RUDDONOMICS

RUDDONOMICS:
Please read these pages. Remember this is the same Kevin Rudd who has taken second prize to become the most recently unelected (by the people) Prime Minister. These pages are still relevant today as they were before the 2007 election. Same Man, same Party, same, same. Don't be fooled!!!!!

I'm back - the bad movie sequel

 Remember the fanfare of the premier of Kevin 07 that had a tragic ending at the hands of Julia Gillard who in turn went on with her own movie 'Moving forward' which had a plot that moved in aimless circles and went nowhere at the box office.

  
                                                                                                                   
Cartoons by Roy and Jon Kudelka




 Anthony Ackroyd  foretold of the coming sequel when he made this youtube back in August 2010



Tony Abbott as opposition leader may well have felt redundant with the continual self destruction within the Gillard Labor government  and Kevin Rudd always on the wings awaiting to take over as the lead act.

Both cartoons by Nicholson.

 Cartoon by Bill Moir

Both cartoons by Warren Brown

Paul Zanetti (above) and Warren Brown (below) came up with simular views about the same old rubbish no matter who was Prime Minister

 

And finally the last word goes to Zeg 

Important Advance in Climate Science Teaching

Executive Director  of the International Climate Science Coalition has issued this press release:

 

ICSC ANNOUNCES IMPORTANT ADVANCE IN CLIMATE SCIENCE TEACHING FOR MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS

Teaching students how science works in the real world and how to come to their own evidence-based conclusions is more important than telling them who is right in controversial fields such as climate change 

Ottawa, Canada, June 24, 2013:  "As the ‘official science’ of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) falls into disrepute, educators face an increasingly difficult decision when teaching climate science in middle and high schools," said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

"Should they act as if the science of climate change were somehow ‘settled’, as asserted by activists, and so create lesson plans based solely on IPCC material approved by school boards and provincial and state governments? Or should they also expose students to the politically incorrect but important perspectives of leading experts who conclude that climate change is mostly due to natural variability?"

ICSC Chief Science Advisor Professor Bob Carter, of James Cook University in Australia explains:

"There is now a third option, one that allows teachers to remain true to their profession, while also avoiding conflict with those to whom they report. Using ICSC lesson plans, educators can help students understand how science really works in a complex and rapidly evolving field, allowing them to discover for themselves that, at the frontier, science is a body of debate, not a body of established facts."

"The ICSC lesson plan guides young people to see critical thinking in action, driving the controversy in scientifically healthy ways, as competing hypotheses are proposed, criticized, and defended, according to the principles of the scientific method," said Professor Carter. "Throughout the lessons, teachers will guide students to think critically, to ask difficult questions, and seek answers to those questions. Students will learn to think, explore, and research."

Tom Harris gives some background: "ICSC’s lesson plans are being prepared in collaboration with top American education researchers following the Virginia Department of Education Standards of Learning that "the teaching puts the emphasis on the student seeking answers for themselves and helps them become creative problem solvers."

ICSC’s first climate science lesson plan is now complete and ready for use by middle school and high school science teachers at: http://tinyurl.com/lkm3h3a . Feedback from educators, students, administrators, scientists, and parents is most welcome. Teachers are invited to contact ICSC if they would like to be put on the distribution list for the rest of the lesson plans in the series as they are completed.

Educators and climate scientists have reviewed ICSC’s teaching strategy and our first lesson plan.

Here are samples of their comments:

Alex Harris, teacher—Science Department, Fellowes High School, Pembroke, Ontario, Canada:

"Students are introduced to an evolving body of scholarly research that seeks to broaden their understanding of debate amongst experts, the role of empirical research in achieving scientific consensus, and healthy skepticism; all are invaluable components of the process of scientific inquiry. Students are asked to question and reflect upon their personal beliefs and evidence used in establishing those beliefs. The materials used in the lesson are designed to stimulate the students' own thought processes and foster an appreciation for the process of scientific inquiry. This lesson is easy to implement and would be appropriate for learners in middle school through junior high school. Educators, exercise caution - this activity is sure to generate a lot of questions from curious minds!"

