.
Congratulations to Tara Brown (pictured) and the 60 minutes team for they’re program last night - Crunch Time.
60 Minutes is Australia’s most-watched current affairs show and for years has run a Global Warming / the climate is doomed agenda. The program last night was a significant turning point in mainstream media’s reporting of the Global warming caused by human debate.
To date only bloggers like us and the Australian Newspaper have been the only media who have dared too contradict the global warming “consensus”.
.
TARA BROWN: For almost 20 ears now, we have travelled to these places. Places, which - if you believe the dire warnings of global warming - may be doomed. Certainly our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd believes them.
PM KEVIN RUDD: But economic cost (sic) of not acting is massive, it’s through the roof. Think about food production, the Murray, think about the impact on tourism in QLD, no more Barrier Reef, Kakadu, no more Kakadu. Think about the impact on jobs, it’s huge.
.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (pictured) and his Labor government are trying too deceive viewers by suggesting they’re carbon tax will make the slightest difference to the climate. The only impact of the new tax will be reducing Australian jobs and dramatically increasing our cost of living and not, as he claims saving jobs.
.
TARA BROWN: How certain are you that mankind is the cause behind global warming?
PM KEVIN RUDD: Well, I just look at what the scientists say. There’s a group of scientists called the International Panel on Climate Change - 4000 of them.
.
Stop right there! What was blindingly obvious from the interview is that Rudd does not have a grasp of the actual facts. Who knows where he got the figure of 4,000 IPCC scientists? The IPCC report he refers to was signed by 2,500 people which according to DR David Evens is made up over over 50% UN bureaucrats, leaving less than 1,200 scientists.
Rudds Bulls**t exaggeration wasn’t picked up by Brown nor the fact that the IPCC report which Rudd hangs his whole need to self harm our economy has a number of the actual 2,500 who strongly disagree with IPCC reports conclusion.
.
Despite that Kevin Rudd BELIEVES the IPCC report to be gospel.
.
PM KEVIN RUDD: … And what they (IPCC scientists) say to us is it’s happening and it’s caused by human activity.
.
To 60 Minutes credit they tried to give the program balance by interviewing Australia’s NO1 alarmist and as it turns out joker - Tim Flannery (pictured):
.
DR TIM FLANNERY: Stop burning coal and other fossil fuels and stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because that is what is warming the atmosphere and that is what’s driving the changes.
.
Just a few Flannery’s dire predictions that have proven to be fantasy:
.
In 2004 he warned global warming could leave Sydney’s dam’s dry by 2007 with bushfires circling the city and no water to put them out. Today they are 66% full.
He warned Perth would be so devastated by drought that it would be a “ghost city” in decades. In fact, this year Perth recorded its wettest April on record.
The ice caps would melt so fast that the seas would lap the roofs of “an eight-storey building”. In fact, the IPCC report says at worst case senario the seas will rise this century by 59cm.
Hurricanes & cyclones would become more frequent. In fact cyclones are less frequent and less severe than they use to be.. Thousands of scientists disagree with Flannery.
.
.
From there 60 Minutes moves into overdrive:
.
PROF. RICHARD LINDZEN: We need CO-2. It’s not a poison, it’s not a pollutant. It’s essential for life on earth. I mean how much are we going to depend on people’s ignorance in order to produce panic?… Sounds like our own Viv Forbes.
DAVID EVANS: (T)here’s no evidence that carbon emissions cause any significant warming at all…
TARA BROWN: So statistically, in the last seven years, the flattening and perhaps even slight cooling of temperatures - is that significant?
DAVID EVANS: Yes, yes it is significant. Once it gets up to five years or so it’s really quite significant. Whatever was driving the temperatures up has taken a break for a while and meanwhile carbon emissions have continued and the level of carbon in the atmosphere has gone up about 5% since 2001, yet we see no more warming.
.
Tara Brown should never take up professional poker. Have a look at the 60 Minutes video and watch the incredulous look come across her face as Rudd trots out the dogma :
.
PM KEVIN RUDD: Here’s a measurement which people should just sit back and pay a bit of attention to - the 12 hottest years in human history have occurred in the last 13 years. That’s a fact.
.
Errrrr Sorry Kevin - That is not right.
.
TARA BROWN: It’s not my position to correct you Prime Minister but Ive been told that in fact during the middle ages the global temperatures were two to three degrees warmer than now. Certainly we’ve had the hottest 12 years in recent history but the planet’s been a lot hotter.
.
Caught out Rudd retreats back to his unsakeable belief in the IPCC report:
.
PM KEVIN RUDD: Well, I stand by what the International Panel of Climate Change Scientists have had to say. There will always be argy-bargy about elements of the detail.
.
.
CAUGHT talking Bulls**t Rudd describes it as “elements of the detail”? Obviously he’s heard nothing of the discredited “Hockey Stick” theory that Al Gore used in his film to scare the b-jesus out of people.
.
Tara Brown then completes the Job:
.
TARA BROWN: But one thing climate scientists agree on - if global warming is caused by CO-2 emissions then the CO-2 will leave a distinct signature their computer models predict a big red hotspot above the equator. The problem is thousands of weather balloons equipped with some very sophisticated thermometers have measured the temperatures in the atmosphere to test the theory, and guess what, no hotspots.
DAVID EVANS: There’s no hotspot, there’s no hotspot at all. It’s not even a little hotspot and it’s missing. We couldn’t find it.
.
Then Rudd tries to recover with this spin. I mean after watching his performance you have to ask - “Have they looked at ALL the detail” - Apparently not.
.
PM KEVIN RUDD: The key thing is, how do you bring carbon pollution down in an economically responsible fashion? And having looked at all the detail this is the best way forward.
TARA BROWN: But if you believe the sceptics, and carbon dioxide isn’t to blame for global warming then we face massive change for no good reason.
DAVID EVANS: Isn’t it a bit dopey to wreck the economy for a purely theoretical reason when the alleged symptom, warming, stopped six years ago.
.
.
.
60 Minutes has skipped miles ahead of any other mainstream media in Australia. Top marks.
For ages I’ve said that Rudds National Emissions Trading Scheme is the proverbial “Emperors New Cloths”.
Well last night Tara Brown & 60 Minutes pointed and said “look the Emperor has nothing on”.
.
………………………………………………………………….
.
.
Have Your say!
Related Posts
- Garnaut Report Knocks the Hot Air From Kevin Rudd
- Kevin Rudd Accuses Brendan Nelson of being a Climate Change Denier
- The Emperor’s (Kevin Rudd) New Clothes - A Fairytale
- Are Kevin Rudd & Dr Wendy Craik Lying about the Science?
- Is PM Kevin Rudd another James Hansen Disciple?
Tags: 60 Minutes, David Evens, Kevin Rudd, NETS, Tara Brown, Tim Flannery
Steve, You beat me to it.
60 minutes deserved to be congratulated. At last mainstream media actually asking questions about the science behind this scam to increase taxes and increase GST revenue by stealth.
It was blatantly obvious that our Prime Minister is relying solely on IPCC predictions and hasn’t questioned the basic principles that drive climate change other than “man made carbon dioxide emissions”.
Neither has he considered the impact on the Australian economy by jumping in boots and all while other carbon dioxide emitters sit back and wait for conclusive proof that we are destroying the world.
Realistically the Prime Minister did himself no favours with his answers to the questions raised by 60 minutes last night. Dr Evans at least discussed the facts.
Congratulations to 60 minutes again. At last mainstream media giving a more balanced coverage!!
As a modeler, David Evans should know that the modeling in fact does not suggest that an ETS (no not a tax if you don’t know the difference go read an economics textbook) will not wreck the economy.
This site yet again does a disservice to the agricultural community taking the skeptical agenda on board without even a hint of a pinch of salt. Especially given that the vast majority of the world’s leading scientists think the skeptics are out and out wrong (at best, and deceitful at worst).
You would do well reading some content at http://bravenewclimate.com/ written by one of Australia’s leading climate scientists.
G’day Matt,
Good to hear from you. You make some interesting Points.
Could you please point me to the economic modeling on the effects of the ETS that you refer too. I’d be really interested to read it.
I’m not aware of the benefits of an ETS to Australian Agriculture that you speak of. I know that PM Rudd himself says that all Australians will have to bear some pain. I know in the case of Agriculture that will be a whole raft of additional costs that they won’t be able to pass on, but I’d be really happy if you could tell me the benefits I’ve missed.
