Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
Spot on David and governments, worldwide, should chop these extortion groups off before they become too well entrenched before it is to late.
A matter of opinion
Matthew you miss the whole point that those who are objecting to this GRSB make and that is that the cost will be lumbered onto producers. Those wanting the perceived benefits of a marketing edge such as McDonalds have already come out saying that they don't expect to be paying any premium for this 'certified sustainable' product which only leaves the producer to bear the costs of certifying what they are already doing.
Michael B, 'easily explained'. That should be easily believed by climate change believers.
Nico I think those who have been freezing their butts off in the northern hemisphere recently may disagree strongly with your statement that it is getting warmer globally. Oh that's right they have to understand and accept that it is the 'warming' that has caused this extreme cold.
Burrs under my saddle
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.
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!
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.
Wrong yet again Nico. Talk about half stories and half truths, you are champion at it Nico. Adjustments have given all your warming figures and record warm years. Even NASA admits that they can be only 38% sure of last years record, and that is with the adjustments (homogenisation). Go to the REAL raw data figures and you won't have a record anywhere in sight. TC Marcia is another glaring example, real weather station figures can't be relied upon because they don't give the record cat 5 figure they wanted so they make up some which they can splash record headlines with. Pathetic really.
Nico one thing you are right about is that scientific research admits the possibility of error, but the trouble is that is as far as they go. How much error or uncertainty is too much. is 50/50 uncertainty still ok to believe the result or where should it be. NASA seems to think it can go way beyond that. "The data reporter Caroline Zielinski relies on to claim last year was the hottest has a huge measure of uncertainty - NASA said it was only 38 per cent sure." So 62% uncertainty and NASA still accepts and reports the results. Very scientific indeed Nico.
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.
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.
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.....
Nico your visible trend you speak about to daw may be visible but it is only a visible fake because as I have posted above it is based on fake figures. If your homogenisation was in a similar direction for earlier and later figures then maybe but to push them in opposite directions to achieve your desired result, well that just makes them complete crap or if you like complete scientific crap, end of story.
Nico, another one bites the dust. You continually claim that belief has nothing to do with AGW and it is all about science. Well not according to your gods, or former gods. Former IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri who recently resigned his position for reasons we won't go into here, conceded in his letter of resignation that he is motivated by religion rather than science. That is probably the most honest statement he has made since being head of IPCC. Let's see if you can accept that truth Nico seeing as it's not from a denialist sceptic.
No Michael B modern reality is we are already doing it and this is agreed by all who are trying to introduce this scam. Why the Panda Michael, why not industry and government doing what they are doing without any need for some non productive organisation charging a fee to tell us we are doing what is right, because they are already saying we are, but are now trying to scam a way to tell us that.
WWF are purely extortionists, ask any industries currently being 'certified by them'.
When it is a bikie gang doing the stand over tactics and extortion everyone wants them in jail but WWF well they're just great. Show me the difference.
Barry is doing what politicians should do, showing some leadership and is to be congratulated.
Out of the shadow
Amazing Joel, barely 9 months out of government and you come out with these gems of wisdom as though these problems have been around for less than 9 months. You were well and truly part of the problem when you had control and were no help then and now all this.
As far as vertical integration by the supermarkets, you must be dreaming, why would they want to include the loss making production part of the chain which often takes 12 months or more when they can cream their profits in often less than a week.
Joel you say you want in this limited space to dwell on 2 points and then go on to talk only about plantation timbers and conveniently forget about naturally re-growing forests. And I guess that would be because governments, mainly labor, having continually 'locked up' these naturally re-growing forests and made them never to be touched again national parks. That certainly hasn't helped local timber supply and has caused the closure of many profitable timber businesses. On top of that private native forestry has been made so restrictive, again by 'lock up' policies.
So Nico you are now resorting to calling TO'B a liar and rubbishing anyone who disagrees with your AGW garbage in your ridiculous effort to push your cause. I'm not sure what most people would call you when you continue to bang on about the environmental issues with AGW and refuse to accept the statements of your own AGW leaders regarding the scam where they acknowledge that the whole AGW aim has been about economic redistribution and the environmental issues have just been an illusion to achieve their end game. Delusional, foolish or snout in the trough would come to mind for many.
Nico, there is no confusion on my part of the scientific and the political. The science of AGW was politicised years ago. That has been confirmed by the many statements in my previous posts by leaders of the AGW movement. Nico it's not only that you don't like it when you are given quotes from anyone showing the flaws and faults and outright lies in AGW propaganda, you also don't like seeing or accepting the statements made by your own AGW leaders as to the real AGW true agenda.
Nico why are you of all people now quoting the Pope, surely not because he is supporting your AGW scam. He's not part of any climate science organisation, not a scientist, not a part of the organisations such as IPCC, NASA, NOAA or others and yet you quote him while at the same time condemning anyone else who dares quote anyone from an organisation other than those in your camp. No doubt Nico you would also be in strong support of the developing and talked about practise of courts around the world legally banning any discussion or dissent on climate change theories and agendas.
Typical Nico with another dummy spit. He rants that science doesn't have leaders yet without the AGW leaders that have pushed along the 'cause', there would be no AGW theory, 'science ' or otherwise because without the 'leaders' pushing the cause, then there would have been no funding to enable the 'science' around which Nico and some of his camp base their whole existence. I say some because others quite openly admit that AGW is all and has only ever been about wealth redistribution and the rest is just illusion. And that Nico is straight from 'your leaders' in the IPCC. End of story !!!
Poor old Nico, delusional as ever, even when shown the 'political conspiracies' admitted to and acknowledged by his own camp, he still tries to worm out of it. But he at least acknowledges one thing in his rant and I quote, "To advocate social change, because of a scientific phenomenon, is not science. It is politics." So even though this is not what Nico says he is addressing, it is obvious that it is what his leaders are addressing and doing and the rest is all just an illusion. So Nico your science is nothing more than science fiction for a cause, and a monetary cause at that.
But Nico, it's not all about the money though is it. Here's a couple more quotes, from your camp. Dr Ottmar Endenhofer IPCC 2010, "We (UN-IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." And from IMF chief Christine Lagarde, "The time is right for governments to introduce taxes on carbon emissions, which would help fight global warming and raise badly needed revenue." So Nico it's not all about global warming.
Nico the CSIRO was politicised when Neville Wran was made the head of it. A politician running a scientific organisation......that would guarantee keeping it scientific......
And so BB what do you call the dole, another union scam.
Brence let me remind you of another computer modelling complete stuff up that was going to have us all ruined, YK2, and it was about as accurate as AGW. Both just about the money.
So Barnacle Bill (good one that Rob) the Stockyard and Packers Act in the USA is a load of crap is it and gone nowhere has it, because that's what the PPP is modelled on, If you had bothered to read the details of it which I'd be pretty sure you haven't as you seem to know all about crap.
Nico why don't you start to listen to yourself. To quote you from above, "We have little or no control over soil fertility, rainfall, or temperature." So you really do understand and accept that we humans have little or no control over the climate and yet you continually bang on about AGW theory and how by humans limiting CO2 emissions they will then be able to reduce temperatures and stop global warming. If it's now as you state above, then just maybe you are part of what you keep calling the conspiracy. What else can there be if we really can't control the climate.
Here's some more Nico. "Garth Paltridge, former CSIRO chief research scientist and director of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre, exposes more of the cherry-picking that’s given us the great global warming scare." The link to the full article, http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsu n/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/ comments/the_academy_of_science_i s_too_over_heated/
And Nico forget your normal shoot the messenger crap.
Ah, but Nico, whenever we do ask questions you just call us denialists, avoid the issue in the questions being asked, never answer them and go on your merry way worshiping your new found religion. And, no Nico, that would be you obsessed with gods, your AGW gods who can do or say no wrong no matter how blatantly wrong they may be.
There you go again Nico, shooting the messenger and avoiding the issue. Not a word about the message, FROM YOUR OWN GODS, just your normal crap. As for Pachauri, one good reason, easy, your own, you discredit anyone who isn't a climate scientist who makes a comment or statement about the AGW crap, so why don't you stick by your own principles. But no in you and the true believers eyes it is a case of whatever it takes. Amazing though when even your own gods come and state the true agenda of AGW, you still claim it is science based and that everyone should just accept it no questions asked.
