Apparently that "toxic tax" was not so toxic after all for Mr. Rabbit in 2009

Something changed over the last three years..........

Australian Oppostion Leader Tony Abbott in 2009:



Abbott in 2011:

Potted History: Australia 1966 - 'very well and cunningly devised'

Correspondence between W.C. "Billy" Wentworth MP and Minister for External Affairs Paul Hasluck concerning censorship in July 1966 - four years after Australia's involvement in Viet Nam began and one year after Prime Minister Menzies formally committed Australian troops at battalion strength to the Viet Nam War.
[Digital images from the Australian National Archives,Communism - Control of Communist Propaganda in Australia - Vietnam War]

Click on images to enlarge

The finger points squarely at Tony Abbott

 

It’s come to a sad pass in this country that undertaking scientific research on climate change within a university setting sees academics threatened and harassed:

“SYDNEY, June 4, 2011 (AFP) - - Climate researchers at one of Australia's top universities have been rushed to a secure location after receiving death threats, an official said Saturday, as debate rages about plans for a carbon pollution tax.
The Australian National University (ANU) scientists had to be shifted following mounting abuse, with threats they would be attacked in the street if they didn't stop their research, said ANU vice-chancellor Dick Young.
Young said the menacing emails and phone calls had intensified in recent weeks amid heated public debate over Prime Minister Julia Gillard's plans to introduce a tax on carbon emissions aimed at reducing pollution.
"Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time," Young told ABC television.
"These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it's completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this."
Young said the threats had rattled the academics, who were "really not equipped to be treated in this way."
"The whole scientific process is one of open debate and discussion, but the concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them," he said.
"I think it is totally outrageous and the vast majority of Australians would think it is totally unacceptable for anybody in society to be subjected to this sort of behaviour."

This is the bitter crop that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s rabblerousing and demonising has raised up.
If someone gets hurt I will be pointing my finger squarely in his direction.

Insert from Google Images

Onya, Janelle - give 'im heaps!

From ABC Radio Australia News 7th June 2011:

"An Australian Federal Labor MP pushing for a freeze on live cattle exports to Indonesia has rejected a compromise solution put forward by Meat and Livestock Australia.

The morality of exporting live cattle has been hotly debated in Australia since ABC's Four Corners program aired footage of cattle being mistreated in Indonesian abattoirs.

Meat and Livestock Australia says cattle could be sent to 25 slaughterhouses in Indonesia that meet world animal health guidelines.

But MP Janelle Saffin says she does not trust Meat and Livestock Australia to effectively police the abattoirs and the proposal does not go far enough.

"At this stage we can't be assured how the cattle are going to be treated and until we know that the ban, or the halting, is the best solution," she said."

Update 8th June: Temporary six-month live export ban

''In light of the evidence presented to us, we have resolved to put a total suspension in place,'' Ms Gillard said. ''This suspension will remain until we can make sure cattle from Australia are treated properly at every step of the supply chain.
We will be working closely with Indonesia, and with the industry, to make sure we can bring about major change to the way cattle are handled in these slaughter houses.''

News Ltd finds proof that 290 Australians oppose a carbon tax and the media runs wild

Click on image to enlarge

On 1 & 2 June 2011 Galaxy Research telephone polled 500 voters out of an estimated 14.08 million registered Australian voters and, found that 290 of these opposed a carbon tax.

Now Galaxy asserts that its results have been weighted and projected to reflect the population of Australia, but I think it's possibly stretching credulity to give so high a percentage.

Nevertheless, this poll produced a flurry in the media with headlines such as:

Three-quarters of Australians expect to be worse off under carbon tax - Courier Mail
Julia Gillard feels the heat over carbon tax backlash as voters call for new election - News.com.au
Majority against carbon tax: poll - The Northern Star
Aussies want 'election before tax' - Nine News
Most Australians against carbon tax: poll - AFP
Abbott says poll needed on carbon tax - Nine News

Hear Us, Julia!

Talk is cheap and hindsight easy when it comes from Meat & Livestock Australia on June 6 2011:

“I would like to apologise to the Australian livestock industry and the broader community for the hurt and anger caused by the recent footage of horrendous acts of cruelty to our cattle in Indonesia.
“No section of our community was more distressed than those of us whose life’s work is the caring and raising of livestock.
“I can assure you that if this disgusting cruelty had been witnessed by any Australian industry representatives before now, action would have immediately been triggered to bring it to a halt.
“This issue has made it clear that we must only allow our cattle to reach those facilities where we can be absolutely confident they will be handled in line with internationally accepted welfare practices...."

