Recent comments by: Oliver
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
AprilReeves - please don't think that by eating organic foods you will reduce your chance of developing cancer . Please read the results from the Million Women Study as conducted by the University of Oxford - google " Eating organic food doesn't lower your overall risk of cancer" The study followed the development over 9 years of cancer in women 50 yr or older - some 50000 of the women developed cancer from the 600000 studied. The overall cancer rate was 3% higher in women who ate only organic food than in their counterparts who never ate organic food - clearly organic was not beneficial
Research by CSIRO scientists has been of enormous benefit to Australian agriculture. We need to think hard about whether or not its transformation as proposed by Larry Marshall would be of benefit to agriculture. It will not be unless the Feds provide the extra funds that will be needed for Marshall changes, such that conventional research can continue. That is just not going to happen. Sadly, the venture capitalist can't get on with his staff - see "CSIRO scientists and staff edge towards industrial action over pay and rights". We should be most concerned.
CQ - you write that the passengers on MH17 were murdered and punishment is needed. You aren't being realistic . The terrible tragedy was not murder . It was the type of tragedy that is always likely to occur in war zones and east Ukraine is now one such zone. The missile was fired at a plane that was wrongly identified as an enemy plane - there was no intent to kill innocent travellers. A similar scenario prevailed when the US brought down the Iranian plane with c. 300 passengers in 1988, Our efforts should be directed to getting together both sides to stop the war not to restrict trade.
Initiation of flowering in plants is hastened by increase in air temperature . A study published this year summarises data obtained from some 400 different plants for more than 150 yr (some 400000 observations ). The study shows that
flowering has become progressively earlier with the passage of time - by from 2.7 to 12.5 days depending on species. It seems that the plants haven't been told that this temp rise is really just a scam . Maybe that is something for Harry et al. to correct..
google " A 250-year index of first flowering dates and its response to temperature changes"
" the truth hurts" - the Abbott / Joyce folk writing in this column are really screaming !
The anti-science brigade here is still as active as ever . This time their target
now is the meteorologists rather than the climate scientists . As usual they don't think, they just write.
Kath - it seems that no one has told the plants that this increase in global temperature is really a fraud . A job perhaps for Dirty H . He could tell them that the world has not really been getting warmer so they can stop their continuing earlier flowering behaviour.
Nico , don't worry about Dirty Harry - he doesn't think , he just writes . Now he states that "careful measurement of the temperature record over the last 100 years is at best, not accurate and questionable ?" . Perhaps he could indicate here where he gets the data that supports this statement and how he assesses it. But he won't - he doesn't think , he just writes .
Just what I expected Kath . They don't know what they mean - they don't think , they only write.
Em and Bushie Bill, don't worry about Motty - he doesn't think , he just writes.
Few Australians would be proud to have Tony Abbot as their PM . It is timely for the Liberals to replace him with Turnbull.
Fran Murrell , there is no credible evidence of harm to health from GM crops even when they are a significant part of the diet let alone when they are there in traces - you and others just go on about these traces. Your approach is that the genomic alterations caused by GE can lead to unwanted sequelae. You must be aware that thousands of food plants are developed by mutagenesis breeding and this alters the genome more than the GE but you are unworried by that . Example: Rio Red grapefruit is a mutagenic.You say it is safe to eat although never safety checked . How can you justify that ?
Does it matters how any weed Brassica developed a resistance to a weedicide ? On the one hand its resistance could have resulted from gene transfer - on the other hand it could have been response to exposure to the weedicide .The resistance origin won't affect the way the farmer handles it. Much non-GM canola grown here ( 33 varieties ) have been developed by mutagenesis to be resistant to triazine & imidazolene chemicals and non- GM canola farmers use them . With hypocrisy the anti-GM brigade ignores the genome alterations with mutagenesis and the development of their weed resistance
RealFoodPlease - the best we can do with food is to wash it thoroughly before we cook or eat it. Concern about glyphosate (Roundup) use with some GM crops is understandable . However are you aware that although the non-GM crops don't use glyphosate they use other chemicals in greater quantities to kill the weeds - and those chemicals are shown to be worse than glyphosate. Resort to organic foods for health is no help . Evdence that it improves health is lacking - the "million women study" showed no less breast cancer with organics. So the best we can do is food washing esp the organics .
Proscience, you rightly draw attention to the preponderance of ill-informed comments here. There is no excuse for not being informed . Plenty of independent articles e.g. "Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States" provide up to date info. GM technology is not going away. Every year, in the US some 800 GM plant types are released for field testing. They relate not only to tolerance to weedicide, drought,salinity virus etc. , but also to resistance to insect virus, fungus , nematode and to vaccine production . The proponents of this costly GM work rightly think it worthwhile.
Hi wtf . Tempus fugit . Time for us to agree to disagree on various matters.
WTF - thanks for the reply to my comment . I did not write that I doubted your capacity to understand the science. Rather I wrote in the context that , like most farmers , your work day is long thus limiting your time to spend on the science. In reply to your query, I am not and never have been a university staff member . Why did you ask ? Do you suspect the integrity of uni staff members ?
Your indication,WTF, that you are a farmer perhaps permits one to see your comments in some perspective. I think that you would be too tied up with you farm commitments to be able to spend significant time examining the published studies relating to GM and human health . I am thinking that you may not be aware of all such studies let alone read and assess them . Accordingly , I think you would be unable to list here say two or three trans-generational or multi- generational studies as done by other than Monsanto that found no harm with GM.
