Category Archives: CSIRO

GMO crops bill will finish the farming industry as we know it

Letter to the Editor

Dear Farmer

A bill has been presented to Parliament that is trying to deregulate some new genetic modification (GM) techniques and the genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) that are produced as a result, by classifying them as non-GMOs.

Do you know what that could mean for you?

Deregulation means that there is no requirement to tell you that the crop you are planting contains one of these new GMOs.

The genetic sequences developed using these techniques will be patented. This means that wherever these sequences land, they can be covered by patent rights.

GM canola. Canola oil suitable only to put into air compressor motors. It is toxic to humans.

One of these new genetic sequences, called dsRNA, can be sprayed. The patent can extend to the crop and the grain produced by the crop. Spray drift from your neighbour could result in your produce being affected by patent rights. If fruit trees or vines are sprayed with patented dsRNA, the patent could extend to the fruit or grapes produced, for the life of the plant.

The patent-holder can enforce their patent rights. In the USA and Canada, this has resulted in farmers who were contaminated with past versions of GM crops, being sued for growing GM crops without a licence.

The situation in Australia could be worse. Under our existing end-point royalty system, a positive test of the patented material in a farmer’s product gives the patent-holder the legal right to deduct their user fee from the farmer’s produce payments. Even a presence of as low as 0.01% could result in a positive test, and any subsequent action against the farmer is entirely at the patent-holder’s discretion. Farmers that object to this fee being deducted from their payments will need to take legal action against the patent-holder to try to recover their money.

If a GMO spreads to the fields of an organic farm, the farm could also lose its organic status.

If Australia deregulates these GM techniques, it does not mean that importing countries have also deregulated them. In many countries, these products will still be considered as either approved or unapproved GMOs.

If a contaminated export from Australia arrives at a country that has not approved that GMO, the import can be refused. There were 200 cases of trade disruption due to unapproved GMOs between 2002 and 2012, resulting in serious consequences for some exporting countries, including the permanent loss of export markets. Losses have been in the billions of dollars.

If the export is contaminated with a GMO that is actually allowed into the food supply of the importing country, most food will be required to be labelled as GM in that country and subject to major consumer and market rejection.

Take GM wheat as an example. Although varieties of GM wheat have been available for years, it has never been commercially grown anywhere in the world, due to massive market rejection. Any escapes of GM wheat varieties from old trial sites are quickly eradicated, but have still caused markets to cease trading with areas where contamination was found. Any introduction of GM wheat into Australia therefore risks losing an industry that is worth $7.1 billion per year (5-year average).

GMOs are living organisms. Once a GMO is released into Australia on a commercial scale, it will spread and it cannot be recalled. It will be like trying to recall cane toads, blackberries, lantana or rabbits. Therefore, any impact could be permanent.

How is it then possible to recall a GMO if it causes economic loss? Who will be liable for any losses? Will the Federal Government indemnify you against any losses, immediate and on-going?

How will your industry manage these new GM varieties, when they are not considered as GMOs in Australia, but will be considered either as approved or unapproved GMOs in countries that Australia exports to?

Given there have been numerous cases of GM wheat trials in America causing contamination and immediate cancellation of all wheat orders from the area concerned, who will be liable for any economic loss to Australia’s $7.1 billion per year wheat industry if it is contaminated with deregulated GM wheat varieties?

More information can be found in the attached scientific briefing paper, written in everyday English.

If you are concerned, please send an email to the following people expressing your concern and asking “for Gene Technology Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019;12 to be blocked, by, for example, withdrawing the legislation, voting against the legislation, or disallowing it”. Tell them that you want these new GMOs to be regulated. Tell them that you want them to be identified as GMOs through the supply chain so that you have a choice about whether to use them or not. Tell them how you and your industry could be impacted if they are deregulated.

Senator Simon Birmingham, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Senator.birmingham@aph.gov.au

Hon. Mark Colton, Minister for Regional Services, Decentralisation and Local Government, Assistant Minister for Trade and Investment.  Mark.Colton.mp@aph.gov.au

Hon. Madeleine King, MP, Shadow Minister for Trade. Madeleine.King.MP@aph.gov.au

Senator Rex Patrick, Spokesperson for Environment, Trade and Investment, Centre Alliance Party.

Senator.patrick@aph.gov.au

Senator Jordan Steele-John, Spokesperson for Trade, the Greens.  Senator.steele-john@aph.gov.au

Senator Bridget McKenzie, Minister for Agriculture, and Leader of the Nationals in the Senate.   Senator.mckenzie@aph.gov.au

Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources. Joel.fitzgibbon.mp@aph.gov.au

Hon. Rebekha Sharkie, Spokesperson for Agriculture, Centre Alliance Party. Rebekha.sharkie@aph.gov.au

Senator Janet Rice, Spokesperson for Agriculture, the Greens. Senator.rice@aph.gov.au

Please also feel free to look up your local member of Federal Parliament and any Senators from your State to send them a similar email. A list of Federal Government politicians can be found here:

https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/03%20Senators%20and%20Members/32%20Members/Lists/MemList.pdf?la=en

Please feel free to send this email and the attached scientific document to other farmers.

Yours sincerely

Dr Judy Carman

Dr Judy Carman BSc (Hons) PhD MPH MPHAA

Epidemiologist and Biochemist

Director

Institute of Health and Environmental Research

PO Box 155

Kensington Park, South Australia, 5068

 

Radiant heat and gravity control our world, not CO2

The Saltbush Club today announced the formation of the “Saltbush Solar Activity Watch” led by Mr David Archibald.


The Executive Director of Saltbush, Mr Viv Forbes, said it was obvious to everyone except school teachers, the ABC and ALP, the Greens and the leaders of CSIRO that the sun is the main driver of weather and climate on Earth.

“This giant ball of nuclear power in the sky beams solar radiation and exerts gravitational force on everything on earth,” Mr Forbes said.

“These two solar forces, radiant heat and gravity, control our world.

“Radiant heat on an inclined rotating Earth drives the winds and the ocean currents, produces rain and snow, powers cyclones and storms, and affects the cloud-forming cosmic radiation that hits the earth.

“Gravitational forces from the sun, the moon and other planets create atmospheric tides that also affect weather. They also create tides in the oceans and ground waters as well as “Earth Tides” in crustal rocks that affect the timing of Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

“The ancient Greeks and Egyptians, South African water engineers and Australia’s most famous weather forecaster, Inigo Jones, all knew that the sun was a key factor in weather/rainfall cycles. Most of the world’s calendars are based on movements in the solar system, and ancient monuments from Stonehenge, to the Pyramids, to the Americas are testament to the pervasive influence of sun and planets in human history.

“Solar cycles have been observed for over 2,000 years and sunspots have been recorded in detail since the invention of the telescope in 1610. This record shows that cold periods like the Little Ice Age have coincided with periods of low sunspot numbers.

“David Archibald’s analysis of solar activity suggests that the sun has driven a warming phase since about 1900 but probably entered a new cooling phase about 2006.

“A new cooling era would play havoc with world food supply, and those who rely on unreliable wind/solar energy will regret their choices.

“With reckless bravado, foolish Western politicians and their minions have placed all of our bets on an old fading gelding called “Global Warming”. They have not noticed a vigorous white stallion, “Global Cooling” which is racing down the straight.

“Even a small cooling will reduce world food supply in three ways.

“Firstly, any reduction in surface temperature will reduce crop growth and growing season in all sub-polar regions.

“Secondly, reduced solar radiation will reduce evaporation from the oceans and must reduce precipitation on land.

“And, worst of all, cooling surface temperature on the oceans will cause oceans to absorb more carbon dioxide plant food, so plant/crop growth will be lower than in today’s warm well-fertilised atmosphere.

“Carbon dioxide has never driven world climate and will play an even smaller part in future.”

The first Saltbush “Solar Activity Watch” by David Archibald can be found here:
http://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/solar-activity.pdf

Cosmic Cycles, not carbon dioxide control climate:
https://carbon-sense.com/2016/02/14/cycles-control-climate/#more-1559

The Sunspot Cycle:
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

Sunspots and Rainfall Cycles:
https://carbon-sense.com/2008/05/26/alexander-2008/

 

Australia in boots and all with climate racketeers at Poland conference

Liberal and Labor supported 46 emissaries now back home to spread climate scare stories while the absent US throws a party to celebrate fossil fuels

December 16, 2018

Negotiators from around the world struck an eleventh-hour deal Saturday, laying out rules to implement the Paris Agreement and keep the landmark 2015 climate accord intact.