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.:

Encouraging students to challenge science-based "beliefs" by studying the actual debates among the experts is an excellent way to approach critical pathway thinking. Helping students develop analytical skills can be extremely helpful to them in their future endeavors, and to be educated voters. We live in a highly schooled but poorly educated society, where beliefs outweigh data. This lesson plan will help address that problem." 

Tad Murty, PhD, Professor, University of Ottawa, Previously Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans Canada and former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Ottawa, Canada:

“Any course that challenges the students to think critically and use their own observational power to make deductions is extremely important because it provides opportunities for their mental development. With climate change being among the contemporary topics of global interest, this course is very timely.”

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.:

“The new ICSC lesson plan for middle and high schools is an excellent approach to teach students how to acquire data on their own and use it to come to their own conclusions.  It thus teaches them not only the facts about certain topics but shows them a methodology that can be used for other topics.” 

Ross Hays, Meteorologist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.:

"This looks like a great program that will let the students use their minds and make decisions of what seems to be the most logical theory on climate change as the planet continues to cycle between ice ages and warm periods with man’s written history minute compared to these time lines of climatology."

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology and Paleontology), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

"It is apparent to all educators, be it in music or science or literature, that once the student has been provided with background and given guidance, students learn the most by exploring a subject for themselves. This way, students are able to discover the essence of a subject and its relationship to others, and by doing so learn how to ask questions that will lead to insight and advances. This kind of approach, challenging as it is, helps induce intellectual rigour, and enables students to understand what scholarship is all about.”

Taxing Air

Taxing Air

Taxing air  Facts and fallacies about climate change ISBN: 9780646902180                                                                                               by Bob Carter & John Spooner  Full colour paperback, 288 pp                                                                                                      with Bill Kininmonth, Martin Feil,  Distributed by Dennis Jones                                                                                                         Stewart Franks, Bryan Leyland RRP: $30.00 Pub date: 1 July 2013 In this accessible and beautifully produced full colour book The Age's brilliant political cartoonist John Spooner and leading environmental scientist Professor Bob Carter combine with colleagues to answer a series of critical and highly controversial questions about the politics and science of climate change. Are human industrial carbon dioxide emissions causing dangerous global warming? If so, then climate change would indeed represent one of the great moral challenges of our time. But is it possible that instead the so-called consensus science around global warming - produced by lavishly funded research institutes, and with its own international political lobby organization, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - is wrong? Could it be that the emperor has no clothes? Accessible, clearly written and illustrated with simple scientifc illustrations, and accompanied by Spooner's wry and telling cartoons, Taxing Air answers — without the spin, evasions or propaganda that pollutes most offcial writing on climate change — every question you have about global warming but have been too intimidated by the oppressive ‘consensus’ to ask. All you ever wanted to know about the science and politics of global warming but were afraid to ask.

'I could not put Taxing Air down ... Responding to vested interests, western politicians have already wasted trillions of dollars to frighten people with lies about industrial carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, today’s global temperature lies well within life’s limits – indeed, the present-day is cooler than much of previous geological time.The gas of life rather than a pollutant, atmospheric carbon dioxide has nurtured all the forms of organism on planet Earth for many hundreds of mil- lions of years, as is so clearly explained in this beautifully written and illustrated book.' Professor David Bellamy, OBE, President, Conservation Foundation, UK;  Trustee, World Land Trust (1992-2002) 'Taxing Air is an outstanding contribution to the growing literature that examines and calls to account the climate alarmism of the past two decades. ... it provides an accurate, easily understood explanation of the many scientific and technical issues that comprise today’s climate science. Equally important, it examines the history and exposes the duplicity of some of the individuals and organisations who have vested interests in creating and maintaining horrific visions of an imagined global warming future. The book would make a splendid gift to certain members of the climate science establishment.' Dr. Art Raiche, CSIRO chief research scientist (retired)

To request a review copy or arrange an interview with Bob Carter or John Spooner, please contact: (03) 9036 6390 or Robert at rmasters@robertmasters.com.au.

DID YOU KNOW?