So Nico which of your gods that the true believers follow are actually climate scientists. Not your climate commissioner Timmy. Not the IPCC head he's a railway engineer. Not Figueres the UN climate official and spokesperson she's an anthropologist. These are some of the gods the true believers rely on for their information, believable or not. So how is it Nico you repeatedly discredit anyone who refutes any of your climate assertions with "oh but they aren't climate scientists" when in fact neither are many of your gods.
Here's something for Nico and his mates. The real climate change agenda revealed.
This headline from the below link, "UN climate official: real plan is “change the economic development model”
http://blogs.news.com. au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php /heraldsun/comments/un_climate_of ficial_real_plan_is_change_the_ec onomic_development_model/
So another climate god revealed for what they are and what they are trying to achieve. Again from the linked article,"Note: Figueres is an anthropologist, not a climate scientist."
Spot on Oliver, you lot are the dogs barking (barking doomsday) while we productive ones (the caravan) just get on with being productive and work with the natural climate variation we get. Unfortunately some of that production goes to feed you undeserving non productive lot of scammers.
Yep that would be right jeffito, cherry picking all right, like the widespread freezing conditions in the northern hemisphere, like discrediting the 'record heat' announcement which are hastily made with big fanfare only to be later quietly renounced by the announcers, like showing up the many and varied dud predictions by your gods which have come nowhere near the mark, like showing up your gods as being nothing but snouts in the trough gravy train bludgers doing nothing productive but continually developing ways to suck off the productive sector. So yep blind faith indeed.
For the AGW faithful, a couple of gospel quotes from your gods.
“This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake.”
– Dr Tim Flannery,
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
So Nico you claim it's not based on belief. I can't see much other way to describe it because it's obvious that there's not much science involved.
Not only in Q'land Nico in the case of the AGW scam. And its belief when it suits you to describe it that way Nico.
Nico it is high time you did some homework of your own. Get your head out of your scientific adjusted papers and go take a look at what is happening in the real world, the real unadjusted world that is.
Nico you are becoming more idiotic with your comments every day and I quote, " the Jurassic atmosphere supported damp hot tropical environments - not recommended for present-day Earth agriculture!" So Nico are you suggesting that the damp hot tropical environments of today don't support present day Earth agriculture. I would venture to suggest that they support way more agriculture than the colder areas nearer the poles. And for your required evidence, GO TAKE A LOOK. Pounders half truths, as you call them, are way in front of your manipulated adjusted figures and outright untruths.
Ah Bill Pounder, don't let the truth and the facts get in the way of a good story. That's how it has been working for AGW all along.
Nico the problem for you is the science IS NOT supported by the facts. It is all theories and adjustments to support the theories and that IS NOT true science. It is all about the money as stated by many above. And now when you are loosing the argument Nico, you advocate moderating this site to no doubt block the views differing from your own. Why, is it starting to become to obvious that you are wrong and it will soon start to affect your funding stream. The whole AGW scam is just about non productive leaches sucking off the productive sector, end of story.
Trouble is Ivan, Nico has neither logic or real science. He seems incapable of relating to what is actually happening in the real world, therefore no logic whatsoever, and his science is pure science fiction as it relies on manipulating and adjusting figures to achieve imagined outcomes. Logic and real science are not part of Nico's world.
Or in other words Nico, models are a stab in the dark based on and backed up by dodgy observations to tell us what you and the AGW camp believe might happen regardless of real world actual outcomes. And for your information Nico, farmers are and have always been especially sensitive to long term change, commonly called natural climate variations, and deal with it as and when it happens, always have and always will. Nothing new there.
The long term can be predicted with high confidence can it Nico. Then how are all those predictions going which were made when this whole AGW crap first started. Not so well I would venture to say, but then hey I'm not qualified to read, observe or comment because I haven't got the necessary qualifications that YOU require.
Michael B some of us do actual work for a living, out amongst the weather (climate) actually, therefore we don't always sit in front of the computer waiting for your usual dished up garbage. So Nico do you find it impossible to resist eating all the food in front of you even if it is twice what your body needs......then why any different for plants.....as Darwin says above, too little is far worse than too much and plants starve and suffer..... Remember we live it every day.....but then hey that doesn't count now does it.....not without YOUR expected qualifications....
Ahh but you watch, the faithful will reckon it is still that pesky CO2 causing it. Heat, cold, wet, dry, all the fault of that horrid CO2......!
Oliver my claim that even raw data is adjusted certainly has foundation and makes a joke of your claim that there is only a minor difference between raw and adjusted data. BoM admit that they even adjust raw data, so it is therefore only logical that there would be little difference between raw and adjusted because in fact both are adjusted. Therefore one could rightly assume that there is a much greater difference between ACTUAL RAW DATA and the adjusted stuff than what is admitted to. And Oliver you still don't smell a rat or see through the scam. Truly part of the faithful then I guess.
Eventually the truth behind animal activists comes through and Anit's last statement says it all, "but then you shouldn't have animals." It's not about animal cruelty, it's about animals full stop.
Lee, you are a dill who knows nothing at all about live exporting. You start poorly by talking of "life export", what is that? Then you rattle on about the grain to meat conversion ratio which has very little to do with feedlotting in many of the countries that live cattle are exported to as in most of these places the cattle are finished on feedlot rations consisting of by-products from other agricultural production which would otherwise be waste and I'm pretty sure even you would baulk at eating these waste by-products before they have been reconstituted through cattle into meat.
Sceptic, the byproduct from the palm oil industry is only one of many ag by products used. But regardless of that are you saying that these developing countries shouldn't be allowed to clear and develop industries to improve their standard of living and provide jobs for their people just because it suits your 'feel good feeling'. Why can't they be allowed to clear and develop as developed countries have done over the years. Why should they now be penalised and not allowed to clear and develop because you believe the developed world may have 'overcleared', because that is what it amounts to.
LE customers have a cheap available feed resource which they utilize to finish the stock they purchase. This feed resource is a leftover from other agricultural industries and because of this cheap feed source they have available, they are able to pay a higher price than our local feedlots / processors are prepared to pay for these stock they buy.
We have people in this country who say these LE customers should not be allowed to utilize this available feed resource, and while doing so provide jobs for people in these developing countries. What just burn the feed and starve the workers.
When local processors are prepared to compete legitimately for available stock and not distort the price by manipulating the market place by helping with the banning of the live export trade, then they will be accepted by the producers as a competitor for their stock, not a monopoly buyer.
W a t f i,
I think you are missing the point that the industry and farmers in Australia are the only ones who are doing something about the issues. They are the only ones out there trying to improve things, unlike the 'animal welfare people' who only seem to want to be critical and tear down.
Get out there and help not hinder and you will then be seen as genuine.
And to add to that Farmer's daughter, you no doubt had the available feed supply to do it that way.
It's people like Wilkie who don't realise, don't understand or don't want to know that the customer in most cases of the LE cattle have the available feed resource to grow the cattle they buy and then slaughter for their needs when they are in a finished condition, all done on the available feed they have which is usually a leftover feed resource from another agricultural industry. What would the likes of Wilkie have them do with this leftover feed resource, burn it?
John L, I think you may well find that if most deaths and serious injuries with quads are on flat ground , then they won't have been ridden responsibly. I suppose you also think that most motor vehicle accidents on straight flat roads also occur while being driven responsibly. Most accidents, no matter what or where, are usually the end results of some cause. As I said above, when is the nanny state stuff going to require the unprotected pedestrian to be clad in more protection, just for safety.....
And many pedestrians are killed and injured when hit by cars, so when are they going to be forced to wear helmets and protective cages around them for their own safety. Quads with roll bars are fine if someone wants them or thinks they themselves need then but to make it compulsory is just a cost burden which in most cases on flat country is completely unnecessary.
Same old same old from government, penalise those acting responsibly and taking care to try and force those who aren't to do so.
I know I would rather be wearing a WIDE brimmed hat than a hot heavy helmet in the sun and heat and thereby have less chance of skin cancer and heat stroke than the slim chance of an accident at the very slow speeds travelled.
But obviously government and beauracrates know best yet again.
And we are worried about the Chinese. At least they are doing it to feed their people.
Boofhead Bill,still at it, doesn't matter what the topic, you are anti farmer and take the opposite view probably just out of spite.
You critise others posts for spelling errors and confusion, try checking some of your own occasionaly and you may see some of the same.
You continue to push your free market ideals. This would be fine if it were truly free market across the board and included all sections of the our economy. That would include wages, the one main area that is still highly protected and not DEREGULATED like most other sections of our economy, therefore assuring we are stuffed.