Recent comments by: Ian Mott
Grain of Truth
Well, how unusual. A journalist with absolutely nothing at stake wants everyone else to compromise. And over what?
No-one actually loses their livelihood from cross pollenation. At worst they get a 4.1% price downgrade. And even that is only because of the totally unacceptable zero tollerance standard.
And this continued use of the spray drift analogy only highlights the ignorance of the people using it. The spraying and drifting is part of a single action at a single point in time. Pollen drift is an essential natural ecosystem service that takes place a few months after the act of planting. It is also something that can take place in reverse, with the non-GM pollen being blown the other way.
And if it is appropriate for the non-GM people to describe cross pollenation of their crops as "contamination" then the GM farmer has every right to describe the non-GM pollen that ends up in his crop as "contamination" as well.
And it would follow that if all legal principles are to be applied equally to all people, as they must, then the GM marketing people would also be free to apply a zero tollerance standard to their product too.
"Do unto others ..."
This is really sloppy or downright dishonest reporting by Bettles. To say that, "In its current form, the plan proposes 2750 gigalitres be reserved for environmental water flows", gives the false and highly misleading impression that this is all the environment will ever get.
It ignores the fact that even before the recent floods there was an average of 5000GL a year of environmental flows. And this does not include all of Adelaide and urban SA's water that flows for 95% of the river length, delivering ecological services along the way, before it is diverted. Lift your game.
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
The claimed 150,000ha annual NSW clearing figure that Carr used to justify his property theft was proven, by Landsat, to be a 12 fold exaggeration. The person responsible for it was John Benson, then head of the Botanic Gardens. He negligently, if not fraudulently, extrapolated from limited Moree Plain data and even applied it, pro-rata, to irrigated cropping districts that had no trees to be cleared.
Meanwhile, there is at least 14 million hectares of native regrowth which is less than 30 years old. And that means an annual expansion, net of clearing, of about 500,000ha a year.
A first hand account IS evidence, you clown. The cyclone going all the way to Sydney IS evidence, doofus.
Memo to farmers. The louder we complain about the low prices paid by Coles, the stronger the belief by their customers that Coles in general represent good value. The reality over the whole range of supermarket products is quite different.
But coles have a bunch of poms who are apparently intent on their own version of the old Irish joke about the two blokes who, after buying a truck load of 100 cabages for $100, and then selling them on the roadside for $1.00 each, concluded that they obviously had a good business by the way the cabages sold but they JUST NEED A BIGGER TRUCK.
Sico now apparently believes that any minor deviation he may make in a blog thread then overrides the tennor of the actual published article.
The thread is about fire management in all landscapes, you clown. And my post rightfully contrasted the minor relevance of your points with the overwhelming relevance of mine.
I don't recall ever meeting a nobody called sico/nico in any of the CSIRO workshops and formal policy committees at national, state and regional level, that I have attended over the past 15 years.
So once again from the official departmental horse's mouth, sico. "No cyclones as far south as Brisbane for more than 30 years".
So the 716mm my place got in 4 days was what, doofus, permanent drought?
So now sico would have us believe that a well located body of readily available water, in bushfire management terms, is "totally irrelevant". Spoken like a true metro-moron.
I recall being told, as formal advice to the SLATS Advisory Pannel, by a Qld DNRM expert no less, that due to climate change, there would be no tropical cyclones travelling as far south as Brisbane, let alone Sydney, for at least the next 30 years. This was the overwhelming conclusion of the climate models.
So what the heck was it that just passed by, a pork chop?
The experts and their climate models said it would not happen for 30 years but it did happen (and more) within 7 years.
Not only has the temperature failed to rise for 16 years, the cyclones are back to normal.
Poor old sico still can't comprehend the fact that "establishing a cautious culture of burning" has a legal and administrative framework. And if this is not addressed first then no amount of landcare onanism will change the culture one jot. But that did not stop him providing his own example of council DA requirements that run counter to the core objective.
And of course, his idea of helpful measures is to regulate wooden stairs and have brigade compatible outlets on water tanks. But if you want to put in a small dam that could refill 50 water tanks you have Buckley's chance.
The only submission worth making is in the ballot box at the next election. Get rid of this incompetent moron and get the new Minister to call for submissions. Ludwig van Bull$#it is part of the problem and will never be part of the solution.