I am aware of the good professor Barry Brook. Seems the good professor is having a few ‘problems’ of his own. You might like to read about those - here
In particular you can follow a live forum that he is having with Bishop Hill where the good professor Brook is ‘under the pump’
Thank you Matt, I look forward to your reply and your further information.
How could I refute what you have said… I mean Andrew Bolt - you clearly are an even handed commentator with the interests of our wonderful rural community first and foremost in your mind….
1) Yes I admit it you have to assume that Global warming is real for the ETS to be a good thing. I choose to follow science, you can follow Bolt if you please in which case don’t read on.
2) Good - now we are working with CO2 reduction being a good thing, well then it is fairly basic economics that you can trade permits, or you can introduce a tax on each emission. Basic economic supply and demand type theory is clear that tradable permits is the least cost method of reduction.
3) Lowest cost reduction = good for all = good for ag.
Now if you don’t agree with that then the only real option is that you believe there is a grand global conspiracy leading us to believe that GW is real… so how about you make things interesting and let us all know what you really think in that regard.
It really is not worth us repeating a science vs pseudo science discussion as we could read that on any number of sites by people who probably know more than us.
G’day Matt,
This is a long response, I apologize - but you have asked some very searching questions? Thank you.
At Agmates we are only interested in one thing - that is whatever is good for rural and regional communities. Nothing else - I am 100% biased in that respect and make no apologies to anyone for it.
You are correct in saying that IF Global Warming is real than Reducing Carbon Emissions Globally is a good thing.
1. Your comment about following Andrew Bolt is off the mark. I gave you the link to Bolts Story on Barry Brook because you stated he was one of Australia’s leading climate scientists. I gave the link because it had many links of relevance and just saved me writing all of that.
Did you read the Bishop Hill article in its entirety? Did you read the forum with Brook and Bishop Hill? What all of the links show is that the science is still being hotly debated by scientists themselves.
My point is that to say the science is settled on the issue is a myth that has been perpetrated by people with vested interests such as politicians (huge revenues from permits), Big Corporate Financial Institutions / Banks (who will be the big winners financially out of any carbon trading scheme with commissions on each transaction. It is actually predicted Carbon trading will be the the greatest boost to financial markets ever seen)and the mainstream media (who love to scare the public - bad news sells newspapers, TV etc).
Having said that I’m not a conspiratorial. I like to think I’m a realist. It just a fact that there is huge money involved. In the 1st 6 months of this year to June the value of Carbon Trading globally has been $AUD64.6Billion with 70% of all trades done in Europe.
If you’d like to see a brief analysis of the history of Carbon Trading see here.
You’ll note at this site and many others the big winners financially from any cap and trade scheme are only governments and big corporate Financial institutions.
Hence why they have poured $50billion globally into trying to prove that CO2 causes global warming. They have to to protect that sort of investment - you would too.
Hence why anybody - scientist or lay person who says - hey wait a minute the science is not settled is cast as a ‘denier’ (holocaust overtones) and I think when the churches ruled the world and anybody came up with a theory that threatened the churches authority was branded a witch or a hieratic. Governments and large financial institutions have a huge investment to protect.
What Agmates is doing is showing people that it is a Myth that there is global consensus by scientists that CO2 is causing global warming. No such consensus exists. Certainly 31,072 scientists in the USA alone including 9,000 Phd’s have signed a petition to say they don’t agree.
Matt is it the above 31,000 scientist that that you are referring to as practitioners
of pseudo science or is it these world renown scientists?
If you trust the organizations that stand to make vast billions / fortunes from the implementation carbon trading - governments, major corporations eg banks and financial institution then you can sleep easy.
I actually don’t believe they give a zot about the environment, all they can see is vast sea’s of money that is there for the taking.
All the while every industry and citizen must carry the financial burden. Our farmers who operate totally without the benefit of tariff protection enjoyed by our competitor nations are potentially one of the biggest losers in all of this.
And if in the end it turns out that CO2 is not causing the world to warm, causing catastrophe - what then? Do you think the Government or the Big Corporate Banks will care? I don’t?
What I believe is let the science sort itself out before we go off ‘half cocked’. Because if the government isn’t right they still win and we all lose. I’m not saying don’t fight pollution - that is a totally different issue.
Matt - Over to you.
Steve,
Matt just wants you to come along for the ride.
He wants us to simply believe unquestioning that there is a linkage between co2 and climate change. His unswerving fervour is to me signal for caution.
If the government/s felt the same urgency as the followers then governments would be much more engaged in effecting change. Like they would not be digging up coal faster than ever, they would be enticing people to put solar cells on their roofs and they would reward people who became self sufficient from renewable energy supply to their houses, the opposite is the case.
Sorry Matt some of us are interested in the truth and cannot be conned. For me it is becoming clear that science v pseudo science simply begs the question of who is on what side of the debate.
What I thought was once irrefutable seems politically corruptible/ed.
You may not have noticed but I intentionally did not assign ownership of pseudo science. But this debate is about politics, not science, really.
Do we make policy about a rabid fringe of people without peer reviewed science, or do we make it in line with mainstream - knowing if it is wrong it will only be a few years before those with the new knowledge manage to convince the rest of the scientists after rigorous peer review, and then some.
Shame on you Matt,
Questioning the facts as presented so beautifully by Tara Brown and Sixty Minutes…… Noted for their journalistic credibility.
Sorry in case you missed it in Agmates rave review I’ll just mention Tara Brown again.
I’m sorry but the debate is much more complicated than just politics.
Firstly there is the science. We have a divided camp. From my point of view I don’t think the science is anywhere near conclusive enough to put anyone in the position to introduce an emissions trading scheme.
To jump in early without reasonable knowledge from actual data on the impact of carbon dioxide and methane etc versus the other contributors like solar radiation is economically foolish.
Secondly there is the politics. As voters in the street, most of us have no idea what is going on inside the halls of parliament. However you can bet the big money lobbyists are there looking after the interests of big business; coal mining, petroleum companies, etc.
Several contributors to this web site have already raised the issue of the commissioning of many new coal mines, the lack of any real impetuous for all electric cars and (gasp) nuclear power in Australia. So we as voters make our decisions on what we see government doing to curb emissions.
When the big issues like nuclear power and a moratorium on new coal mines are missing from the debate, how is government going to convince the majority that they are serious about global carbon dioxide.
When massive government revenue is based on mining royalties and a fuel levy plus GST, it is an easy conclusion for the man in the street to see that it is government revenue that controls decision making in relation to carbon. How do you maintain a levy on fuel if we all convert to solar panels and electric cars? Hence the political realm now becomes economic.
Thirdly it is economics (money). While the government add campaign says “economists warn etc etc” where are the actual numbers? Why is there an add campaign when the price per tonne of carbon dioxide for an ETS is not published?
How can “economists warn” about anything when the dollar values are unknown and the science is uncertain? Global warming will have an economic impact on Australia, but the economics is like throwing a dart at a dart board.
If Australia introduces an ETI scheme and China, India and America don’t, that’s also going to be economically bad for Australia. If we have both an negative ETI impact and a global warming impact doesn’t that double the pain?
Isn’t it good that we can still debate an issue and the media like 60 Minutes has presented both sides of the most important issue of this century.
John Michelmore
Bachelor of Applied Science
Both sides of the debate??? If only they had.
As for advertising the price of carbon… that is like advertising a share price. It is a market based tool. We trade futures, we trade stocks, we trade options…. this is just trading carbon emission rights.
John maybe you can use you bachelor of applied science to point out ANY policy that a government has made in the last 10 years that has not been in an area where there are differences of opinion between scientists or other experts.
Do you suggest governments should NEVER make policy because of some minority group with some science to the contrary, even though that science is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community?
Your creation of genuine scientific division on the issue is simply bull sh*t to coin an agriculturally themed term. There will ALWAYS be scientists with different opinions on EVERY issue. Why is this expected to be any different.
When there is credible science showing that maybe CO2 is not such a problem, or that even if it is we are saved by a fluke of solar radiation fluctuation, then I’ll be the 1st to celebrate! but it is not there. Not yet anyway.
So your saying that 31,000 scientists that have signed the petition questioning the global warming science is not genuine scientific division.
Everyone to there own conclusion.
yes I am saying that the list to you refer is in itself completely bogus.
Hey Agmates sorry I somehow missed your long response in the middle there - sorry.
Actually I’m quite the conspiracy theorist by nature. Don’t think that being in the majority position on that issue is not something that I have found uncomfortable coming to terms with, and don;t think I don;t cringe at the ignorant comments by many recent “converts” for want of a better term.
