HuffPost Climate change Poll

Feral pigs are doing a bit of that but I wonder if you realise just how underdeveloped this part of the country is?? The wood here (of which there is plenty) is Australian "hard wood" known to shatter axe heads - and it falls across tracks and roads and in the bush that means you either wait for the termites to eat it or drive around it over tussocks of "spear grass" Grass so tough it cuts through leather and leaves nasty festering splinters under the skin.

Spear grass is the original reason why 'Roos learnt to hop!!

 

Thats even more the reason to take small steps. If you can clear one acre and make it productive it has a higher value than five. And feral pigs can be a real problem. We have trouble with them round here. That is why my pens are inside a fenced pasture so if they escape (and they are real good at that) hopefully I can get them back in before they worry a hole in the fence. I not only want to keep the feral hog population down but i also have time and money invested in them.

The only thing i know about Australia is the pictures I see on television. And it doesn't look very lush as far as vegetation goes.

But some of your farmers may want to look into a new clover developed by the University of Florida. It is called Barduro clover. It is very drought tolerant.

 

Wee? They post propaganda from Russia.

From Russia with PR: Seemingly independent opinion columns on CNBC, Huffington Post were placed on behalf of Russian government

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/russia-pr-article-1.1203272#ixzz2CQlkuME9

 

First off global warming is not real, second off how would raising prices of electricity and gas get us off cheaply? Not only would prices rise for the consumer but taxes would have to raise to fund the government and not mention any form of public transportation. We have weather events that have, and always will happen such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes... Going green is about something green alright, and that is money and people who buy into global warming, climate change, or global climate disruption are too stupid to see that all this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is about money...

 

climate. is. a. major. factor. in. food. production.

basic.

 

wrong.

suggest you do some research - there is plenty of reliable information on the web. there is no excuse for ignorance.

true. but read up on the science.

sticking your head in the sand is not a sign of intelligence

 

this via the Huffington Post Poll.

Paying more for gas or electricity has not been scientifically proven to assure that it change the climate cycle. So this is a dumb poll.

Only the ignorant would believe that anything humans can do now or over the next 100+ years could stop the cycle of the climate. There is NO scientific proof that we can do so. And the studies that have been conducted have determined that by altering our behavior we can only hope to change the cycle minutely and insignificantly. This is a fact.

What should be more important is for us to study they ways we can cope with the eventual changes in our climate. By not building in coastal areas, by developing low cost heating/air conditioning to combat the changes in temperature and so on. We cannot stop it but we can develop new ways to deal with it.

 

so what you are saying is that you don't grasp even the basics of climate science.

I agree that this is what we should be doing ... but you need investment in R & D to develop new technologies, and you probably need to find ways to discourage people building in low lying areas/areas subject to coastal erosion.

Insurance premiums might influence people there ... I know people who have already moved when they have seen their insurance premiums rising.

 

lots of research into this at present - and salt tolerance as well. I am pretty sure that Australia is one of the world leaders into this kind of research. but yes, there are existing varieties of grain that have adapted to particluar climatic conditions. the history of agriculture has often included hybridising grain to develop new and better strains - eg the development of Rust resistant wheat in Australia early last century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Farrer

one thing that we have been doing is replanting trees - and for good reason: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/f59529c371a21f55ca256db800783a4f/$FILE/ATT34B9V/Salinity%20and%20land%20management%20on%20Western%20Australian%20farms_1.pdf

large scale landclearing and cropping has been a major contributing factor. my grandfather used to leave belts of trees,and patches of woodland where animals would graze. after a few decades, his farms had less gully erosion and less salinity levels than some of his neighbours.

Its not that bad. and its not all the same. down in the south west there is beautiful loamy soil, on the west coastal plain, the soil is sandy, but I notice that it has its good points compared to some of the clay soils in other places ... over east there is rich black soil that is good for growing things ...
for a long time we used a lot of superphosphate, but you have to recognise that people learn to adapt to their environment ... and its no surprise that some really innovative concepts have come out of Australia - probably because of some of the difficulties that we have in our environment.

permaculture springs to mind.

 

lols ... pigs are natures rotary hoes.

 

A farmer can work with a less than ideal soil becauseit can always be improved over time.

But what he can not do without is water. And if you rely on water it has to come at the right time.

We do a little AG research here in the U.S. too. I find it is always best to take good information no matter where it comes from. No country has a monopoly on talent.

 

so true.

and we learn from the mistakes of others as well ... I have read a lot about the impact of poor farming practices, but the good news is that with research into causes, we can address most of these problems.

permanent shifts in land productivity due to climate change however are more of a challenge ... but TBH I do think that with the knowledge that we have, and are continuing to develop, we can find ways to deal with these issues provided there is enough investment in ag research.

food secuirty will be one of the big challenges for the future - due to population increase, increased urbanisation and higher living standards resulting in changes in diet, and climate change.

this should be an area where we focus a lot of attention.

 

There was a book out some time ago and I don't remember what the name was but it tracked all of the past wars through history and linked them to changes in weather, usually drastically changing the food production patterns causing shifts in population.