Fred Haskins - The application of patent law is complicated with both GM and non-GM plants and with small companies as well as with the large agricultural biotechs including Monsanto , Pioneer and Syngenta . Monsanto says it won't sue farmers about minimal contamination and perhaps the others will follow suit . Useful relevant info on patents can be found from google "Patents and GMOs: Should biotech companies turn innovations over to public cost-free?"
Fred Haskins - Readers are not interested in the name of the writer but in the comments they present . You wrote earlier that Seralini's studies have been replicated and show the same carcinogenic effects as before .. You now write that the writings etc. of Seralini show this to be the case. However , those writings etc. show no such thing . Replicate means " to duplicate, copy, reproduce, or repeat " and Seralini has not replicated the studies as far as I know and clearly as far as you know.
Significant misinformation exists or is implied in comments here. e.g. 1) GM technology is on the way out ( Newton , ggwagga) 2) farmers are worse off using GM ( Mug, Phelps,Hebe ) ( 3) WA has a clean green reputation to lose (Phelps) . In the context of the above note 1) that c. 600 new GM plant types are released annually for field testing- technology hardly on the way out 2) farmers don't have to buy GM - that they do shows they've found this is best for them 3)WA doesn't have a green free reputation to lose - it uses as much chemicals (fertilizers, weedicides etc.etc. as others
Max, you don't appreciate how global temp is assessed. To calculate the av. global temp for a year the data from all weather stations for that year are taken- some are adjusted for reasons available elsewhere - the year's temp is calculated from these raw and adjusted values . Alternatively the temp can be calculated using just the raw data . Independent studies show global temps calculated by both methods differ only slightly hence your claim that the data are adjusted to show warming is wrong. Also note AGW theory critics incl. Judith Curry all agree that we have warmed. Move on Max
Max ,your claim that the early flowering data could be due to bursts of warm weather can in no way be justified , Those data were obtained over >100yr from hundreds of different plant species and the changes are progressive with time . Re. temp data adjustment- everyone knows the data have been adjusted . However your claim that raw data have been adjusted to show warming has no foundation and has been shown to be irrelevant. Independent studies (yr 2015) show that globally the effects of adjusting on temp are only minor - google
Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data
Max, your comment fails to address the question. You write "To just claim biological data indicates global warming........... is just rubbish and fantasy. ". You provide no reason or logic to support this claim . You go on about the AGW but this is irrelevant to the matter - it is a red herring. Readers would be right to conclude that you can't face the situation that your no global warming claim (all the temp data are fudged) cannot be justified on the basis of plenty of biological data indicating warming.
Max , we are still waiting for your comment on the biological data indicating that the globe is warming .
Max, it is clear now that (although you won't say so directly) you believe the relevant temp and sea level data have been fudged to make it appear that there is global warming when that is really not the case . Do you also believe that the biological data indicating that the globe is warming have also been fudged ? Such studies indicating warming include earlier flowering of plants, earlier animal emergence from hibernation , earlier return of migratory birds and the movement of tropical waters to higher latitude waters. Why would you believe that such publishing scientists are fudgers.
Max, no scientist would disagree with the quote from Glaevar that you give . However if you are inferring that Glaevar showed that the AGW theory was wrong you would be mistaken . He just expresses his opinion and produces no evidence or an alternative theory. Again he will not even acknowledge the fact that the globe is still warming. In this context , as I asked earlier, if you opine that the relevant temp and sea level data have been fudged to make it appear that there is global warming when that is really not the case
MAX , could you clarify your take on global warming - it would help readers understand various points you make . Which of the following scenarios do you espouse. 1) the globe is not warming - the relevant temp and sea level data have been fudged to make it appear that there is warming when that is really not the case 2) the globe is warming but it is not due to the greenhouse gases. If you support the first scenario please indicate a few climate scientists that hold that viewpoint - I can't find any and would be surprised if you could either.
J Carpenter , you assume correctly that I am not familiar with the Einstein literature . Hence I don't know what he meant or you mean by "harmony of the universe" . You apparently know that and readers like myself would like to know what it means .Please help - you could save us time trying to get the info elsewhere. And MAX , you always claim that all of the relevant climate data have been fudged to show warming . You infer that plenty of climate scientists also consider this to be so . If you want credibility you should give readers the names of some of those climate scientists.
John carpenter,you are certainly right in stating that climate science does not have a scientist of the same calibre as Newton or Einstein. However , no field of science has that type of scientist either . Hence if you want on this basis to consider climate scientists to be a depressing bunch of hacks you are applying this to all scientists - you seem just anti science.You should ponder that Newtown observed that the apple fell down perpendicularly and on that fact developed the theory of gravitation. It was not as you infer that the theory came before the fact. You write harmony- define it
torobrook - you should really get yourself informed on how science operates if you want to make any meaningful comment. You write
" because the science is absolutely contestable. The science is NOT settled". The terms contestable and settled are not used in any science dialogue .Scientists look at the data that are available and put forward a theory to explain them . They then continue to research the subject to see if there is support for the theory or if the the theory needs modification or abandonment . They are unable to prove the theory right and hence never claim that