Don

I suggest you are missing something.

You say that astute farmers adapt to the changing economic, social and physical environment.

May I suggest the group to which you refer are a very small part of the whole.

Work done by Griffith University during the 1980's & 1990's to understand why Darling Downs farmers resisted income producing changes showed that the majority of farmers are very conservative towards ideas emanating outside their discussion area.

When Griffith researchers suggested ideas to implement, they found an incredible resistance. When they eventually got a couple of farmers to institute the changes, the resistance remained. It was only after half a decade of data showing the farmers with the changed practices were making more money that some farmers decided to adapt. But, often these second stage farmers used the new ideas on half their land, leaving them to compare results. It took more than a decade for some 25% of farmers to adapt.

So, I suggest what is missing is the time needed to 'gently' persuade (even coax) farmers to adapt to new ideas.

Cheers

No you haven't missed anything. The article says, "Astute farmers are already adapting their farming system".

Don Aitkin says "The astute ones were adapting to floods, droughts and market conditions then.". Don does not appear to me to be offering any opinion on anthropogenic climate change. Just that farmers in Australia have always adapted and some do it sooner than others.

But we do need to hear the same stories over and again - just ask any religion.

Some local records are not showing the effects of climate change. My Uncle in Central West NSW has rainfall records going back to 1880s or so, and is of the opinion that the rainfall events and lack thereof during from 1990 to present is nothing that has not happened before, since 1880.

Exaggerated claims from 'climate alarmists' seemed to work on public opinion during the drought/bushfires, but when it started raining again the exaggerated claims came back to bite and they have lost some trust in the public eye.

The article states that rainfall has decreased since 1970s. Why select 1970s as a comparison point?

Resistance to change is completely normal for people across the globe, as is having some early adopters and others who wait and see it proven before changing. It is not something peculiar about farmers. No surprises there either. But I think that 'recent research' is half a decade old now....

Regardless of these facts I do accept that the climate scientists have a high level of agreement and that we need to move to a low-carbon economy.

The big problem with Government/Academics/Bureaucrats 'gently' pursuade/coax people to change is that it frequently ends up with perverse outcomes. E.g the solar panel scheme in NSW is costing huge amounts of money and is grossly ineffective when assessed using dollars per tonne of carbon emission avoided. Imposing a cost on carbon emissions and letting the do-ers of the nation figure out the best way of dealing with it is probably the most efficient way.

If the conservative politicians in Australia stuck by their principles instead of playing politics, they would be supporting a Carbon emission price, and allow the market and innovation to adapt.

Don - I can assume you missed the fact that no less than BC 'Bill' Mollison the world respected, researcher, author, scientist, teacher and naturalist. Was discounted as a fool when he lectured at the then Western Australian Institute of Technology about coming salinisation of the entire WA wheat belt in the 1960s. He had proven science on how to prevent salination and how the area could remain highly profitable without stripping trees and broad acre farming.

As it stands now Western Australia contains the majority of land affected by salinity in Australia, with around 70%.

Bill' Mollison was ignored by the conservative Court Government and the Western Australian Farmers Federation in the 1960s. To this day the WAFF carries no header on salination and has defended farmers prosecution for land clearing, despite the result of this behaviour over 50 years.

You seem to carry the same dogma in your tone and frankly no one who can read history without bias can be fooled anymore.

We who have seen the devastation and know the truth have absolutely no faith in old world agrian beliefs, value systems and resulting denial. The evidence is there for all to see, it's vast white, dead and nothing grows. Some legacy you have left future generations, this group will continue caring little for reality. Our history is proof.

"If the conservative politicians in Australia stuck by their principles instead of playing politics" - Murray Webster

Who are these principled conservative politicians?

I am sure you not talking about the likes of Malcolm Fraser or even poor old Malcolm Turnball, who was knifed in the back during the neo-liberal grab for power during the recent coup over climate change policies.

It is high time the older genration who are responsible for our current record toward the environment stepped off the soap box, it is a new generation in control.

Paul, I meant to refer to 'free market' principles of conservative politics, rather than individuals.

There doesn't seem to me to be many principled politicians anywhere - Tony Windsor perhaps. But, that maybe more of a comment on our political system and the voters rather than the individual politicians.

Murray W - the question still stands, currently the left and right side of politics in the US, Europe and Australia is littered with neo-liberals. Since a core function of this system is to include or exclude individuals the question is relevant. Resistance to change is an understatement, maintaining control would be more realistic.

If you are referring to true capitalism, real 'free market' principles and not corporatism, I take your point.

However, most of the so called 'free market' politicians are disguised neo-liberals bent on maintaing the status quo, business as usual motivated. Not, future visionaries with highly evolved value systems, great leaders and driven by passion.

So again, who are you saying are the 'conservative' politicians supporting the real backbone of businesses in the private sector?
Including farmers and I do not mean farm executives working for publicly listed entities.

Just give me an example of a 'free market' over the last forty years in Australia.

Paul M,

My comment was really aimed at the apparent reversal of underlying philosophy both Labor (left-leaning social democrats?) and Liberal (neo-liberals under the guise of free marketeers), which to me seems ironic.

It would appear to me more consistent with respective underlying philosophies if Labor went for 'direct action' and the Libs went for Carbon Tax/Emissions trading approach. But that's the way the political game played out. I am attempting to point out the irony of this situation. In the hope that we can move on from adversarial politics.

It also seems to me that as long as we have people with really strong beliefs who are not willing to take the time to understand other points of view, we will be bound to the adversarial political process and all its failings. At least we're not shooting each other...

I take your point on so-called free market. But it's the same with socialism is it not? - there are no true socialist systems either.

Interestingly, I was reading through some old files that were in the dungeon of a NSW govt department. A government inspector was reporting on visits to rural properties held by farmers as leases from 'the crown' i.e the NSW Govt in the early 1900's. The report stated the farmer X had done a good job of clearing the land and should be rewarded by conversion of the lease to private property. Whereas farmer Y had not done nearly enough clearing and any attempts to convert to private property would be opposed unless they got more native bush cleared by the next inspection. It could then be given to someone who would get the job done. I think the leaders in government had a passionate vision of creating a productive independent agricultural industry in Australia.

If your point is Murray that you cannot trust labels, I would agree with you.

A bit like a "Forestry-Ecology Consultant" pining for the good old days where native bush was cleared.

I am really looking for 'conversation' where the issues are discussed, rather than personal attacks - I'd rather not stoop to the level of federal politics....

A comment about the ability of farmers to change----Many improvements to agricultural practice have been instigated by farmers---not scientists. . This year the Harrington seed destructer is a new invention which could help solve the resistant weed problems in crops. A farmer idea. No- till cropping started by one scientist who copied the idea from a group of farmers. The scientist used an experiment at Chapman Valley to demonstrate that soil erosion was 3.6 kg with no- till and tonnes of soil lost with convential cropping. Selenium deficiency in livestock, was found by a Darkan farmer and it took more than a decade for the scientists to agree there was a problem with white muscle disease . Drenches , selenium bullets and eventually selenium in fertilizer overcame the disease. Zinc deficiency in cereals was recognised by farmers in our district. Adaption is mostly a farmer response to a conceived problem . I find statistics and the science about carbon reduction difficult to relate to the practical side of farming---for instance----if the grass was not eaten by the sheep, would not the carbon content in time be the same result as an animal eating the grass. One interesting thing about sheep and the mice damage to crops. Farmers in Esperance have found that sheep running on the crop stubbles damage the mouse habitat and solmice problems----Why didn`t the scientists work that out? If the sheep numbers have dropped from 180 million down to about 70 million , why has that not been factored into the reduction in carbon compensation.

david, most of the scientists in the world have said that climate change is man made and is a crisis. I don't understand why you still think they haven't.

There are only a handful who don't, and out of these many have an agenda.

More and more are realizing now even how crazy things are going to be and how much sooner its going to happen as we careen along the path of mass GHG emissions. The last 2yrs have been the USAs turn to experience CC first hand. Think the world can cope with another 1C warming considering what is currently happening?

I'm with you Trevor.

Why are there so many articles saying similar things? Even if you believe the AGW hypothesis is sound, surely an article a day saying so becomes a political campaign?

The Conversation has a 'line' on many issues. I happen to agree with many of them - for example, that gay marriage should be legalised. But my opinion is irrelevant. Don't we want to be challenged? Don't we want a lively debate? Isn't that how society progresses?

You mean being challenged by having someone claim that "the earth is flat" or the"sun orbits the earth"?

There is nothing challenging about climate change denial.

Mike, funnily, I do like hearing the nutcases - we know, for example, that alternative medicine is absurd, but there's no harm in being challenged, and having to defend your position.

But I'm not just talking about science and psuedoscience - I'm also talking about policy issues such as gay marriage, public health intervention, school funding, media regulation, and so on, where only one voice is heard on The Conversation. Are you saying there is only one rational view on these issues - all other views are equivalent to flat-earthism?

James, if you want the hard right position on politics and policy or nutty science, there is always the Murdoch press which controls 70% of the print media in this country.

I imagine you write letters regularly to News Ltd, complaining about their conservative bias.

Well all I want is a mechanism of how CO2 controls climate and empirical evidence it is happening - no climate scientist can provide this explanation without resorting to some sort of logical fallacy. Really what is interesting is the social science regarding what is going on now with the climate change non-issue and how societies every now and then go collectively bonkers and it takes some kid to point out the emperor has no clothes..

This is Richard Alley's lecture to the AGU - The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History

http://vimeo.com/34099316

Richard B. Alley is an American geologist and Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at the Pennsylvania State University.

What is interesting is that we have a relatively small group of hard right climate science deniers up against the world's scientific associations. The deniers cannot point to any peer reviewed science to support their position because it is about their political views - not science.

Mechanism:

1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.

2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.

3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy.

(Stolen from one of David Arthur's comments)

Empirical Evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

yes, yes, and yes - now dig deeper

the effect of CO2 is logarithmic and its job s done by about 150ppm. It is like white washing a window the first coat does most of the work, later coats a little but the effect degrades very rapidly.

If heat is being trapped there should be hot spot in the middle troposphere - there is no evidence of such a phenomenon.

The effects you mention are well known. This does nothing to answer the questions of whether man's emissions have an effect, how big is the effect , is the effect damaging or dangerous? No, not measureable and no, potentially beneficial - see plant fertilisation and Roman, Medieval warm period.

Trevor - All you are doing is repeating gibberish from climate denier blogs.
Hot spot blah blah, Medieval Warm Period blah blah, good for plants blah blah ...

How about some links to peer reviewed science.
Here are a series of papers that debunk your claim that the CO2 concentrations after 150ppm have no effect.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.131.3867
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Agricultural Effects of Climate Change:

"While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that higher latitudes – Siberia, for example – may become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock. Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields reduce or crops fail – in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for example."

from http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Oceanic heat content:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

It is not clever to gamble with the climate of our only planet.

righto guys no more links to papers as power of disrepute - argue the issues as I state them and as you understand the reduttal.

By quoting various papers you are falling for the argumentum ad authoritarim 'because the authorities says it right it is'

THINK FOR YOURSELF - you fools

who is gambling - show me the edivence - CO2 is benign

Trevor - careful who you call a fool.

You are clueless about climate science and now you cannot even get the "argument from authority" correct. The Latin is "argumentum ad verecundiam" and the logical fallacy is not about getting climate science from a climate scientist, or medical arguments from a doctor but invoking an authority because they are famous not because they have any expertise in the area in dispute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Climate science denier blogs, the source of your junk science, are the perfect example of this logical fallacy. They invoke all sorts of experts almost none of whom are climate scientists - in fact many of them like Monckton, Watts etc. are not scientists at all.

You say "THINK FOR YOURSELF" - but remember the advice from Carl Sagan "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."

Mike H - The story of carbon dioxide, and it's cycle rolls out.

Rising carbon dioxide in atmosphere also speeds carbon loss from forest soils, IU-led research finds
Underappreciated player in carbon storage should be included in global change models, researcher says;
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/22755.html

Paul---the following article gives a different answer to your quote----Fortuna, P., Avio, L., Morini, S. and Giovannetti, M. 2012. Fungal biomass production in response to elevated atmospheric CO2 in a Glomus mosseae-Prunus cerasifera model system. Mycological Progress 11: 17-26. ---The trouble with science is that it needs questions to advance

Trevor - said ".......the following article gives a different answer to your quote" It would, it is sponsored by a known "neo-liberal think tank" funded by Big Oil e.g. Exxon [wonderful company - not]
Trevor I have been interested and followed the global climate change issue since the mid 70s.
Spotted you instantly by tone as a denier, Gen BBoomer or older, so their is no point in repatee.
Your genration and earlier stuffed the planet. Get over it! It is about future directions, good senario to which you do not contribute.
For the record the 'science?' quoted is older than the reference above "2008" and from known neo-liberal sources. "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change"
Science is about adding to the body of knowledge, being proved, or discarded and added too. Not a religion, promoting the same dogma are re-enforcing it.
If the data quoted is refuted by future work, ok! Science has grown, new information replaces it, fine great for me! No drama, old son.
The paper quoted is older. Read it. Has been, superseded, end of story.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N27/B1.php
Neo-Liberal Sources - are all Trevor has, sad really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change