MOST farmers believe climate change is a natural phenomenon and not man-made, senior delegates to a farmers’ conference said today.
NSW Farmers Association (NFA) executive councillors Howard Crozier and Ian McClintock’s comments were applauded by the 60 fellow NFA councillors at their bi-annual meeting in Sydney today.
Read the full article entitled, ”No link’ between drought and climate change’ in The Australian.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Sounds like farmers are making a fairly uncontroversial statement – that the current *drought* is not 100% due to man-made climate change. Given no climatologist claims that observed global warming is 100% attributable to anthropogenic activities, or that the current drought even close to 100% attributable to global warming, then I wonder what point the sub-editor was trying to make, other than making our farmers sound uneducated.
“They rely on what they say is an emerging and eminent alternative school of climate change research which says global warming is almost entirely a natural occurrence. ”
Then why haven’t we heard from them?
Who are these eminent scientists?
Not a single name of an individual or organisation – if there is a changing view or growing dissent then it should be easy to produce evidence of a change in expert opinion.
The most recent I can recall is Allegre. If the numbers are growing then we need names.
Luke has to update the firing squad list…..
There is a growing divide between rural and metropolitian Australia …
These farmers get to read my regular columns in The Land newspaper (the paper for rural NSW) … and NSW Farmers sometimes invite me to speak at functions etcetera. So they get the alternative perspective regularly. 🙂
In contrast, The Australian newspaper won’t/is very reluctant to publish me on these issues… climate change, water, Murray River.
And I have critiqued the newspapers miguided ‘Save the Murray Campaign’ here: http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=1045
Farmers know well that they cannot control the weather, and nor can anyone else. Plenty of commonsense there. But there is more than commonsense to their logic. Anger, too.
The NFA president Jack Lawrie said there were many sceptics about the cause of climate change …the cost of climate change should be spread across the whole community and not isolated to individual sectors.
He was referring to the banning of land clearing and regrowth management in Australia, for the purpose of grabbing the supposed carbon credits so that the Australian government can claim to be meeting its international obligations.
The cost of this property rights swindle has been shifted onto farmers, without compensation. And what costs they are. Farmers denied the right to maintain their historic productivity and being slowly and painfully squeezed broke. Serious biodiversity degradation and higher fire risks with the current negligent, enforced native vegetation managment.
Anyone would turn cynical enough to be sceptical about the excuse for this political swindle. As sceptics, these farmers are in the company of a lot of scientists.
For Luke’s information, if he wants “a little list”, bout 200 names of sceptical scientists are available at Jennifer’s anti global warming resource post of Oct 15th. Pity to shoot Philip Stott. Farmers would enjoy his “A Hot Topic Blog”.
You mean the Bob Carter perpsective. ROTFL.
Anyway – good call by NSW farmers – their members being very knowledgeable and in full disclosure about there climate predicament won’t be needing billions in Murray-Darling river works or drought aid. So this is fabulous news for the Australian tax-payer – I assume we’ll about be getting massive tax rebate cheques in the mail soon.
No aid is required for what’s an entirely natural situation – Jen herself has even been anti-drought aid here on the blog which I think would be a good thing to restate for the Land in an article. Nothing like a bit of economic rationalism eh Jen. None of this capitalising gains and socialising losses stuff.
Farmers now having had their 1 in 20 assistance quota of Exceptional Circumstances for the next 100 years will be overjoyed to know it’ll be stiff upper lip from here on.
What are you all going to spend your cheque on. I was thinking a plasma TV myself. A really big one.
Luke, when your net worth is greater than your Mastercard credit limit then do come and have a chat about managing a farm. And then we might talk about all that money spent to keep the mitsubishi plant in SA.
Ignoroids like you are fond of proclaiming that farms are like any business and should be allowed to fail. But show me any urban based business that can go from an expectation of a bumper year to a 50% reduced output in a matter of weeks, like the grain growers have just done.
The difference between the two is the amplitude of the impacts. Urban businesses fold up when the proprietor gets sick of only making wages. They can reduce their hours, trim their costs and wait things out.
Cows dont eat dirt when the grass has all been eaten by the Minister’s Kangaroo herd. The farmers can reduce the herd but to sell the entire herd makes it very expensive to restock in good times.
Clowns like you talk as if removal of the safety net for farmers is some sort of ideal that has never been tried. But it has, throughout history, and the result has always been a very disadvantaged rural community at the mercy of urban predators. It is a downward spiral that always ends in misery and brutality.
