How the Australian Labor Government is destroying farmers

Here is a very well-researched presentation about the Australian Federal governments plans to restrict the water allocation to farmers, and in the process destroy Australian food production capacity at a time of high food prices, a global food shortage, not to mention at a huge cost to the lives of farmers. There are of course other reasons to object to this policy:

1. The nonsensical priority given to the ecology of a river ecosystem which produces 40% of Australia's food.

2. The dubious scientific research upon which the Minister of Water Resources is functioning

3. The requirement that Australia preserve all rivers in their pre-European state

4. The fact that the historic significance of this river ecosystem is in question. At various times in the past during droughts, you could drive a car across the river without a bridge, because there was so little flow.

5. Our government has a terrible track record of managing the environment. Does anyone remember the NSW State Labor governments decision to pay too much for farm assets in the Far West of NSW to secure water rights. Does anyone remember the fact that the high value of these water rights was the result of excessive allocation of licenses by successive governments. Then what of the Federal administration, which had Queensland holding captive water and in the process denying NSW farmers downstream. Is there any sign of good management practice.

It gets worse. Listen to this video and act in support of Australian farmers. They are not the greatest intellectuals in the Australian political diaspora, but then you have a habit of electing our most talented talkers. How about becoming a person prepared to take action to support our farmers.

Let's acknowledge that the Murray-Darling River is just too important to return to its 'natural state', whatever that is. Let's acknowledge that there is a need to transform some natural ecosystems to ensure optimal food production, whilst preserving other areas for 'environmental values'. This is a very well-researched documentary.

One flaw that occurs to me in the documentary is the lack of consideration for the efficiency of farmers in their water utilisation. I recall arguments to the effect that these farmers reliant on irrigation water were hugely wasteful in their use of water, i.e. They were using open ditches to distribute water rather than piped water which reduced seepage and evaporation. I have no idea whether farmers have addressed these issues in the last decade since I first became interested in this issue. Yes, that is how long government has been sitting on this issue. Yes, democracy is a very efficient decision-making instrument. That is why we have compiled a great deal of 'praise' for our national institution for 'action'.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Humans are hard wired for stupidity according to Yale University fellow

A lot of what is posited as science is really nothing more than conjecture, and blatant rationalisations are just as common. Read this article from Yale University and you will hear that 'Humans have been wired by evolution to respond to the most immediate threats, ones they can hear or smell or see".

This would be amusing if the implications of such quackery were not so common in the media. The implication is that our conceptual faculty has a tendency towards the concrete, range-of-the-moment thinking, i.e. like feeding your children, and in the process neglecting the more abstract issues like climate change.

The reality is that this is true. But we are not starving. Humans have a great deal of leisure or free time these days, and surviving the next few decades, and ensuring their kids survive is important. The reality is that most of them are not conceptual, not for genetic 'hardwired' reasons, but as a matter of choice. Interestingly, most of them share the same collectivist philosophies of socialism, environmentalism, animal liberation, liberalism, democracy and conservatism that are 'concrete-bound'. If you are wondering if I left anyone out....I most certainly did....the fringe 'idiots' who know how to think critically. They have since time began been very unpopular...just ask Galileo. Critics are not liked by hysterical people with political agendas.

What difference would it make if people were more conceptual thinkers? Well, for a start they might repudiate the welfare state which shackles productive people, which leads governments to favours immigration and economic stimulus rather than productivity-based economic growth which would result in more R&D and less consumption, which people engage in because they need some physical means of overcoming their repression and anxiety. Such is the state of our distorted, 'secular' collectivist-quasi capitalist state. Don't expect any integrity from it. Don't expect any respect for facts, you will not get it based on contemporary values. The nature of government has to be changed first. Representative democracy has to be repudiated for a consensus or meritocratic based system.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Giant jellyfish invade Japan - WWIII "exclusive"

In today's news we have more nonsense suggesting 'climate change'. The discussion ceases to be meaningless when people don't know what they are talking about. Climate change is a natural phenomena. The climate is dynamic - it goes up and down with annoying unpredictability. Its unpredictable because its complex. Its not that we can't know the future, its just that we really haven't needed to know. What we can know is that there is a lot of assertions being made to support a flawed hypothesis. There is nothing unusual about the current climatic patterns.

This 'crisis' and the related 'dire warnings' are nothing more than liberals in the media trying to sell product, and trying to encourage you to embrace their values. Nothing wrong with selling product mind you, but its a problem when people sacrifice facts and integrity for a good story. No better that a stockbroker who spruiks a good 'gold stock' whilst knowing it will never make money. The world is full of them.
So what is wrong with the latest story out of Japan? The problem is the assertion that the annual occurrence of jellyfish off the coast of Japan is special. There are two things to note:
1. They were there 40 years ago, so its not such a stretch to go from one year to a few.
2. More importantly, we can see from the chart above that the Earth's global average temperature is lower than it was in 900AD, a period which pre-dates human impact on the climate, and that we can expect warmer temperatures for the next 50-100 years, and that would be perfectly within the pattern of previous cycles.
3. Warmer temperatures are actually conducive to greater oxygen production, as its the planets way of adjusting to such rises in CO2 levels, if it were a concern.

The issue of whether humanity could long term impact on the climate (even if there is no evidence of a current impact) is addressed in the presentation in the previous post by Woods (2008).
The emptiness of such assertions are balanced by more 'neutral' reporting. This journalist from the UK Telegraph suggests little is known about these jellyfish. Nice to have an honest confession. But at least he highlights something about the erratic nature of their numbers and migration.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Why is the greenhouse agenda being pushed

You might wonder why the greenhouse issue is becoming such a politically charged issue. That is simple you say: If there is any possibility of global warming then we should do what we can to avert it. Any doubt should be acted upon.
This might be a compelling argument if there was any evidence that the remedies would help. But there is no such evidence. Consider that:
1. Added cost: Carbon sequestration will require additional infrastructure and cost impositions on society, which will reduce real wealth creation and thus humanity's capacity to deal with any 'real' threat in future, environmental or otherwise.
2. Rhetoric rather than coherent policy: Ask yourself what is really being achieved. There is a tax being placed upon energy, but there is no real effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If you were going to reduce emissions you would have to increase the cost of energy considerably to offset people's desire for autonomy. You would have to end immigration which results in low (third world) emitters being sponsored to become high emitters. You would have to penalise the international seaborne trade in products. Maybe all this is coming, since it can be justified by this science.

The other possibility is that there is another reason this policy line is being pushed:
1. Liberal media companies are supportive of dire agendas because they sell more newspapers or are consistent with their political values. i.e. The paternal state.
2. Nuclear energy advocates want to justify nuclear energy, or at least overcome the sensitivity to it by conveying a generalised state of risk. i.e. that all use of energy carries risks. True enough. I am actually supportive of nuclear energy. I just don't this spirious arguments should be used to justify it.
3. Governments are keen to placate a liberal press who are able to incite the sensitivities of the liberal portion of the electorate.
4. Governments are keen to broaden their taxing powers. There is the argument that in the final hour the Emissions Trading Scheme will be used to justify broader energy taxing powers. Currently many countries have a petrol tax, but they don't tax coal, gas, or other forms of energy. Well the EMS will give them a basis for measuring CO2 emissions, and thus a capacity to tax those emissions. It can also tax CO2 credit trading transactions.

What is lost in this debate is respect for facts. There is no critical interpretation of arguments because there is no discourse where differing opinions are to be reconciled. This is what the world needs more than anything else. We shall deal with this issue through our range of books at our bookstore.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com