Agricultural giant Olam International says climate change is 'absolutely a reality'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-10/agricultural-giant-says-climate-change-absolutely-real/5659058

Agriculture and insurance the two industries that absolutely believe that climate change is happening the only question here is how much it will ultimately cost us

 

Of COURSE climate change is a reality, otherwise those ice sheets sitting on top of New York City would be a real inconvenience to the folks living there. But the climate changed, and now we have both New York City and better yet, CANADA!!

And it isn't just a matter of cost, but benefit as well. Just as we, and the Canadians obviously, have benefited from past climate change, the question is, who, and how much, will the benefits be in the future? For example, let us say that rising oceans bury Miami just like it did various human settlements in the past, who owns the real estate inland, matched up to where the new shoreline might be? Coastal real estate values will be created there, offsetting the losers who's property just went under. So net/net, will this type of result of riding sea levels (for now anyway) result in a net gain, or loss?

 

And when Lex Luther told Superman back in 1978 a plan that sounds remarkably like the one you just touted -- everyone laughed

[video=youtube;kqD0pqDOAtk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD0pqDOAtk[/video]

This response is not even up to comic book standards which often show much much deeper thinking than what is displayed in this post

If you think that mass migration has no impact on a country's economy then I would suggest some further reading in and around human history

 

What I really enjoyed about his remarks are this

He has a point and a rare one for a capitalist to make

 

typical vague post!!!!

 

What is vague about it? I would suggest reading the entire link for further edification

 

No information on what you're talking about. See I've asked for proof that there is a causation due to co2. Hohow hot is 120ppi of co2?

 

Actually you have asked previously for nothing of the kind and you are attempting to divert this thread

There is measurable impacts from climate change on both agriculture and insurance

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101651008

 

Obviously. Do you know that when Lake Connecticut existed, they couldn't grow any food there because..well..it was a LAKE!! And can you imagine how the insurers would have reacted if they knew what was about to happen next because of all that global warming? When the ice dam broke in the glacier and the rushing waters created Long Island, can you just IMAGINE how Allstate would have gone berserk...what with all the losses because of these horrible results of climate change?

No coal fired power plants to blame it all on, but they would have dreamed up something to stiff it to the little guy.

Amazing, the lack of perspective on change involved in this debate. Tomorrow won't be like today...OH NOES!!! THE END IS NIGH!!!!

 

Agriculture will be the industry most affected as winter rains become unreliable and average temperatures shift ecological niches

 

What year did this happen?

 

And again you blame CO2 and I ask you again to prove it. Prove that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to the climate or temperatures. Can you? And no my question is not off topic, just that you have no response because it doesn't exist. So you shooting off about CO2 is done without proof.

 

I am not "blaming" anything - I am stating that there is climate change - and even the denialists agree that there is climate change whilst at the same time explaining it is because "climate has always changed'

I have merely started a thread looking at what the projected change has and will cost us

 

Happening now. The TRENDS are showing quite clearly - remember a single event is weather a trend is climate

http://csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-2012.aspx

 

First, there is and always has been climate change. To what extent and why is the debate. For me, it is all natural occurrence and history proves that point. Now you on the other hand are blaming something since you believe something has to change. So what is it you believe?

- - - Updated - - -

So what? is it unnatural? you have no evidence to say differently. so again, you are blaming something then. The whole thing has been centered and directed at CO2. So if you are not blaming CO2, what is it you are blaming. BTW, no one has yet to provide any evidence to support a CO2 influence anywhere.

Oh and you provide a document for Australia. Since when is Australia the world? What happened to the local vs globe rule you all throw out? hahahahahahahaha..

 

That is my point - the climate IS changing - we can track the changes ergo we have to expect impact on agriculture since that is one of the most vulnerable industries;

As for what is causing the change - you tell me. For the purposes of this thread, which is to talk about the impact on agriculture - the cause is immaterial

BTW the start of the thread was an agricultural expert talking about Australia - and why I mentioned the winter rain............. well, it is like this - most of our best wines are grown in SA where the winter rains are failing,,,,,,

 

Here is a link to Australia's climate. Please show me where there is an issue with it?

 

Travelsearch??? Honestly??? You are suggesting that a TRAVEL WEBSITE with some rough averages for our capital cities is indicative of climate trends???

And you want me to accept that data over the BOM??

 

Prove them wrong then. I see, the travel page just makes up a full year's worth of average temperatures for each of the cities in Australia. Really? the fact is you haven't provided any evidence to support your claim. I did. WiNniNg

 

No one can argue that the climate HASN'T changed. The geologic evidence is conclusive. This, in fact, is at the crux of the problem. To be able to show HUMAN induced climate change, it is necessary to understand NATURAL climate change first. Otherwise applying the smartest models in the world to normal climate change "noise" and pretending they are predictive in nature is ridiculous.

And it is noticeable that no one is willing to discuss past BENEFITS of change as well. What is always being sold is the fear. No one ever discusses how terrible it would be if the world HADN'T warmed, to citizens of Canada, New England, Manhattan, if we want to understand the advantages and disadvantages of climate change, we need to understand how past changes have benefited the human race, as well as just costs because some folks have picked really, really bad places to spot their cities.

It is not reasonable to pimp the fear of bad planning as only a COST, when some of those costs could not possibly ever have happened without the benefits provided by warming in the past. For example, in this hypothetical examples of cost, somewhere in there are the effects on Canada. The country wouldn't even EXIST if it wasn't for warming, I mean really, cost compared to what? How about we calculate the cost of putting all the ice BACK on top of Canada and then deciding...hey! Sea level a little higher isn't all that bad, just please dear lord don't let the ice come back!!

 

Just did - prove them wrong in other words - I have posted data from the BOM that is THE Australian site - what you posted was NOT repeated NOT climate trends

 

And I am saying for the purpose of this thread, which is to discuss the probable impact on agriculture the cause is immaterial. As for past changes - none were as rapid as the current change we are experiencing

Now can you assert that previous climate changes have not affected environment in terms of change of habitat and in a great many cases - extinction?

 

Because the past is unknown at the levels of resolution known today, this is just not a statement you can make and still retain any credibility whatsoever.