But it wasn’t easy.

The two-week, drawn-out fight that included a rehashing of old battles and the introduction of new ones stretched late into the night here at the COP 24 UN climate conference in Katowice, Poland. The pitched battle hints at challenges to come in the global fight against climate change as the new world order continue to face a wave of political pressure that has put a strain on international cooperation.

15 December 2018, Poland, Katowice:  Australia sent 46 bureaucrats agreeing to shut down the remnants of domestic industry.  President Michal Kurtyka (M) of the UN Climate Change Conference COP24, and other participants of the climate summit are pleased about the decision of the compromise at the world climate summit. The aim of the agreement is to limit global warming to well below two degrees. Photo: Monika Skolimowska/dpa-Zentralbild/dpa (Photo by Monika Skolimowska/picture alliance via Getty Images)

“It has been a long road,” said Polish Energy State Secretary Michał Kurtyka, who served as President of the conference. “This deal hangs in fragile balance, we will all have to give in order to gain.

The issues on the table in Katowice were largely technical questions centering on accounting, finance and seemingly arcane word choices that signal how aggressively countries will cut their emissions. But geopolitics never lurked far from the surface, and the urgency of climate change never proved great enough to keep the politics from bubbling up and disrupting proceedings.

“People are pulling away at the edges of the multilateral system and you wonder whether or not it’s going to unravel further,” said Rachel Kyte, who headed the World Bank’s climate-change program and who now leads Sustainable Energy for All, before the final decision. “Is the beginning of something bigger? How do we cope with it?”

The potential for disruption was clear from the beginning. The U.S., the world’s biggest economy and second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, promised to exit the Paris Agreement last year under President Trump’s direction. This left a void in leadership even as the U.S. officially remains in the talks until it’s eligible to withdraw in 2020. That void opened the door for others to rebel, particularly in places where climate change does not jive with the priorities of populist or authoritarian governments.

In a highly-publicized affair, the U.S. held an event promoting fossil fuels, during which a White House official argued that the country was injecting a dose of “reality” in the face of “alarmism” around climate change. The event won the support of Australia, whose ambassador for the environment joined the panel. And a senior administration official said that other countries had conveyed that they appreciate the U.S. perspective even if they don’t feel comfortable stating so publicly. “They don’t talk about it as much,” said a senior administration official. But, “there’s an appreciation for the realism.”

 

In another conflict, Brazil faced off against the rest of the world when it threatened to reject any deal because of language that would fix an accounting loophole that gives the country double credit for preserving forests in the Amazon. The rest of world protested, but Brazil refused to budge and in the final hours negotiators decided to punt the issue to a future conference.

One of the biggest clamors of the conference came as four oil producing countries, including the U.S, Russia and Saudi Arabia, questioned the validity of climate science and refused to recognize the legitimacy of a report from the IPCC, the UN’s climate science body, showing the effects of climate change if temperatures rise more than 1.5°C.

Changing geopolitics even hit in places where governments care deeply about the threat of climate change. The wave of populism in the European Union fractured the block, weakening its negotiating position. Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a longtime climate negotiations expert, cited political change in Italy, the ongoing Brexit fiasco and the weak positions of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emanuel Macron as contributing to the E.U.’s struggle to wrangle other countries. “There’s always some of these clashes, but it’s more acute here,” he says.

And then there’s the U.S. relationship with China, which is in disarray over ongoing trade issues. The two countries, while often at odds in previous negotiations, often served as mediators between developing and developed countries and helped broker key deals. “There was a capacity to be a convener, each of us,” says Todd Stern, who served as the chief U.S. negotiator under Obama, of the U.S. and China. “That’s not available right now.”

All of these disruptions helped push the talks long into overtime, with a mix of yawns and applause when Kurtyka finally called the conference to an end more than a day later than originally scheduled. The deal that resulted came as a relief: the multilateral approach to fighting climate change will live to see another day.

At the same time, the new agreement left much to be desired from nearly all parties. “I trust that whenever you found dissatisfaction in one part of the text, it was balanced with satisfaction in another,” said Kurtyka.

Perhaps more importantly, all but the most out-of-touch acknowledged that the deal leaves much work to be done if the world actually hopes to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C, a level that the new IPCC report shows could wipe some countries off the map and cause widespread devastation across the planet.