And also excuse me if I’m a bit sceptical of agmates intentions… given you encourage farmers to cut down random trees as acts of civil disobedience… I must admit that one has me confused.
Next you’ll have the great ute and dog CO2 muster with 10,000 utes idling in a paddock for a weekend and then claiming GW is false because the earth did not warm up;)
random diversion - no Idea where I read it but there are something like a million people with PHds in the USA, so at best that list is in itself a tiny tiny minority.
NOw I have no problem with concerns about the eagerness of the world’s financil institutions and back room invisible organisations jumping on board. Clearly this has happened or people like me would not be in the majority and instead Al Gore would have put out a movie debunking climate change with false science.
But the fact that the major power brokers are on board does not damage the science. And as far as I can tell to make policy that denied GW would be to essentially dismiss science and the scientific method, and this would have to be applied across the board in terms of policy outcomes.
I mean look at 60 miinutes, DAvid evans not even a credible research scientist - he has never published ANYTHING to do with climate science in his life… if the science is in hot debate then SURELY they can do better than DAvid Evans.
To wrap up, and I’ve enjoyed the chat, the only way I can see that GW is a scam is that it is the greatest consipiracy ever involveing the cooperation of 95% of the world’s science community and governments… and if that is the case then what is the point of arguing because with that kind of influence they will do whatever they want regardless…
Oh not wrapping up at all sorry: but in terms of doing what is best for Aussie agriculture… well I’d put my money on doing what I could to prevent climate change now, and if the science falls in your favour in the next 3-5 years then bully for you. But if you wait 5-10 years to reduce carbon, and then the science really comes in showing GW is absolutely critical and is man made (note I already think it is I’m just looking from your POV) then it will be a lot more expensive to reduce CO2 emissions in 10 years because we would need to make deeper cuts faster.
Last aside: Ag shoudl really be more worried about supply of petro-related fertilisers that underwrite the industry on our nutrient impoverished soils.
p.s. I hoppe you getr the Citizens Electoral COuncil emails:)
http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=15
is a useful reference on consensus, and critiques the aforementioned survey. I was wrong 10,000,000 pHds in the USA alone…
G’day Matt,
You know the problem with this is that we can counter each other all day -
It’s a bit like dueling with balloons - good fun but we are never going to get a winner.
The facts are that there is a sizable number of scientist around the world in both camps - Alarmists & Deniers.
Thats my whole point - the science is not settled so why on earth go and hurt our economy, put 1,000’s out of work, and perform the greatest economic shift we’ll see in our lifetimes on something that may or may not be happening.
Matt - Just look outside - does the climate looked doomed to you? I don’t know what its like where you live, but its bloody spectacular here.
I ask people - just use your 5 senses - is the climate any different than it was a decade ago? A bit of commonsense would be in order in this whole debate.
Look outside… well I live in the city… but I’m quite sure that many many of your agricultural colleagues will look outside and on average over the past 10 years they would tell you that things look very very queer indeed. no rain, no water, doom and gloom. Now of course I know that is not really climate change… it is just a drought which may or may not be linked but is as likely linked to land management practices and water policy… but asking someone to look outside is not exactly climate science.
And you are of course right, I’m literally in the middle of an emaiil to arguably my best mate who is an out and out sceptic to the point of beliving it is in fact the global conspiracy being played out at the highest levels of invisible global power. Not unlinked to the South Ossetia dramas. Is he a nutter and conspiracy theorist? if he was a net blogger I’d certainly think so but my best mate? I assure you I take the science and the politics very very seriously and do my best to try and remain inpartial to the evidence as it arises.
The facts are that there are alarmists and deniers, and then in the middle the vast majority of scientists who side with the alarmists but wish they didn;t stretch the facts so much to prove a point.
Then lastly you ask “Thats my whole point - the science is not settled so why on earth go and hurt our economy, put 1,000’s out of work, and perform the greatest economic shift we’ll see in our lifetimes on something that may or may not be happening.”
Well that is the argument I’d use the other way… on balance I believe that introducing an ETS is the lowest cost option of either all the ways you could reduce carbon, or the do nothing scenario of unabated emissions.
Of course the probable total global economic meltdown that the more radical economists are predicting may well leave us never knowing, and by the time we get emissions and economies back up to today’s levels the science will probably be well and truly sorted.
Hey Matt,
Your talking common sense, well done, I respect that .