Tell that to the morons who write the legislation. And tell that to the judges who uphold law suits from lazy dropkicks who can't even protect their firetraps from a spark from a neighbour's cold burn.
It is only a cultural problem in that the dominant ignorant urban culture continues to impose negligent legislation on the bush with a callous disregard for the consequences. And Landcare? WTF?
Once again, sico responds to my specific reference to a decline in the trend in HADCRUT4 for the period from 2002 to 2012 with totally irrelevant graph of the past century with no capacity to determine trend over the period I mentioned. What a little shonk you have demonstrated yourself to be, yet again.
So which part of "2002 to 2012" are you not capable of comprehending.
Meanwhile latest analysis of thermohaline circulation (where the misssing warming is claimed to have gone to) indicates that greenhouse could not account for more than 50pc of temp rise from 1960.
Our land is comparatively cheap by world standards because our landowners are unable to get access to the profits that other farmers get from employing globally competitive labour to produce food in the global food market.
Who could possibly deny the fact that the value of an Italian tomato farm is fundamentally shaped by the profits made from employing North African boat people at $3.40 an hour?
Or the value of a farm in Texas is not determined by the profits generated by Mexicans on $3.60 an hour?
And all our twisted pervert governments can do is tell us to borrow more money.
Yeah, right, "hidden viral gene" but not in the crops. In the space between a nutter's ears. Notice the use of the emotive term "hidden"? As if all other genes are visible and not hidden? It is so hidden that only nutters can actually see it.
The small portion of the total market that prefers non-GM product is also the portion least likely to pay a premium for it.
The premium is rarely above 5pc and most buyers of it are the kind of people who would buy it once for show and then put normal GM product in the bottle so their guests would never know the difference.
It is like urban tossers with cheap wine in the Grange bottle at BYOs.
The problem for the organic industry is that GM crops outperform non-GM by much more than 5pc which completely negates any bulldust premium they might have missed out on.
Tell that to the Baxters, grainfarmer. Marsh is attacking the Baxters because some of their gm canola is supposed to have ended up in his totally failed wheat crop. And despite the fact that no canola actually ended up in his pathetic grain consignment, the perverted organic certification circus somehow managed to convince itself that the wheat was contaminated.
Even worse, they have set it up so any sheep that might eat a gm canola wilding can no longer be sold as organic. As if a miniscule portion of the total food intake will cross the species barrier.
Yeah right, and denis has the faintest idea about farm economics? Fat chance.
If GM is such a bad deal for farmers, as this clown claims, then there would be no need for this assortment of deranged nutters to stack the thread at every opportunity. GM works. And farmers know it works which is why the nutters have to resort to threats and intimidation.
The real issue is that the more the market is defined by the economics of GM, the less viable the low yields and excess costs of the so-called organic farms become.
Get a brain, Harry. Most farms in that area are 500+ hectares so the property boundaries fronting on to the road would be the logical units of measure.
And spare us your BS Willy willy wonk. How frequent are they? And what is the statistical significance of their capacity to alter the findings?
So run along now, thats a good boy.
The blatant flaw with the shonky roadside "McSurvey" was the fact that the incidence of GM Canola wildings was compared to the statewide percentages of GM vs non-GM Canola. From the media reporting, no attempt appears to have been made to determine the actual proportions of each on that particular road.
This is totally inexcusable for a person with a PhD and, in the absence of adequate explanation from Dunlop, raises serious questions as to competency, honesty or intent.
Spare us the crap, harry. That survey of GM Canola on the roadside was of even less professional integrity than Seralini's. And it was done by Fran Murrell and her mates, hardly a credible and unbiased source.
Really sico? This is the ag science equivalent of claiming the absence of T Model Fords is evidence of a threat to the car industry. Yet more climate nutters on the public purse disappearing up their own backsides in search of daylight.
So, yet more anti-GM activists fail to disclose their vested interests in the organic food industry (scam). It really is time this kind of trade based product defamation was outlawed under the Trade Practices Act.
Of course, the BoM would never stoop to a blatant cherry pick, would they?
So this January only just pipped January 1932. So what was the atmospheric CO2 level in 1932? And how come it took so much extra CO2 (more than 100ppm extra) to just pip an 80 year old record?
Clearly, all that CO2 hasn't done much at all so what is all the fuss about?
Anything that alarms B$#!ty Bill would have to have merit.
