RURAL CLIMATE EXCHANGE: Experts Gather in Nairobi to Plan Campaign on Climate Threat to Global Hunger and Poverty

I left the following comment at  http://cgiarclimatechange.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/experts-gather-in-nairobi-to-plan-campaign-on-climate-threat-to-global-hunger-and-poverty/

As usual I look forward to their informed reply

I am puzzled.

I mean if the climate gets warmer as CO2 increases, don’t these things happen?

1. More evaporation from oceans = more precipitation = more land comes into production
2. Crops are more productive with higher CO2 levels and are more resistant to drought = More land comes into production.

If we get conditions similar to the Holocene Maximum again maybe even the Sahara will become productive again.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002995

Maybe I am too simple but please explain your organisations concerns about agriculture.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

This comment and your reply will be posted on http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com

The comment above was trashed.

I tried once more.

Congatulations.
The following comment has been posted at
http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com

The fact that you refuse to discuss or consider any issues that ask you to justify your policies is also duely noted there, along with a rapid decrease in the plausibility of your site and organisation in the view of my readers.

Cheers

Roger

 

I am puzzled.

I mean if the climate gets warmer as CO2 increases, don’t these things happen?

1. More evaporation from oceans = more precipitation = more land comes into production
2. Crops are more productive with higher CO2 levels and are more resistant to drought = More land comes into production.

If we get conditions similar to the Holocene Maximum again maybe even the Sahara will become productive again.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002995

Maybe I am too simple but please explain your organisations concerns about agriculture.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

This comment and your reply will be posted on http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com

11 Responses to “RURAL CLIMATE EXCHANGE: Experts Gather in Nairobi to Plan Campaign on Climate Threat to Global Hunger and Poverty”

  1. mothincarnate Says:

    I suspect that if you want people to take you seriously you should adopt a more scientific approach to your arguments. The more one witnesses you in action the more they are able to see that you will refuse to acknowledge legitimate references or be part of a philosophical debate where science is less relevant. You make it clear that you have no respect or serious interest in science and/or scientists (you’re very quick to mock us who endeavour to understand the world a little better). I would like to remind you that almost all that you take for granted in our little societies is the result of such work and there is no doubt that science has improved your life. If you have such fear of scientific progress I would suggest that you look at moving to a society such as the Amish or one Hindu’s that follow Gandhi’s teachings.
    However if you wish to continue this little quest, do a little more research and learn from the serious references offered because you might actually learn something.
    At this point I can see that you don’t have a serious leg to stand on in this debate and will have to depart the madness (unless I catch you blatantly bullying others that is). You should look into a career as an ideological leader such as a political or spiritual head as you also share much of the same faith-based ignorance, slippery and unwilling to seriously address conflicting views (have you read anything other than the rubbish that supports your views or citizen audits on the IPCC? I doubt it).
    However, I want to try one last approach; this time not arguing from obvious science or practical common sense, because you have no time for reality. This time I will use you leading argument; that AGW policies will kill us off.
    We both come from cultures that developed over in Europe. Most notably since the 16th century (esp. in Europe) and 18th century (focusing more on the UK) but throughout the past 500 years, these cultures have demonstrated the development of Democracy. Dēmokratía = power of the people. Throughout all this time, so many people have waged war on tyranny, women have stood for equality, indigenous people have demanded a voice – we have stood for the common man and woman in the face of thuggery, inequality and injustice. We’re not going to let our leaders deprive us (or in your particular delusion allow millions to suffer while a few boffins get rich). We have demonstrated that such leadership is pure insanity.
    How is it that one man in NZ seems to understand that all the scientists and political leaders involved are planning to destroy the greater part of the civilized world? How the hell would the pull it off? What, nuke a rebellion? How could the wider scientific community be so naive while an economist knows better? It just doesn’t make sense. How the hell could this destroy the western world? Can’t you see just how paranoid this is?
    Isn’t it far more reasonable that like tobacco, like ozone depletion, like acid rain, and like margarine even, that science is telling us something that we hadn’t foreseen and that we should, by all morality, try to make a change to our practices that attempts to mitigate whatever detrimental impact that we cause?
    You made a point on another comment that to change our ways only when you know for certain that we are causing AGW – but we are seeing changes; how far must we go? Do you wait to see how much the mole changes or, when the doc tells you it looks bad, do you pay to doc to remove it?
    If you will not listen and be involved in a scientific debate, if you refuse to argue from a more philosophical and practical angle, if you cannot see just how impractical your conspiracy theory (and just how unlikely the mass will remain idle as they die in droves), if you even unwilling to admit that you fear is not about the science, but more that you disagree with current policies on the table, then your quest is a hollow one. It is devoid of reason and logic. You are doing nothing but perpetuating a myth to incite inaction. Yours truly is a faith-based inquest and little more than a witch hunt.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Well your repetition is making me repeat myself.

