UPDATE: While MediaWatch (ABC) is hassling Jennifer Marohasy, Marc Hendrickx at ABCnewswatch responds in kind, posting an excellent open letter to MediaWatch, asking if they can outline their own scientific qualifications to judge Jennifer Marohasy’s scientific work. ABC staff want to know her motivations, but Marc wants to know theirs. And “given that they employ 11 staff full time” and produce “one 15 minute show per week”, do they consider that this represents good value for the Australian taxpayer? Touche!
Brilliant Marc. It’s a must read.
—————————————————————————
Jennifer Marohasy has extraordinary influence. She’s so powerful that the ABC’s Media Watch program has singled her out, asking questions about her income and disclosures that they don’t even bother to ask Tim Flannery. Presumably they don’t think anyone still takes Tim seriously.
They sent her a barrage of questions last Friday, which she hammered in a detailed reply on the weekend. I hear they are still sniffing around anyone they can think of who may know something about Marohasy, asking leading questions and volunteering information that isn’t correct.
Media Watch (aka Witch Hunt) thought this was a question worth asking:
[To Jennifer Marohasy] In your recent opinion columns in The Land and you appear to make no declaration to your readers about your long-standing history of public campaigning on the Murray. Do you think you have any obligation to do so?
The bias is obvious. Activists in the ABC tribe don’t need to explain anything. The pathological ad hominem focus (where did she get her money?!) reveals a stone-age tribal brain and their loyalty to the regulating class. The ABC is yet again, shown to be an intellectual sink.
Reader Jaymez writes: “Firstly, how stupid is it to expect writers of opinion columns to make declarations about their activism on matters when by it’s very nature — an opinion column — it is declaring the writer’s position on the subject. There is nothing hidden. However, the fact that Media Watch acknowledge that Jennifer’s campaigning on the Murray has been public, obviates any need to make a declaration. It is not a hidden agenda in any way. Media Watch are simply posing the question to deliberately paint Jennifer in a poor light by suggesting that she was somehow hiding a fact that even they acknowledge was in plain view!”
This is a Tribal war, it’s got nothing to do with the environment
Jennifer is taking the highest moral ground in the environmental stakes. She wants to restore the estuary to its estuarine (salty) form. The end of Australia’s biggest river (the Murray) has barrages across it, to stop the salt water entering. The farmers near the end now depend on the freshwater, just as the farmers in the middle of the long river depend on the highly variable water there too. This is a big policy dog-fight I’m not in on. But I suspect if someone were suggesting putting barrages across the Yarra, the Swan or the Brisbane, the Greens and the ABC would not be attacking people who opposed the barrages. There is no higher principle or policy sense at work here.
Marohasy is being the strong environmentalist on this, yet the push-back from the Green-loving-ABC is getting personal and aggressive. This is tribal warfare, and not about the environment. Marohasy belongs to the wrong team. It’s not the policy that counts. It’s the people. In just the same way when it comes to the science, for the tribe it’s not the evidence that counts, it’s the “reputation” that matters. (As if the inflow of dollars to a commentator is more important than the inflow of the Great Southern Ocean.) These are neolithic minds at work, living in a logical vacuum. Who put these weak intellects in charge of giving out “National” views?
The ABC answers to no one
Insidiously, in the long run, Jennifer Marohasy points out that the ABC is unaccountable. They are not subject to FOI’s, and no one votes for the board, the shows, or the “stars”. They could use taxpayer money to put ten full time staff onto phone around campaigns to impugn upstanding citizens … and us taxpayers would never find out. Marc Hendrickx explains how the ABC complaints process is among the worst of all major media outlets, taking weeks to correct even the most minor of points, and denying errors even when they are obvious and documented by British judges.
What is it when a government agency “questions” all your friends and acquaintances, digging for dirt and spreading untruths, because you criticize government policy? When state-funded psychologists like Lewandowsky call you crazy for disagreeing with the government’s policy to control the climate? What sort of state do we live in now?
There is no half-way measure worth taking. It’s time to ask for our money back. Let the ABC raise their own from voluntary consenting citizens, or give us a vote that counts so we can object when our tax dollars are used against us.
Pop over to Jennifer’s site to show your support for free speech and dissenting, informed opinions:
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Two Questions for Your Federal Parliamentarian
For those interested in the environment, rather than the politics, see also: Saving the Coorong by Restoring Its Native State Available Online .
UPDATE #2: This is a hot trending topic and article picked up by Bolt, the Bunyip, Catalaxy. People are angry.
Andrew Klavan: Shut up.
00
Thought you might like this.
Pew: Liberals most intolerant online
It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates. Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves. Does that sound like tolerance to you? A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line.
00
It should be remembered that the term Liberal in Australia refers to the conservatives, exception Malcolm T.The liberals in America are the Democrats, that is, the left
00
$1,000,000,000.00+ per year money well spent eh!
The thought that my taxes pay for the ABC each and every week is really starting to piss me off
01
[Marc Hendrickx explains how the ABC complaints process is among the worst of all major media outlets, taking weeks to correct even the most minor of points, and denying errors even when they are obvious and documented by British judges.]
Here Here! Lets implement the recommendations in Finkelsteins report and sort that out! 🙂
00
Catamon….
U really are silly sometimes.
If we implement Finklefurters report, we may well not be able to converse full-stop! Does that sink into your leftist head! No Jo website, she is too controversial!
1984 mean anything to you.
Bob Brown would have this website ( Just voted into the Bloggies best Website on Science in the Aussie Region) shut down in a jiffy!! What does that tell you about free speech Catamon.
God, I despair at thy buffoons…
00
With power ought to come responsibility. If you create a centralised communications control politburo (let’s call it the CCCP for short) with the responsibility basically for policing the airwaves, then the perception amongst broadcasters will be that they are no longer the ones monitoring the effectiveness of their own broadcast charter. They will retain the power to broadcast which they will use to say any old rubbish and so a long queue will form outside the CCCP (sound familiar?) full of people’s complaints about departures from journalistic and content community expectations.
I suggest a different solution. The theme is internal control by voluntary associations.
At minimum the commercial channels should form a partnership to fund a program similar to Media Watch which holds the ABC and all other channels to the same standard. They could all take turns hosting the program over the course of the year and this would represent a voluntary industry commitment to critiquing the informative quality of all licensed broadcasters. Of course this program would have a web site which could carry more detail than can be discussed on air.
Anyone else got any suggestions on how to fix the problem?
00
Oh good, and while we are at it lets get the rats together to police the granary.
00
Catamon
Don’t you mean “ALP unionists to protect the surplus”?
00
Or maybe another one:
“a union lackey to protect a brothel purchase on a credit card”?
Or
“a bunch of unionists to stall an inquiry”?
00
Are you actually capable of putting an argument, or is uninversity cafeteria rhetoric the highest level to which you can rise?
00
Mr. McRae:
Is it a coincidence that your acronym “CCCP” is also the Russian initials for “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”?
00
If there was anyone at the ABC with any commonsense they could use the Murray River water war as a great learning and teaching exercise- report only, don’t take sides.
As it is- either they will take one side or the other, or sit on the sideline sniping at whomever seems to be briefly pulling in front, no positive reporting, no serious analysis of the difficulty of coming to a reasonable position.
For what it’s worth- I think there is no solution and on balance I support Marohasy’s position because the law of unintended consequences falls on her side. Not an easy one though.
00
What would you expect, they are mostly journalists.
By definition, they can put words together, but have no understanding of what they mean.
00
Australia is one of those rare countries where the twice daily tidal influx has no influence on our estuarine rivers. Salt water crocodiles are never seen in them and people are safe swimming many miles inland. The scientists at Media Watch know this and are quite rightly asking questions.
Mind you if the ABC’s science presenter is correct and we do get a 100 metre sea level rise then the water will be saline at Wentworth – barrage or no barrage.
[It might be a good idea to make your sarc obvious Charles. Perhaps a /sarc at the end of your dry humour post? Mod oggi]
00
If there were no tidal salt water intrusions into the Lower Lakes, why did they build the barrages ?
00
Hey John Brookes me old mate!!
I just had a full~on CO2 Dessert, what did you just have??
00
Sorry Catherine,
that was not meant to go there!! …doh!!
but while I am here, what the hell have barrages got to do with anything…
When you got Giga Litres coming down the mighty Murray River, over the Millenia, do you think they gonna worry about some silly barrages? Or Flannery`s Advice?
Cheers.
00
Charles
This argument that there would be no salt water intrusions if it weren’t for upstream irrigators is not supported by everything science tells us about wave-dominated barrier estuaries and its not supported by the historical evidence either.
The first European to visit Lake Alexandrina was Charles Sturt. He noted in his diary that the waters changed from fresh to salty as he crossed the vast expanse of water that is Lake Alexandrina.
For much of the last decade the barrage gates, all 593 of them in the 7.6 kilometres of sea dyke, have been slammed shut so no opportunity for tidal inflow. But last autumn the barrage gates were left down because the flows from upstream were so significant and continued into autumn. The gates were down to let the freshwater out to avoid flooding. And then a south westerly wind picked up and with a spring tide the sea pushed in against the force of the flood waters.
The fishermen say that before the barrages the sea would always push in come late summer or Autumn when the westerly wind picked up. You can read more about recent sea water intrusions from a local resident here: http://www.lakesneedwater.org/feature/ian-s-corner
———————————-
UPDATE: Jennifer explained more on her site: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/03/salt-water-crocodiles-and-the-lower-lakes-in-perspective/ Yes, the mod /sarc tag would have been handy. We need an irony-font. :-)Jo
00
Hi Jen,
We met at an AEF event in Brisbane a few years ago over lunch. One thing that stuck in my mind was the reluctance of action to protect a fishing industry…carp!