Just 8,000 years ago, there was virtually 

no summer sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean

Sea-level rise is natural, and declining in rate 

Australian rainfall has not decreased over the last 100 years 

A previous Australian drought lasted 69 years

By catchment management, the Murray-Darling Basin now 

contains almost 3 times as much water as it held naturally

Global air temperature has not increased for the last 16 years, despite an 8% increase in CO2

Global ocean temperature is also steady or cooling slightly

Australian territory absorbs up to

20 times the amount of CO2 that we emit

The CO2 tax will cost about $1,000/person/year; and rising

The result of reducing Australian CO2 emissions by 5% 

by 2020 will be a theoretical (and unmeasurable) 

cooling of between 0.0007O and 0.00007O C by 2100

No scientist can tell you whether the world will be 

warmer or cooler than today in 2020

Just a selection of the fascinating facts provided in answer to more 

than 100 basic questions about global warming and climate change 

that are covered in the book.

Persons ordering prior to that date at www.taxingair.com, 

and prior to bookstore availability, will receive a 

personally signed copy of the book. 

More scaremongering from Australian Climate Commission

We have all heard the claims that the world is doomed, human life will become impossible and many other life forms will become extinct unless 80 percent of our fossil fuels remain in the ground. Sounds like another plot for a Hollywood blockbuster disaster movie but this time our Australian Climate Change Commission is scripting the plot. My article in the Queensland Times online at
http://www.queenslandtelegraph.com/climate-report-is-scare-mongering/

We can expect more extreme weather such as cyclones and floods unless we stop using fossil fuels, according to the Climate Commission scientists. (Canoe Point, Tannum Sands)

By John Mikkelsen

A FORMER technical manager at Gladstone Power Station has joined the reaction against the latest Australian Climate Commission report warning that the world will be doomed unless fossil fuels are left in the ground.

The report claimed there would be dire consequences in terms of global warming and further extreme weather events unless 80 per cent of coal reserves remained undisturbed.

But Gladstone’s Cameron Hoare has joined spokespersons from the Federal Government, Federal Opposition, Carbon Sense Coalition and the Minerals Council of Australia in criticising the suggestion.

Hoare, who has had a long career in the electricity generation industry, claimed the latest ACC report was “the same old scare mongering by people who are supposed to know better, backed up by the fanatics in the Greens”.

He told the Telegraph yesterday: “This latest report from the climate commission is just more of the same old pretend science produced solely to meet the government’s policy requirements that we have seen before.

He said real world observations do not support the latest claims and “a large, and increasing, section of the real scientific community are beginning to question the whole catastrophic man made global warming ideology and its unsupported exaggerations”.

“The real world data is now clearly showing that there has been no global warming for more than 15 years, with one of the satellite temperature series showing this failure of the real world to conform to the virtual world of the climate models, going back over 20 years.

“The observed temperature trend since 1979 is now way below even the lowest predictions of the computer models; In fact global temperatures have even declined in the last decade,” Hoare claimed.

“Many scientists who are not in the government funded global warming club are now predicting that the world may be in for a few decades of global cooling with some scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg in Russia suggesting that this cooling trend could persist for over 200 years,” he said.

Carbon Sense Coalition chairman Viv Forbes claimed carbon dioxide plays “almost no part in any of the dominant weather processes”.

The Rosevale pastoralist, who is also a geologist and soil scientist, said the so-called greenhouse gases (mainly water vapour and carbon dioxide) have the ability to absorb radiant energy and transmit it to their surroundings.

“These gases tend to retain some surface heat but also assist the Earth to shed heat from the upper troposphere by radiating energy to space. Without this ability to shed heat to space, the upper atmosphere would be considerably hotter”.

He said the net atmospheric effect of additional carbon dioxide was “very minor and difficult to quantify”.

“It probably makes the nights slightly warmer, especially in higher latitudes during winter; and it probably has little effect on daytime temperatures.

“But additional carbon dioxide in the biosphere gives a major boost to all plants which feed all animals. It is not a pollutant, anywhere.

“Carbon dioxide is not the gas of global warming – it is the bread and butter of life,” he claimed.

Federal Resources Minister Gary Gray said Australia’s coal was helping nations such as India and China bring many millions of people out of poverty.

He acknowledged the need for clean energy, but said coal was still vital to the global economy and  while Australia could turn to natural gas, it should still export its coal reserves.

“There is no solution to global baseload energy generation that does not figure a big contribution by coal,” he said.

And Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt also ruled out closing the coal industry.