      You are way off subject because the subject of this post is to speculate why RURAL CLIMATE EXCHANGE Experts are not interesting discussing the assertions in their blog.

      I don’t think readers of your comments will understand what you are on about except to interpret it as some sort of personal attack. To me it is irrelevant and boring.

      Unless you can keep to the subject I am afraid I will have to stop publishing your irrelevant comments.

      You are otherwise always welcome to comment provided you can find it in yourself to stay on subject.

      Cheers

      Roger

  2. mothincarnate Says:

    That’s pretty rich; you’re asking me to stay on target. You’ve labeled me an AGW alarmist and I’ve done my best to demonstrate my views and provide recognized journals and excellent case study books. You’ve continually made it clear that you are unwilling to learn about a subject and my reasoning.
    As for this area in particularity I’m here because you asked my reasoning on this very question and I explained why it’s inaccurate – it might make the Sahara usable again, but almost all current land use areas will certainly under stress, and there will be a simplification of biota under changes in water regimes. CO2 WILL NOT be good for current environments however you look at it.
    It’s all well and good to have dissenting views – it’s very common in the scientific community believe it or not (their the more critical of their peers). However you’re not a hero fighting an evil scientific conspiracy. I stress that if there was any truth to your arguments, it could be backed up and would be of great interest to the scientific community for they are driven by curiosity and not the end results. To the best of our understanding, we are seeing a change in climatic conditions and we are pumping ridiculous amounts of CO2, which we’ve known for over a century to be opaque to long radiation. You’re dissent in the above argument is unjust as you’ve ignored my reasoning on it.
    As for the IPCC report – think of it what you will. I’ve been involved in major government environmental reports and have seen what happens when political will is louder than the science. To think that these bozos take the findings and report and give big industry the thumbs up when we demonstrate that they’ve continued to pollute. It’s insane.
    Mike over at watching the deniers has certainly put excellent arguments back; much of which you ignore. Dissent is one thing, but when blind to the answers and to vast overwhelming evidence it is no longer dissent, it’s selective ignorance.
    You demonstrate that no-one is capable to reason with you on the science (for you won’t listen). You are argument is about the ideological ramifications of the good science, ie. the political will resulting from it – which I’m all in favour of – go nuts and debate over the changes. However you refuse you address the science in any meaningful away so you’ve off your target and understanding.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Well you are off target once again.

      Only question here is why the people in this blog declined to answer my query.

      Good luck with your wonderful research though.

      Cheers

      Roger

      Cheers

      Roger

  3. rogerthesurf Says:

    This whole blog is about listening what people have to say and giving them a chance to justify their assertions.

    Most AGW supporter sites will not tolerate dissenting views. This fact in itself is significant to the “conviction” of their beliefs.
    However if they don’t publish the dissenting comment, no one else will know there is dissent. This blog makes sure that the dissent is known and has not been answered.

    Readers can make up their own opinions about the target site.

    Even you are not much better because whenever I tried to pin you down you immediately jumped side ways with irrelevant arguements.

    What are you doing on here anyway?

    Here is what you told me in a previous comment:-
    “My argument is that climate change is occurring (for whatever reason), we are too heavily supported on an non-renewable energy source, much of what we do is unsustainable and the longer we take to address these issues, the larger the cost (to biodiversity, to health, to the environment and to resource supplies). Because of such, we need to change our views and start developing more sustainable practices.”

    Which is fine but I’m not arguing about that. This is a site that seeks to explore whether AGW supporter sites are prepared to justify their assertions.

    As you can see, precious few make any attempt.

    Your comments are welcome but please try and keep on subject.

  4. mothincarnate Says:

    From what others have said and the general vibe I get of your blog, I suspect that this group just aren’t interested entertaining someone who doesn’t listen. In fact, I only commented here because I saw you asking the same question I answered correctly, to another group (either because you didn’t understand it the first time or feel the need to hound everyone interested in sustainability to ensure that they all understand what they’re saying). If they had looked at our conversations that would’ve realized as much and thus unwilling to repeat as much.

    So I’d argue that the point really is that you’re unwilling to listen.

    There is no doubt that not all these people are climate experts, many might be hobby-bloggers like yourself, while others work in related industries. In many cases they’ve seen enough journal papers, climate models (working as a public servant scientist regarding Air quality monitoring I was subject to plenty of these), landscape changes or agricultural industries under stress that they feel the need to do something.