The only animal welfare solution that is guaranteed to be 100% effective is a total ban on live export.
Find out how to stop this live trade here at Ban Live Export.

A Bloody Business video on demand*
* Warning this ABC Four Corners video contains graphic images

Who loves fossil fuel companies? Not many it seems

Two million odd Sandgropers may be riding on the mining industry's back; but there are miners and then there are miners it seems – and those that drill for petroleum and gas or dig for coal are really not the flavour of the month with 91% of WA people who answered the question below.

Click on survey table to enlarge

*Galaxy Omnibus, 18-20 March 2011, 1036 people (18yo+). Interviews were conducted using CATI (computer assisted telephone interviewing) with telephone numbers randomly selected from electronic White Pages. All interviewers were personally trained and briefed on the requirements of the study. Age, gender and region quotas were applied to the sample. Following the completion of interviewing, the data was weighted by age, gender and region to reflect the latest ABS population estimates.

Is Monsanto telling untruths?

On 3 March 2011 the bio-tech multinational Monsanto Corporation stated on its own corporate blog Beyond The Rows in the post Monsanto's Commitment: Farmers and Patents:

It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means.

ABC Rural reported on 16 March 2011in Farmer claims flooding caused GM contamination :

In a written statement to ABC Rural, plant breeder Monsanto says It has never been, nor will it be, its policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of patented traits are present in a farmer's paddock or grain as a result of inadvertent means.

In a 29 March 2011 statement on the same company blog in PUBPAT Allegations Are False, Misleading and Deceptive Monsanto again stated:

It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.

Monsanto confirms this policy in a letter from its legal representatives Wilmer Hale on 28 April 2011:

However, I can find no formal Monsanto policy document online which sets out this exemption for accidental contamination of non-GMO farmland or crops.

Nor can I find any current publicly available company documents which define the terms trace amounts and inadvertent means.

As accidental contamination by GMO seeds in Australia has been recorded at seventy per cent of the area of one West Australian organic farm, one has to wonder why trace amounts is so vague a phrase and what implications this may have as contamination instances spread.

It also remains a concern that while Monsanto continues to insist on patent enforcement it also insists that it is not liable for loss suffered from accidental contamination according to this legal opinion of 19 February 2011:

The language: "In no event shall Monsanto or any seller be liable for any incidental, consequential, special or punitive damages" limits and restricts the ability to sue for any damages. There is no "hold harmless" clause contained in the agreement to benefit the growers.

Monsanto's agreement shifts all liability to the growers, including contamination issues or any potential future liability.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Oh no Brad, tell me it ain't so!

If the idea of genetically modified crops made you feel slightly queasy, then a technicolour yawn might be induced at even the passing thought that it's not only fictional serial killers who may've been having something extra with their fava beans.
Of course the only possible place to hide the stuff originally derived from R&D using human cells would possibly be in the "high fructose corn syrup" or "natural" flavouring. Then again the blog first reporting this was an American Christian pro-life site and thus its balance is suspect.
Conclusion: No-one is actually eating foetal product, but quite a few food and beverage multinationals are somewhat embarrassed because it seems that they probably do benefit from research and development originally based on human embryonic stem cells – and maybe cadavers.

#"Several big food and beverage companies are looking at a new ingredient in the battle for health-conscious consumers: a chemical that tricks the taste buds into sensing sugar or salt even when it is not there."

# "Pepsi is funding the research and development, and paying royalties to Senomyx, which uses HEK-293 (human embryonic kidney cells) to produce flavor enhancers for Pepsi beverages."

# "PepsiCo is ignoring criticism from pro-life advocates upset that the company contracts with a research firm that uses fetal cells from babies victimized by abortions to test and produce artificial flavor enhancers."

# "Senomyx is collaborating with leading global food, beverage, and ingredient supply companies to develop and commercialize our flavor ingredients. We have entered into exclusive or co-exclusive product discovery and development collaborations with Ajinomoto Co. Inc.; Cadbury Adams USA LLC, a unit of Kraft Foods Inc.; Firmenich SA; Nestlé SA; PepsiCo; and Solae."

