A weather eye on climate change

The climate debate has misled people about the quality of the science around climate change

A FEW years ago my oldest daughter came home from school in a state of high agitation. I quizzed her on what was concerning her, to which she replied angrily that I was killing the polar bears.

Apparently she had learned at school that our collective continued use of petrol and diesel was causing global warming and this was threatening the bears. In her young mind this was interpreted as the fuel use on our farm was directly and singularly the cause of the problem.

“My agricultural science training compels me to rely on good science in forming my own opinion”

I was more than a little disgusted that climate activists were able to terrorise my daughter in such a way. However, as much as it pains me to say so, it did cause me to check my own assumptions and attitudes to climate change.

In my farming system we employ strategies to manage and mitigate as much as possible the risk associated with climate variability. I am as prepared for the impact of climate change as anybody, particularly in the context of my likely tenure in the farming business. Furthermore, the farming systems deployed on my farm are also probably the most environmentally responsible systems in terms of water, soil and atmospheric considerations.

However, farmers are demonised by biased emission assessments and a hypocritical latte-sipping green set who have no real appreciation for the fact that modern agriculture is essential to sustain the global population.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am deeply concerned about the future my children will inherit. I am not a devotee of the late Reverend Malthus, but I do see real problems in the libertarian approach to climate and environment that at best suggests clever people will solve the future problems, or at worst simply suggests it is not a problem today so we do not need to do anything about it.

The climate debate has misled people about the science and more importantly about the quality of the science around climate change. In considering my daughter’s emotional and slightly illogical thought process, it seems the broader debate mirrored her reaction and shifted too quickly to a black and white, believe or deny faith-driven conflict.

My agricultural science training compels me to rely on good science in forming my own opinion. As a father and husband I have learned that life and its problems are rarely black and white. As a practising farmer I know that nature is similarly complex. Middle age has brought me a more pragmatic outlook.

We know that climate is continually changing. These changes have been relatively slow throughout history and there has been ample opportunity for humanity to cope and adapt over our much shorter history. We also know that the effects of relatively rapid climate change coupled with the stage of earth’s Precession was instrumental in the evolutionary success of our species in the Rift Valley.

At this time there is an extraordinary and unprecedented level of scientific consensus around climate change with 97 per cent of climate scientists agreeing that man is contributing to climate change. This is a higher degree of consensus than exists around the effects of smoking or asbestos. So what can we draw from this consensus?

“From an agricultural perspective we see modelling suggesting a 6pc decline in global wheat production with every degree of global warming”

We know that atmospheric CO2 levels are now at the highest levels since humankind has existed. We also know that CO2 and other gases have a greenhouse effect trapping radiant heat in the atmosphere and incidentally increasing global oceanic and atmospheric temperatures. We know this system is incredibly complex and well buffered so the full impacts of the changes are difficult to predict accurately. We know that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen with a strong correlation to human exploitation of fossil fuels.

I am the first to admit that I am not a climate scientist and happily not an expert on all aspects of the arguments. This gives me a massive out in the underlying conflict. However, there are useful tools to use in making risk assessments in uncertain circumstances.

It is helpful to ask how likely an outcome might be and then ask how serious that outcome would be.

The current climate models show a high degree of variability in rate of warming and similarly a high degree of variability in the impacts of that warming. Our own CSIRO has recently reported that, in line with universally forecast increases in weather volatility, Australia will likely see a doubling of the incidence of devastating floods this century.

From an agricultural perspective we now see modelling suggesting a 6pc decline in global wheat production with every degree of global warming. I think these models are founded on too many assumptions to be useful. However, the more important concerns are around an increasingly volatile production environment overlaid against a just in time supply management culture. This predisposes the market to acute shortages which will lead to inevitable social and political instability.

“If the outcomes of unchecked climate change are only half as bad as the moderate predictions, the human cost warrants immediate action”

Some of the more credible modelling suggests that if global temperatures reach two degrees of warming our existing agricultural systems and infrastructure will only reliably support a global population of four billion. Four degrees of warming will cause even greater disruption to global agriculture and resultant production may only reliably sustain one and a half billion people. It begs a slightly terrifying question about who and how we will decide which portion of our population will survive.

Let us go back and ask the important question. How likely is two degrees of warming? The answer is very likely. How likely is disruption to agriculture? The answer is very likely. How likely is it that we won’t be able to reliably feed the global population? The answer is very likely, but the extent is unclear. How serious would such a disruption be? The answer is that it would be devastating as isolated occurrence, but catastrophic if frequency increases.

I have already referenced Reverend Malthus and his predictions of dire outcomes from overpopulation as far back as 1798. I am not a Malthusian enthusiast, but if the outcomes of unchecked climate change are only half as bad as the moderate predictions, the human cost warrants immediate action or at least commitment to meaningful action.

“We must move quickly to address the carbon problem collectively ... and farmers should not be compelled to again absorb the cost of this structural reform on behalf of the rest of society”

As with all problems it is essential to acknowledge and define the problem before you can hope to meaningfully address it. I think back to my daughter’s angst and consider my obligation to provide a better future for her often. It frustrates me that today’s politicians regard this issue with little more consideration than garnering short term party advantage.