But what the heck, you’re just a humble public sector employee doing his job. Sorta like the train driver on the Auschwitz line.
Nope – the farmers reps said it’s natural and they understand the risks – nobody has to go into farming or forestry or panel beating or gold mining or wedding planning. No special privs. Let’s go economic rationalist to the max.
If the conditions aren’t suitable sell the property, stock and chattels like any business has to do, liquidate its assets.
Don’t grizzle to me about government red tape and risks of business. Stop whinging landed gentry.
Maybe I should payoff my massive Mastercard bill with my rebate cheque instead of buying the plasma.
Get rid of the Mitsubishi plant too.
Whenever I want advice on crops and stock management, I’ll ask a climate scientist.
“Farmers know well that they cannot control the weather, and nor can anyone else. Plenty of commonsense there. But there is more than commonsense to their logic.”
Commonsense has nothing to do with science. The history of science is one of overturning commonsense.
I said i’d never read this blog again, but I needed a laugh and relented.
And there it was from Luke.
One of the best entries in any blog I have ever read! Luke… enjoy that really big plasma (while they’re still legal) – you earned it for that post alone. Bravo.
Jennifer, Helen, Ian don’t speak for rural Australia.
You are the noisy minority seeking to grab an entire constituency to peddle your own marginal position.
Show me survey results.
While you are citing the example of a couple of speakers at a NSW Farmers event getting some applause, it is hardly an objective survey of rural opinion.
Helen,
I can understand farmers being angry. Landclearing reductions are the only significant reduction in emissions in Australia over the last 20 years, and the reason why we will meet kyoto. And farmers get little compensation for this carbon credit.
However, instead of being angry at everyone else, you could direct your anger at the representative bodies for farmers who are still wasting their policy power discussing scepticism, instead of being pragmatically involved in discussing the best ways to mitigate greenhouse emissions and how the agricultural sector fits appropriately into the picture.
The rest of the business world has been discussing carbon credits and emissions trading for over a decade, while the NFF (the most progressive of the farming assocs wrt to climate change) only belatedly realised they needed a better climate change policy a couple of years ago.
The policy train was leaving the platform a long time ago, and some of farmers’ anger could be directed at their own representive bodies if they feel they missed it. The statements coming out of the NSW Farmers meeting simply reinforce how far behind existing policy discussion some of these reps are. If farmers don’t have good representation, its a little harsh to blame everyone else for not looking after their interests.
Jen, are you proud of yourself for pulling the wool over the eyes of the farmers? certainly seems that way. What a disgrace.
I’m with Luke here, if its natural, they don’t need aid and can start paying back the drought relief. If they know so much about the land, climate and have so much bloody common sense, how come the crops are failing? Let these buggers sweat it out, come back in a decade and then tell us if they think its natural.
Furthermore, I distinctly remember John Howard praying for rain for the farmers. I can only conclude that the lack of rain is evidence that either there is no God or God doesn’t listen to Howard. Either way, I think it is conclusive proof that John Howard is a delusional crackpot
Strikes me serious farmers get the big joke served on them – have their land development rights annexed (thanks says a grateful nation and we didn’t give you a carbon credit razoo for it and didn’t sign Kyoto anyway) and get the full brunt of the climate change impact. And you’re still with Johnnie eh – looking after your interest (not)?
Perhaps time to ditch the activists and think tanks for some solid policy development.
Reality is that some people are very badly affected by this. Those with a “don’t worry about it” attitude should spend some time rural counselling and then ask if it’s all a lark in the park.
Johnnie needs to get to source and pray for suitably positioned warm water anomalies and inshore flow.
Jen, I saw you introducing a video presentation by Dr Cook titled “Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause?” , at
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/my-surfacestationsorg-project-down-under/
I am wondering if there is a transcript, and/or, the supporting slideshow in an online form?
It would help me with a local talkshow host.
I have been turning him over to the side of nature, regarding climate change (the arsonists in southern California helped a lot).
Some of the stuff in Bob Cook’s presentation would close the deal.
Get a priest – get a vicar – get a crucifix and garlic.
James if you go to Junior Denialist Central here you’ll see Bob tell you “no” in the comments …
Deltoid would publish in 5 minutes if he did.
scroll down to the videos
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/
James if you’re getting any better at this game you should be able to pick up the sophistry by now. Sort of a threshold intelligence test.
Jennifer, Jennifer when will you ever learn, that to get printed in the Australian you need a ghostname.
Try these on:
Jennifer Howard-Costello nee Abbot.
Jennifer Treesaregood.