I agree with you in saying that the alarmist “stretch the facts so much to prove a point”. When I and others see and hear they’re outrageous claims our “Bulls**t Metre” immediately max’s out.
You know the vast majority of farmers I’d estimate are skeptics. What a lot of city and town dwellers don’t realize is that the weather is along with their families the most important element in their lives. They accurately record every drop of rain that they’re property receives, the day they get it.
I know farmers who have rainfall records for their properties that go back over 100 years. Farmers are out in the weather everyday regardless of whether its boiling hot or freezing cold, they can’t sit at home - they have livestock to tend to.
I respect that you are informed enough not to state that the drought being experienced in certain parts of Australia is due to climate change (unlike our government). You only have to go to the governments own BOM site to see that its all happened before.
Cheers mate - Hey I thought the 10,000 utes bit in your previous comment was funny.
Matt,
Not many of us are scientists, or climatologists, but for my little area in Southern Queensland the rain records go back to mid 1800,s and the decade we have just traveled through looks not a blink out of place.
We have had dry times and wet times similar in the past. My common sense tells me change here is minimal yet I know change is constant…the cooling of the 1500’s for instance.
I reckon each one of us are asking questions of ourselves, as well as each other, I would love to be as convinced as you but the information at hand seems to clearly point toward caution.
If it was as clear as your side of the debate assert then a debate should not be possible, it must surely be black and white.
And once again, where is the conviction by government that we must urgently reduce the CO2 by producing our energy needs via non CO2 producing systems…To me I simply do not see that conviction and no matter what the balance is in your mind to do with the science this to me is a signal that those in the know are themselves unconvinced.
Also as an aside a very good friend of mine just visited Northern Canada etc and found the locals, watching ice reducing say that this has all happened before and they are not concerned, they expect it to return in due course.
Very little of this is science but it is the kind of information the scientists will need to counter to prove in the minds of ordinary people their contention that a catastrophe is imminent.
But if you asked me do we want to reduce pollution, our footprint on earth, do we want to be cautious and prudent about the way we behave my answer would of course be yes, lets get on with it.
We will still need to feed our people, but we can utilise science to improve the efficiency of all the various non carbon producing energies and given the resources we can probably discover as yet undiscovered answers to our problems, we make advances every day.
Hello All,
I am amazed that everyone is still going on about CO2 being the cause for global warming and the bad element for climate change.
When is everyone, including our so called illustrious leaders, going to realize that the main offender in any level of global warming is CO. The world needs CO2 to survive, without it we all would not exist.
The ETS is just another twisted politically manufactured tool to enable the government to introduce their rotten dirty air tax, whichever way you look at it.
The government is hell bent on gouging out as much as they are able from everyone’s pay packet and pensions they possibly can by any grubby little underhanded tactic available, and let the people wallow in it.
If we, the people, allow the government to introduce the ETS then we all will be paying big time for years to come for no real reason.
I think it is time the Australian people stood up and said a resounding NO to Mr. Rudd and his unwanted air tax.
lol @ ken
Hi Agmates,
I’m actually disappointed I missed Mr Rudd stuttering and stammering over his comments.
The problem with 60 minutes isn’t the program but the people that watc it. They would generally be educated people who actually do research these topics in order to make their own decision.
We need these types of facts to be published in the Womans Day and Zoo Weekly, where the likelihood of the reader of these publication being prepared to search for both sides of the story would be limited.
The so called education of the general public of the effects of the ETS isn’t balanced one bit, and I can see that there would be a referendum on this and it would get through because people have been brain washed by sensationalism. Balance debate is all I ask for, when my children’s future is on the line.
Can anyone clarify if the science is available for producers to actually assess the carbon status of their operation. As realistically, these figures will be required before any farmer can be taxed on their carbon emissions. This is the science that we need.
Coincidentally I just got this event-email today, but I’m pretty sure that is why Agriculture is getting some years of grace as there is a lot of uncertainty about the greenhouse impacts/benefits.
SEMINAR:
Global warming potential of wheat production in Western Australia, by Louise Barton and Wahidul Biswas. Soil Science and Centre for Land Rehabilitation Seminar Series.
Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:00 - Agriculture Lecture Theatre
Louise Barton(1) and Wahidul Biswas(2): (1) School of Earth & Geographical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, (2) Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley
Abstract: How much greenhouse gas is emitted in the production of one tonne of wheat in south-western Australia?