Right now the hype on weather in the US is due to hurricane Sandy but the problem with the approach of using a one off incident should be apparent, especially since we are in a 30 year low for Atlantic hurricanes and have only had two major ones this year and the season is almost over. The average is higher but in the Rules for Radicals, you never let a crisis go to waste.

 

You seem to forget the drought in Texas, the drought in the corn belt, the massive floods from the Mississippi, the amount of rains in Florida, the floods in Pakistan and Australia...just to name a few.

These things have happened before in history...but they used to be rare events.

 

To be fair climate scientists don't just look at one bit of data they look at the overall data and draw conclusions from it and as more people from different areas in that field come to a similar conclusion then they are more likely to put the idea out there as they have.

Also could you show me any person who actually is an expert on the subject say that climate change will cause more hurricanes? Because the scientists I've heard say the opposite that we are to have less frequent hurricanes but they will be on a much bigger scale size. This prediction so far has stood up.

 

Sorry but this is better than the old "I read a paper once.........."

A paper? Apaper? Congrats - I have read HUNDREDS!!


Are you serious? Let me paraphrase

So there was a book put out by someone, sometime but the name can't be remembered and it had some stuff in it that might just say something about what we might be talking about here but I am not sure and it could have been an academic book or it could have been an encyclopaedia or could have been a kids book on dinosaurs or it could even have been a science fiction story but I am sure that it had something to do with what we are talking about besides which all climate scientists are liars so there!

 

I don't have my head in the sand but you have your head up your ass. No proof exist of global warming because there is not enough data and or evidence to support the claims based on how old the earth is, how long humans have been around, and how long we have been recording weather. 4.6 billion years earth has been around, 5000 years civilization has been around and 100 years of recorded weather data arguably only 50 are really accurate. So tell me how scientist can create a trend especially with the lack of weather data we have and how old the earth is. We also have had ice ages and warming periods before humans even existed was it man made climate change? The earths climate will change weather we are on it or not and you are ignorant to not look at plenty of data that says global warming is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) as I said. The green movement is about money and has nothing to do with doing good for the environment, but hey continue buying into the Al Gore global warming myth because you don't have the intelligence to think for yourself.

 

You make it quite clear that you have no understanding of the science involved in this issue. Your mistake is in falsely assuming that everyone else is as clueless and ignorant as you obviously are. Actually, climate scientists are able to use the tools of science to determine quite a lot about the Earth's climate history and the various factors and forces that have produced planetary climate changes in the past. There are multiple lines of scientific evidence supporting the conclusion that the current abrupt warming trend and the consequent climate changes are due to mankind's activities, primarily deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels (which has raised the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 40% over pre-industrial levels).

 

Have you actually looked up on how scientists find out information on past climates? I recommend you actually look it up before saying things like this because it's just awful for anyone who even has a basic idea on what they are talking about.

This comment was particularly stupid because first you say how can scientists know how the climate has been and what caused it then use past examples of the earths climate before it was "actually accurate" you do understand the term consistency don't you?

There isn't much data saying climate change is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Don't get me wrong the skeptics are out there but even most notable skeptics only say that some of the data is flawed and say either it's natural (which is a minority) or say that the causes of climate change can't all be attributed to carbon gases but it does affect but not as much as people are making it out to be nobody really completely denies it.

Also what does Al Gore have to do with this? Unless he is an expert in the field his opinion on it is rather irrelevant the only time I would care about his opinion is what his politics on dealing with it will be but his opinion on it is about as relevant as what Bush thinks about astronomy.

Just out of interest are you denying that CO2 absorbs longwave radiation that causes heating of the atmosphere? because this actually demonstrated and tested physics.

 

the fact that you are unaware of current research in climate science is no reason to state that people who are have their heads up their arses.

If you chose to look at the many reliable sources on the internet, many of which have had links posted to them by posters on this forum, you would relieve yourself of your ignorance.

would suggest you brush up on your spelling as well.

 

I think everyone has already said it

You cannot have it both ways - insisting that the climate has always changed and then claiming there is no evidence for the current change

 

I would love to hear from skeptics that present a good case against MMGW but all I read and hear is basically nonsense.

If someone would put forth a reasonable argument I will take it into consideration. But until then nothing out there changes my mind on the subject.

I get the same thing with evolution. The other side just doesn't seem to have a case.

 

As far as scientists being "bought off" or influenced in some way...why in the world when scientists say they have found an earth like planet billions and billions of mile from earth do most people automatically take their word for it?

I could post website after website saying they are doing it just because NASA wants more money and they have their heads up their....

Did you look into how they know the climate in the past or is it just your opinion because you mistrust government?

 

I don't understand you post. There is scientific proof, not just a hypothesis, that the climate has always been changing since the beginning of earth time. There is Scientific evidence that there has been predictable "glacial cycles", "Temperature Cycles" both before human existance and before the industrial age and the use of coal and gas as forms of energy. This includes changes in the temperature of the ocean waters, platonic changes, volcanic action. What is still only a scientific hypothesis is that humans have greatly excelerated the natural changes in the climate or that we can do anything to significantly stop or reverse the cycle.

There is evidence that the current climate is changing. There is no proof as to what it is happening, if humans are the only and major cause for it or whether we can stop or reverse it.