He said the Coalition supported Australia’s emissions reduction target but  real change would not happen until there was a global agreement.

But Greens leader Christine Milne claimed the Government and the Coalition had shown they do not accept “the climate change science”.

“You either understand those coal reserves have to stay in the ground or, if you’re going to back those coal reserves and the ports in Queensland, then you don’t believe the climate science,” she said.

Living and Working in a Gasfield

Presentation by Richard Golden at the 2013 10th Anniversary Property Rights Australia conference.

Resource developments on our land-

Activities                                                                                                                     Number of agreements
1.       3 gas tenements, on each of two landholdings                                                                                   6
2.       1 longwall EPC (Exploration Permit for Coal) on each of two landholdings                                   2
3.       1 x 275,000 volt lattice tower power transmission line on one of the holdings                            1
                                                                                                                                                                9

So, by the time we are finished, we will have had to negotiate 9 agreements with four different companies about 3 different activities!

 

 

 

Photo sourced from Observant

 

 

Perhaps should get my potentially contentious opinions out in the open first up-

1.       Australia is a free enterprise country, and if our forebears came and imposed a higher and better use on the previous occupiers, then  I think it is a bit hypocritical for us to say that a legitimate activity such as resource development shouldn’t be able to operate in our space.

2.       I support the freedom of landowners to choose to sell to resource companies and the freedom of gas companies to buy landholdings in a voluntary sale.

The issue for me in both instances is the manner and the process. The mental and emotional strain on landholders, our families and our communities which lets us find out from experience how much better the internet works from about 2.30am to daylight.

• ·         Sol the shopkeeper with his son Ikey’s first lesson in business – never trust anybody 

• ·         Global gas corporations are ruthless businesses, not charitable institutions. They operate in Queensland with laws which already favour their interests, even without the disparity in skill, experience and financial capacity. Like the dingo waiting patiently in the shade beside the waterhole, knowing that the roo he chased in there must eventually come out, companies which choose to do so are in a position to wait patiently while landholders financially drown in legal and expert costs, or volunteer to come out to be slaughtered.

 

·         Having said that, it is important to also say, gas companies are not all the same as each other. Nor is any gas company all good, nor any all bad. Like gems, there are many facets to a gas company. But in the end, it is the company culture that rules.

 

·         Be cautious about either accepting or rejecting the landholders who play front-men for gas companies in media blitzes. We don’t know, and they aren’t allowed to say, what tipped the scales for them. No one knows what those landholders’ vision or life objectives were or are, and nobody can know what their compensation agreements entailed. And nobody can judge whether the one gas company they are promoting represents the industry standard.

 

·         Two of the most abused words in the resources and political language are “certainty” and “information”.                 With great respect to MPs and Gasfield commissioners the last thing I need is “more” information without first getting the specific information I have already requested and which has been withheld for the last 6 months. So the riders to the word “information” are the words “accurate” and “relevant”. Without both of those adjectives, more information is worse than useless. Some gas companies are prepared to drown landholders in useless and possibly inaccurate information and use that to obscure the facts. And “certainty”, well the only certainty the “good faith” negotiation process has provided to us is that companies are in a position to use the laws to choke us into submission while smiling and talking about the good faith, and that one is in the process of doing so. That type of certainty is 100% negative.

 

·         Remember that even though the time-honoured caution caveat emptor is effectively dead for the general public, it remains essential for us as businesses fighting for our very right to remain in stewardship of our landscapes and in control of at least a part of our destiny. SO....don’t even draw breath without legal representation and advice and don’t take anything or anyone at face value.

 

·         And so to the subject of professional costs which the law appears to say must be paid by the company - at least one company feels free to choose not to pay landholders’ professional costs using the rubbery adjectives “reasonable and necessary” to justify the refusal. Now, notwithstanding the apparent ability to pay only what the company chooses to pay, we have SKM, a consultancy with direct connections to the gas industry as a supplier of professional services, providing “independent” advice to government suggesting capping the costs which at least one company already feels free to refuse to pay anyway. If this “capping” proposal were accepted by government the effect will be to further suffocate the landholders who have small areas and for whom the most generous of financial settlements can never cover the shortfall between SKM’s ridiculous cap recommendation and the real cost of dealing with a gas company which, for example, flatly refuses to supply the information needed by a landholder to inform their compensation discussions.

