Hey, That’s a Great Idea: Just Let AI Control All Nuclear Weapons! By James “Dr Strangelove” Reed

     Here is something from the “great ideas” department, to let AI control the world’s nuclear weapons. I mean to say, it is bad enough having humans control them, but who is to say what will happen when humans are taken out of the loop?

“Hypersonic missiles, stealthy cruise missiles, and weaponized artificial intelligence have so reduced the amount of time that decision makers in the United States would theoretically have to respond to a nuclear attack that, two military experts say, it’s time for a new US nuclear command, control, and communications system. Their solution? Give artificial intelligence control over the launch button. In an article in War on the Rocks titled, ominously, “America Needs a ‘Dead Hand,’” US deterrence experts Adam Lowther and Curtis McGiffin propose a nuclear command, control, and communications setup with some eerie similarities to the Soviet system referenced in the title to their piece. The Dead Hand was a semiautomated system developed to launch the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal under certain conditions, including, particularly, the loss of national leaders who could do so on their own. Given the increasing time pressure Lowther and McGiffin say US nuclear decision makers are under, “[I]t may be necessary to develop a system based on artificial intelligence, with predetermined response decisions, that detects, decides, and directs strategic forces with such speed that the attack-time compression challenge does not place the United States in an impossible position.”

Continue reading

Asteroid Doomsday? By Brian Simpson

     I have been keeping a watch out for killer asteroids, having bought a cheap telescope from the junk shop, hence supplying the first line of defence for Australia. I have not seen much in the night sky yet, just a few huge mossies that landed on the lenses. Then there are these articles documenting near misses, and some strikes, almost every day by small space rocks:

“Event similar to Chelyabinsk meteor strike happen once every 30 years, not 150
Scientists studying the terrifying meteor that exploded without warning over a Russian city last winter say the threat of space rocks smashing into Earth is bigger than they thought. Meteors about the size of the one that streaked through the sky at 67,000 kilometres per hour and burst over Chelyabinsk in February — and ones even larger and more dangerous — are probably four to five times more likely to hit the planet than scientists believed before the fireball, according to three studies published Wednesday in the journals Nature and Science. Until Chelyabinsk, NASA had looked only for space rocks about 30 metres wide and bigger, figuring there was little danger below that.

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor

To The Editor, Stock Journal

  Dear Jacinta

     Minister Simon Birmingham is negotiating a Trade Deal with the European Union as reported in the Stock Journal Sep 12. The Minister has noted some gains likely with reduced tariffs.  I do hope he will negotiate from a position of strength where he can promote our sought-after leading products known to be so clean and green. Also from that position of strength, he can delete any reference to the EU having any favoured access to purchase our real estate, which has been evident in other Trade Deals.  With the current dilemma over water in the Murray Darling Basin, he should also remind potential EU investors that our water resources are not for sale.
Yours etc
  Ken Grundy, Naracoorte  SA

Greens Know By Viv Forbes

     Greens know that Australia could not electrify our cities, farms, mines, refineries and factories, nor power our road, rail, air and sea transport with just solar, wind, hydro and batteries. Yet green activists, their adoring media, their tax-funded academics, their subsidised green “industries” and their vote-seeking politicians keep babbling about “zero emissions”. Greens know that Australia could not feed itself without farmers, graziers and truckies using electric and diesel-powered pumps, tractors, harvesters and trucks to produce food and deliver it to the cities every day. Yet they tax and vilify diesel and make electricity more expensive and less reliable. And they lock up productive grasslands and open forests thus producing pest-ridden “parks” and “protected” vegetation infested with feral animals and invaded by inedible and fire-prone eucalypt weeds. Greens know that we need more water storage just for today’s population. Yet they continue to sterilise potential dam sites, delay new dams, and waste conserved water on “environmental flows”. At the same time they boost water consumption with more tourists, games, immigrants and “refugees”. Greens know they need a crisis in power, food and water to achieve their goal of centralised UN control of all aspects of our lives. Thanks to the many fools and quislings in Federal, State and Local governments, and in tax-funded academia, education and bureaucracy, this sinister hidden agenda is well advanced. And all of this will provide ZERO climate benefits. Maybe the Greens are just the old reds in Green uniforms?

