“ONE of the best things about science is that the discipline is self-correcting.” So wrote Eric Berger in a blog post in which he lists, what he considers, the top 10 most spectacularly wrong once widely held scientific theories.
His list included:
The stress theory of ulcers;
Immovable continents;
Phlogiston; and
Miasmatic theory of disease.
I’m wondering how long on average these theories existed before they were falsified and how many sceptical scientists were censured before their eventual overthrow?
Which brings me to the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). While I’m convinced that one day it will be recognised as spectacularly wrong, at this point in history, each year its grip on popular opinion and on the scientific community seems to only strengthen.
I was disappointed to recently reread an article written in 2011 about the Murray River entitled ‘Water under the Bridge’. While its author, Kate Jennings, was sympathetic to my work, until I reread the piece I had forgotten her disparaging comments about my AGW scepticism. She wrote: “Jennifer Marohasy is a prominent climate-change sceptic, so her work on the barrages is dismissed out of hand.”
****
Update 31st December 2013. Comment from David Boyd.
Hi Jen,
I was disappointed in your interpretation of Kate's references to you in her 2011 article as "disparaging". I don't think they were. She was stating a problem which we "enlightened sceptics" suffered from with our then minority position on the climate change nonsense.
Remember the full quote was-
"Jennifer Marohasy is a prominent climate-change sceptic, so her work on the barrages is dismissed out of hand. (We could also dismiss anything from the Wentworth Group because it is funded by the World Wildlife Fund, which could bias findings.)"
I think Kate's comment was "disparaging" of the "commentariat". How absurd to attempt to undermine somebodies views on one issue, because you disagree with their views on another.
David Boyd
****
Thanks David. Words, and how they are interpreted and how for the one person that interpretation can change.
For those who wish to form their own opinion, Kate's essay can be read here… http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2011/october/1317956752/kate-jennings/water-under-bridge. It is also interesting to ponder the second paragraph…
"I insulted the Greens on purpose to get your attention. Green-ish myself. Climate change? Happening. Melting poles, warming oceans. People, do something! But if I’d started by discussing tillage fractures or SER statistics, you would’ve drifted, flipped the page. I also wanted to make a point about insults. If you begin an op-ed piece, as Tim Flannery did in the Age, with “… white Australia’s relationship with the bush has been a kind of rape and pillage”, your subsequent points about biochar as a source of energy or innovations in farming are completely lost on the audience you most want to reach…" The paragraph ends with reference to metaphors having consequences.
Kate is clear that she does believe in climate change including melting poles and warming oceans. Of course.
If an author needs to begin a piece in The Monthly on the Murray River with reference to climate change and explicitly state that she believes in it, what does this tell us about herself and/or her audience? My recent reference to Carl Jung's writings are perhaps relevant here https://climatelab.com.au/2013/11/against-collective-integration-carl-jung/ .
That is already in the pipe line Luke,
Has been trialled in WA for several years and is being implemented (sort of) in the Eastern States.
There are also other tax concessions and incentives that have been around for quite some time.
Of course the EC funding that you have often criticised and the use of the NSW single export desk by Sunrice (a grower/producer owned business) that you have often criticised are also similar measures that have been around for quite some time and have helped to alleviate the variability.
These are not new ideas that would need further administrative measures and/or further legislation.
In fact. . .one of the problems with what's happening now is that we are witnessing a counter-productive 'double up' in admin as the Feds are muscling in on the admin side of these types of programs with extra departmental staff and extra 'policing'.
It is interesting that you seem to think that we need 'more issues' to look for.
I think instead that we need to streamline the system, create genuine feedback loops, restore trust and respect and then just get on with it!
Once the dysfunctional relationships between rural/regional Australia and NRM bureaucracies/academics have been repaired and we have scientists and researchers working in regional areas who have a GENUINE understanding of both the environment and rural/regional communities rather than the current mindset that is often far too busy conveying allegations that primary production and agribusiness is some kind of juggernaut of environmental destruction . . . there are plenty of opportunities for R & D in productive partnerships.
BTW. . .I note you didn't answer my basic question re water resource management (and it includes BoM and CSIRO)
We are not suffering from a lack of admin staff or a lack of the ability to collect data. . .it is rather the opposite. . .too many, too much (with no real purpose behind it). . .and the ability for all of these entities to avoid accountability, do 'busy work' (that attracts govt funding) and construct 'big boys toys' in the name of 'water savings' that squander gravity . . . and then load all the risk onto fewer paying customers.