I also note the conversation you had with Cory in the lift. Funny how the SA politicians have no interest in reversing the environmental engineering due to no votes in it…most probably a loss.
Has any progress been made on lobbying the polity in the last few years or are they still stonewalling?
I know you somewhat disagree with the Interstate Water Transfer Project but it is getting traction…should hear more about this in the second half of the year.
The system might be in flood now and water is abundant but that will not always be the case. In the main, the project is more about water security and increased rural development to ensure Australia is well placed for the next boom. Food production.
00
I think a few people missed the sarcasm, either that or they are humourless hard greens.
00
Hi dlb
Unless you know the topic well, the sarcasm is just part of the comment.
Not being familiar with the topic I was just confused and couldn’t get the sarcasm.
On a wider picture the irony of all the Jolly Green Interfereres having their noses rubbed
in the recent flooding is very obvious.
The scale of what farmers do to divert water for farming is so small compared with the
recent “normal” weather returning.
Australia has always been Long Periods Of Drought and Long Periods of Flood.
Of course, if you are Green, you can always try to get the taxpayer to fund you so that you
can try to be God and stop the droughts.
🙂
00
Well done Jo, a very good riposte to the muddleheaded thinking at the hot-house of the ABC. I particularly liked the phrase “These are neolithic minds at work”. It sums up the ABC.
00
Sorry Charles! Thanks db! I’m too used to having to argue the point! The Australian Conservation Foundation don’t get it. ( http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/simplistic-solution/story-fn558imw-1226072007128 )
Glad you do.
00
Jen, I notice your icon has tape over its mouth. Looks like you’ve been Gonski-ed already!
00
Oops, actually I should have said “Finkelstein-ed” instead of “Gonski-ed”. but it’s a bit harder to get your teeth around.
00
I grew up listening to the ABC.
My Dad had it on in the kitchen from 6 am every day of my life. It was compulsory and I liked it then. It seemed innocent and more parochial without pushing that too much. It certainly did not promote theories like Global Warming, back then, it was all so innocent.
Plus, it had the Cricket, the footy, the Olympics and Commonwealth Games…. It was a bonanza.
What Happenned???
I even enjoyed watching Media Watch years ago, when i was less naive and immature about everything in this world.
Now it all makes me depressed.
It used to be 7 cents a day!
How much is it now? 12 cents,14,16…?
I want my money back, but please leave the cricket and footy alone. I am more than happy to pay 7 cents for that!!
00
Jennifer must be ruffling feathers.
The ABC via MW went into full ‘shoot the messenger’ mode.
Some of those questions were completely and blatantly ridiculous.
And you’re right Jo, why doesn’t Tim Fannery et al get asked questions like that?
00
I’ve read about this on a couple of blogs and didn’t she give it to them, good on her, they’ll be a bit more careful who they go after in the future, I think they’re still licking their wounds. Rotton biased b……d’s, looking forward to the day they have to admit they are all second rate hacks.
00
Close the ABC , SBS and all the ABC and SBS clones doing dopey kiddy crap.
You could be forgiven for believing that all the “staff” on these Government Clone Channels
are children with friends in high places.
There are so many ABC sub channels I have lost count.
Is there really an ABC6 – Tok Pidgin?
As Meatloaf would say
” IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Want My Money Baaaack, ba ba baack !!!!
🙂
00
Mate I think you’re being unfair to the SBS. Their own people are much more careful than the flagrant ABC. They have to be or they couldn’t sell advertising.
Trouble for the SBS is they have to fill the hours with something and CAGW propaganda docos are cheap for a reason. Like religious shows on the commercial channels at 5am.
It would be a reasonable thing for the ABC budget to be halved and they be forced to advertise same as the SBS. Then you’d see them pull their heads in. Advertisers are hard to catch and easy to lose as Ten found with The Circle recently. And since ABC fills their gaps with endlessly repeated promos of their own wonderfulness it would be no loss to see ads on the ABC instead.
00
Can’t wait for an election, can’t wait for the new govt to then kick some heads… I’ve had enough!
00
what a tiny, mean-spirited little world they live in, and paid for by the taxpayers! Jennifer Marohasy, i don’t know how you remained civil:
12 March: Australian: Michael Bodey: Jim Spigelman faces a lot challenges but the most crucial task may be political
THE myriad difficulties confronting the new chairman of the ABC, former chief justice of the NSW Supreme Court Jim Spigelman, sounded suddenly easier on Thursday morning.
In anticipation of the appointment — which was first flagged in Media last November — opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull rhapsodised about his friend.
“One of the abilities Jim will have is (that) because of the very high respect in which he is held he will be able to represent the ABC across the board to all sides of politics and also he is able to put together a compelling case,” Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio’s AM. “You know he was an excellent judge but before that for many years he was a very compelling advocate too.”…
Spigelman may have Mr Turnbull onside; now his job is to ingratiate himself with Julie Bishop and Messrs Abbott, Robb and Hockey in groundwork for possible Coalition government…
Another issue that bounces in and out of board consideration is a merger with SBS. Under the relatively new chairmanship of Joseph Skrzynski, there is reversion to the idea. It may be a decision taken out of SBS’s hands.
The upcoming Convergence Review offers all manner of opportunities and threats to the ABC. But the review’s interim report presaged recommendations that will be too large to institute as the next election cycle kicks in. Nevertheless, one recommendation — a reassessment of the ABC charter — could be a relatively feasible part of the review for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy to institute.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/jim-spigelman-faces-a-lot-challenges-but-the-most-crucial-task-may-be-political/story-fna045gd-1226296428138
(SBS ad revenue has gone down, so there’s been talk of more taxpayer funding needed – for what? hitler docus and primetime porn? no thanx.)
9 March: SMH: Richard Ackland: Man for all seasons just what the ABC needs
By a remarkable convergence of the stars, two wise men of Polish ancestry have wound up at the top of Australia’s public broadcasters – Jim Spigelman at the ABC and his close businessman friend Joe Skrzynski at SBS…
It is not the first time Spigelman has worked for the ABC. He was the national broadcaster’s counsel in the famous implied constitutional free speech case decided by the High Court in 1997, Lange v ABC.
The outcome of the case sometimes makes us feel good that we can frolic about in a High Court-divined zone of free discussion. The fact that its practical benefit for the media is zero should not be held against Mr Spigelman personally…
If there’s one thing the chairman of the ABC needs to be good at, it is speechifying. The chair has to defend the broadcaster against relentless attack. More than that the chairperson is the very embodiment of the independence and excellence of the entire outfit…
What looms within the next 20 months is a federal election, which Mr Abbott’s conservative coalition stands a strong prospect of winning.
Serious budget cuts for the ABC are a distinct possibility. Spigelman, as he always does, will play his politics carefully, but these will be the testing times – to defend the institutional integrity of the ABC without completely alienating the cavemen on the government benches who will be inclined to bash the broadcaster with their wooden clubs and drag her off by the hair into a ditch.
One of Spigelman’s admirers and patrons has been Bob Carr, whose government appointed him to the court. Carr is going to Canberra as foreign minister, an important friend in government…
Malcolm Turnbull may not have done him any favours in Liberal ranks by praising the appointment. In Abbott’s world of ”nothing but no”, that would run counter to message…
The other job for which he would have been an excellent choice is chair of Ray Finkelstein’s proposed News Media Council. Too late. Now he’s got an entire, vast, publicly funded and vitally important media organisation to play with.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/man-for-all-seasons-just-what-the-abc-needs-20120308-1un6q.html
Ackland should have written “three wise men of Polish ancestry, all of whom immigrated to Australia post-WWII”. Ackland didn’t think to include Ray Finkelstein.
if all three were Vietnamese boat refugees who immigrated to Australia post the Vietnam War, it would be just as remarkable, given we have a population of 22-plus million.
i almost never watch commercial TV and SBS lost me completely years ago. very occasionally, i still listen to or watch ABC, but only to check if it is still as appalling as it has been for quite some years now. if anything, it is getting worse.
and to think taxpayers are paying for it!
00
Jennifer@#8 – Sorry about my piffle at #5. I suppose it’s a measure of where we are in this debate that a genuine, competant and committed scientist feels that they have to argue against such stupidity. I apologise for wasting your valuable time.
However you have pwnd the excrutiatingly smarmy Mr (not Dr, like you and I) Jonathon Holmes and all power to you. Carry on. Truth and logic will prevail.
00
Its THEIR ABC!
00
Jen aside, I’d imagine that removing the barrage, given that the Murray’s flows are way down on “natural” flows, that the salt “estuarine conditions” would move much further upstream than would naturally be the case. I doubt you could remove the barrage and claim “environmental” benefit unless you also massively restored flows to the river and then left it to nature.
I’d be pretty pissed if they put a barrage across the Swan…
00
Just so nobody misses what the intellectual giant MattB is saying;
There is no environmental benefit to leaving the Murray mouth ‘Au naturale’
Is there a new green movement we are not aware of Matt? Leaving natural systems natural is no longer environmentally beneficial?
I’m getting too old for this $hit.
00
I’d have a dig at that comment Matt but, in comparisson to the other headless chooks in the eco-fascist movement, you are an ontological heavy-weight.
We must destroy nature to save nature. We must destroy the planet to save the planet. We must destroy humanity to save humanity. Amirite?
Let the great purge begin!
00
no no it is just the Murray is already rooted. taking a person of life-support will kill them, even though it returns them to a natural state.
