The idea that adverse weather events are caused by man's moral fault is the oldest superstition in the world.

Lisa, you obviously aren’t aware of the fact that we have proved over and over and over again that climate policy cannot claim any rational basis whatsoever, even in its own terms: here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16680&page=0
here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16726
here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16753&page=0
and here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16757&page=0

It’s no use pretending it all hasn’t happened. You need to deal with the issues.

We have established that your belief in climate policy is irrational because of the failure of the warmists to answer any of these questions, on which their entire argument depends:

1.
What would you accept as disproving your beliefs in support of global warming policy?

Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour:
2. how have you established that the ecological consequences of AGW would be worse rather than better? How have you compared the human evaluations of the status quo you want to change, to the situation you want to achieve? Show your workings.

3. how have you established that your policy proposal will produce a net benefit, rather than a net detriment, in terms of the human evaluations of all affected persons now and as far into the future as you claim to be concerned with. Show your workings.

All you’re doing is the standard warmist tactic of assuming it’s true in the first place, assuming someone somewhere must have proved it, and beginning the discussion on that basis. The next step is only, when challenged to show valid reason, either going silent, or instantly descending into a barrage of ad hominem, and a repetition of your appeal to authority and circular reasoning.

The point is, you can't assume that resources are scarce in the absence of governmental action, but all of a sudden they're not scarce any more and action has no risks or costs once government decides how to use them. It's irrational.

Thanks JKJ for demonstrating your mindless irrelevance to most discussions on climate change by yet again copy/pasting a tired argument irrelevant to the article.

I can't see how you can take such an issue with something that most climate 'skeptics' are advocating anyway. Namely, that adaptation is a far better course of action (because we can't stop climate change, as it isn't being done by us), than any sort of mitigation effort.

The topic of the article is highlighting what specifically has to be done to 'adapt' to climate change and what that really means. This has to be done regardless of whether climate change is anthropogenic or not.

Farmers and crop yields are some of our most vulnerable resources that must take climate variability into consideration. And this is being done. However, the cautionary warning is that our current farming technology can only do so much to adapt. There are limits to adaptation.

All
Notice how Bugsys' reply consists of nothing but ad hom, circularity, and appeal to absent authority, just as I predicted?

Bugsy
"Thanks JKJ for demonstrating your mindless"

Ad hominem.

"irrelevance"

Assumes what is in issue.

"to most discussions on climate change by yet again copy/pasting a tired argument irrelevant to the article"

The article assumes the justification of climate policy; my critique is that climate policy has no rational basis. Therefore it is not irrelevant.

If my argument is tired then why don't you disprove it by answering my questions?

"I can't see how you can take such an issue with something that most climate 'skeptics' are advocating anyway."

Ad hominem; assuming what is in issue; appeal to absent authority.

"Namely, that adaptation is a far better course of action (because we can't stop climate change, as it isn't being done by us), than any sort of mitigation effort. The topic of the article is highlighting what specifically has to be done to 'adapt' to climate change and what that really means. This has to be done regardless of whether climate change is anthropogenic or not. Farmers and crop yields are some of our most vulnerable resources that must take climate variability into consideration. And this is being done. However, the cautionary warning is that our current farming technology can only do so much to adapt. There are limits to adaptation."

You haven't understood the issues. Read my questions. Then answer them. You are only proving my point, not yours.

Why bother replying if you don't care that what you are saying is logically senseless?

Actually JKJ, I think you have demonstrated my point quite well.

Those 'questions' of yours have been copy pasted dozens of times on this site. They are nonsense, of course. So far, I don't think I have seen anyone bother to answer them. I won't either.

You seem to take this as a sign of 'victory', which is why you persist in reposting them over and over again.

I don't.

Good luck in your ecology career.

JKJ is using the standard denier tactic of asking nonsensical questions with no bearing on the issue at hand to try and confuse and distract people.

Ill answer your question one JKJ
I would accept peer reviewed proof, from bonafide climate scientists, that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere DOES NOT absorb long wave radiation emitted from the earth. The fact that that would mean an icy, lifeless planet makes it sort of improbable.

As for the rest of your questions they are, deliberately, impossible for one person to answer which is why we have scientific organisations like the UN and the IPCC.
And they say people like you JKJ are TOTALLY and UTTERLY wrong.

I know who I trust.

Oh and on topic. Good on these farmers for being able to learn and adapt. Their use of technology, science and improved forecasting is the best way to increase our sustainability. A million miles from the high energy input, monoculture, factory farming that we in the west practice.