Joe Hockey, our Treasurer, announced in a television interview recently that he could not conceive any circumstance where climate change could affect the economy. His ignorance is culpable and constitutes a real threat to my children’s future safety and prosperity.

The truth is that for quite a few generations now we have consumed fossil fuels and liberated previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere with reckless abandon. We are now completely reliant on industrial agriculture and committed to continue to use liquid fuels at least for some time yet.

We must move quickly to address the carbon problem collectively and with full consideration of the impacts of our and previous generations on the opportunity for future generations. Similarly, the cost of any mitigation must also be borne collectively and farmers should not be compelled to again absorb the cost of this structural reform on behalf of the rest of society.

In truth it is now a matter of highest order for global stability that we empower our farming communities and reprioritise the agricultural enterprise to the top of the political and social agenda.

Pete Mailler

Pete Mailler

is a farmer on the Qld/NSW border and a co-founder of the Country Party of Australia
Date: Newest first | Oldest first


4/03/2015 7:35:44 AM

Lol , dear oh dear Nico your imagination is running away with you again. Do you honestly expect educated people to believe that a 100ppm increase in the atmospheric CO2 rate is the end of the world , when we all know that the exact opposite is the truth ? A 100ppm increase in the atmospheric CO2 rate has been a blessing to all life on earth. I am still picking myself up off the floor from laughing at your last post. Lol . May I suggest to you Nico that you try to be serious for once your dealing with well educated people and you really are talking like a total drip.
4/03/2015 8:21:43 AM

Nico you really need to read a little more and it would help if some of that reading was on history. You refer above to the increased energy - warming - bringing changing weather patterns, droughts, fires, floods, and "brutal winters". Then what is it we have been having all throughout our history if it is not exactly these same things. So we are getting more of the same regardless of the "greenhouse effect" but gullible you believes it is all new and we will all be ruined..... or maybe you're not so gullible and you are part of the scam and you hope we are gullible. BAD LUCK.....
4/03/2015 9:50:42 AM

Interesting hypothetical questions, daw, which I have certainly considered. But in this forum I have always stuck to evidence-based science. It's up to the politicians to decide how to deal with the matter. (A question for you: do you think our present expanding population and expanding resource usage are sustainable?) Of course , there are many individuals and organisations who have attempted to provide the answers. The specific reference to the NASA quote is quite easy: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
4/03/2015 10:38:10 AM

Nico in response to your question to daw regarding sustainability of expanding population and expanding resource usage I will throw a question back to you. Firstly the expanding population and expanding resource usage may very well be sustainable if allowed to be. To back that up , the question for you. Will the proposed cooling of the climate which is being attempted by your lot of AGWers be a long term benefit to the rising population of the world or will it contribute to the deaths of many of the worlds poor through food shortages due to lower production and freezing from power outages.
4/03/2015 11:07:30 AM

Max, your question is merely silly, as it is based on a series of false assumptions.
4/03/2015 12:17:13 PM

How typical of you Nico to either ignore the question (which you repeatedly do) or avoid it and simply scoff. Certainly nothing silly in the question and I couldn't be more serious in wanting an answer from you regarding the long term damage that you AGWers will do on the world if you have your way and do manage to reduce temps by whatever means you have in the pipeline because of your unfounded belief that the world needs to cool. Again I point you to the point, where does the most production happen in the world, at or around the equator or at or nearer the poles. Colder is not better.
4/03/2015 12:52:36 PM

Err excuse me Nico but Max's question is far from silly. A cooling of the temperature would be far deadlier and worse than a warming and I doubt there is any argument about that.
4/03/2015 8:20:07 PM

Back to the issue here. A child coming home from "school" (not college) in a terrorised state is certainly not providing the sort of education a developing child's mind really needs. In a school situation then they should be learning to think for themselves and not being brainwashed by the opinions of the teachers either way. The big problem is that most of our teachers have never left a schooling situation themselves and come to bounce with reality but are simply passing on the brainwashing they have experienced themselves.
5/03/2015 7:06:51 AM

Nico for someone who claims to stick to the science how come you won't or can't quote science to resolve the question? Instead you refer it to politics. Is that not hypocrisy? So far poitics has failed. 'Of course, there are many individuals and organisations who have attempted to provide the answers.' So far they have failed too. So you sit back in contemptuous joy knowing you have won an argument but don't have any solution to the 'problem' Pfffft I think the 'eye dee ten see why' syndrome has taken a decided turn for the worse.
5/03/2015 7:16:06 AM

Once again, Max, you produce a stream of increasingly absurd assumptions. I refer you to the same NASA page as I cited for daw. If you can't distinguish between scientific research and denialist fantasy, conversation is impossible. Note: scientific research admits the possibility or error, and seeks to correct it through observation and measurement. Denialism does not.
< previous |  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14  |  next >
Burrs under my saddlePete Mailler is a farmer on the Queensland/NSW border. His perspective and opinions are borne from seeing more than one side of many problems in his various farm leadership roles and in wanting to ensure a future for his children in agriculture.


light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who