As a qualified environmental engineer with training in estuarine systems I honestly don’t think I’ve said anything particularly outrageous above.
Baa – for sure I would “leave it” au naturale if it was already au naturale, but it isn’t. If you read what I said I think returning the Murray to its natural state would be wonderful… but it would take much more than simply removing the barrier at the end to do that.
00
maybe jen would do us the privilege of explaining what she thinks the benefits would be. I can see it may piss off some who need the fresh water, but I can;t see any reason that other green types would be of a different opinion to her.. they don;t really care for irrigators over the environment.
I do remember form Jen’s blog a few years ago she ran article after article explaining why she hated green types… none of which really made any sense.
00
that’s probably verballing jen, but you get my general drift.
00
The Murray rooted!!!
What the F$%K are you talking about matty boy?
Its about to get its biggest flushing since the 1956 Flood and you reckon its rooted…..
I`m with Baa humbug…gettin to old for this shit…
I`m off to make sure my Dads Yabby pots are ready…
00
of course the Murray is in tip top shape and efforts to “fix” it are a conspiracy/
00
In that short sentence we see the watermelon ethos in all its glory.
According to Matt, the Murray is not in a natural state, presumably because ‘mankind’ takes water for irrigation and industry etc.
Mankind using water, an essential of life, isn’t “natural”. Mankind is some sort of an extra-terrestrial alien.
If only we stayed put in the trees instead of taking a giant step, all would be fine.
Any minute now Matt will give up everything “alien” to nature and return to the bush to live Au Naturale.
Good luck Matt, I’ll visit once in a while and throw some left over vegetables and bread in your direction.
00
We should start with slaughtering these alien beavers.
00
seriously Baa I think you are being highly unreasonable here. mattb gets accused of being an extreme watermelon greenie for approving of engineering modifications to major river system? Jen M wants it returned to natural state at mouth, not me.
00
I’d be happy to take your point Matt as soon as I can reconcile your statements. Ergo..
with
Now, if by “returning the Murray to its natural state” you mean we stop taking water for irrigation etc upstream, then my comment about the watermelon ethos stands.
All life forms ‘take water’, it seems it’s only unnatural if man takes water. Am I right?
00
unbelievable – seriously. the 1st quote… in context… clearly refers to the mouth of the Murray. But the flows ain’t there to allow it. I’ve not argued at ANY stage that irrigation should stop. you are simply making shit up Baa, unashamedly it seems.
Seriously, is there ANYONE here who would not LOVE to see a mighty natural Murray together with successful irrigation? ain’t gonna happen though.
00
Context? I quoted you in context with the words “at mouth” included didn’t I? I didn’t exclude it.
You need to clarify what you mean by ‘natural state’. You reckon you haven’t argued that irrigation should stop, you also stated Jen M wants the mouth returned to natural state but not you
So what exactly do you mean by ‘natural state’ for the Murray?
00
Sorry Baa you are obviously hellbent on manipulating everything I say this thread. There’s not much more that I can do if you are so determined to maliciously misrepresent and misinterpret me.
00
Matt I can tell you honestly that I’m not trying to manipulate or misrepresent.
You commented about a ‘natural state’ for the river. I’m asking you what you think is the natural state.
00
Ok… the “natural state” would obviously be the state pre broad scale agriculture/irrigation/other uses. To me it would be “wonderful” to be able to restore this state (along length and at river mouth/lakes) while maintining agriculture. Note I don’t think that can be done and I don’t advocate for removal of agriculture/civilisation in SE Australia to achieve this.
I am, it may surprise you, not opposed to engineering of natural environments to benefit human civilisation while obviously doing what we can to preserve the natural environment.
I do not support removing an engineering intervention in an isolated area of a system when the rest of the system is not “natural”. The end result will not be the “natural” condition – in this case because the “natural” actions of the ocean would not be balanced by the “natural” actions of the river. You would, in fact, be sacrificing human benefit (ie the reasons the barriers are in place) for unknown (possibly minimal, supposedly negative) environmental benefit.
In fact if Bob Brown was suggesting it he’d be laughed off the stage as having yet again another nutty environmental idea.
00
Waffle
So much packed into so little.
🙂
00
MattB,
Take a look at the photo – Murray 1915. That’s before irrigation Amigo and it’s as dry as a dead dingoe’s donger. It’s what we call “natural”.
Murray River – 1915
00
Rob… try reading the subtitles of the photos you post next time: “Because of dry years from 1904, severe El Niño events in 1914 and 1915, and the pumping of water for irrigation, in 1915 the River Murray dried up completely.”
00
Matt, the explorer Charles Sturt walked his horses across the dry Murray, and had to search for water that wasn’t too salty for them to drink, from the waterholes, which was all that was left. A bit before irrigation, hmmm?
00
MattB,
You really are a contrary Amigo.
Exactly what part of this turnout don’t you understand:
The Contrived Murray
The ‘Natural Murray’ then and the ‘Contrived Murray’ now.
Where do think that that the so-called ‘Environmental Flows’ come from; is it from a natural Murray or a man-made contrived Murray ? Which would you prefer ?
00
Matt El Nino , La Nina , Global warming , It is simply Climate change ,No government , No Scientist , No Politician , No Human can name weather conditions in these terms , Climate change will be determined by Natural causes ,Do not go looking to Humans for climate change look at our planet and our Star , Go from there.
00
What about the Peel-Harvey Estuary and the Dawesville Channel in WA?
The Murray Barrages cut the tidal prism of the estuary to just 10% of what it used to be. The barrages have contributed to the Murray mouth closing, the entire blame should not be place on something as simple as a ‘lack of freshwater’.
To understand what ‘tidal prism’ means to an estuary, it’s like trying to flush a toilet without a cistern.
00
Some may wish that you were on the side the shells landed.
00
Don’t knock Media Watch! It’s the most genious parody of itself. That clicked for me during the fire-sale of Telecom(Telstra). Using lies to highlight another’s fiction is comedy gold people.
00
Hi Waffle
Totally get your point there.
It’s hard not to look at Media Watch! and not feel a little light hearted – it’s so stupid and it doesn’t know it.
On the other hand, to that bloke who pontificates, what we think doesn’t matter.
He’s being paid no matter how it comes across.
00
Matt B
There has been modelling done by the South Australian government on likely impact (how far further upstream seawater would penetrate given diversions for irrigation) but they won’t let me see it. I should do an FOI.
But its also worth considering that the natural rainfall variability in the Murray Darling is so extreme that Andy Close, from the Murray Darling Basin Authority, wrote in 1990 that:
“It is not even possible to prove statistically that there has been a decreasing trend in the flow at the South Australian border over the last 80 years, despite the fact that diversions upstream are now greater than the current average annual flow to South Australia.”
It is the shear magnitude of the flood years that make planning on the basis of averages, as proposed by the Murray Daring Basin Authority in its $10 billion plan, ludicrous.
And more information on flows and changes to flow regimes in a recent talk I gave to the Sydney Institute available here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Murray-Estuary_Sydney-Institute-Paper-2.pdf
Podcast at Sydney Institute site http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/speaker/jennifer-marohasy/
00
not being picky, but that comment from Andy Close is about flows at the SA border, not at the river mouth. For all I know they may well have excellent data on that.
00
this is a decent article by Robert Gottleibsen at Business Spectator does seem to back you up thought (not that I’m using him as an authority). http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/water-Murray-Darling-drought-rural-pd20110408-FPVWF?OpenDocument&src=is&cat=agribusiness-al
00
Jennifer – I’m way behind on the issues with the Murray – but correct me if I’m wrong, you didn’t advocate removing the barriers, simply letting seawater in when the level was low, correct?
MattB’s comment from above seems to misrepresent this to a position of removing the barriers altogether, rather than just changing the managment plan to allow seawater back in when the level is low.
Please correct me if I’m wrong. Perhaps a clarification will help clear this up.
00
Call me naive though… this seems like a balanced little PDF from the MDBA: http://download.mdba.gov.au/proposed/FS_barrages.pdf
00
I think the ABC news in VIC. on March 15, justifies is disbanding.
Say yes to decommissioning the BAC.
00
Some young bar-hero once picked an elderly publican, not knowing the old guy’s name was John Sattler.
Maybe Jonathan Holmes had his own Sattler moment, when he decided to call out Jennifer.
00
Climate change still a reality despite soggy summer, warns report
David Wroe March 15, 2012
AUSTRALIA’S top climate advisory panel [just how many do we have?] has warned strongly against letting the recent mild and wet weather encourage complacency about climate change, insisting the long-term trend remains as alarming as ever. [has warned strongly against engaging in independent thought – comparing reality with earlier predictions that have been DEAD WRONG]
Following yesterday’s CSIRO report that warned greenhouse gas levels were the highest in 800,000 years, [here they go again warning us about an increase in plant food]
the Climate Commission – a scientific agency set up to inform Australians about global warming [a climate panel, now a commission? Wow there are a lot of people getting paid for this carbon stuff huh?]
– expressed concern in a discussion paper that people were confusing weather patterns with long-term climate change.
[well how can we help it when just a few years back your ‘panels’ and ‘commissions’ were blaming droughts on permanent climate change?]
The climate commissioner and Australian National University academic Will Steffen said 2011 had been dominated by La Nina, the weather effects produced by cool ocean surface temperatures around the equator in the eastern Pacific. [hold on a minute! If the ocean surfaces are cool as well, where’s all greenhouse heating at?]