#"Overview: Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, which is a stage reach 4-5 days post fertilization."

#"The idea is the brainchild of biotech firm Senomyx of San Diego, California. To create its taste testers, the company adapted a tool that has been used by the pharmaceutical industry for over 20 years – lines of kidney cells with genetically modified DNA. Drug companies typically insert genes into these cells that coat their surfaces with receptors involved in certain diseases, to test how they respond to treatments.

Senomyx inserts genes from the surface of the human tongue instead, which cover the cells with taste receptors. The company has developed cell lines that respond to each of the five tastes: sweet, bitter, salty, sour and savoury (also known as "umami")."

#"Thank you for contacting us to share your sincere concerns," the PepsiCo response says. "Please be assured that PepsiCo is committed to using only the highest ethical methods in all aspects of our research. This is something we take very seriously, and we hold ourselves and all of our research partners to the same high standards as the world's leading research centers."

The email continues: "With respect to the flavor discovery research with Senomyx, we utilize techniques that have been the gold standard for several decades by top universities, hospitals, U.S. government agencies, food and beverage companies, and essentially every pharmaceutical and biotech company in the world. Yet, there is some misinformation being circulated meant to distort what we're doing and question our motives and those of other companies. This is unfortunate, and it is certainly not reflective of the work we are doing. We hope this information is helpful and reassuring. Thank you again for reaching out to us and allowing us to clarify the situation."

Gillard and Ludwig fiddle while last of the goodwill burns

Labor MPs are stepping up pressure on Julia Gillard to take decisive action on Australia's live export trade to counter a growing community backlash against cruelty to animals.
They are concerned at the potential effect on the Government of a television campaign to be unleashed today by three groups that have received more than 200,000 online signatures to a petition calling for a total ban on the live export of cattle.
Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig confirmed last night that a ban was now in place against the export of live animals to 12 Indonesian abattoirs outed by the ABC for cruel slaughtering practices.
However the promised independent reviewer had not been appointed by last night, nor had the terms of reference for the inquiry been settled.
[The Canberra Times 4 March 2011]

It is hardly surprising that Labor backbenchers are pushing the Prime Minister.

This issue has the ability to mushroom even further than troubling concerns over the treatment of asylum seekers given that it doesn’t trigger that deep well of xenophobia within the Australian psyche.

The general response would be the same if the Four Corners exposé had been concerned with local abbattoirs.

The Gillard Government cannot afford to go slowly or employ half measures when addressing live animal export to Indonesia – only a total ban will see Australian cattle protected from deliberate and unthinking cruelty in that country.

Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig needs to do the maths. There are more voters living in urban areas of this country who don’t make a living either directly or indirectly from the cattle industry than those who do in rural and regional Australia.

Snapshot of RSPCA Australia banner 4 June 2011

GRACE: mapping Earth's water supplies 2002 to 2010

The GRACE Tellus program has been running for nine years now and is a collaboration of the US and German space agencies (NASA and DLR) whose key partners are the University of Texas Center for Space Research, Geoforschungszentrum Potsdam and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Its twin satellites, launched 17 March 2002, are making detailed measurements of Earth's gravity field over land and ice and over the oceans to investigate Earth's water reservoirs .

Earth’s gravity from space

WHAT IS 'EQUIVALENT WATER THICKNESS'?

The observed monthly changes in gravity are caused by monthly changes in mass. The mass changes can be thought of as concentrated in a very thin layer of water at the surface, whose thickness changes. In reality, much of the monthly change in gravity is indeed caused by changes in water storage in hydrologic reservoirs, by moving ocean, atmospheric and cryospheric masses, and by exchanges among these reservoirs. Their vertical extent is measured in centimeters, much smaller than the radius of the Earth or the horizontal scales of the changes, which are measured in kilometers. Some changes in gravity are caused by mass redistribution in the 'solid' Earth, such as that following a large earthquake, or that due to glacial isostatic adjustment; in those cases the concept of 'equivalent water thickness' does not apply, even though it is possible to compute the quantity...

As GRACE travels over areas of snow and ice sheets such as Greenland and Antarctica, changes in mass will be recorded. This information, along with measurements from the ground and other satellites will enable scientists to determine if these areas are growing or shrinking. Knowledge of this mass variation is key to understanding the effects of climate change and sea level rise.