Greenhouse gases emitted from agricultural cropping systems mainly include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).
All these gases need to be accounted for when assessing the overall impact of agricultural production systems on our atmosphere. ‘Life cycle assessment’ (LCA) is an internationally recognised approach for calculating greenhouse gas emissions from production systems.
However, the accuracy of an LCA of greenhouse gas emissions will depend on correctly identifying and quantifying emission sources.
Our understanding of soil N2O emissions resulting from applying synthetic N fertilisers to rain-fed cropping systems in semi-arid environments, such as the Western Australian grain-belt, are not well understood.
Overseas estimates suggest that 1% of all N applied to soil will be emitted as N2O. However, extrapolating international emission factors to estimate N2O emissions from Western Australian grain-belt is not appropriate due to differences in N fertiliser management (type, rate and application method), soil types and climate: factors demonstrated to influence annual agricultural N2O emissions.
The overall aim of our seminar is to present the life cycle global warming potential of wheat production in south-western Australian by: a) quantifying in situ N2O emissions from the Western Australian grain-belt and b) incorporating the local N2O emission data into a LCA of greenhouse emissions from the production of one tonne of wheat.
For more information:
Gavan McGrath
gavan.mcgrath@uwa.edu.au
Starts : Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:00
Ends : Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:00
Last Updated : Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:51
This event can be viewed on the web: Here
Please ensure you check this site closer to the date, as no further updates will be emailed.
–
What’s On at UWA - http://events.uwa.edu.au/
The University of Western Australia CRICOS Code: 00126G
G’day Matt,
Thanks for this info mate. No doubt it will be of great interest to Our WA Agmates in the cropping areas will be interested.
Your comment did not appear straight way as any post with a couple of links goes to moderation first - its a spam security thing.
Thanks again.
MattB,
That’s great, but can you imagine how much research is going to be required to actually come up with the right figures. I look forward to seeing the results.
Maybe the results will be similar to Dr David Wilson, who came out recently and said that if we were to reduce our sheep and cattle numbers by 30% and increase our kangaroo numbers from 37 million to 175 million we will reduce the total emissions by 3%.
Do you know what that population would do to the BIODIVERSITY of our Savannah grazing lands. There would be greater damage done than what the current ruminant population would do.
There needs to be a balance between humanity and environment. Is there currently too many people in the world? Should we have mass cullings so that way the requirement to produce wheat, red meat and anything that comes from the land and produces CO2 (the essence of life)will be reduced, and problem solve.
Go tell that to the Humanitarians!!!! Yeah RIGHT!!!
Now I know you don’t like my mate Barry, but here is his blow by blow critique of the 60 minutes report according to the mainstream science:
G’day Matt,
Had a look at Barry’s article. Title - “Spot the recycled rebuttal.”
I wonder if he realizes the irony of the title.
All of his rebuttal is links to sites rebutting the skeptics rebuttals.
Its hilarious really, because all he has done is recycled a heap of anti - Skeptic sites to rebuke the 60 minutes program. Do you get the irony?
Mate have you seen Agmates latest article quoting Emeritus Professor Philip Stott. I’m sure Barry will have a site to link us to rebutting Stott’s common sense arguments.
I had no idea that scientists around the world spent a lot of their time trying to discredit each others work.
Well he is pretty up front with
“I don’t refute this nonsense by constructing a new argument each time which, point-by-point, shows why their claims are not supported by the evidence… I rebutt by hyperlinking to some of the wealth of explanatory material out there on the world wide web. I focus primarily on the science content of the piece, except where non-science arguments are clearly false and demand correction.”
The different being that Barry links to stuff he knows is peer reviewed. But anyway I’m not here to defend Mr Brooks’ methods… but certainly as a blog it makes the points well.
I’m sure he is as surprised that a farmer spends so much time refuting credible climate science;)
No I didn’t read Stott, but I see he says the world has stopped warming, which clearly it has not - as per Prof Brook’s blog and countless others according to the evidence when not cherry picked post 1998 ignoring all earlier data…
hmm I thought I’d deleted the bit about links to peer reviewed… that is not a statement I stand by.
Matt,
I admire your honesty and am pleased I did not have to point that out to you.
So you see the irony of the title and why he comes under criticism in some quarters. He can be very cavalier for one of Australia’s leading