”After a couple of years, the dams are full, everything is green around you, the soil moisture is topped up,” Professor Steffen said. ”And you say, ‘This is looking pretty good. What happened to all the droughts and dry periods that we thought were associated with climate change? That’s a very common perception you hear. But these things are superimposed on a longer, underlying trend.”
[yep, a longer underlying trend of gradual and perfectly normal warming from the little ice age]
La Nina produces cooler average temperatures and higher rainfall in Australia, particularly the east. Last year was the warmest La Nina year on record, even though the La Nina effect was particularly strong, the Climate Commission’s report states.
[If La Nina is more powerful than carbon, can we have a La Nina Tax and a La Nina trading scheme please?]
Although 2011 was cooler than all but two of the years between 2000 and 2010, it was still warmer than all but one of the years in the 20th century.
[you are doing it again! Treating 100 years as representing the known ‘climate’ and ignoring all the hotter more carbony periods in the past]
”It shows how rapidly things are actually warming,” Professor Steffen said. ”Last year was something we now consider cool. Yet just a decade ago … this would’ve been the second warmest year for 100 years.”
[right! Perceptions of cool based on actual cool = rapid warming. Simply genius]
The effect of global warming on average rainfall was more difficult to predict, the commission’s report stated.
[but you did predict it and you were DEAD WRONG. why should we believe you this time?]
The two years of 2010 and 2011 set a record of 1409 millimetres of rain averaged over the whole country.
Even still, the two-year wet period has made up for only about a third of the rainfall deficit since 1997. ”We still require many years of wetter than average conditions before we can fully eliminate the rainfall deficit of the big dry,” it states.
[I bet you would hate that though, What if this cool ‘weather’ persisted enough to make the miraculous transformation into ‘climate’?]
The paper came as a separate report from the Climate Institute, an independently funded think tank,
[a panel, a commission and now an institute?, nevermind let’s get off this inconvenient truth of record wet and cold and get BACK TO BUSINESS]
argued Australia could get more out of its carbon pricing scheme – including cheaper emissions cuts and greater environmental benefit – by focusing its carbon trading efforts on neighbours such as Indonesia rather than Europe.
[would that have anything to do with the carbon market in Europe drying up in the face of record low demand and Massive fraud?]
The institute’s deputy chief executive, [Nive title!
Erwin Jackson, said Australia should be using bilateral or regional trade deals as a model to set up carbon trading links with individual countries, especially developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Trading carbon with Indonesia’s energy sector, for example, would deliver Australia cheaper carbon abatement because Indonesia could cut its emissions relatively easily. At the same time, Australia would be leveraging more global action compared with linking to Europe, which already has a carbon scheme. [which has failed you insufferable moron!]
”By providing export opportunities to Indonesia, it would leverage even more significant action than is currently being contemplated while at the same time providing opportunities to Australian businesses to reduce emissions at lower cost.
”The key challenge for Australia is leveraging greater global ambition because we are very vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Just linking with the EU, while important, doesn’t deliver that.”
[the key challenge for Australia is extracting ourselves from the greatest scam in human history before we squander what’s left of our national sovereignty, our democracy, our prosperity, and our scientific integrity]
00
Well said Sonny. Jo needs to get stuck into this weeks CSIRO claims and I suggest the many talented contributors to this blog would do better to spend some time responding to the stories posted in the MSM such as you have done here. In the confines of Jo’s blog we usually agree but it is in the wider public consciousness that we need to refute the message being sprouted by the CSIRO.
00
well being from Perth J is probably aware we jsut had a record breaking hot summer… most number of heatwaves (8) on record…
00
And all over Europe they have had record breaking winters for years now with thousands killed. What’s the death toll in Perth?
00
Adelaide had one of the mildest summers on record with only 1 heatwave and above average rainfall – so your point is?
00
my point is don’t judge the global climate based on the local weather.
00
Matt B,
Isnt it amazing that one part of the country is hot and dry and the other is cold and wet?
Why then, are we spending billions of dollars following policy that is based on the IPCC and CSIRO’s vision for a GLOBAL temperature projection? The same is true for sea level rise.
But you actually know its all a scam dont you Matty B?
00
Matt B,
The ‘global climate’, ignoring the fact that this esoteric concept is meaningless to Australia, is actually showing no warming for the past decade.
Long term computer ‘projections’ from the IPCC and CSIRO, complete with all disclaimers to government, failed to ‘project’ what would happen over a few years, yet we are expected to still have faith that they will be correct long term and submit ourselves to greater taxation and legislation.
[So I will judge the global climate by global satellite measurements – not government funded projections. And I will judge the local climate by local measurements and more importantly my sense of touch sight and smell (doesnt the rain smell good!)
00
See the following link regarding trading on the New Zealand market
WoodMatters – Carbon Forestry
The price has dropped $12/NZU in a year and canny traders are buying them back. The scheme has barely got off the ground and people are “gaming” it.
00
00
If I heard correctly,the CSIRO are saying that the current level of 390 ppm is the highest it has been in 800,000 years and a sea level rise of 21cm was mentioned.
00
I heard it yesterday on ABC radio as ‘the highest level of Carbon in the air for 800,000 years’.
I wonder if they would say ‘a record amount of hydrogen is flowing down the Murray’. After all, Hydrogen burns and killed those people on the Hindenburg, so it must be bad.
The ‘carbon’ propaganda rankles me particularly. There is no reason to treat your audience like idiots and not use ‘carbon dioxide’, the correct term.
00
Notice how selective they are with timelines.
Temperature – only the last 100 years are relevant.
Carbon – the last 600,000 years are relevant.
00
They are hurting though. A prominent post has just gone up at abc.net.au:
In other words don’t believe your lying eyes you’re all wrong, global warming is still happening and you’re going to diiieee. I think Prof Karoly et al are starting to sound more than a bit defensive.
00
Of course he’d be defensive, people have to literally die in a fire before he will go on the attack.
Here the good doctor demonstrates his media savvy and enthusiasm for capitalising on the deaths of the Victorian Bushfires barely two days before this interview. Wait until the bodies have been recovered…? Nah, it’s not too soon. Burns victims! Use `em while they’re hot! Get your funding here!
00
Wait until we get back into a drought cycle, it will definately be climate change then.
00
Was Auntie ever anything but a left-wing propaganda organ?
00
What Jennifer points out takes a lot of courage. As a resident in Adelaide, and a reader of the local news, I rarely get blog comments posted or calls taken by local media if it’s known ahead of time what my opinion is.
The barrages turned an estuary (aka Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert) into a permanently freshwater reservoir that is really shallow, and right next to the sea. While that was needed in 1940 for farming, it’s not needed that way now. During the recent drought the situation was made worse by keeping the barrages shut and holding back the sea.
In fact other places around the world, a few projects currently in Washington State, USA, are tearing down 1930’s dikes and dams in an attempt to restore their estuaries.
The Greens and environmentalists should be on the same side as Dr. Jennifer Marohasy.
http://www.lakesneedwater.org/the-case-for-an-estuary
00
Hi Susan,
Good point- Should be indeed, but aren’t- I think we have a technical term for that- “bloody mindedness”.
00
Off topic, but. . .
Apparently CO2 now makes us fat!
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/03/is-co2-making-you-fat/#comment-256975
“He has some evidence. Firstly, the rise in obesity in the US was fastest in the period 1986-2010 on the East Coast, where CO2 concentrations are highest. Second, that in animal tests, environmental factors — he can’t say exactly which — contribute to weight gain…”
It gets more and more ridiculous!
00
Only in Australia would a government consider taking productive water away from farmers to keep the Lower Lakes artificially fresh. Where is the common sense in this? With a world food shortage looming, other countries are working hard to secure food supplies for their people, but not Australia! The only sensible thing to do is investigate options to build a lock or weir at Wellington, remove the barrages and unplug the mouth of the Murray.
00
Modern technology and monitoring telemetry has now confirmed with no room for doubt what the evidence was clearly telling us.
The Lower lakes were estuarine before the barrages cut their connection with the Southern Ocean – and the varying balance between frshwater flows and tidal pressures caused a mix of salinities to intrude far into the Lakes system.
What Professor Rainer Radock’s research indicated in his monitoring of reverse flows at the Murray Mouth during the strong 1974 flood can now be much more accurately monitored from home computers from telemetry stations in the Lakes behind the barrages.
These are inconvenient truths for those who would have us believe that the Lakes were always fresh and it is a shame that some of the key telemetry stations have recently been decommissioned – but the facts are out there.
See the Murray Darling Basin Authority website and view the submission to the Proposed Basin Plan by one Ian Rowan, a member of the ‘LakesNeed Water’ network who has been monitoring this data and whose summary shows very clearly that significant saline intrusions occur even during times of very stron river flows, when high tides are boosted by low pressure systems over the ocean.
Without the barrages, the Lakes would be estuarine in the southern areas right now despite recent floods, and would be estuarine throughout when river flows drop back to average – just as Charles Sturt observed in 1830 with brackish water at Pomanda Point, long before anyone could blame big bad irrigators for causing it.
As a lakefront resident I am selfishly happy for the barrages to maintain an artificial freshwater environment out front in times of strong river flows – and I can water my lawn – but when drought kicks in these Lakes must never again be caused to drop below sea level – a big healthy estuary is more natural and beneficial than windblown acid soils and slumping river banks.
00
Media Watch only think they can get away with this type of aberrant, biased behaviour because most of the rest of the main stream media has been captured by a left leaning, watermelon ideology. They must have great confidence in the “protection” they expect to get from most of the rest of the media.