Jennifer Sky is Falling. (for a native american slant).
Jennifer Algore.
Suzie Flannery.
Alison Gore.
Jennifer Unionbasher.
Marohasy sounds Irish and everyone knows the Irish are unionists, that’s why you dont get printed.
“After the best autumn rains for years, Mr Delahunty planted big. “We leased a couple of properties from a fellow who gave up after last year’s drought. In the first week of August, I was telling some mates from NSW it never looked so good. We got almost an average July and then it completely shut off.”
His position is exacerbated by having forward sold crops earlier this year. Because he did not produce a crop to fill the contracts, he has had to buy back those contracts as grain prices have risen. “It is causing a lot of pain,” he said.
Mr Delahunty said that after 10 dry years, the old adages no longer held. “We used to say three years you make really good money, three years you make a little bit, three years you lose and then there is one swinging. The last 10 years have proved that is not there any more.”
Poor pasture and high feedgrain prices have resulted in many more cattle being sold over spring. ABARE reports national yardings in September were 40 per cent higher than in 2005. ”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22677011-2702,00.html
One farmer who sees it’s not the usual story.
Hi James, The presentation was from Bob Carter and you might be able to find more useful information at his website: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/
and that, ladies and gentlemen, is how ignorance feeds ignorance
i’m sorry Jen, but Bob has some corkers on his site.
Warming stopped in 98
Water more powerful GHG than CO2 ergo, CO2 no problemo
No evidence of anthropgenic CO2 causing warming? ok – he admits, maybe 1 degreeC
climate has always changed, stuff adapts, therefore no problemo
… and it goes on. Are you telling me tha a) you buy this carp (yes, i meant to type carp) b) you recommend it to people?
http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/
dum de dum de dum… la de dah de dah…
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1568353.htm
ahhhh, now I get it!
as you were.
I thought it was communication, where by people in free countries make up their own minds by considering all sides.
I certainly wouldnt base much credence upon the utterances of some one who feels they have to hides behind a nome de plume–not much credibility in that is there “Anthony”.
from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/31/2076508.htm
“Farmers push for bigger role in climate change debate
The New South Wales Farmers Association says the agricultural sector should be at the forefront of attempts to address the issue of climate change…
Its president, Jock Laurie, says solutions need to be developed so that farmers can cope with inevitable changes.”
Gosh, now departmental Steve is an expert on “real” farmers opinions, is he? Tell you what, matey, how about we pick any country pub at random and we will both stand up and expound our view on the issues.
And we’ll soon see who wears the tar and feathers.
And this line about how farmers should blame their representatives for the adverse policy outcomes is a real dooozie. It’s a bit like attacking the parents when their child has been molested by a paedophile. The only people who think that way are the paedophiles themselves.
Just read back over the crap you clowns have written above and it is plain to see that you lack even the most basic capacity to empathise with the rural community.
It is what we always knew, you ARE occupying enemy combatants.
Yes Ian,
Or we could get some actual surveying done. I don’t know what farmers thing, but i’m sure not going to take your opinion as representative.
Lordy me – he’s back into his “paedophile” analogies. And you know they’re starting to get front bar of the pub when it’s “let me tell you matey”.
Mottsa thinks someone who has a hobby farm at Byron Bay is a real farmer. ROTFL.
How many seats for the property rights movement this election – will we expect the states to be done away with soon.
My recent comment on this thread (5.25pm, yesterday) had a quotes suggesting farmers believe in climate change/at least the NSW Farmers Association …
So maybe they are confused?
Hi Malcolm, bad news for you is that Anthony is my real name!
Malcolm, I’m not suggesting people shouldn’t consider all the information available. i am suggesting that someone who pitches themselves as some sort of scientist upholding rigour and standards (i.e Jen) shouldn’t be referring other people to someone like Bob Carter – whose ‘facts’ on climate change have been demolished so many times it doesn’t bear thinking about.
But as you suggest – lets consider all sides.
So Malcolm, in considering Bob’s work, does anything stand out to you as being… how should I sayit… odd?
Dear Anthony,
You exhibit the strange and characteristic behaviour pattern of AGWers that is based on the same “principle” as all propaganda – “shout it loud enough, and repeat it often enough, and falsehood will become fact”.
You list four items that you imply are egregious errors on Bob Carter’s website, viz:
“Warming stopped in 98”
Indeed it did, as recently acknowledged by even the Hadley Centre modellers in an influential paper in Nature.