Google Suppressing Climate Critiques By Chris Knight

     Big Tech suppression continues, and what should we expect, since that is what they are in the business to do, squash the deplorables and support globalist ideology. Not only have we seen race material, immigration and pro-health material censored, then all conservative approaches, but now, climate change critique as well goes under the chop:

“Several months ago, Google quietly released a 32-page white paper, “How Google Fights Disinformation.” That sound good. The problem is that Google not only controls a whopping 92.2% of all online searches. It is a decidedly left-wing outfit, which views things like skepticism of climate alarmism, and conservative views generally, as “disinformation.” The white paper explains how Google’s search and news algorithms operate, to suppress what Google considers disinformation and wants to keep out of educational and public discussions. The algorithms clearly favor liberal content when displaying search results. Generally speaking, they rank and present search results based on the use of so-called “authoritative sources.” The problem is, these sources are mostly “mainstream” media, which are almost entirely liberal. Google’s algorithmic definition of “authoritative” makes liberals the voice of authority. Bigger is better, and the liberals have the most and biggest news outlets. The algorithms are very complex, but the basic idea is that the more other websites link to you, the greater your authority. It is like saying a newspaper with more subscribers is more trustworthy than one with fewer subscribers. This actually makes no sense, but that is how it works with the news and in other domains. Popularity is not authority, but the algorithm is designed to see it that way. This explains why the first page of search results for breaking news almost always consists of links to liberal outlets. There is absolutely no balance with conservative news sources. Given that roughly half of Americans are conservatives, Google’s liberal news bias is truly reprehensible.

Continue reading

Greens Know By Viv Forbes

     Greens know that Australia could not electrify our cities, farms, mines, refineries and factories, nor power our road, rail, air and sea transport with just solar, wind, hydro and batteries. Yet green activists, their adoring media, their tax-funded academics, their subsidised green “industries” and their vote-seeking politicians keep babbling about “zero emissions”. Greens know that Australia could not feed itself without farmers, graziers and truckies using electric and diesel-powered pumps, tractors, harvesters and trucks to produce food and deliver it to the cities every day. Yet they tax and vilify diesel and make electricity more expensive and less reliable. And they lock up productive grasslands and open forests thus producing pest-ridden “parks” and “protected” vegetation infested with feral animals and invaded by inedible and fire-prone eucalypt weeds. Greens know that we need more water storage just for today’s population. Yet they continue to sterilise potential dam sites, delay new dams and waste conserved water on “environmental flows”. At the same time they boost water consumption with more tourists, games, immigrants and “refugees”. Greens know they need a crisis in power, food and water to achieve their goal of centralised UN control of all aspects of our lives. Thanks to the many fools and quislings in Federal, State and Local governments, and in tax-funded academia, education and bureaucracy, this sinister hidden agenda process is well advanced. And all of this will provide ZERO climate benefits.

Bushfire Sense and Nonsense By Viv Forbes

     Bushfires are normal events in this season in tropical and sub-tropical latitudes of the southern hemisphere – in Australia, Africa and South America. Even Captain Cook noted many fires in Eastern Australia in 1770, long before the era of “global warming” hysteria. What is unusual is the number and ferocity of recent Australian fires. Destructive bushfires need three things – a big load of dry fuel, hot dry winds and a point of ignition. A big load of dry fuel, close to towns and buildings, in this season, is a sign of gross mis-management (seen most commonly in public lands). That fuel should have been raked, dozed or burnt in safer weather conditions. Hot dry winds are not unusual in this season in these latitudes – no use whinging. But how do 100+ bushfires start suddenly? Machinery occasionally starts fires but not 120 fires in a short time. There have been no lightning storms so who are the arsonists or idiots starting these fires?

Volcanic Doomsday By Brian Simpson

     My position on global warming; scientifically it does not matter much, as humans can adapt to it. What matters is not to get bogged down in scientific debates, which are always inconclusive, but rather counter the politics. I cannot stress that enough: oppose the politics, as Eric Butler used to say, don’t waste time playing around with the scientists, who are basically paid court jesters. Argue against globalisation even if, everything they say is taken as “true.” No, sorry, global warming as you define it shows exactly the opposite of open borders. If things are that bad, end immigration now, move to an alternative social credit financial system. See how long they talk about global warming then! Yes, they will run in reverse very quickly indeed. The real climate threat to human existence has always been cooling.

“As welcome as the fall weather can be when it finally sets in, it’s hard to imagine life without summer, yet that’s exactly what happened back in 1816 – and it could happen again. That year, spring came like it always did, but what followed was a lot closer to winter than summer. Cold temperatures set in, and the sky over many parts of the world was permanently overcast. In the U.S., England, Ireland, France, and other places, the lack of sunlight led to major crop losses and food shortages. The conditions were baffling at the time, but we now know that the chain of events was set off by the biggest volcanic eruption the world had ever seen one year earlier at Mount Tambora in Indonesia. A hundred times stronger than the eruption at Mount St. Helens in 1980, it killed at least 71,000 people. The millions of tons of ash, sulfur dioxide and dust the eruption spewed into the atmosphere caused global temperatures to fall by as much as 3 degrees. New England saw heavy snow in June, with drifts as high as 20 inches, while herbs and vegetables died out because of ice in Philadelphia. Frozen birds reportedly dropped into Canadian streets, while lambs succumbed to exposure. Food riots hit Europe. Food shortages weren’t the only problem; there were also outbreaks of diseases including a typhoid epidemic and mass migration as people sought better living conditions. The disconcerting nature of the sudden shift also led to religious revivals, and the gloomy conditions inspired works of art like the horror novel Frankenstein.

Continue reading

Battle of the Century: Man of Muscle vs Well … Macron By John Steele

     Take the globalist elites on their own, as physical specimens, and they are revealed as puny, most being incapable of personal survival without their hired protection. It is thus highly amusing to see one of the great martial artists of the world, Renzo Gracie, wanting to fight in the octagon French president Macron. Of course, this can never happen, Macron has no death wish, and unarmed there is nothing he could do to stop a Gracie. The fight would be the quickest in history, over in seconds.

“After some verbal combat between Jair Bolsonaro and Emmanuel Macron, Brazil’s tourism ambassador – MMA fighter Renzo Gracie – upped the ante, calling the French leader a “clown” and threatening to choke him. Diplomacy in 2019. To recap, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro recently earned the scorn of French President Emmanuel Macron for mocking Macron’s 66-year-old wife Brigitte on Facebook. Macron had earlier accused Bolsonaro of reneging on his commitments to the environment, as G7 leaders discussed wildfires burning in the Amazon rainforest. Bolsonaro’s comments, Macron said, were “extraordinarily rude,” and “sad.” Though the tiff seemed over, Bolsonaro was still miffed at the G7’s offer of a $22 million “colonial” aid package to fight the fires, which, he pointed out, burn every year in the Amazon and are being handled by Brazilian authorities. However, Gracie turned things up several notches over the weekend, in a diplomatic exchange that would put the trash talk of any UFC fighter or bare-knuckle boxer to shame. “The only fire going on is the fire inside Brazilian hearts and our president’s heart, you clown,” Gracie thundered in a Twitter video addressed to Macron, who he oh-so-cleverly rebranded “micron.”“Come over here, you’ll be caught by the neck, that chicken neck. You don’t fool me,” his rant continued. After the video was posted, Brazilian reporter Adriano Wilkson called Gracie up. If he was expecting a more measured statement from the newly appointed tourism ambassador, he was left disappointed. “Of course a bunch of people will be scared, they’ll think I called him chicken because I was questioning his manhood, but I’ve seen plenty of gay men who are more manly than this imbecile,” Gracie said, before reigniting the discussion on Brigitte Macron’s looks for good measure. “I’ll ask you a question. Is she ugly or pretty? Would you hook up with her?...The fact that he sleeps with a dragon doesn’t make him a fire expert. She’s ugly, man.”

Continue reading

Divine Retribution: California May Sink into the Sea Taking the Libtards with It! By Charles Taylor

     It could well be a playing out of Old Testament wrath of God, as the forces exist to allow much of California to simply fall into the sea.

“The Wilmington fault, as it’s called, is an elusive type of fracture. Unlike many faults, which crack Earth’s surface like an egg, the Wilmington fault is “blind,” which means it’s concealed beneath the surface, making it especially difficult to study. So while scientists have long known the fault is present—stretching 12.4 miles under southern Los Angeles into San Pedro Bay—it was presumed to have sat quiet for millions of years. Now, a new analysis of the system, published in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, suggests that isn’t the case. Using a cluster of clues incorporated into a three-dimensional model, the study authors posit that the fault has been active much more recently than once thought—and likely still poses a risk to people on the surface. “I hope bringing attention to it can potentially increase safety in the region,” says study author Franklin Wolfe, a doctoral candidate who is part of Harvard’s structural geology and Earth resources group. While the fault is slow moving and likely ruptures only once every 3,200 to 4,700 years, it underlies two of the United States’ busiest ports. And researchers worry that the Wilmington could link with other nearby faults to produce a temblor as strong as a magnitude 7.4.”

Continue reading

Eat More Microplastics, They Are Truly the Plastic Fantastic! By Uncle Len, Lover of Fine Plastic And All Things Hydrocarbon

     This story got me so hungry that I broke off a bit more plastic to eat. Wait, I will bring readers up to date. There are so many families dumpster diving now, that to survive needed another food source. So, I took up eating plastic. What, you say, Uncle Len, you are not an insect, how can you survive on plastic alone? But, I am not alone, for we all are eating heaps of plastic and doing fine too:

“A new review by the World Health Organisation (WHO) has found that the potential health risks from consuming microplastics in our drinking water are not yet known. Microplastics are “ubiquitous” in the food we eat and in drinking water, both bottled and tap, the report said. Australian research revealed in June that, on average, we could ingest about five grams of plastic every week which is the equivalent weight of a credit card. However, the health impact is unclear and requires further research. “We urgently need to know more about the health impact of microplastics because they are everywhere – including in our drinking-water,” says Dr Maria Neira, director of the Department of Public Health, Environment and Social Determinants of Health at WHO. “Based on the limited information we have, microplastics in drinking water don’t appear to pose a health risk at current levels. But we need to find out more. We also need to stop the rise in plastic pollution worldwide.” Associate Professor Duncan McGillivray from the School of Chemical Sciences at the University of Auckland said we are more exposed to microplastics than we think.

Continue reading

Climate Change? It’s Only Natural By James Reed

     First, by way of disclosure my one personal belief, is that after this Melbourne winter, if anything, we are heading towards a new ice age, and that increasing our carbon footprint through coal, oil, and glorious fossil fuels and anything that burns cannot be too bad. That over, let’s get down to business, bashing global warming in the morning:

     Well, I read the article at Natural News looking for a juicy quote, but only found a discussion about the geometry of Milankovitch cycles, variations in the Earth’s orbit, that can cause ice ages. But nothing much about NASA saying that climate change is not caused by fossil fuels, sadly. Very disappointing; in fact NASA has a whole website on climate change, all conventional stuff:

Continue reading

Showing the Climate Change Cards; The End of Consuming Anything By James Reed

     It is not often that we see an article where the climate experts let all of the cats out of the bag about their agenda of eliminating consumption, but here it is, I found it:

“People must use less transport, eat less red meat and buy fewer clothes if the UK is to virtually halt greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government's chief environment scientist has warned. Prof Sir Ian Boyd said the public had little idea of the scale of the challenge from the so-called Net Zero emissions target. However, he said technology would help. The conundrum facing the UK - and elsewhere - was how we shift ourselves away from consuming, he added. In an interview with BBC News, Sir Ian warned that persuasive political leadership was needed to carry the public through the challenge. Asked whether Boris Johnson would deliver that leadership, he declined to comment. Mr Johnson has already been accused by environmentalists of talking up electric cars whilst reputedly planning a cut in driving taxes that would increase emissions and undermine the electric car market.”