The government does not need to pass legislation to silence its critics with a media regulatory body. The few remaining professional and unbiased journalists like Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, Terry McCrann, Janet Albrechtsen, Tim Blair, Miranda Devine must have a much greater nuisance value to these would be totalitarians than I would have expected. Or is it just incompetence leading to overkill?
Media Watch is not just joke, for me it has now provided the best illustration of the maxim, “who watches the watchers” that I can think of.
00
This is a remarkable lecture from 1983 that can make you understand what`s developing now!
A lecture that should be obligatory in schools in every democratic country and replace the climate propaganda that Bezmenow so well describes how and why its now become normalized.Take your time and listen carefully how indoctrination is gradually built.then you will understand the bigger picture what the ABC is really about. Enjoy and spread it to everyone you care about.The former KGB officer Yuri Bezmenow describes the future we now live in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fQoGMtE0EY
00
Here we go again with Marohasy’s circus of half truths and spin. She has consistently avoided addressing the key hydrodynamics at the Murray mouth and the not insignificant fact that as long as a flow remains in the Murray (ie 9.5 years in 10) the lakes will remain fresh. Average annual outflows (even before the floods) were still 3 million megalitres a year.
And even in periods of zero flow the maximum portion of the lake that could be occupied by sea water intrusion is less than 1/6th. And even then it would only be for a few hours on the 3 or 4 days each month when the high tide level matches the lake level. The lake is AHD+50cm and average depth is 3 metres. In the last no-flow event it dropped to AHD and a depth of 2.5m.
Yet, Marohasy and the AEF have claimed that up to 1 million megalitres of evaporation from fresh water would be replaced by evaporation from sea water. It sounds plausible to the ill-informed but it is pure bollocks. It is based on assumptions about tidal behaviour that simply do not apply in SA.
Removing the barrages will make it easier for storm surges to push sand from the beach and block the Murray mouth. And that will produce even stronger demands for yet more water buy-backs.
Get up to speed on this in the “essential facts” section of http://www.mdba.gov.au/files/submissions/Ian%20Mott%20-%20Landholders%20Institute.pdf
And see how Marohasy’s McScience stands up to scrutiny in the thread at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13340
The original estuary cannot be “restored” without giving back ALL of the upstream irrigation entitlements. This fatuous talk to that end is very dangerous snake oil.
00
Blah,Blah, Blah
[A more substantive reply would be welcome. Ian Mott has gone to the trouble of posting a substantive comment, whether we agree with his comment or not, he deserves better than that. Lift your game please. Mod oggi]
00
“Removing the barrages will make it easier for storm surges to push sand from the beach and block the Murray mouth.” ??
Are you just saying if the barrages are not there the mouth will commonly be blocked by sand instead or is there some other point being made here! We need more information for your point about triggering more demands for buy-backs to make sense.
00
Ian Mott,
Well said mate. (sarc off)
Say, just wonderin’ here.
Before those barrages went in, I wonder how the Murray Darling, Lake Alexandrina etc etc, survived for all those hundreds of thousand of years.
I know, I know, no farming or grazing or water allocations prior to white settlement etc etc.
Thank God for those barrages eh! (sarc off)
Tony.
00
Ian, I’ve only read you executive summary but would like to add my two cents. Given your premises are accurate I agree with your solution:
I makes sense to bypass the deposition problem at the mounth. But, how can you say there is a deposition problem. The hold an undeclared premise that the a deposition cycle doesn’t exist naturally. You regonise this but don’t understand the gravity of your own statement:
This is only possible with large outflow events caused by interior flooding or heavy rainfall. The Murry-Darling will not clear sediment with normal flows because there is no such thing. We already understand that the lower-lakes experience short and medium term cycles. Would not the deposition and erosion of sediment at the mouth be part of those cycles?
How can you push the argument that it is natural for the mouth of the Murry-Darlign to always be open?
00
Wait, so Sturt’s journal is the best evidence we have for how far back the salt can go without the barrages, and the answer is… the middle of Lake Alexandrina? What is all the fuss about then?
You can pump the fresh water from the river at Tailem Bend. You build two pipes, one going east of the lake down to the south east corner of Lake Albert, and can follow Princes Road to avoid building over property. The second pipe goes from Tailem Bend round the west side to Goolwa. Farmers reconnect their current pipes to feed off the new pipe instead of going all the way to the lakes. Total new pipe required is 150km.
The farmers in the region have built farms assuming water can come from the lake, so they shouldn’t be made to pay for pipe construction (though of course there’s nothing stopping them chipping in). The government can keep the local farmers and the conservation foundation both happy by paying for the pipe construction, “jobs for SA” etc, prove the new pipe system works okay over a growing season, and then finally removing the barrages. All finished.
Cost might be $30,000,000 for materials at 200$/m. A 4-person crew laying a 5m section every 3 minutes and being generous gives $300K in labour. Maybe 35 million for the project when you add in the legals and project cruft. Even if I were wrong by a factor of 3 it is still in the ball park of many other state government projects. Does a Queenslander or New South Welshman care to pay their taxes to restore the Coorong, not bloody likey. SA will have to foot the bill there. Easy to say when it’s someone else’s money, but that’s the conservation game.
00
Andrew,
with respect to your mention on the 150 KM long pipeline you suggest for water diversion, and your ballpark costing for it.
Maybe unwittingly, but you have hit on one of the points I have been attempting to make for years now about the fallacies associated with Carbon Capture and Sequestration, you know clean coal.
A typical large scale coal fired plant will burn 6.5 million tons of coal a year, and (on average) that means a CO2 emissions load of around 20 million tons of CO2, and that plant has a lifespan of 50 years so, all up, that comes in at ONE BILLION tons of CO2. That has to be liquified.
So now, they have to find a hole in the ground capable of holding that billion tons of CO2 forever so it doesn’t leak back to the surface or get into the water table.
They then have to transport all that CO2 from the plant to hole in the ground, via pipeline, and here keep in mind that all this needs to be accomplished at the same rate as it is being emitted from the plant, which is one ton every 1.7 seconds, captured from the exhaust, then separate the CO2 from the exhaust, then liquify that CO2, and then pump it down the pipeline, and then into the ground, at that same rate it is being emitted.
How much time before that hole fills, and they need to find another hole, and then construct a new pipeline to that hole.
Keep in mind that this is just for ONE plant.
The cost of the pipelines would be horrendous, and turn into a never ending money pit.
Hey, sorry to change the subject away from what the main topic is, but your mention of pipelines highlights other things as well.
Tony.
00
Tony,
You might like this if you haven’t already seen it.
“How can wind turbines generate so much lunacy?”
http://www.au.agwscam.com/
scroll down to 132.
00
You’re such a pessimist Tony- Those coalmines that dry up the rivers must all send the water into those caverns measureless to man that Coleridge wrote about. They will never fill up. Just ask the Greens.
All we need to do is find one of those that isn’t being used by those evil miners to dry up a community water supply somewhere and we have a hole of endless capacity.
00
Yes Tony I did indeed fall into that trap initially. I was very surprised when the material cost turned out to be so far above the labour cost, and my first estimate was $15M before I figured a wider pipe was needed than the price I’d based that initial estimate on, so I doubled it.
I guess because a pipe is not a machine and doesn’t do anything it is easy to assume it is cheap, but steel is amazing stuff and not exactly cheap as chips. And that’s the cheap option using ordinary steel that will rust through if the thin galvanised coating gets worn away. If they use stainless steel instead, well you can forget about it. It’s easy to think “it’s just a pipe” in relative terms, but actual cost is rather high.
FYI, I rechecked the path the pipe would have to take to avoid crossing farm properties and minimise farm feeder pipe length. It turns out to be easier to take water for the west leg from just above Wellington and hug the lake en route, which still comes out at 75km. But it was actually shorter on the east side (60km), so the total is less than 150km.
Whether restoring the salinity of the lower lakes (all other smelly side effects included) is worth 35 million bucks is for the people to decide, but it just seems to me the story we’ve been told so far is a false dilemma. I wanted to present a 3rd option. If they want to have their Coorong and farm it too, it’s gonna cost `em.
I guess you could say it’s still…. just a pipe dream! 😀 (nyuk nyuk nyuk)
00
Dr. Marohasy is right on this one. I wish her godspeed and hope she does not allow herself to be silenced. What she has done quite accidentally is to expose the real agenda of the “environmentalist” left. The agenda has actually nothing to do with the environment. Protecting “the environment” is simply the pretext they use in the execution of their real agenda which is the destruction of the economies of the developed nations. In this case the real agenda isn’t the protection of the lakes at the mouth of the river because those lakes are completely artificial. The agenda is to find as many reasons as they can to remove as much water as they can from agriculture. The real agenda is economic impact. If their agenda really was environmental, they would be with Dr. Marohasy in seeing the barrages removed and the environment returned to its natural state.
00
The Green Left are just useful fool lackeys – tools of a great power that does not seem to be specifically identified. Whoever has this great power must first have had an agenda to gain world control of the issue of money before they could begin their agenda to issue the coup de grace. The Middle East seems to be a stumbling block.
00
Crosspatch, I actually think the goal of the ‘environmental left’ is not destruction of economies of the developed nations but destruction of market economies of the developed nations.
In David Evans excellent previous post he describes how the regulating classes generally prefer the methods of government, namely politics and coercion, rather than the voluntary transactions of the marketplace. These types are often frightened by being exposed to a market that rewards the best and is less tolerant of the lazy or inept.
The economic success of most developed nations today is underpinned by market based economies. Competition ensures innovation and continuous improvement that leads to positive economic vale added and higher living standards. The role of government should be to regulate the market place to ensure healthy competition, not to replace the market.
00
“those lakes are completely artificial.”
Meant completely artificial in their composition of 100% fresh water today. The lakes have, of course, always been there, but they were brackish estuaries, not freshwater lakes.
00
Some questions for MEDIA WATCH….
Murray-Gate: Some questions for Media watch
00
Please find a link to the Climate Commision Report.
http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-science-behind-southeast-australias-wet-cool-summer/
http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Climate-Commission-rainfall-final.pdf
I draw your attention to the first “Key Fact”
1.For many years scientists have painted a clear picture: that the Earth’s surface is warming rapidly and the climate is changing. Global average temperature has continued to rise over the last decade. 2011 was the warmest La Niña year on record and warmer than all but one year of the 20th century.
Claim 1: Global average temperature has continued to rise over the last decade.
FALSE!
If you look at the graph Figure 1. Global average temperature from 1950 to 2011.. you can visually track years 2002 to 2011, you can clearly see that global temperatures have slightly decreased over that time period (inclusive of both La Nina and El Nino years
Try it yourself! get a clear ruler and set it level at the year 2002 (this is year zero, set to zero). you will note the following:
2003 (roughly the same)
2004 (~0.05C lower)
2005 (~0.04C higher)
2006 (~0.02C lower)
2007 (~0.02C lower)
2008 (~0.13C lower)
2009 (~0.01C lower)
2010 (~0.04C higher)
2011 (~0.08C lower)
Now, put these numbers into excel (once you are happy that the abover are accurate)
Then, average the years 2003 to 2011.
You will get,
Average (2003 to 2011) = -0.0256.
So, The first key fact of the Climate Commission report into the “Science behind southeast Australia’s wet, cool summer”
is FALSE!!!
Global average temperature have NOT continued to rise over the last decade, they have infact FALLEN.
Please note that I am using their own data (from WMO 2012).
Why is the Climate Commision outright LYING TO US? Why are they so keen to HIDE THE DECLINE?
I am naming this one “CoolGate”
00
Jo, this outright lying needs to be confronted. Can you please follow this one up and blog about about your findings.
00
But if it can be shown they are lying, this then really does need to get to a boarder audience than on Jo’s blog.
00
To show they are lying – All you need is to be literate, numerate and have access to a ruler and a computer.
00
I agree. That is why I think the many talented contributors here (at least Australian ones) should spare some effort responding to the claims of the CSIRO. Apathy will ensure Joe public just accepts what the CSIRO says without any critical thought or independent research of the claims. The responses might not get posted but somebody will read them which all helps.
00
I simply love the concluding paragraph of the report. See if you can count the contradictions before your head explodes:
“The planets surface temperature will continue to rise in the long-term average, and that means an increasing risk of hot days and severe heat waves. In addition, we’ll likely see increased frequency of intense rainfall events and more droughts. The quintessential Australian climatic pattern of severe droughts and flooding rains will continue into the future. Across the south, heavy rainfall events will still occur, and high summer rainfall events will continue to be a feature of the climate. However, on average, the south of the continent will likely be drier in the future compared with the early to mid twentieth century, particularly in the cool months of the year.
These changes in climatic patterns pose substantial risks to agriculture, water security, natural systems and the Australian economy. They emphasize the need to increase resilience across our society and enhance our capacity to adapt to both floods and long dry periods. Ultimately, to avoid changes in the climate system to which we cannot adapt, we need to do our part along with other countries to drive rapid and deep reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Professor Will Steffen
Climate Commisioner
Professor Matthew England
Climate Commision
Science Advisory Panel
Professor David Karoly
Climate Comission
Science Advisory Panel
00
Sonny, your quote from these three seems a good example to me of non falsifiable theory in action. They have all bases covered it does not matter if we have drought, flood, hot or cold it can all be explained by AGW.
The other noteworthy quote is “we need to do our part along with other countries”, like China and USA are showing any signs of taking serious action to address emissions LOL.
00
I’ve argued my case with Ian Mott recently at the Just Ground Community website (http://justgroundsonline.com/ … BTW his reference to my not giving him a fair go in the past is not supported by the many guests blog posts he has made at my site ).
It is my considered opinion that Ian doesn’t understands the coastal processes that create barrier estuaries or that operate along the South Australian coastline. I also don’t think he is familiar with the relevant literature.
I also think he confuses solutions for the Coorong with solutions for the Lower Lakes. I support his plan to pipe water into the Coorong. But this will do nothing to ‘save’ the Lower Lakes next drought. I suggest those unfamiliar with the geography of the region look at google maps to understand that the Coorong is a separate body of water.
Regarding Ian’s particular comment above about storm surges and the barrages. I think he is writing nonsense.
In particular, calm conditions tend to be conducive to beach and sand spit building and will potential work to block the Murray River’s sea mouth. However, storms tend to remove sand including from the Murray’s mouth so I think he has got this the wrong way around.
Regarding the more general impact of the barrages/sea dykes. They have stopped tidal inflows. And this has resulted in significant change in how sand now shoals around the mouth and channels. Bird Island, formed at the bottom of the Mundoo channel after the barrages were constructed in the 1930s. This island (now over 1 km in diameter) blocks river flow from the Mundoo channel even when the barrages are open. And of course would block tidal inflows, if the barrages were ever open to let seawater in.
The Mundoo channel was once important for scouring of the Murray River’s mouth, read more about this here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Plugging-the-Murray-Rivers-Mouth-120212.pdf
00
I am sorry Ian Mott but you have missed the boat on this one – the evidence for a vast dynamic natural estuarine mix of salinities across the whole Lower Lakes system – ebbing and flowing as tidal pressures and river flows vary – is incontrovertable – and the telemetry data just removes any doubt that even the most passionate ‘freshie’ could reasonably sustain.
See Ian Rowan’s submission to the MDBA re the draft Basin Plan (per the MDBA website) for the numbers that tell the true story – water does not run uphill when high tides pressure in and reverse strong river flows – and as they always did before the barrages.
And in 2009 when the barrages prevented the formation of an estuary at sea level and lake levels fell to over a metre below sea level exposing vast areas of never before exposed lake bed – the acid duststorms that corroded structures, sandrifts that changed shoreline ecology for ever, and cracked and slumping river banks are a reality that could have so easily avoided.
We need to acknowledge some facts here – and they are 2+2=4 type facts – you might prefer 3 or 5 but there is only one reality that matters here.
I have always cared greatly for the environment but I care as much for scientific integrity – so when I saw the bumper sticker that read, “The only true wilderness is between a Greeny’s ears”, I had to chuckle and I fear that the extremes of irrationality displayed by some outspoken ‘environmentalists’ do the whole environmental movement great harm.
00
a different water issue, posted because the flood inquiry report is due tomorrow:
15 March: Australian: Hedley Thomas: Verdict for fair judge
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/verdict-for-fair-judge/story-e6frg6z6-1226299738505
00
Look, I know I am just being pedantic, but, the Finklstien Thing stated that the ABC was not biased, so we must be reading Media Watch, “out of context”.
00
Apologies for being OT but this is an interesting development.
Clive Palmer is saying he will mount a high court challenge over the legitimacy of the Co2 tax.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/clive-declares-he-is-not-frivolous-over-proposed-high-court-challenge-on-mining-tax/story-fnb56a2t-1226300136520
Yes, the title says mining tax, but in the story it is about the Co2 tax.
My comment submitted to The Australian (if it gets published)
Gotta grasp any little ray of hope we can….is this the next step in the battle to win the war?
00
Dunno LMWD- I think the Government can make any laws they like for the “peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth” as long as Section 51 of the Constitution gives them the authority, or the States refer the power. It doesn’t need to make sense. It isn’t for the High Court to decide whether or not a law makes sense, only the Parliament can do that.
I think in this case though Palmer’s lawyers may argue that the Commonwealth can’t simply use the External affairs power for any purpose they like, even where there is no legitimate external agreement. If the Kyoto agreement is to be used to justify these laws, they might only be legitimate during the current life of the Kyoto agreements.
Durban would be laughed out of any court anywhere. The law places no weight on an agreement to agree in the future if the parties are all then agreeable.
It is just possible that the High Court by now is as jaded with the misuse of the External affairs power as the rest of us are. Let us hope so.
They do have a Taxation power but it would be hard to argue that the carbon (dioxide) tax doesn’t discriminate between states, and the conservative held states are unlikely to refer powers to enable this.
00
The question is as I see it do that have that power as re Calling all lawyers …
* COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 55
Tax Bill
Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.
Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.
We have three separate, yet mutually-dependent pieces of legislation, that are key vertebrae in the “backbone” of the government’s “carbon pricing mechanism”.
The main bill – Clean Energy Act 2011: Exposure draft, Part 4, Division 2, Section 100 – says that the imposition of a charge for carbon permits is not an act of imposing a tax.
Note (a) of that Clean Energy Act 2011, Section 100 references the proposed Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Act 2011, Part 2. Which says that
(1) it is an Act that is “associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011″, and that
(2) the imposition of a charge for carbon permits is an act of imposing “a duty of excise”.
But …
Note (b) of that Clean Energy Act 2011, Section 100 references the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—General) Act 2011 Section 8. Which says that
(1) it is an Act that is “associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011″, and that
(2) the imposition of a charge for carbon permits is an act of imposing a tax, and is not an act of imposing “a duty of excise”.
00
The question is as I see it do they have that power as
Given that their mutually-dependent, yet mutually-contradictory pieces of the legislation package collectively state that the proposed charge is (a) not a tax, and (b) not a duty of excise either, then the proposed imposition of a carbon dioxide “charge” appears to be in breach of the Constitutional powers of the government, section 51 (emphasis added):
* COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 55
Tax Bill
Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.
Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.
We have three separate, yet mutually-dependent pieces of legislation, that are key vertebrae in the “backbone” of the government’s “carbon pricing mechanism”.
The main bill – Clean Energy Act 2011: Exposure draft, Part 4, Division 2, Section 100 – says that the imposition of a charge for carbon permits is not an act of imposing a tax.
Note (a) of that Clean Energy Act 2011, Section 100 references the proposed Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Act 2011, Part 2. Which says that
(1) it is an Act that is “associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011″, and that
(2) the imposition of a charge for carbon permits is an act of imposing “a duty of excise”.
But …
Note (b) of that Clean Energy Act 2011, Section 100 references the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—General) Act 2011 Section 8. Which says that
(1) it is an Act that is “associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011″, and that
(2) the imposition of a charge for carbon permits is an act of imposing a tax, and is not an act of imposing “a duty of excise”.
Mods: I discovered that I left some information from my first post which I considered crucial. Would if be possible to have said post,and this comment removed?
00
Waffle, If you get past the executive summary you might learn something before commenting.
As usual, Jennifer makes assertions but fails to previde specifics. She continues with this absolute falsity that sand is built up during mild weather and taken away during storm events. This is only the case on the east coast where there are two essentially symetrical tides each day of an amplitude twice the height of the average in SA. Tides in SA are asymetrical and there is only one each day. For 50% of the time there isn’t much to speak of at all. But when they do occur they involve a steep inflow phase of 8 hours and a gentle outflow of 16 hours.
So that means SA tides involve half the volume of the tidal prism, flowing at half the velocity, and due to the asymetry, involve a velocity of outflow that is half that of the inflow. Yet, Jennifer still refuses to accept the basic scientific principle that holds that the capacity of water to move sediment is in direct proportion to the square of the water’s velocity.
So a similar estuary on the east coast has twice the tidal volume in each tide, twice the velocity in each tidal flow, and inflows with a further doubling of the velocity of the outflows. So in the absence of river flows, SA inflows move 4 times more sediment in than outflows can remove. But in a similar estuary on the east coast each tidal movement would shift another 4 times more sediment due to tidal volume and another four times because the four tidal phases move at twice the speed.
In the absence of a river flow the mouth would be permanently closed and the lakes would become a terminal depression like Lake Eyre. Jennifer’s claim that there is some sort of destiny for the lake as an estuary is directly at variance with the basic tidal conditions. My MDBA submission has a direct quote from Webster (@2.21) of a single storm surge that deposited 46,000m3 of sand inside the mouth. If that was on the east coast it would have taken that much away.
The key point is that the smaller tidal prism created by the barrages has played a major role in limiting sand deposition by storm surges. And once that sand is there then the height of the prism is restricted further in normal times but mouth closure continues on subsequent storm events.
The problem for farmers is that the Australian public have been indoctrinated to believe that a closed murray mouth and an even more stagnant Coorong is a national fall from grace. And the resulting calls for more buy-backs will be even harder to counter.
And for the record, my problem with Jennifer is that she was quite willing to publish a post from me on the Coorong while I still supported her Barrage fetish but then refused to do so when I advised that additional research had prompted me to change my view. That sort of censorship, and refusal to allow her own views to be tested, was inexcusable for someone holding themselves out as a champion of free scientific discourse.
00
I’m going to recommend you work on your publishing skills to make your document more readable.
Having looked through your work I still can’t find any data that supports the assumption that the natural state of the river mouth is to always be open(this oversight was evident to me when reading the executive summary). To the contrary, you’ve mentioned that it doesn’t matter how much water you buy back or how wide and deep you dredge, that just creates a senario where more sand is deposited in the next storm. So, why do you presume that the lower lakes must always have acces to sea water?
Additionally, another oversight in your work is the failure to mention the deposition of sediment which originated from upstream. We know the factors of drought and flood affect the river flow rate, and that tides and storm surges affect the onshore flow rate. Where are the numbers that reconcile these two opposing forces to determine deposition rates from both sources?
00
Jo
Would love some comment on latest BOM Climate report from you, Carter et al!!
00
Two UPDATES: (one at the top and one at the bottom of the article. It’s busy today!
———————-
UPDATE: While MediaWatch (ABC) is hassling Jennifer Marohasy, Marc Hendrickx at ABCnewswatch responds in kind, posting an excellent open letter to MediaWatch, asking if they can outline their own scientific qualifications to judge Jennifer Marohasy’s scientific work. ABC staff want to know her motivations, but Marc wants to know theirs. And “given that they employ 11 staff full time” and produce “one 15 minute show per week”, do they consider that this represents good value for the Australian taxpayer? Touche!
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/murray-gate-some-questions-for-media.html
Brilliant Marc. It’s a must read.
——————-
UPDATE #2: This is a hot trending topic and article picked up by Bolt, the Bunyip, Catalaxy. People are angry in the comments. (See links at the bottom of the post.
00
jo,
people are also getting very angry about this as well. another shop has closed this week in our main local mall due to the financial crisis, compounded by increasing electricity/water costs, and others leasing space know they’re doomed once the carbon (dioxide) tax is implemented. ABC needs to start reporting on the economic chaos already being caused by insane CAGW policies being imposed on energy companies, and bulk water pricing:
the Media Watch war on Jennifer Marohasy is part and parcel of the same war on anyone who doubts any aspect of the CAGW scam:
14 March: Geelong Advertiser: Tax hike could close Westfield stores
A GEELONG retailer inside Westfield’s shopping mecca fears up to a quarter of businesses could go under if the shopping giant raises its rent in the wake of the carbon tax.
Shopping centre giant Westfield has included an explicit “Carbon or Greenhouse Gas Emission Charge” clause in lease agreements with 11,885 retailers across Australia.
And other shopping centre owners will follow suit as the carbon tax begins to spread across the economy and into the retail sector…
Nextra newsagent Wayne Krause said, though he was not panicking yet, any future rent increase would add extra pressure to already struggling businesses.
“There’s no doubt that people can’t afford to pay any more rent (and) I would say about 25 per cent (of businesses) would go in Westfield (Geelong) if their rent was increased,” he said.
With high rents and empty shop fronts elsewhere in Geelong’s CBD, retailers said their future looked bleak and they might be forced to shut shop altogether.
News of the shopping giant’s plans for the rent spike came as Pumpkin Patch children’s clothing chain, which has stores in Westfield Geelong, announced a net loss of $23.4m for the six months to January 31…
According to a recent Westfield lease obtained by News Limited Clause 12.5A will allow the landlord to pass on any “carbon or greenhouse gas emission related charge and recover the same from the Lessee at cost”.
The Gillard Government has promised compensation to pensioners and families through tax cuts and increased family payments but most small business operators will miss out.
Russell Zimmerman, executive director of the Australian Retailers Association, said most small retailers “have no idea” about the impact of the carbon tax. “It’s going to be some big costs coming from the landlord. I don’t believe retailers truly understand what the real cost of the carbon tax will be on their business,” Mr Zimmerman said.
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2012/03/14/313241_news.html
15 March: Ninemsn: PM rejects Westfield carbon charge report
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has rejected reports shopping centre giant Westfield is introducing a charge clause in lease agreements for its onsite retailers to offset the impact of Labor’s carbon tax…
Earlier on Thursday, Mr Abbott said it would not surprising if Westfield wanted to cover the impact of the carbon tax on its business.
“I’m not surprised because the whole point of the carbon tax is that it hits everything,” he told Fairfax Radio.
“Because everything involves power and transport, everything is going to be more expensive as a result of the carbon tax.”
Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the Westfield clause proved the government’s claim that only the top 500 big polluting companies would pay the carbon tax was “just wrong”.
“This is not a top 500 tax, it is a hairdresser tax,” he told reporters in Canberra.
“In every shopping centre, in every shop all around Australia, it is the small businesses that will pay and it is the mums and dads and pensioners who will pay.”…
http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbusiness/8435673/pm-rejects-westfield-carbon-charge-reports
00
Pat,
Gillard doesn’t even know who is getting charged the CO2 tax!
Westfield is on the list at $7,833,363 due in first year – I think they may want to pass this on to retailers? If this includes Woolies and Coles etc – then it is definately a case of double dipping!
And guess who pays in the end?????
00
Hey Jo, you copped a bit of criticism in a letter to the editor in the Herald Sun today due to your ‘lack of credentials’ in comparison to the CSIRO and BOM. Supposedly you might have some connections to the mining industry?
If I can find the letter I will link it to you.
00
On connections –
http://www.wakeup2thelies.com/2011/10/21/banking-on-climate-change-a-list-of-bankers-advocating-for-the-australian-carbon-tax/
CSIRO’s Chief Executive and board member Dr Megan Clark was a director for N.M.Rothschild and Sons Australia.
00
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/csiro-denies-its-head-megan-clark-has-any-conflict-of-interest-over-carbon-store-role/story-fn59niix-1226170818106
00
Yeah, I am going to send a letter to the editor of the Herald Sun a little bit later n reply to that Gentleman. For the interests of Jo (who I would be interested if she would respond to the letter on here)and other posters I have copied the letter out:
Wow!
00
Here’s my letter to the editor:
00
you probably didnt have to stretch it with the 31,000 phd thing.
00
Matt – you’re correct, there apparently were only 9029 US signatories with PhD’s. I didn’t sign as I am an Aussie, otherwise it would’ve been 9030.