“Carbon emissions keep rising and rising,” Mohamed Nasheed, former president of the Maldives, told reporters before the deal was finalized. “All we seem to be doing is talking and talking and talking.”

As countries continue to wind through the difficult international negotiation process, the obvious answer to make up for the gap caused by political disruption lies outside of the political system. Indeed, some local governments, businesses and apolitical multilateral organizations are already trying to take charge.

For most of the two decades that the U.N. has held these meetings, talk has focused on how to make action on climate change happen at a nebulous point in the future. Now, in large part thanks to the Paris Agreement, that action has already begun. And, while the international system is doomed to be defined by the least common denominator, many cities, states and businesses have stepped up to the challenge. In the months leading up to this conference, the World Bank committed $200 billion in climate investments, a slew of businesses lobbied for market solutions to climate change and alliances of sub-national governments in Japan, Argentina and Mexico joined the U.S. in making commitments to fill the gap in their national governments’ efforts.

“To combat climate change we need much much more than government,” says Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and a central framer of the Paris Agreement. “It’s not for state only. It’s for society.”

The only issue is that none of this is moving fast enough. The IPCC report shows that temperatures have already risen 1°C as a result of human activity and that figure will surpass 1.5°C as early as 2030 without a dramatic shift in direction. A lot of work is necessary to facilitate such a shift. And that’s going to be a huge challenge so long as political tensions persist.

Write to Justin Worland at justin.worland@time.com.

 

Read the rest of this entry

Scientist slams CSIRO for fraudulently receiving research funds over CO2

Submission to the Independent Commission Against Corruption  by Douglas Cotton, B.Sc., B.A., Dip. Bus. Admin over Greenhouse (greenhoax) events

From 2011 until the present I have spent thousands of hours in study and communication with other scientists in regard to atmospheric and sub-terrestrial physics, in particular as to how it relates to the issue regarding the alleged warming of Earth (and Venus) by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I have written three papers, the first (“Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics”) having been peer-reviewed in 2012 when it appeared on several websites. This paper and two others are now appearing at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605. From my research and application of the laws of physics I can say with certainty that the so-called “greenhouse gases” (which are mostly water vapour and carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere) can do nothing but cool the surface of Earth, not warm it as is alleged by the CSIRO. By being a part of a world-wide movement promulgating the false claims about carbon dioxide supposedly causing warming, the CSIRO is fraudulently receiving funds for useless research which does little more than make the obvious conclusion that more carbon dioxide leads to more radiation from such.

 With several Freedom of Information questions directed to the CSIRO I have come to the conclusion that they have failed to pay due diligence in checking what is false physics supposedly supporting “science” claiming this warming.  If that science were correct then rainforests (with about 4% water vapour above them) should be about 50 to 80 degrees hotter than dry regions like deserts which may have around 1% or less of the greenhouse gas water vapour above them.  The correct physics has been known by some physicists since the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt explained in 1876 how it is gravity acting on air molecules which makes the base of the atmosphere warmer than the top of the troposphere, not radiation from cold greenhouse gases supposedly causing heat transfer into the already-warmer surface.

 I have pointed out to the CSIRO in notes attached to my FOI requests and reference to the above three papers that their “science” is obviously false. There are others like myself with qualifications in physics who also know it is false. In fact there are hundreds of published papers saying similar. Yet the CSIRO refuses to look into such papers and arrogantly claims their “scientists” are correct. Such people appear to be those from the relatively young science of climatology rather than their physicists who ought to understand the physics of heat transfer processes and maximum entropy production as happens in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The correct physics is in my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”  

 The CSIRO has been asked in FOI requests to produce their physics and also evidence of warming by water vapour and carbon dioxide.  They have produced no such physics and no papers containing empirical evidence of actual surface warming by these gases. Their cited papers merely assume that more carbon dioxide causes more warming. Their science claims that water vapour does most of “33 degrees” of warming of the global mean surface temperature, whereas in fact my study of data clearly indicates it cools the surface because it reduces the magnitude of the gravitationally-induced tropospheric temperature gradient.

 Despite all this evidence and correct physics that I have sent them, and the explanations they have been provided with as to why their science is false, they persist in deliberately failing to look into this, and so I can only conclude that they realise that to tell the world the science is wrong would lead to many of their staff losing research jobs that are funded by the government based on their false science. I can only conclude that this amounts to corruption.