·         The “mudguard” syndrome.

The shiny side-

Internationally renowned, world’s best practice gasfield operator and gas producer, with warmth, integrity and generosity, building a minimal impact gasfield in a welcoming receiving environment, where there is little if any real conflict between the gasfield and the existing land use. Deeply committed to strong and respectful relationships with landholders, and good-faith negotiations to obtain mutually beneficial agreements. Determined to achieve real co-existence.

This is the sort of soft sell that gets some local, state and federal politicians wetting themselves with excitement and pleasure at the win-win for everyone. The sort of stuff that wins awards for advertising companies while helping the voting public to rest easy at night.

And then the smelly, dirty underside of the gas company mudguard-

Building and operating a gasfield in our business premises and our homes, for an uncertain number of decades into the future.

Breaches such as trespass, weed certificates for the wrong vehicle, no certificate at all, certs out of date, certified vehicles contaminated with vegetative matter and soil, unauthorised entry, letting cattle out, letting cattle in, letting cattle between paddocks, cutting stock water supplies, cattle falling into bell-holes, mixing of soil horizons in gathering construction, building a gathering system in a property where they have not even got a CCA, and then when they are sprung in the act, leaving plastic tape fluttering on pegs in that paddock where stud bulls live so the bulls can eat it and die, creating the environment for undesirable grasses to dominate landscapes, and on and on and on.

And let’s not even start on the water matter. 

So that is barely a taste of what living and working in someone else’s gasfield is like, and however affronted you feel, multiply that by 10 to start to gain the real picture. Even if your or your neighbour’s experience has been positive, there is nothing to show that anyone else’s will be. In conclusion-

·         Remember Ikey and never trust anybody

·         Remember that in the end the company culture rules

·         Don’t even shake hands without legal advice and representation, and count your fingers after

·         Scream about the suggestion to introduce any form of capping on recoverable professional costs

·         Report every breach however small

·         Concede nothing without a fight

·         Remember the mudguard syndrome

·         And mourn the loss of trust, and privacy, and the families and homes we have struggled to make and protect

Farming Advocacy (or Agvocacy) 101

by Sherrill Stivano

 

First published at Feedlots, Farms & Family  

It has been a very eventful couple of years in the world of farmers on social media. For me it kicked off with the ABC Four Corners program “A Bloody Business”, regarding the Live Export of cattle to Indonesia and the cruelty encountered in some abattoirs at slaughter point.

Image sourced from http://www.causematters.com/

It was at this time I entered into the social media world, firstly dipping my toe into the waters of Facebook only to lose a leg to the first activist I encountered. The leg was quickly followed by my temper as I watched all Australian farmers being branded cruel and evil. I am not proud of my first encounters. I struggled with my temper as I was horrified at the things that were being said about our hard working Australian Farmers.  People I know to be generous, kind and compassionate. People who work hard and encounter many difficulties daily yet keep on moving forward. Things like:

“All farmers with terminal illnesses should have their throats cut to see how painful it is”

Or

“Hand over your children and see if they scream”

As you can imagine, these types of statements got some very strong reactions from me and many other farmers who were following the threads. Sadly, however much I want to say this type of behaviour was confined to the activists’ side I cannot.

Now here we are over two years later. What have I learnt? Have I changed my tactics? Can I hold my temper? The answers are lots, definitely and most of the time.

So exactly what have I learnt as an Australian farmer? Gosh I am unsure of where to start here as I have learnt so much!

While initially shocked at the vitriol and hatred encountered and pointed squarely in the direction of Australian Farming, I learnt that not all people use so
cial media to bully, defame and demean others.  There are many out there who are very genuine in their concerns and really want to understand what is entailed on a daily basis in different farming industries.

I learnt that many in the general public are quite removed from farming and how their food is produced, but only a handful are removed from their senses. Most people are happy to accept a factual polite explanation. Most people are reasonable.

I learnt that manners will create ongoing conversations and that there are many out there who while not actively involved in a conversation, still watch and can be reached never the less. I have learnt that you will never convince everyone, but to respect the different opinions out there. I have learnt that not only does religion start wars, but given time so will dietary arguments, especially when agendas are pushed by radical members of movements.  