That is not sustainable (IMHO).
Off the top of my head I don't know. And I don't know why southern MDB carp programs have been axed. You're the one who's telling me the funding story and complaining it's all gone somewhere. So enumerate away.
Off farm diversification - well strikes me if occasional bad droughts are the norm one needs off farm income to get through so some concessional tax treatments like Income Equalisation Deposits or better are needed. I would have thought such mechanisms that help farmers mitigate against no income years would be a part solution. But you tell me. You're the user.
So Luke,
Simple questions for you.
What research and/or funding is being directed towards adaption. . .including R & D into further water use efficiency and future crop varieties?
Carp is a problem and yet the programs/research re mitigating carp (as well other invasive species) have been axed. Why is that do you think Luke?
What activities/ measures would you put under the heading of 'off farm diversification' that would act as 'climate stress buffers'?
Climate - my "solution" (really only adaptation) for you would be to get the best tools to help you manage weather and seasonal climate in your hands. And if possible to create some win-wins with carbon sequestration on-farm. Best future climate science to work out long term water allocations. And how future crop varieties might help adapt to and exploit higher atmospheric CO2, a changing/variable climate and also to improve water use efficiency. Also tax and economic measures that allow off-farm diversification to act as a climate stress buffer.
Or is it all just water allocation and compliance requirements.
Issues ... I'm looking for some tangibles like errrr "how to get rid of carp" or "someone needs to develop infra-red thermometry for wheat irrigation" - I just made some stuff up here in an attempt to get some specifics ....
No let's keep going. This is much better. I did enjoy your last post.
So what are your important and needy production, natural resource, and environmental issues. Not in the entire world - just in your general region. Or national/global if affecting local.
Well Luke,
my 2 areas of experience and focus are water policy (local, state & federal) and native veg (local, state & federal).
In both areas, the funding has been directed towards proving that water needs to be confiscated from agriculture and that farmers have to jump through ever increasing hoops to justify using best practice, efficient farming techniques ostensibly in the name of saving the 'environment' and 'the common good'
A very simple example is in this area. . . where we once had ONE bureaucracy to manage water resources (originally WCIC and later WRC). . .we now have 7 and rising. . . MI, CIL, SWC, NOW, SHL, MDBA, MIL, NWC. . . paradoxically managing less and with fewer paying customers. Add to that entities like CEWH,SEWPAC,CMA, OEH, DPI, BOM & CSIRO. . who although not directly paid by producers. . . are still inserting themselves into the arena and further complicating the legislation and the rules and regs. . .because it's for the 'environment' and 'the common good'.
Does that look like a sensible way to manage water resources in the Southern MDB to you?
If anything. . . native veg is even more of a dog's breakfast.
Since I put my hand up approx 5 years ago. . . even though I am most definitely very respectful of and believe in sustainable, envoronmentally responsible practice. . . along with using best technology. . . I have lost all respect for what's known as the 'environmental movement' and those who have graduated via the 'environmental sciences'.
It's not because I think they don't care or that I think they are bad people. . . It's mainly because they have NO IDEA about the people they should be forming productive partnerships with. . . and actually often believe that those very same people should be shackled and obstructed by ever more counter productive rules and regs. . . and that somehow. . . with zero experience. . . they know better. . . and that no one else can be trusted to 'do the right thing'.
Further. . . when well qualified scientists and researchers speak out about this increasingly dysfunctional relationship. . . they are very quickly 'demonised' and accused of suspect motives.
But anyway. . .as it seems to be your pet topic. . . what's your solution for the climate Luke?
Over to you.
Debs - stop being a flake - you've had tons from me and you put nothing back except generalities. Again all you're doing is playing tag. You have the floor - show some leadership... and I will listen. at 11:41pm above I asked some very easy specifics. If you have some serious ideas let it rip and I"ll listen - fill pages if you like.
You're making the accusations about funding being elsewhere - well should be easy to show - SO SHOW ME ! I'm seriously asking. No tricks.
And you don't like the programs, priorities or attitudes or consultation - SO SHOW ME and suggest some concrete alternatives.
I'm out of ammo
Stop reacting to me and show some leadership in the discussion. I am weary of playing tag with you.
Either you have some specific points/information/arguments or YOU DO NOT. Over to you.