“Water more powerful GHG than CO2 ergo, CO2 no problemo”
FACT 1. Water vapour is indeed the primary greenhouse gas, whose contribution to the greenhouse effect far outweighs that of carbon dioxide, let alone the small amount of additional CO2 of human origin. FACT 2. Carter does not commit your logical fallacy in deducing that CO2 is not a problem. Rather, he tests the hypothesis that “human emissions of CO2 are causing dangerous global warming” against the available empirical data. The hypothesis fails ALL such tests.
“No evidence of anthropgenic CO2 causing warming? ok – he admits, maybe 1 degreeC”
All competent scientists agree that around 1 deg C of warming will be caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2. That is neither in question nor doubt.
The real question is to what degree such initial CO2-induced warming will be reinforced or cancelled out by various feedback loops. The IPCC achieve their alarmist warming numbers of ~3-6 deg C of warming by factoring into their models the powerful positive feedback loop of extra water vapour (cf. point 1, above), and ignoring negative feedbacks such as cloud formation.
“climate has always changed, stuff adapts, therefore no problemo”
Good luck to you if you wish to argue that “climate has not changed prior to human influence”, and that “organisms don’t adapt to climate change” (it is arguably the most powerful driver of biodiversity that exists). As to whether there is a biodiversity problem caused by human-driven climate change, Carter again uses empirical data to commment on that hypothesis, and again finds no empirical data in its support.
This being a public blog, you are of course free to list any data that you feel support the four contentions that you have made. But you would be wise to avoid disparaging the work of experienced scientists such as Carter if all you have to offer is disparagement and innuendo.
Cathy
“NFA President Mr Laurie says he recognises climate change is a serious issue and the industry must react accordingly.
Whenever we’re talking about a carbon trading scheme, it is critically important that the cost of that is bourne right across the whole community and not just on the agricultural community as a whole.”
Other than the fact that the regional delegates at this bi-annual NFA meeting in Sydney would certainly represent the views of their constituents in their regions, the above quote is probably the most important in the article.
“Mr Laurie recognises that climate change is a serious issue …”
It certainly is for farmers, especially the politics of climate change. Ownership of the carbon credits accrued from the forced retention of native vegetation on their land has already been taken from the farming sector, without compensation, and reallocated to the benefit of the wider Australian community. That is politics. So in a future carbon trading scheme, what credits have farmers left to trade with? Zilch. A future carbon trading scheme will only involve further costs for farmers.
Mr Laurie is politely and diplomatically asking that [future] costs be more evenly spread across the whole community, rather than just visited on the agricultural community as a whole [as has already happened]. One can only, and most sincerely, wish him luck.
Mr Laurie is quite correct in saying that the agricultural sector should be at the forefront of attempts to address the issue of climate change. His members doubt the science, but they know the politics can destroy them.
The science of climate change and the politics of climate change are actually two different issues. It is possible to accept the IPCC findings on the science, as Bjorn Lomborg does, yet question the effectiveness of the IPCC’s political solutions proposed.
Having been involved at local, regional and State level with my own State’s Farming body, I know how these meetings work. The representatives at the Sydney meeting would have been reflecting the views of their constituency their members.
However, a lot of farmers are not members. If huge numbers of non-members think significantly differently about the science of climate change, then it is someone else’s job to find out.
Twaddle Cathy – what a try-on – Carter’s stuff is just clever sophistry at its best. It’s wasn’t he doesn’t tell you that are the issues. You really have to be joking (but we know you’re not). Ignores all evidence that doesn’t suit him. All your questions have been well answered. Carter’s impact on the mainstream climate science community = 0.0
“oooo oooo it’s a big conspiracy … ooo oooo it’s a gravy train”
And like Carter you didn’t bother to discuss fullsomely what that Hadley paper said did you? And you wonder why you don’t get the time of day.
By the words in many op-ed pieces we now know the style, the tricks and the disinformation.
“But until now, climate forecasters who worry about what greenhouse gases could be doing to climate have ignored what’s happening naturally. Most looked 100 years ahead, far enough so that they could safely ignore what’s happening now. No more. In this week’s issue, researchers take their first stab at forecasting climate a decade ahead with current conditions in mind. The result is a bit disquieting. Natural climate variability driven by the ocean appears to have held greenhouse warming at bay the past few years, but the warming, according to the forecast, should come roaring back before the end of the decade.
“This is a very valuable step forward,” says meteorologist Rowan Sutton of the University of Reading, U.K. “It’s precisely on the decadal time scale and on regional scales that natural variability and anthropogenic effects have comparable magnitudes.” So improved climate forecasting of the next few decades could help decision-makers focus on where and when the most severe climate change will be happening. Or, conversely, they could recognize when the looming threat of global warming will be masked–temporarily–by natural variability.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;317/5839/796
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5839/746
Luke,
Your effusion exemplifies the very first sentence of my previous post.
Shouting loudly is no substitute for logical analysis. Opinions unsubstantiated by calmly discussed facts are of interest only to their owners, and especially so when they are couched in terms of personal abuse as yours so often are.
And, in passing, you missed noting the one actual error in my last posting, which is that the paper by Sutton et al. was published in Science not Nature. Apologies to all on that account.
Cathy
Luke has found his jar of lubricant, again.
Steve wants a survey of farmers opinions? Well how about every State and Federal election over the past four decades which shows country electoral booths with 70 to 85% national party votes. These are countered, in part, by non-national votes in rural towns but even these are primarily sourced by temporary residents like teachers, postal workers, tourism staff etc.
The main exceptions to this rule are rural seats that have a large non-farming base such as mining towns, universities or new age property developers. Now onya bike, bozo.
Apparently when people vote for the National party, this indicates that skeptical that global warming is man-made?
Nice one!
In any case, from the national party website, FYI:
“The Nationals support efforts to reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions but do not support international rules which disadvantage Australian industry and interests.”
Why would they support efforts to reduce emissions Ian?
One error the size of a chasm which is restated over and over. “An example” of many – I’m not repeatedly going to go through the whole lot. The actual paper is Smith et al which further exemplifies my point. You haven’t even read it.
Dear me Cathy, I bow to your superier climate understanding. I didn’t realise that 1998 was the most appropriate year from which to measure the commencement of warming from. I’ll make sure I cook my books better next time.
The fact he even brings water vapour into the argument as a GHG is rediculous. As you point out, it is a feedback, not a forcing. In the case of CO2 and the potential to cause dangerous warming I’ll take IPCC (with 3C+ sensitivities) over carter anyday.
Show you data? Waste of time…You’ll ignore warming in the arctic, loss of seas ice, melting glaciers, shifting tree lines, migrating species, seasonal time shifts, shifting rainfall patterns etc etc.
1- you have shown no data, nothing, just spouting carter gibberish.
2- you wouldn’t either read or understand any data that anyone here makes available – your mind is made up
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
everything Carter says has been debunked so many times its not funny. Why should I tread on eggshells? Here it all is in one easy hit on one website complete with links to data and reasoned analysis.
But Cath sweeps it all under the carpet. Bob says its not so, he is a scientist, no problem.
Come off the grass Cathy.
Meanwhile, planet Mott has moved to bozo mode. Next it’ll be matey, spivs (or have you dropped that Mottsa?) and obscure latin sunding word puns as he tries to make himself sound intelligent.
SO when was the temperature higher then 1998?
Several times – The medieval warm period and holocene optimum of course, but also as recently as 1934.
Luke, that gristmill link is obsolete, since Steve McIntyre pointed out that most of the planet wasn’t covered by the instrument record until the 70’s. Even Hansen had to eat crow and admit that 1934 was warmer then 1998. Better find a better link.
Besides that, have you got anything besides character assassination and lies?
Hey boofhead I didn’t post the link. USA isn’t the globe also. And you reference for medieval warm period being higher is what – or did you pull it out of your backside?
For the purposes of measuring the global temperature with surface station thermometers in the 30’s through 60’s, the USA might as well have been the whole world.
For example here is a list of the Antarctic stations with records all the way back to 1930 –
Did you catch that? Want me to list them again?
Here you go. –
How about the stations in Greenland? –
Let me know if I’m going to fast for you.
One question for you. What in the hell is Jones’ surface global temperature based on? It shows cold weather all through world wars one and two with hardly a blip for the 30’s. Are we to believe that China, Russia, Europe (as a whole), Africa, South America, and the Middle East, India Indochina, in the midst of global chaos, used due dilligence to maintain a watch on the thermometer?
Hell most of those places didn’t have a thermometer to watch.
So what – what in the hell is Jones pretending to base his surface station record on>? You can’t extrapalate from null data.
Charletan!
Fraud!
Flim flam man.
James how do you know how hot it was in the Medieval times?
Luke,
It will be interesting to see what you have to say in a few years when it is clear to everyone that the global warming episode was the greatest hysterical epidemic in modern times … greater than silicone breast implants, recovered memory and alien abductions, to name a few.
hahaha, golden SJT. You can’t have your cake and eat it too James. Better dream up another angle