 

I learnt that there was also a large and growing rural community on social media and contrary to the claims by some industry bodies that social media had no place in agriculture, these farmers have been able to prove otherwise. Many had been told to get the word out themselves and they have been doing an excellent job of it.  I have also learnt that rural Australia really is a small world which is a wonderful thing when it comes to closed social media groups and verification of members. It seems there is always someone who knows someone who knows someone. This is a great strength.

 I learnt that we farmers are far from silly when it comes to technology however rural technology just may not be able to keep pace with us! NBN? What NBN? Signal drop out or failure is the bane of a rural advocate.

There are so many things that I have learnt, but perhaps the biggest so far has been the fact that farmers can make a difference as shown with the back down by Coles from selling the Animals Australia Make it Possible campaign merchandise, solely due to the social media revolt by farmers. I only hope that the real reason for the massive backlash by farmers is being heard. Coles, who have suddenly made themselves the moral guardian of farming ethics (very same company now accused by the ACCC – Australian Consumer Competition Commission of misleading and deceptive marketing on a separate issue) aligned themselves with an organisation who are all about animal RIGHTS NOT animal WELFARE. An organisation who has repeatedly pushed an agenda to end all livestock farming, commencing with live export and intensive farming methods. An organisation who uses illegal methods of hidden surveillance  to obtain footage of what may or may not be cruelty (as it is heavily edited). To do so members trespass on farms which are not only businesses but family homes. From this edited footage they have pieced together an advertising campaign to illicit donations from the public. Not a single dollar will be spent on ensuring the welfare of a single animal however. This is where the outrage stems from. Social media provided farmers the perfect horse they could saddle up, muster support and stampede a major corporate company into retracting its poorly judged support for an organisation who had in their own minds been masters of the social media game.

 

So how have my tactics changed? There is actually a skill in getting your facts out there, and the Australian public really does trust its farmers. I have watched many very good rural advocates, people who had never really thought they would be at the forefront of rural advocacy. These clever, witty and genuine people have taught me many things.

 

 

So these are my top 12 of Farming Advocacy 101 ………….

1. ENGAGE – Engage with the general public everywhere. In towns and cities. On buses, trains and planes.
2. KEEP COOL – Expect resistance and at times agree to disagree and walk away from an argument before it deteriorates into personal attacks
3.  PLAY THE BALL – Engage on the facts and argument, not the opponent. Personal attacks are not attractive and do not paint anyone in a good light.
4. RESPECT – Respect the general public and their entitlement to an opinion that is different to yours. You can however ensure it is an educated opinion by offering facts to counter their opinion.
5. FACTS – Use facts you know to be true based off actual experiences. These facts are always so believable simply because they are true.
6. SHOW & TELL – Keeps photos of your farm and your animals and farm operations on your phone ready to show anyone who  may be interested when travelling. A picture says more than a thousand words, just ask an activist.
7. POSITIVITY – When engaging others do so in a positive and polite manner and you will generally be treated in the same manner.
8.  UNDERSTANDING – We can’t expect the general public to understand farming if we don’t tell them about it, but make sure explanations do not equal whinging. It is a fine line from the general public’s point of view
9. SOLUTIONS – Be proactive and find solutions to problems. Talking about a problem repeatedly becomes tiresome if no solution can be found.
10. IMPROVEMENTS -   Even the best farming operations have room for improvements, but make sure they can be on YOUR terms. Be proactive don’t wait to be told.
11. RESPONSIBILITY – It has become clear that the responsibility for public perceptions lies with farmers and farmers are one of the most trusted professions in Australia. We are responsible for bringing about change and we are responsible for educating the Australian consumer about their food
12. PROUD – Australian farmers are some of the most innovative in the world producing food that is clean, green and disease free. Hold your head up high as an Australian farmer and be proud. Share your pride in your farm, crops and animals. It is contagious.

 

Lastly……can I hold my temper? Hmmm I will say most of the time. I try hard and revert to pasting facts I have stashed away when someone has stirred the pot a little too hard. I sometimes write several scathing replies, but never post them and then walk away. Or at least most of the time I do………………….. 

 

Previous post by Sherrill

Acceptable cruelty for seven months?

 

.