    I’m more or less like this; I can see a wide range in benefits in moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels (many less direct that climate drivers) so I choose this stances as well (which is why I tried to repeat that I was not heavily interested in the AGW debate – it’s only one of a stack of related problems).

    By all means argue over the policies (I’m also very sceptical of cap and trade or ETS etc) ; they’re far from an open and shut case and need lots more debate. However, the science is accurate to the best of our understanding – no weather man or citizen audit or news poll will change that. The last decade alone hit Australia very hard – much of southern Australia increasingly experienced those sub-tropical conditions I’ve discuss with you above and previously.

    So again, your questions were not provocative, they have already been debunked and we are already seeing a trend away from typical climate condition (where it goes to is also open to debate as predictive science is limited to it’s models and all models can only hint, they can never have the complexity of the real world). I suspect that Rural Climate Exchange were indeed unwilling to respond. They probably saw your comments and simply went on to continue their work. I guess not everyone is as silly as me, to bite the hook. C’est la vie…

  5. rogerthesurf Says:

    The point is that the Rural Climate Exchange was either unwilling or unable to respond to my admittedly provocative but quite reasonable question.

  6. mothincarnate Says:

    Oh, I should also thank you for putting me onto a wide range of excellent blogs that I probably wouldn’t have otherwise found.
    Cheers Roger

  7. mothincarnate Says:

    lol – nice! People can think what they like. But I work in a very similar field to this.
    Anyway, I answered the questions you’ve asked in the original question above, but these principles seem to be a little beyond you.
    Greater atmospheric energy imbalance will increase precipitation, but in larger doses (as we’re seeing increasingly in our sizable land mass). Basically you get near subtropical conditions at greater latitudes (ie. dry seasons / wet seasons rather than the typical four). This generally equates to drought-like conditions becoming more frequent.
    This is terrible for most typical agricultural systems. CO2 might be useful to plants, but certainly not dried and dead individuals. Bigger dries and bigger wetting events also strip the land of valuable topsoil. There’s ample colloquial evidence as well as governmental and scientific reports to not only suggest this will happen, but that it is. Surely one of your news reports covered Sydney spending a day in red dust last year?
    You are right, you don’t need to be a scientist to see it; those who actually experience life are having these changes happen on their doorsteps…
    I’ve not avoided your questions old sir, I’ve just tried to provide not only a good scientific basis but suggest to you on a more human, more common sense level… You’ve just failed to see that and have also failed to offer any reason why I shouldn’t considered you willingly ignorant.

  8. mothincarnate Says:

    You truly are ignorant and willingly choose to ignore reason. I’ve explained that more important to you’re love of the CO2 rich-atmosphere agriculture is flawed in most of the world (except maybe closer to your door).
    Sure, more CO2 and a higher imbalance of atmospheric energy could be beneficial to agriculture, it also effects water; sure this imbalance leads to more evaporation, but a more saturated air tends to greater instability and this leads to more dramatic weather patterns.
    We’ve seen in southern Australia more weather over the past 10yrs that is subtropical in patterns to those that used to be the norm (closer to temperate). In many federal, state and academic models and studies of the collected data from Australia HAS noticed an unexpected and extreme DROUGHT in southern Australia over this time separated by massive down pours. The mouth of the Murray HAS seen water head inward from the ocean rather than out.
    From this and the relevant literature (some of which I’ve provided you), assumptions are that we should expect MORE of this from our weather. If you know anything of northern Australia, you would know drought with big downpours are not good for agriculture. This pattern IS NOT helpful for agriculture in Aust (hence my work and interest). Of course a number of models that we use also make the assumption that the last decade has been a freak occurrence and we also take this in mind (which is why AGW is not a concern of mind, but climate study and the changes that we’re seeing ARE a concern to me) and regardless, fossil fuels are non renewable, the CO2 of our emissions ARE acidifying oceans.
    You have been informed on the relative information of an increased CO2 rich atmosphere and what it can mean to agriculture when you take more of the situation into consideration; not to get into land shadowing too much, but frankly, such extremes in this environment WILL exaggerate the affect of land shadowing which will hurt the northern hemisphere even more (but you wouldn’t mind seeing it isn’t a big player on a thin sliver of land).
    I’ll post this on my page just in case you don’t (seeing as you like to make a point of this). Remember: YOU FOUND ME.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Thanks for your information, but you simply have never addressed any of he questions I asked you, instead deluge me with a whole lot of irrelevant information.
      I’m sure what you say is very useful and may have some relevance somewhere, but for the purposes of my questions it is simply way off subject.

      Sorry

      Cheers

      Roger

      PS Maybe you should stop or limit your verbose postings. Must take up so much of your time and is liable to make readers suspect that you are unemployed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: