The Editor, Southland Times
Can Robert Guyton answer a couple of questions that have troubled me for some time.
If the current drought gripping the US is caused by rising CO2 levels what caused past droughts there when CO2 levels were much lower?
Under President Obamas 'alternative green fuel plan' and one shared by NZ Greens, 40% of the US corn crop was destined to be converted in ethanol for motor vehicles, can Robert shed light on how many famine related deaths per 10,000 kilometres the average SUV would be resposible for?
KEVIN J MURDOCH
Te Anau
Mr Murdoch's worrying about droughts and famine and his concerns are shared
worldwide, especially in those areas where crops are dying as the climate
changes and fails to bring rain where used to fall reliably.
He's also identified one of the major producers of greenhouse gases -
vehicles, and he's chosen the SUV as a 'worst-case' example and shares my
view that food crops should feed people, not cars. Many SUV owners are
probably looking at today's fuel prices and wondering if there are more
efficient, less costly ways to get around, so Mr Murdoch's question about how
much greenhouse gas they produce might be redundant already. What caused
past droughts? Lack of rain is my guess.
The climate is a sensitive
thing at the best of times and it's very foolish of us to meddle with it
by turning the atmosphere into a greenhouse.
ROBERT GUYTON
Riverton
19 comments:
As usual you avoid giving a straight answer. Your global warming mates would be rather disappointed with your facetious reply.
But Sally, RG is playing a political game and has given a politicians non-answer to valid questions.
Paranormal
Lord Monckton cometh!
Tired Farmer
Honestly, Sally! I was asked what caused droughts in the past. What's your answer?
As for the SUV question, is it even possible to give an answer?
Kevin seems to have an agenda behind his questions, don't you think?
Bet you can't answer them.
Anonymous - valid questions? Answer them then, go on!
Tired Farmer - you admire Monckton, don't you? Surely you don't equate political answers with Ol' Monckey?
Scientific answers Robert.
I challenge you to try and arrange
a Debate with him to be broadcast
on U-Tube and TV.
Colin McIntyre.
I'd slay him, Colin :-)
If I can survive a morning at the Waianiwa Garage with Stuart Collie and his son, and a collection of local farmers wanting to see what I'm made of, I can take Monckey out with ease. We debated climate change, the use of urea and a raft of other contentious issues.
I note that none of my detractors here have risen to the challenge of answering Mr Murdoch's questions, despite their unctuous comments. They won't either, because they can't. Come on Sally! Come on Paranormal! Answer Keith's questions! Not afraid are you?
I noted the use of the word survive. Very descriptive. Certainly not a word like thrive.
I think it is ok to admit that there is contention around the use of a food source/land for fuel. Particularly when subsidies are involved. It is also ok to admit that droughts are caused by weather events and if you feel they are exagerated by climate change say so.
By side stepping straight forward questions it appears to me you have a predetermined bias in the debate and using the paper as a location to grandstand.
Anonymous
"Anonymous said...
I noted the use of the word survive. Very descriptive. Certainly not a word like thrive."
'Thrive' would be a little arrogant, I felt, Anonymous. I thanked them for not stringing me up. One farmer said he'd been eyeing the rafter over my head.
"I think it is ok to admit that there is contention around the use of a food source/land for fuel. Particularly when subsidies are involved."
I did and there certainly is!
"It is also ok to admit that droughts are caused by weather events and if you feel they are exagerated by climate change say so."
I have said so pointedly, hence Mr Murdoch's letter.
"By side stepping straight forward questions it appears to me you have a predetermined bias in the debate and using the paper as a location to grandstand."
Firstly, I'd no choice but to choose my own path in answering Keith's questions - they ae unanswerable. If you don't accept that, try answering them yourself and show us what you came up with. No one else here has risen to my challenge to answer the questions - i wonder why not? So 'sidestepping', I don't thinl that's an accurate description at all. A predetermined bias in the climate change debate? HELL YES!
I know my own mind on this issue. I'm not sitting on the fence, is that not obvious?
As for 'using the paper as a location to grandstand.' - goodness, you've found me out! Whatever should I do now??? :-)
what causes droughts you ask,,
not co2 is my answer .. refer to august 21 posts
droughts are associated with the pacific oscillation la nina events for land masses in the same latitudes ,
been happeneing for centuries ,,
,
La Niña, Anonymous?
That's a phenomenon of climate, yes?
So droughts are the result of climatic influences. To over-heat that climate system by exacerbating the greenhouse effect would be plainly stupid, it's very clear to me. Yet that is what we are doing, with our human industrialness; overheating the system. We'll reap what we have sown, disappointingly and dangerously and all of those who denied the reality of the threat we face, will look like chumps. However, that won't matter a whit, we'll be fully engaged with coping with a climate we will wish we'd avoided provoking.
RG: "I thanked them for not stringing me up. One farmer said he'd been eyeing the rafter over my head.
"
As one ~2 Metre Southlander to another, I'd watch out for the little farmers Robert, when you're down there, its easy to strike a low blow!
I was rather shocked to see how tiny farmers feet are!
Federated Farmers/Dairy NZ Invercargill
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaywontdart/7885723934/in/photostream
Cute little size 8 "adults" gumboots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaywontdart/7885722978/in/photostream
While its probably pretty hard to hang someone when his feet touch the ground, I wouldnt wear a tie around anyone involved with "animal agriculture" if I were you! Or me too! :-)
I...I...never knew!
Robert @ 4.12pm
I think you will find it was BS buster that promoted the idea of La Nina. I didn't see an Anonymous promoting the term.
Robert @ 1.21pm
One farmer eyed the rafter? Cor blimey! Is the term productive relationships in your spam criteria? I am almost too scared to use it. I am holding back the feelings of sympathy mind you. You will be proud of me?
You want me to answer Kevins questions. Easy.
...CO2 much lower? Natural weather events.
..average SUV would be responsible for? That would be a very complex model to calculate and I don't have the exact details to calculate a figure. But the question highlights concern around using food/land to create fuel and I share this concern.
Here is how I see it Robert. I tend to believe those who put forward a balanced view. Those that promote a strong view in the face of uncertainty immediately install a sense of scepticism in me. This goes for both sides of the climate change debate. Sorry BS Buster but that goes for you too.
I have read plenty and am happy with the concept of climate change. As to the cause, I continue to sit on the fence. I tell you what I get sick of abreviations. CO2 IPCC WG CFC WM DBCCA etc etc.
Anonymous - my apologies for confusing you with bs. You and he are very different.
Natural weather events caused droughts in pre-hominid days?
Crikey! Almost makes the question seem puerile, doesn't it!
Blah blah SUV blah..."That would be a very complex model to calculate and I don't have the exact details to calculate a figure."
That's no answer at all and completely unsuitable for the medium of letters in the newspaper, Anonymous. If ever you do get asked a question through the paper, please talk to me before you respond. I can help.
The two questions were, as you have shown, quite hollow; neither interesting nor thought provoking. I'm surprised you haven't made the observation yourself. I guess you were irritated, as Sally was, with my having exposed them as such while at the same time taking the opportunity to further my case. Do tell me I'm wrong.
You say you believe those who put forward a balanced view. can you give me one example of such a person, and an example, so that I can check your claim? Thanks.
Haven't heard anything back from you re the above, Anonymous. Too hard?
pre hominid ... i million years ago
no " mega" droughts occurred regularly over the last 1000 years .. drought during the civil war in america was quite extreme and perhaps the most recent extreme drought .
Unsuitable? Some of us choose humility and honesty. I portray that regardless because I believe it is an important part of message delivery. Your style of message delivery is different to mine, perhaps better perhaps worse, but it is fair to say people don't write to the paper challenging my message.
"thought provoking" has a time and a place. Sometimes, when simple questions are ignored, thought provoking becomes attention seeking, not a characteristic that many Southlanders enjoy.
"do tell me I'm wrong". You are wrong. Any other requests I can help with?
Examples of a balanced view. I concede, you are right, there are very few publications that present a centre of the debate. I speak to many people and often see balance but it is so rarely presented in publications. I have read one document that admits science shortfalls that favours human induced climate change and that resonates strongest with me. As I study science I have to consider the data and so few reviews contain data.
You seemed strangely eager for that response. I hope it answered your questions.
Post a Comment