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.

FarmOnline
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

READER COMMENTS

Max
6/03/2015 9:32:08 AM

Nico how is it you just ignore the truth of the issue when it is pointed out and simply go on as if nothing is different. No comment from you is your best stern reply regarding NASA's 38% certainity, which shows that their AGW is neither scientific nor logical because even with their adjusted temp figures they can only come up with 38% by their own admission. So it is no more than a scam based on lies and even then uncertainity. Great and we are expected to accept it all no questions asked. Well shame on you for not asking the questions and for not expecting or wanting anyone else to either.
Max
6/03/2015 9:54:11 AM

Further to my last post, Nico, on inconvenient truths. Your sidekick Susan used to harp on about the sea level rise, minuscule though it is, and how the only possible cause could be expanding water volume from increased water temps and there could be no other explanation. When I pointed out 3 other possibilities for these low increases, not another word in agreement or disagreement. It's all about dramatic headlines for AGWers and logic nowhere in sight. eg, the water from ONE glacier which would melt because of warmer water below it would raise sea levels worldwide 6 METRES!!! Now really!
Old Crow
6/03/2015 10:05:35 AM

And shame on you Nico for calling everyone a denialist if they question the AGW dogma. Shame shame shame.
daw
9/03/2015 11:32:35 AM

Nico, you must be hallucinating. Suggest U read my post 5/03/2015 7.55pm. Does it not say 'It is not a political, economic or governance issue it is a science based issue ...'? Where we differ is on the question of empirical evidence. There is none that man is the cause. Also on what constitutes a pause. The CRU UEA graphs show that the 5 yr moving av. was at +0.5 anomoly in 2002 & is still +0.5 @ the end of 2014. If that is not a 'pause' then the word had better be redefined. Whatever will be will be. The future's not ours to see. Que sera, sera.
nico
9/03/2015 1:07:57 PM

Your preconceptions muddy the waters, daw. We seem to agree that climate science is not a political matter. However, you apparently reject evidence that human activity has an effect on climate. This allows you to claim "catastrophic disruption around the world caused by political meddling" (where? when?). There is multitudinous evidence for the effects on climate of radically increased levels of CO2, starting with basic physics - the familiar "greenhouse effect" - and going on to abstruse matters like the cooling stratosphere. And like all science, it is "highly probable".
Max
9/03/2015 2:51:15 PM

Nico you have no preconceptions (we wish) and you claim that AGW is not political. You claim when I posted on another similar topic here that my references to statements by your AGW leaders as hysterical after first claiming that my 'ASSERTIONS" were bizarre when I stated that AGW was all about redistribution of the world economy. All these "bizarre" "hysterical" claims by you when all I did was quote your own AGW leaders and what they say AGW is really about. As usual you ignored completely the statements and go on to reference a biography of the bloke, whatever that has to do with it.
Sandman
9/03/2015 2:54:23 PM

Radically increased levels of CO2 Nico ? What a joke , are you saying an increase from 300ppm to 400ppm is a radical increase ? An increase of 100ppm ? You can't be serious. If you expect other people to take you seriously then please cut the crap.
daw
10/03/2015 6:12:53 PM

Nico, I've said all along that climate science is not a political matter. What I accept is that man makes only a very modest contribution to climate change. It is principally a natural occurrence that has played out since the formation of the planet. I also agree with climate scientist Malcolm Hughes who very innocently & sincerely said to some of his mates whilst CO2 is a good candidate to explain the warming it is far from proven. Apparently Malcolm isn't any more aware of your 'basic science' than I am. Sorry - no more refs, find it yourself that way you can bag yourself.
nico
12/03/2015 9:28:24 AM

I am not able, daw, to find your quote from Prof Malcolm Hughes (a most meticulous researcher) and one of the authors of the original "hockey stick" paper. The "basic science" of which you are surprisingly unaware is freely available. More recently Hughes said: "Back in 1999 we (Mann et al) made the best available choices with the information and data we had. Now, more than 15 years later, with a ... record that extends back 5000 years, the original results hold up remarkably well.” See: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen /2014/12/17/new-research-on-tree- rings-as-indicators-of-past-clima te/
< previous |  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
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.

COMMENTS

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