It could almost be that there is less than a complete consensus that CAGW will fry all our eyeballs out of our sockets, y’know.
00
In hindsight yes you are correct as some of those scientists don’t actually specialise in such an area related to the climate, chemistry or physics who signed the petition but I used the statistic to prove that there isn’t so much of a consensus from the ‘experts’ as Matthew (the original letter author) implied.
00
O/T but there is pure gold in this one… for those of you not living under a rock the last day or so, you will be aware that a chap by the name of Greg Smith resigned from a top position in Goldman Sachs and posted quite an expose of the corporate culture in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html
If you have trouble accessing it try Googling (like one does for The Australian) “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs” and I am sure you will find a link that works. There is nothing new here for anyone that followed all the fallout from the GFC in such documentaries as “Inside Job”, but there is much gravitas added by the fact that Greg was a top operator in GS.
Cue an apologist piece in the SMH:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/yes-mr-smith-goldies-is-all-about-making-money-20120315-1v5rm.html
Best part is reading the comments, especially one from “egbert” at 11:42am. I like the guy’/girl’s writing style… in particular the reference to “cheese eating surrender monkeys.” Gold, simply gold.
00
their recruitment and indoctrination were good enough to keep him fooled for 12 years at least! I’ve seen that article bounding around facebook, but seriously is anyone surprised? Was this guy totally naive? I’m honestly surprised that a scathing expose on GS is quite so bland… one wonders how much the NYT editors/lawyers had to snip?
I honestly can’t believe that the culture has “changed” rather than him simply suddenly reaching a level where they let you see what the real culture is and hope you are already in too deep. But heck as a client if they make me squillions who cares if they think I’m a muppet.
00
For fox ache Waffle, the document is a formal submission to a policy process. It follows the standard format of a military appreciation of a battlefield situation. It is also the standard planning format used to educate MBA students. It’s purpose is to carefully consider all relevant matters and all available options in fixing a problem. You were specifically directed to the section called “essential facts”, to aid in your education but your attention span allowed you to get no further than the executive summary.
And if you hadn’t obviously spent the last decade with your head in a paper bag you would know that a closed Murray mouth turns the entire Coorong into a fetid, hypersaline wasteland that is only capable of supporting Brine Shrimp. And the worse it gets the more blame is heaped on up-stream farmers and the more they are demonised the easier it becomes for urban Australia to disposses them.
Either lift your game or take your casuist crap to the far queue.
00
I’m enjoying your enthusiasm in avoiding my questions. I’m not sure you appreciate that this discussion is public and regardless of my expertise on the matter, many of the readers of this blog share my lack of expertise and are looking to be swayed by a coherent and thoroughly investigated argument. So far, you’re not scoring too well.
As for the format. I don’t have a public servant’s time on my hands to leisurely puruse your ‘official’ format. I’m used to building very large software requirements and scope documents which must identify a problem and detail a number of solutions. They have to be read by executives who would rather be on the golf course than have to wade through my analysis. I can tell you that it’s possible to create documents for different reader groups who require various levels of information. I could not get any more information about your argument after the executive summary until such a point whereby I had read the entire thing. I’m just offering you some advice about technical communication, take or leave. I don’t particularly care what you do with it.
So, are we talking about returning the river to a more natural state or making improvements which will help humanity and other wildlife?
00
And Waffle, there are no “numbers” on deposition of up-stream silt etc near the mouth for the very good reason that this stuff is already deposited at the northern side of the lake where the river channel first meets a large body of still water. And gosh, do think whatever solids are still in suspension might just get captured on the upstream side of the barrages?
00
That’s what I initially assumed too. But if you look on the east and south-eastern shores of Lake Alexandria, there is a clear deposition pattern far more significant than that which exists on the northern shore. Take a good look at Tauwhichere Island’s eastern shore. See that mud build up? It’s clearly river sediment, you can see the stark contrast to the sand on the other side of the tidal channel inlet. The entire structure on the southern shore of Lake Alexandria is mud. Called Mud Islands Game Reserve!
You know how you float in sea water? There could be a factor there in the transport of sediment so close to the mouth of the river.
Why pre-emptively rule something out? Just saying…
00
Dave –
interesting, tho, that Westfield is partially liquidating in the US with help from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. wonder why? this is something i have suggested to individuals who have Super Funds and can move them to Cash Options for now.:
20 Feb: eFinancial News: Mandates of the Week: Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Aberdeen, Citi
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, which invests funds “not needed by the Canada Pension Plan to pay current benefits” on behalf of its 18 million members, is forming a joint venture with shopping centre group the Westfield Group.
The venture consists of interests in 10 regional shopping centres and two redevelopment sites in the US, which are owned and managed by Westfield. The properties are worth a combined $4.8bn, the CPPIB’s equity investment will be $1.8bn – representing a 45% of the venture.
The deal will see CPPIB become one of the largest institutional owners of regional shopping centres in the US. CPPIB’s real estate investments totalled $14.4bn at the end of last year – representing 9.5% of the Canada Pension Plan fund.
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-02-20/mandates-of-the-week-20-feb-2012
younger ABC employees, and other young public sector employees might also take an interest in how the Future Fund invests their monies, given a Morgan Stanly executive has been appointed to the Board:
13 March: SMH: AAP: Gonski appointed Future Fund head
Morgan Stanley Australia chief executive Steven Harker has also been appointed to the board for five years…
“These appointments will bring a unique combination of experience and strategic insight across business, corporate governance and investment markets, and will position the board well for the opportunities and challenges ahead,” Mr Swan said in a joint statement with Finance Minister Penny Wong…
Mr Harker is also a director of Australian Financial Markets Association…
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gonski-appointed-future-fund-head-20120313-1uyi2.html
00
the minute posted the Future Fund comment, i noticed this up now. this is a lot of public money under the control of an unelected few:
15 March: Australia: Ben Packham: Peter Costello says David Gonski should have ruled himself out of the Future Fund running
Mr Costello, who legislated the Future Fund and was appointed to its board by Treasurer Wayne Swan and former finance minister Lindsay Tanner, said the process of replacing outgoing Future Fund chairman David Murray had undermined the reputation of the $73 billion fund.
“The process was severely compromised,” he said.
In his report to the government, Mr Gonski said Mr Costello had the “strong endorsement” of the board to step into the top job.
But, in an unexpected twist, Mr Gonski was appointed to the post himself…
Former Costello staffer and his successor in the seat of Higgins, Kelly O’Dwyer, said Labor’s attack on the former treasurer was out of line.
“If you asked any person in the street whether Peter Costello was a good custodian of the economy, even the most hard-bitten Labor supporter would have to agree that he was,” Ms O’Dwyer said.
“It is totally extraordinary that you’ve got the person who conceived of the Future Fund, who made provision for the Future Fund, who implemented the Future Fund; you could find no better person to chair the Future Fund. The board thought that. David Gonski thought that, and that’s what he told the cabinet.”…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-refuses-to-release-report-showing-future-fund-board-wanted-costello-not-gonski/story-fn59niix-1226300880075
00
as if retailers aren’t doing it tough already! this is about Brisbane:
16 March: News Ltd: Westfield reaps profits from paid parking but retailers claim customers are put off
SHOPPING centre giant Westfield is reaping a healthy income from paid parking at its Chermside complex in Brisbane after issuing more than four million tickets in the first three months of operation.
About 300,000 of those tickets resulted in charges to shoppers, generating more than $600,000 up to January 31, reports The Courier Mail.
Paid parking for staff is also making an average of $15,000 a week for Westfield which introduced the controversial charges in late October.
And the retailer is set to haul in even more cash from the scheme with plans to sell advertising on the back of the tickets…
Frustrated shop owners at Westfield Chermside said they were disgusted by their landlord’s greed while they suffered the consequences.
One operator who did not want to be named, said his coffee shop had suffered a 20 per cent downturn in profits since paid parking was introduced.
“We used to see people coming in for breakfast, then they’d come back for lunch after spending the morning shopping,” he said.
“That almost never happens any more.”
He said retaining staff was also becoming more difficult because of the impost of paying for parking – or having to find a park on the streets…
Westfield Carindale is also preparing to introduce paid parking in a move designed to stop commuters from using the centre as a “park ‘n’ ride”.
Parking charges were expected to apply to tardy shoppers from March 29 but Westfield has decided to hold off until mid-year.
http://www.news.com.au/business/westfield-chermside-reaping-profits-from-paid-parking-but-retailers-claim-customers-are-put-off/story-e6frfm1i-1226301185780
00
How’s about: If a government decides to privatise the water supply, they can’t sell salty water.
Example: The recent purchase of more than 3 billion litres of high-reliability Murray water by Tandou Ltd, for the sum of $5.6 million. The company foresees increased involvement in the investment in – and lease-back – of, water from the Murray-Darling river system.
I see it as fairly simple. Am I being too simplistic?
00
So, Media Watch do their story and its about:
Rather than trying to blacken anyone’s reputation. And they do have some interesting links on their site as regards the rationale for the barrages which were pretty helpful for a W.A. person like me unfamiliar with the Murray lower lakes.
So really, a bit of a storm in teacup wot??
00
The storm in the tea cup is what made this thread interesting. Complete panic because of some probing from mainstream media and supposition of what their “agenda” might be. The only thing funnier than this thread is the thread on conspiracies. You should see the things that are being buried into the foundations of the new ASIO HQ.
00
[…] up and down the Murray on a good Floater Fund.. Even abc.net.au MEDIA WATCH .. is asking :http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/jennifer-marohasy-and-abcs-mediawatch-tribal-warfare/ Her reply […]
00