Continue reading

On Climate Spare Change, Hockey Sticks and Law Suits By Ian Wilson LL.B

     I don’t write on the climate change issue because I do not know much about science, and others here are best to address it. However, here is a case where climate change, allegedly, and the law meet, and the mainstream did not do so well. Note that I am not necessarily endorsing any of the following remarks, merely quoting a source in the public interest, as an Australian:

“Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case. The Canadian court issued its final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers. The plaintiff Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed an “unprecedented” spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability. … On Friday morning (August 23, 2019) Dr Ball sent an email to WUWT revealing: “Michael Mann’s Case Against Me Was Dismissed This Morning by The BC Supreme Court and They Awarded Me [Court] Costs.” A more detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course. Professor Mann is a climate professor at Penn State University. Mann filed his action on March 25, 2011 for Ball’s allegedly libelous statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” … Previously, on Feb, 03, 2010, an … academic investigation  by Pennsylvania State University had cleared Mann of misconduct. Mann also falsely claimed the NAS found nothing untoward with his work. But the burden of proof in a court of law is objectively higher. Not only did the B.C. Supreme Court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the 8-year, multi-million-dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball. This extraordinary outcome will likely trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to alarmist climate science claims that modern temperatures are “unprecedented.” According to the leftist The Guardian newspaper (Feb, 09, 2010), the wider importance of Mann’s graph over the last 20 years is massive: “Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics.” Under court rules, Mann’s legal team have up to 30 days to file an appeal.” That is the principal scientific.org statement, not my personal expression; take it for what it is.”

Continue reading

Greenies Hoisted by their Own Petard! By James Reed

     The sight of a wind turbine sends me into fits of rage, like e-scooters and all the gee whiz tech that makes inner city elites, uni. types, those sorts of people feel morally superior to people like me who have to burn every scrap of lead-paint encrusted timber, and toxic coloured paper to survive this colder than usual (due to global cooling leading up to an ice age), Melbourne winter.

“Researchers from Harvard University have made an interesting and hilarious discovery with regards to wind power, which actually causes more global warming than the burning of fossil fuels does. While massive wind farms are said by some to be the “renewable” energy source of the future, two Harvard scientists have found that the spinning blades of these massive metal monstrosities create more climate warming than coal plants, as one prominent example of the fossil fuel energy that climate alarmists claim is creating global warming. In fact, wind turbines are more “polluting” in terms of the heat they give off than any fossil fuel energy source currently in use, which just goes to show that so-called “clean” energy is, at least in this case, a myth. Published in the journal Joule, the paper concluded that, if all of the electricity demands of the United States could suddenly be supplied by nothing but wind turbines, the surface of the continental states would increase in temperature by a shocking 0.24 degrees Celsius. This figure is vastly greater than the 0.1 degree Celsius temperature reduction that climate fanatics are aiming to achieve by “decarbonizing” our nation’s electricity sector before the finality of this current century. “If your perspective is the next 10 years, wind power actually has – in some respects – more climate impact than coal or gas,” says David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard, and one of the study’s two primary co-authors.”

Continue reading

Invading Brazil? By James Reed

     The global warming elites are besides themselves about Brazil’s fires, which seem to be about average for this time of the year, fires being a natural part of forest life. But, this does not stop the globalist elites who now see this as grounds for invading Brazil!

“Aug. 5, 2025: In a televised address to the nation, U.S. President Gavin Newsom announced that he had given Brazil a one-week ultimatum to cease destructive deforestation activities in the Amazon rainforest. If Brazil did not comply, the president warned, he would order a naval blockade of Brazilian ports and airstrikes against critical Brazilian infrastructure. The president’s decision came in the aftermath of a new United Nations report cataloging the catastrophic global effects of continued rainforest destruction, which warned of a critical “tipping point” that, if reached, would trigger a rapid acceleration of global warming. Although China has stated that it would veto any U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Brazil, the president said that a large “coalition of concerned states” was prepared to support U.S. action. At the same time, Newsom said the United States and other countries were willing to negotiate a compensation package to mitigate the costs to Brazil for protecting the rainforest, but only if it first ceased its current efforts to accelerate development. The above scenario is obviously far-fetched—at least I think it is—but how far would you go to prevent irreversible environmental damage? In particular, do states have the right—or even the obligation—to intervene in a foreign country in order to prevent it from causing irreversible and possibly catastrophic harm to the environment?

Continue reading

Amazon Fires: Fake News! By James Reed

     Ha! Just what I thought, the Amazon fires are false news! I was excited for a time, as this would have been a real test of the global warming nonsense, especially when the entire Amazon swamp was eliminated so that burger-producing, methane releasing beef cattle in all their beauty would be free to drink and poo in the Amazon River. But, who know?

“The hysteria over Brazil’s “lungs of the earth” has even become a central contention at the G7 meeting in Europe, with global leaders calling for intervention to save the Amazon jungle. The problem is that most pictures being circulated on social media are NOT of this year’s fires at all! Photos are being dragged out from fires dating back to 1989 and presented as if they were taken in 2019. “This is fake news and blatant disinformation at its worst, but the world’s news media is using it to fan the fires of outrage in an attempt to achieve a political outcome, namely, Sustainable Development. In particular, the Amazon rain forest is seen as vital to countering global warming. Meteorologist Eric Holthaus, who writes for the radical environmental journal Grist, Tweeted today, “Smoke from the fires currently burning in the Amazon rainforest is covering about half of Brazil. We are in a climate emergency.” Apparently fire and smoke is seen as proof of global warming. However, considering that the rain forest stretches across Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana, why is it that only Brazil is under attack by the Sustainable Development crowd? First, remember that the first Earth Summit that produced Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development in the first place was held in Rio DeJaneiro, Brazil in 1992. Thus, Brazil is akin to sacred ground to UN policy wonks. Second, Brazil’s newly-elected president Jair Bolsonaro is strongly opposed to globalization, left-wing policies and is pointedly anti-Communist. Bolsonaro has become a lightning rod for attack much in the same way and for the same reasons as U.S. President Donald Trump. The bottom line is that while fires are real, the Chicken Little panic is fake.”

Continue reading

Should We Care if the Lungs of the Earth get Cancer? By James Reed

     This one has really got all the young ones and people who still see some point in living very worried: the Amazon is on fire!

     The Amazon fires have been described as an apocalypse, plunging entire cities into darkness:

Continue reading

Now the Elites Want to Literally Eat You! By Brian Simpson

     If the people do not fight against tyranny, should they cry when it is decided by the Dark Lords of the Universe that they be eaten? The normalising process is beginning:

“For humans though, cannibalism is the ultimate taboo. In fact, our aversion to cannibalism is so strong that consent and ethics count for little. In one of our own experiments, participants were asked to consider the hypothetical case of a man who gave permission to his friend to eat parts of him once he died of natural causes. Participants read that this occurred in a culture that permitted the act, that the act was meant to honour the deceased, and that the flesh was cooked so that there was no chance of disease. Despite this careful description, about half of the participants still insisted that the act was invariably wrong. The tragic anecdote above illuminates why humans are the exception to the animal cannibal rule. Our capacity to represent the personalities of the living and the departed is unparalleled. This deep connection between personhood and flesh can mean that careful reasoning in certain situations over the merits of cannibalism is overridden by our feelings of repulsion and disgust. So why our disgust for human flesh but not that of other animals? Philosopher William Irvine has us imagine a ranch that raises plump babies for human consumption, much like we fatten and slaughter cattle for beef. Irvine suggests that the same arguments we apply to justify the killing of cows also apply to babies. For example, they wouldn't protest, and they're not capable of rational thought.

Continue reading

Tyranny right on our Door By Bruce Bennett

     If things were not tough enough for our battling farmers, now they have to deal with anarcho-tyranny, not immediately in the form of Camp of the Saints invasions, but by Big government claiming rainwater as soon as it hits the ground:

“Lakeland farmers have been told they no longer own the water after rainfall hits the ground on their properties. Desperate for irrigation water to keep their banana crops alive the State Government delivered a mortal blow preventing farmers from building any more dams over 50 megalitres capacity without applying for an expensive licence. Mareeba-based Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy officer Patrick Huber broke the devastating news at a meeting of Lakeland farmers recently. Mr Huber stressed that water caught in domestic rainwater tanks was safe from government hands but any other water belonged to the State. Releasing the Draft Water Plan for Cape York Peninsula he said overland flow had to be protected and the department would soon require land owners with existing dams, large or small, to supply dam measurements and capacities to the department. Within 12 months of receiving the information the DNR would then issue a licence for the water and install meters on all private dams to get an idea of water usage.

Continue reading