Wednesday With White

[Fransisco]

Mr. White

It's Wednesday again and again I would like to show you a price comparison.

In Bottineau North Dakota the closing price for new crop spring wheat was $7.70 per bu USD

http://bottineaufarmers.com/index.cfm?show=11&mid=6&theLocation=1&cmid=1&layou t=1

Your CWB fixed price contract would net me 6.77 per bu CAD in Manitoba for the same wheat.

http://www.cwb.ca/db/contracts/ppo/ppo_prices.nsf/fixed_price/fbpc-wheat-2008-mhrs-20080723.html

If we don't bother to do a currency adjustment(which would just make the board price look worse) that's .93 cents per bushel in favour of the ND farmer.

On a 50 bushel per acre crop that's $46.50 per acre that the Manitoba farmer is losing out on.

Now lets look at winter wheat.

For a bit of a change up today lets look at Berthold ND for their new crop price. It's $7.25 per bushel USD

http://www.bertholdfarmers.com/

CWB fixed price is $5.68 in Manitoba for the same wheat.

So without a currency adjustment that's $1.57 a bushel difference.

on a 70 bushel per acre winter wheat crop that's $110 per acre difference.

So I will ask you again Mr. White how exactly does the CWB bring "value" to my farm?

[TOM4CWB]

Dear President White,

As soon as the CWB is willing to fulfill the responsibility it is obligated to fulfill... that is help us 'maximise our returns' we will be more than happy to write testimonials day and night praising the benefits of the CWB organisation.

As Wilagro points out... this is a frustrating process... knowing the CWB fails to fulfill the mandate and purpose it is obligated to fulfill in the Code of Conduct... and CWB Directors shrug their collective shoulders and management says the best possible outcome is being fulfilled.

I would personally like to relieve Wilagro... and not need to point out obvious problems and failures the 'single desk' fails to resolve.

I write letters to you and the CWB and do not get even a receipt of acknowledgement.

I suppose that is the beauty of the 'single desk'... you can take our money without explanation... make contracts that no other grain marketer could possibly get away with in a competitive market place... all at the same time as claiming the organisation is 'commercial' and accountable to grain growers.

Mr. White... I hope you and Wilagro find a snugly little corner to count out our money that has been taken without approval or permission... make sure you enjoy it!

Talk is cheap.

Being responsible for as many farm folks attitude and state of mind as you are... is an awesome thing!

We will be watching on Judgement day... with GREAT INTEREST!

Often I don't believe in Global Warming either... till I read more about future events... about to unfold!

"No smoking hot spot



David Evans, The Australian, July 18, 2008


I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.



When I started that job in 1999, the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.


But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"



There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:


1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.



Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.


If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.


When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.


Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that, you'd believe anything.


2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.


3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.


4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.


None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context, our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.


Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?


The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.



What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.


The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.



Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005."

President White... Global Warming from C02 GHG makes about as much sense as the CWB 'single desk' extracting a premium for my farm......

How about some evidence I can take to the bank... intsead of paying off CWB blunders/mismangement a good chunk of the time?

Risk Management?

Fair Return for Risk?

Pool marketing paying for the share of risk it places upon those who don't like and in fact hate being forced into contracts they despise?

It is a very bad joke... what your organisation is trying to pull off as being 'professional','commercial', and 'market driven'.

Frustration is building... we need an opportunity to vent off the high pressure that is building... PLEASE provide some opportunity to stop the greatest grain robbery in the history of Canada... the 'CWB single desk' as operated today.

The DPC should be proof enough... as are the export licenses being given out free by your export license dept, to so many people free... across Canada.

And NO I don't feel any better... because if there were an honest bone in the carcass of the CWB... I wouldn't need to be writing this rant!

[Hopperbin]

It is getting close to the end of the month at which time the sign up for flex pro is near. Just thought I would let you know that everyone I talk to don't like the flex pro, it is this deadline of July 31 that seems to kill it. If this deadline is supposed to give us a premium then where is our premium?

[TOM4CWB]

Hopperbin;

"Sign-up and pricing periods

Sign-up for the FlexPro contract begins June 23 and runs until July 28, 2008 at 9 p.m. Winnipeg Central Time (CT).

The pricing period runs from August 1 at 3 p.m. CT until July 31 at 9 p.m. CT.
FlexPro contracts that remain unpriced at the end of the crop year will be automatically priced by the CWB.

The CWB reserves the right to withdraw this program at any time, without notice, subject to market conditions....
After the start of the crop year, producers must buy out their contractual obligations if they want to reduce their contracted tonnage. The cost to buy out a contract will vary depending on market conditions. The nearby month of the relevant futures exchange is used to assess buyout costs.

The buyout calculation for an unpriced FlexPro contract is:

Pool Return Outlook – current FlexPro price

Plus a $1.25 per tonne administration fee.

The buyout calculation for a priced FlexPro contract is the greater of:

Pool Return Outlook – producer’s FlexPro price

OR

Current futures – producer’s futures

Plus a $1.25 per tonne administration fee.

For more information on assignments and buyouts, please view the information sheets.

Pricing damages

Pricing damages will be assessed on any shortfall tonnage at the end of the crop year. Damages are assessed based on market values on July 31, using the buyout formula.

For unpriced tonnes the formula is:
PRO – current FlexPro price
Plus a $1.25 per tonne administration fee
The administration fee is assessed to cover the cost of administering PPO programs. If a producer
delivers against a FlexPro contract, this cost is recovered through the basis discount. The administration
fee ensures the cost is recovered if the contract is bought out.
Negative values are set to zero when assessing buyout costs.

The CWB does not pay gains to the
producer since the CWB holds the risk associated with these programs."

WOW.

And President White... what about the risk the "designated area" grower takes on when they sign up... to a contract and PRO that is 100% determined by the CWB... not even by any discipline of a competitive market... or even arbitrage to international pricing!

What arrogant bunch of turkeys wrote this contract?

Do you not see why more than a few people are offended by this drivel... President White?

[parsley]

This week's comments/questions have been sent to Ian White.

I was a little surprised that more Agri-villers did not take the opportunity to state their opinions to be considered during the WTO talks.

Parsley