WATER

LAND

World Environment Day 5 June 2011

Think about it
Deeply and often
Then act

Australian and British attitudes to climate change: latest 2011 report

It would appear that more Australians accept the science behind climate change predictions than believe contrarians, denialists, propagandists and prevaricators like Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and The Australian campaign against science.

Public Risk Perceptions, Understandings, and Responses to Climate Change in Australia and Great Britain: Interim Report
[Joseph P. Reser, Nick Pidgeon, Alexa Spence, Graham Bradley, A. Ian Glendon & Michelle Ellul, Griffith University Climate Change Response Program and Understanding Risk Centre, Cardiff University, 2011]

Australia-specific research findings1
71% of Australian respondents reported that their level of concern about climate change had increased over the past two years.
78% of Australian respondents agreed that, “If nothing is done to reduce climate change in the future, it will be a „very serious‟ or „somewhat serious‟ problem for
Australia”.
When asked, “How serious a problem do you think climate change is right now”, 45% of Australian respondents reported that it was a serious problem.
Respondent objective knowledge levels about matters relating to the underlying science of climate change and projected impacts were modest, with respondents
getting, on average, four to five out of 10 true/false statements correct. These findings are interesting when compared with respondent self-reported knowledge level, with close to 75% of respondents feeling that they knew a reasonable amount about climate change, suggesting that many respondents either overestimated or underestimated their own knowledge levels in the area of climate change.
The Australian survey findings with respect to perceived interrelationships between climate change and natural disasters are of particular interest. It is clear that the evidence and projected consequences which respondents refer to in the context of their belief and concern about climate change are often related to extreme weather events and natural disasters.
37% of Australian respondents reported having had direct personal experience with differing natural disaster events. Overall, public risk perceptions and understandings of the threat of climate change in Australia appear to be strongly influenced and informed by knowledge of direct or indirect experience with both acute and chronic natural disasters in the Australian environment.
59% of Australian respondents thought that the region where they lived was vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, with two thirds of these respondents indicating that their location was „very‟ or „reasonably‟ vulnerable.
An important and neglected domain in climate change surveys relates to the possible psychological impacts of the threat and perceived environmental consequences of
climate change. Australian survey respondents completed a seven-item measure of experienced psychological distress with respect to the threat of climate change. 20%
of respondents reported feeling, at times, appreciable distress at the prospect and implications of climate change and its consequences.
1 A number of these specific findings are not reported or discussed in detail in the interim report, but will befully addressed in the subsequent final report which will be completed and available in July 2011.

More specific joint findings include the following:
74% of Australian respondents and 78% of British respondents believed "that the world's climate is changing", with 8% reporting "not knowing" in both countries.
71% of Australian respondents either "strongly agreed" or "tended to agree" with the statement, “I am certain that climate change is really happening”.
90% of Australian respondents and 89% of British respondents believed that human activities were playing a causal role in climate change.
54% of Australian respondents and 41% of British respondents believed that they were already experiencing the effects of climate change. Australian respondents provided many examples of direct encounters with what they viewed as evidence of climate change in open-ended survey items.
66% of Australian respondents and 71% of British respondents reported that they were "very concerned" or "fairly concerned" about climate change, with an additional 22% and 19% respectively, indicating some level of concern.
Australian and British respondents were only slightly less concerned with respect to the personal impacts of climate change, with 62% of Australian and 60% of British respondents reporting that they were "very concerned" or "fairly concerned".
A psychological variable of demonstrated importance in the context of climate change is perceived self efficacy, i.e., the extent to which people feel they can engage in actions that could make a difference either in their local or global environment.
The survey findings suggest that the majority of both Australian and British respondents feel that despite clear difficulties and challenges, their actions can make a difference, and that the issue of climate change is serious, urgent, and personally relevant.
Taken as a whole, these Australia/Great Britain comparison findings indicate striking similarities, high levels of climate change concern, and strong belief on the part of over 70% of respondents in both countries that human activities are in part responsible for current global climate change.
These findings also suggest that media coverage of public perceptions of and responses to the threat of climate change is often very wide of the mark, and that reported declines over the past several years in public concern about climate change and its relative importance as an environmental issue and threat have been overstated.

Download full report here.