The Beattie/Bligh Labor government, in its infinite wisdom, produced a regional plan that will push all the future population growth into that part of the catchment that is not protected by the Dams.
And if that wasn't stupid enough, they also put a complete moratorium on all new upstream farm dams to ensure that all their new settlers get the full force of gross malgovernance.
When a known liar like Gillard tells us that "this is not the start of the election campaign", we can be absolutely certain that this is the start of the election campaign.
And does she seriously believe that wearing glasses will make us believe she is more reliable?
sico claims to be refering to specifics without actually providing the specifics he refers to. Good one, bozo.
The evidence of no warming is 16 years of flat trend in the UAH and HADCRUT 3 series. But as usual, sico prefers to quote the spin that is attached to the data, not the data itself.
It is "Climate Scientology" and we all know what they mean by "peer review".
Meanwhile, the IPCC in its leaked latest report, continues to abuse the very meaning of science itself by quoting Greenpeace and WWF brochures as if they were published research.
And poor old sico, he still believes that warming can continue when temperatures don't rise. He just uses longer and longer running means so the recent lack of warming is buried by earlier records.
The UK Met office now concedes there will be no warming for another 4 years.
My grandfather founded our local brigade and my Dad was Captain with an AM for 50 years service. And the place back then was a whole lot safer for what they called science than it is today with what clowns like sico call science.
The big difference was actually human capital. Then we had people who actually worked where they lived. They arrived at a fire within minutes, and with all their tools, and their own water. And no waiting for a Dozer or a chopper. When we needed a 8 foot firebreak down the side of a ridge, they made it 10ft on the way downn and 15ft on their way back up.
Sico seriously believes that after more than a decade at national level representation of forest owners, I haven't seen what masquerades as the climate McScience of bushfires?
Any science that relies on a non-existent warming to explain the impact of warming on wildfires is not science at all. It is peurile speculation by rent seekers.
It is the religious cult of Climate Scientology.
People like sico don't actually need facts and logic to support their delusions. All they need is a web reference that appears to be competent and present arguments that appear plausible to people of limited attention span.
It is called confirmation bias. Their curiosity only continues for as far as it takes to confirm their existing prejudices.
In the 2003 fires in NSW, 700,000 hectares of national parks was burned. But with similar areas of tenure, State Forests lost 70,000ha while private native forest lost only 7,000ha. Guess who the wildlife would be voting for?
So Raven Looney equates a formal, fully vetted, guest worker scheme under specific employer sponsorship with "massive illegal immigration".
Good one gonzo. Do you have any plans to connect some relevant synapses any time soon.
Guest workers, being non citizens, can be restricted to specific locations under specific conditions and to people in specific circumstances defined in both their job contract and their visa. This can include regular reporting to relevant supervisors.
The Yanks have done this with Cuban cane cutters in Florida all through the Castro regime.
I understand your concern, Nev. But with globally competitive wages every farmer will have the capacity to export and tell Coles to go and get photographed.
Of course, the price of local produce will go down but the critical change will be the reduced price differential between imported and domestic produce.
Our biggest export item is empty containers. And that means we can get significant back-loading benefits for exporting produce if we can get our wage costs within cooee of the competition.
Families Minister Jenny Macklin has stated that she could survive on the dole @ $246/week. That equates to $6.15 an hour for a 40 hour week. And millions of pensioners and unemployed survive on this amount in towns and cities all over the country. And right now there are hundreds of thousands of Australians camping in tents.
So there is no doubt that guest workers on rural properties could not only survive, but actually save money on $5/hour.
In fact, many farming families have survived on much less during drought, spending more on stock feed than feeding themselves.
Nev, take a look at the GDP rankings by purchasing power parity. That is, the amount of $ dollars they would need to enjoy their standard of living in Aus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List _of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_ca pita
Do you seriously think they would waste money on rent with just one person/room? Do you seriously think they would even want to blow $60 in a pub when the same $60 will feed his family back home for a month?
My nephews in-laws survive on $2/day. So get real, guest workers go to expensive places like the middle east on low wages and STILL manage to save.
The trouble is that only some of the trade barriers have been removed. The critical one, the one that reserves farm jobs for people who don't want to do them, is still intact. And the more that "protection" is applied, the fewer and fewer jobs it actually applies too.
At $20/hour farm jobs will continue to disappear. At $15/hour they might hang on. At $10/hour they will slowly expand. But at $5/hour we can compete in any market on the planet and employ hundreds of thousands of guest workers whose modest needs will still revitalise country towns all over the nation.
We spend $billions giving boat people a win in life's jackpot lottery. Meanwhile, the Italians pay their boat people $3.40/hour to capture 85pc of the Australian canned tomato market.
Gosh, which of these two business models is unsustainable? One country turns an event into a problem while the other turns the same event into an opportunity.
Guest worker visa systems adjust their pay to twice what they could earn back home. Then every boat person could go directly onto it and the flow would dry up immediately. Farms would make a taxable profit and cut $2 billion off budget.
Thanks Colonel. The irony is that most of our existing farm workers would be needed to supervise small teams of guest workers. There wouldn't be any loss of existing farm jobs. And there would be strong demand for additional training in language and management skills for a lot of people who currently have no scope for career progression.
The cost, in lost opportunity, of our union/lefts impoverished imagination is absolutely huge.
Crap! Just spare us the disguised subsidy of the tourist industry via the overpriced and underperforming urban backpackers work scam. And get us access to the worlds 3 billion real farm workers who can do a full days work, week-in, week-out, without injuries, and will leap at the chance to earn $5/hour on a two year contract.
And then we can start exporting on the same basis as the Yanks do with their $4/hour Mexicans, the Israelis do with their $5/hour Thai guest workers, and the Italians do with their $3.40/hour North Africans.
Get real or get photographed.
The only way our own industry will be able to compete, let alone expand, in that market will be by way of a quota of low wage guest workers.
Protect 70% of the jobs for Aussies by using the other 30% at lower wages to reduce the average cost to remain competitive.
Or just sit back and wait untill all the farms are bought out by foreign investors who will then bring their own people in to do 100% of the jobs.
The RBA held interest rates up over the past year because the ABS doesn't adjust the amount of fruit in the basket of goods that they use to calculate the CPI.
The price of Bananas went up by more than 1000% while the volume of sales went down by 90% but the boofheads at the RBA were too thick understand that this was seriously distorting one of their key performance indicatores.
So they kept interest rates high to "rein in" what they thought was "demand pull" inflation when, in fact, it wasn't even "cost push" inflation that interest rates have no influence on. Its a disgrace.
Is a farm a "workplace" on the weekend? Is a hobby farm a workplace at all?
23 deaths a year, 18 on farms, so the ban will save 3.6 kids on farms each year. But that assumes that all kids will comply with the ban, especially when mum and dad are away. So halve the total and we are left with much ado about 1.8 deaths a year, max. And the number of kids that start smoking each year is?
How many of the stats were visiting suburbanites who thought they were experts after 5 minutes of practice?
The evidence is clear that a farm is a lot less dangerous for real farmers and their kids than it is for urban daytrippers. They just don't have a clue and often go out of their way to find the stupidest route and the dumbest method.
Properly re-designed quad bikes, with street tyres, ROPS and canopies, are the obvious long term solution to urban congestion. Instead of building roads with more and more lanes of existing width, the widespread use of Quads will allow the splitting of existing lanes into two.
The auto industry continues to produce small cars but persists with two seats side by side when the obvious solution is fore and aft seating, when a passenger is actually present at all.
Most commuter journeys are by a lone occupant on 80km roads or less. "Narrow guage roads" is an idea whose time has come.
Could someone explain the official rationale for excluding quad bikes from being registered for on-road use?
How can four wheels be more dangerous than two? It doesn't make sense. Can anyone help?
And the likely cost/day is?
Can anyone advise why Quad bikes cannot be registered for on-road use?
One would have thought that 4 wheels were safer than two and they would certainly reduce the length of the queues outside schools at pick-up time.
Another windbag talking through his hat. "Australian banks seeking offshore funding could see higher borrowing costs and may look to reduce exposure to troubled debts".
In fact, my banker is predicting at least another 60 basis points drop in interest rates. And much of that will not be from RBA cuts. The difficulty the banks had in attracting foreign funds is passing as the Europeans, in particular, have come to realise that investing in Aussie dollars allows them to effectively switch funds from the US to China without any of the Chinese sovereign risk.
BS Bill has lost the plot again. The savings of regional workers are being diverted from investments that would create more jobs for regional workers.
Ask any regional employee if they would take a 1pc lower rate of return on their funds if it turned their wife's casual part-time job into a permanent full-time one and there would be no contest.
The fact that we are currently handing a tax concession to the 40pc of funds invested overseas is bad enough. But when not even 15pc of the remaining 60pc is reinvested in the region it came from then the system is clearly dysfunctional.
This is yet more evidence that the compulsory superannuation policy has failed the bush.
About 15% of the total annual super contribution comes from regional wage earners but the urban funds managers are reluctant to invest in the very regional projects that employ the regional workers who gave them the funds.
The job prospects and long term interests of regional workers would be better served by either scrapping the scheme to increase regional consumption or encouraging self managed funds.
The bush gets a less than proportionate share of the 60% of funds that are not sent OS.
Get a brain, Reaper. Barnaby has never suggested the government operate the business. His aim was to get the government to break up the station into a number of smaller, more diverse and therefore more sustainable operations. AND then sell them off at a profit.
So you, and clowns like Andrew Bolt, are talking through your ignorant backsides when you suggest this is some sort of agrarian-socialist cliche.
It is standard development economics 101, you doofus.
There is an important correction to my first post above. The figure for the loss of value in MDB housing of $24 billion is in the ballpark. But we should also remember that houses in the rest of the country would also have gone up by about 5% over the past year so the real cost of the MDB Plan is 15.5% of median value, not just the 10.5% decline.
So we are really talking about a $36 billion setback, inflicted on 10% of the Australian population by the wealthiest 80%. I include urban Liberals as being implicated in this economic crime because the Water Act was drafted by Turnbull, the quintescentially ignorant urban liberal.
And thr clowns at the MDBA had the gall to suggest that the impact of buyback would be minimal. If the Board does not resign by Friday then they should be sacked.
I agree, Susan. The existing metropolitan elites are fond of suggesting that regional communities would not survive without the supposedly huge subsidies provided by city tax payers. But the reality is that State level government, and state level decision making, is a major economic engine in its own right.
But whenever we suggest that there is a really quick and easy way for the metrocentrics to rid themselves of their supposedly onerous regional burdens, by granting self government, they all duck for cover like a pimp in a convent.
Check out "The myth of new state duplication costs" at http://regionalstates.wordpress.c om/2010/09/07/the-myth-of-new-sta te-duplication-costs/
Urban governments claim they are being efficient but all they ever do is mine regional economies for their own benefit.
I think one MDB State would be too big, and too hard to organise. Better to have a new State for Northern Victoria, two for Western NSW and one for Central SW Qld and they can each have their own teams of experts to talk it through. At the moment the Vic/NSW/Qld parts of the basin are dependent on distracted metropolitan bureaucrats who have nothing at stake, and who are easily fooled by SA bull$hit.
The problems won't be solved until they are properly identified and until each region has its own representatives.
Just brilliant. Soak the tax base for over a $ Billion ($4,000/ha) and then flog the whole scam off to overseas investors for $1,650/ha. And all the buyers need do to break even is sell 50m3 at $33/m3, and they have 252,000 hectares for a penny.
We need to get this MIS parasite permanently out of our landscape.
What is the median house price in these towns and how many houses are we talking about?
With 2 million people in the MDB, at an average of 2.6 people per household we have 770,000 houses. And if the median house price is around $300,000 then Gillard has just punched $24Billion off the net worth of basin communities.
That is about double the total bill for all the floods. So when can we expect urban Australia to start paying a full 1% extra medi-levy to cover the cost of this additional Labor manufactured disaster?
The price of plantation land always falls. This is because the prospectuses never include the cost of stump removal in their (tee hee) "profit projections". There are numerous instances, from Qld to WA, of post harvest plantation land being sold for less than the value of on-site improvements. The cost of stump removal and on-going regrowth control is higher than the value of adjacent cleared land. So a 15% decline to date is only the start of a story that will end in tears all around. This is the reason why the Qld government is so keen to get right out of the plantation business altogether. The numerous forestry joint ventures they entered into with private landholders all conveniently, an unconscionably, left the cost of restoring the land to its original condition out of the equation when they divide the proceeds. And when this is added to the blatantly delusional growth projections that have proven to be 6 times higher than the squalid reality, then the whole thing is revealed as a serious legal liability. Talk about sleeping with the dogs?