they having married sisters, Joan and Pauline, farmer’s daughters from Forbes. He spoke very warmly of his memories of Mum when the School kindly dedicated a memorial rose to her, a few years ago. At 91, he conducted Lance's funeral service with his usual aplomb. I complimented him afterwards saying "Jack, you have lost none of your style". He responded "Oh Jimmy I'm getting old". "But Jack you were always old" I spontaneously retorted. Such is the perception of schoolboys.

Re-examining Climate Change Data

Government should re-examine the climate data

·                                 BY:BOB CARTER ET AL * 

·                                 From:The Australian 

·                                 April 18, 2012 12:00AM 

TWO recent, widely publicised reports by the government's scientific advisory agencies on climate change have sought to raise alarm yet again about global warming.

With the world having warmed slightly during the late 20th century, CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Climate Commission all advocate that this warming was caused mainly by industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, and that the continuation of emissions unchecked will cause dangerous warming of 3C-4C by 2100.

However, these and other climate agencies are now encountering a public that is increasingly aware of the lack of factual evidence for dangerous warming, and of the speculative nature of the arguments advanced in its favour.

For example, many people now understand that there is no direct evidence that 20th-century warming was caused mostly by carbon dioxide increase; that the late 20th-century warming has been followed by a 15-year temperature standstill in the face of continuing increases in carbon dioxide; and that the models that project alarming future warming are inadequate.

The dangerous warming hypothesis is embodied in the complex climate models that CSIRO and others use to predict the future climate.

But when the model predictions are tested against the latest high-quality data from our best instruments, they are seen to have comprehensively failed.

For example, the models predicted increasing global air temperatures (the measured rises have been much less than predicted), increasing ocean temperatures (there has been no change since 2003, when we started measuring it properly with Argo ocean-diving buoys) and the presence of a hot spot caused by humidity and cloud feedback at heights of 8km-12km in the tropical atmosphere (entirely absent).

The last item is especially important because it shows that the crucial amplification assumed by the modellers and which is responsible for two-thirds of the predicted warming (yes, only one-third is directly due to carbon dioxide) simply does not exist.

Finding that the estimated historic increase in carbon dioxide was not enough to cause dangerous warming on its own, the modellers guessed that atmospheric water vapour would amplify, by a factor of three, any initial carbon dioxide-forced warming.

That this assumed amplification is present in the models but not in reality explains why the models consistently overestimate recent warming.

What then should our government be making of all this?

Well, the government appears to take advice on global warming and climate change from a wide range of sources, which include the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Australian government agencies (CSIRO, BOM), state-based greenhouse or climate-change bodies, rent- seekers from many university climate-related research groups, business lobby groups and consultants and, finally, large environmental lobby organisations (Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace, WWF). Phew.

The reality is, though, that all of these groups and organisations take their lead from, and support the views of, the IPCC (a political body that is unaccountable to Australian citizens).

Their starting assumption is therefore that human-caused global warming exists, that it is dangerous and that the way to avert the danger is to "decarbonise" the planet. The many agencies and groups giving advice are, in fact, just providing multiple conduits for the same repetitive, alarmist message, which derives ultimately from the same IPCC source.

Since the government's carbon tax legislative package passed the Senate last October, Australian press coverage of the global warming issue has been muted, doubtless partly signifying that there have been few government media releases that address the topic since the Senate decision.

That situation changed with a jolt during the week starting on March 12, when a wide variety of news media carried stories about CSIRO's Cape Grim air pollution monitoring station in Tasmania, followed later in the week by publicity for new reports on global warming by CSIRO/BOM and the Climate Commission.

In effect, the week revealed a co-ordinated and highly successful public relations campaign by three of the organisations involved in giving advice on climate change in Australia, with support and advance knowledge among some media editors and reporters. The aim was to rekindle the fast-fading fear of global warming alarm among the general public.

Very little scientific balance or analysis was provided during this week-long barrage of tired, speculative and highly controversial assertions about supposedly dangerous global warming.

Rather than being a new state of affairs, this assault in favour of warming alarmism by Australian climate agencies follows many similar propaganda blitzes during the past 10 years.

As experienced scientists, we have just completed a detailed assessment of the recent reports, which has been added to the list of earlier independent audits of IPCC and Australian reports at Quadrant Online (Google "global warming: an essential reference").

Our analysis of the "new" reports finds that they provide no evidence that dangerous global warming is occurring; nor that human carbon dioxide emissions will cause such warming in future; nor that recent Australian climate-related events lie outside normal climate variability; nor that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have any discernible impact on future climate.

Therefore, Australian public policies regarding dangerous climate change, sea-level rise and other climatic hazards are based on inadequate scientific advice, which is shackled to the shortcomings of inadequate computer model projections.

The climate models are incompatible with the measured data. In recent decades the model predictions have significantly exceeded the measured temperature rise.

In science, data trumps theory. If data and theory disagree, as they do here, scientists go with the data and revise their hypothesis.

But in politics the opposite is true, for authority figures and political correctness reign supreme. In which context government climate scientists, Western governments and numerous influential lobby groups all strongly support the idea of dangerous global warming, despite the strong contrary evidence.

We conclude that an obvious and urgent need exists for the government to reassess its climate hazard policies. A good starting point would be to implement an unbiased review of the evidence.

Bob Carter is a geologist specialising in paleontology and marine geology. David Evans is a computer modeller and was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 1999-2005. Stewart Franks is an associate professor of environmental engineering at the University of Newcastle. William Kininmonth headed Australia's National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology, 1986-98.