The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Agricultural movement tackles challenges of a warming world > Comments

Agricultural movement tackles challenges of a warming world : Comments

By Lisa Palmer, published 11/2/2015

With temperatures rising and extreme weather becoming more frequent, the 'climate-smart agriculture' campaign is using a host of measures to keep farmers ahead of the disruptive impacts of climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
mikk

You have not understood the issues. The question is not mitigation per se. Any question of climate policy presupposes the rationality of it as a means to achieving its own stated ends.

You have established that your belief is unfalsifiable without reliance on logical fallacy; PLUS what it would establish is necessary but sufficient BINGO two logical fallacies in one insufficient reply. Go back to square one.

Go back and read the questions. Then answer them.

If you can't - and let's face it, you can't - then the intellectually honest answer is "I, mikk, admit that my belief in climate policy has no rational basis."

Oh and on topic: "denier" assumes you have already established what is in issue. You haven't, remember? All you've done is enter assuming its true, and when challenged, descended instantly into ad hom, appeal to authority, and circularity. You are only proving that your belief is a religious superstition; the opposite of science.

NEXT!
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 11 February 2015 11:27:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even with the continual doctoring of the old data, & South America has come in for it's share recently, our scam organisers can't manufacture any increase in global warming in 18 years.

This agrees totally with the satellite record. No Warming.

If you are going to try to pontificate in these things, do try to keep up with the facts love.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 11 February 2015 11:47:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author shows her science illiteracy.

Does she not know that all crops green (no reference to the loony Greens intended) benefit from increasing CO2 levels?
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:21:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No warming, = no ice melts, = no loss of summer ice, = no northwest passage, = no melting tundra = no new melt water lakes = no escaping melting methane; and in millions of tons P.A!

And yes, as our water resources dry up, for whatever reason, we can do things better; and just to obtain a better return, if for no other reason.

Take oil rich algae as a farming proposition?

Under optimized conditions they only need 1-2% of the water of traditional irrigation, i.e., Murray/Darling basin or Murrumbidgee rice farming?

Under optimized conditions they can double their bodyweight every 24 hours.
Name just one other crop that can do that; and for just a fraction of the water?

Some types are up to 60% oil! And produce virtually ready to use diesel of Jet fuel.

Extracting it is child's play, where some of the filtered material (non seed bank) is sun dried then crushed to get virtually ready to use fuel; that could be retailed onsite for as much as $1.30 a litre?

And if your very low cost operation utilizing effluent, produced a thousand barrels a day? At a $1.30 a litre retail, that would be somewhere north of $300,0000.00 gross a day! Or a hundred mill plus per!

And on land just not suitable for any other purpose! And no better use of remaining save the Murray fund!

After that, we could make sure all our irrigation water was delivered underground via tapes and from properly sealed/covered storage dams; thereby doubling and doubling again, the crops that could be grown with the same water! And massively improve that outcome and earlier crops, by utilizing ground covering plastic, which in two for the price of one, further preserve the soil moisture, and inhibit problematic weeds

And just to maintain acceptable returns in the face of exponentially increasing adversity.

Think, solar thermal activity peaked during the mid seventies, (NASA) and has been in decline ever since!

Even so, probable causes don't matter anywhere near as much Has, as viable solutions!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual JKJ you are speaking utter nonsense. No matter how much pseudo philosophical jargon you throw at us it does not make you anything but a minority denier.

What logical fallacy? If co2 was shown to not absorb long wave radiation it would completely disprove any climate warming.
More utter rubbish and not any kind of argument at all. Just im right and no one else can see it. Rather foolish stance I think.

"PLUS what it would establish is necessary but sufficient"
What are you on about?

I cant answer nonsense questions. No one can. That is your point I suspect.
And you, fallaciously, use peoples non ability to answer as affirmation of your denier stance.

What is not rational is to live and prosper due to vast and overwhelming SCIENCE backed technology, medicine, infrastructure, transport etc etc while denying one small part of SCIENCE that happens to not correspond to your blinkered view of reality or your vested interests. The intellectually honest answer JKJ is that the science is settled and only the blind and the dishonest refuse to acknowledge that.

You are a denier JKJ and stating it assumes nothing other than the evidence I have in front of me in the form of your somewhat obtuse writings.

You are not in any position to talk to me about SCIENCE since you have rejected(denied)the vast collection of SCIENCE that has been done on this issue and it seems no amount of proof would be enough for you. Science is not a part of your beliefs so dont go trying to invoke it to berate others. That is hypocrisy.
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 11 February 2015 2:01:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can someone get me up to date here The IPCC admitted no warming but the ABC say every year is hotter than the one before. The AGW crowd said all the heat had been blown to the bottom of the ocean?
I am truly confused as I believe that Melbourne certainly has been cooler the last few years, in fact the coolest January for over 50 years but the ABC say we are getting hotter.
What about everyone pays their own way. Nothing from me as I do not give a proverbial and Flannery et al can use their own resources and the ABC can take a hit on all executive salaries to account for their campagne, what about 50% cut on all salaries over 100k?
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 11 February 2015 5:58:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy