no.. i dont think id be going for willows to replace pasture ,. but as i said anything that is an adjunct to what we already do is worth considering,, we have a lot of areas not utilized in nz . But if you want to retain and improve soil health and fertility you need animal returns ,, I would agree,, bees , or the pressure they are under is a majour concern. we need lots a bees. i wouldnt worry about the carbon capture mr guyton, the theory is proving to be weak
The 'theory' of carbon capture and sequestration is very, very weak, anonymouse and I've said so to Don Elder. He disagrees and champions the 'theory'. Ha!
i dont think man is causing the climate to change ,, i think man is an inconsequential little cog in a much bigger and more complex cyclical climate sytem
Nicely and openly put. Good for you. My understanding of the situation differs from yours. It certainly seems to me that the greenhouses gases mankind has caused to go into the atmosphere are creating a greenhouse effect and that in turn is unsettling the climate. The weather events are more often than in previous decades, damaging to human activities, especially farming. The frequency of these events is increasing. I'm concerned that this pattern will result in widespread problems for humans, especially in terms of food availability.
i dont think that what climate records show actually. back in the 20s and 30s storms were more severe and regular .. they have a severity index. i think wee always had storms , but we have more people now so i think there is more impact
"back in the 20s and 30s storms were more severe and regular"
Anonymouse - I'm enjoying the tone of our discussion very much. Can you back up this claim with a link to the records? I don't accept it on face value and it's too narrow a claim - are you referring to storms across the globe or just in NZ or the USA? Your claim cover 2 decades - are you comparing with the past two decades. globally? I'm concentrating on the weather events of the past 5 years in my claim about recent adverse weather events, which I believe are increasing in frequency. It's the frequency that I was focussing on, not severity, as you have moved, in part, to.
The drought storms of the 30s gave rise to the musical ,," gone with the wind" , Theres been nothing like that since , and of course everyone in the Mid West learnt to build their house with a cellar because of the frequency and distructive power of tornados during the early 20s . There were many many more tornados back then than recent times . A book about tornados . " natures ultimate windstorm,, its there on google
So you were only referring to the American Midwest, anonymouse? That's far too narrow a sample to be able to claim that "back in the 20s and 30s storms were more severe and regular", I'm sure you'll agree. Those Midwest dust storms were terrible indeed, but they don't support your claim. If you can't show that the whole planet was suffering worse weather events over all than it is now, then I guess my claim prevails. I'm not trying to be 'the winner' here, I'm just fo;;owing the logical argument. I hope you'll continue to do the same. I appreciate a clean challenge.
the fact remains , storms in the americas were far more frequent in the 20s and 30s / They are indeed less frequent today, So that means your claim,, the whole planet is suffering , cannot be correct . By the way the incidence of hurricanes is also less,, sorry , but thats the facts . Back to agriculture and southland .. do you think a vibrant export ecconomy can be sustained with horticulture ?
Awww, anonymouse, you started off so well! anonymouse said... the fact remains , storms in the americas were far more frequent in the 20s and 30s / They are indeed less frequent today, So that means your claim,, the whole planet is suffering , cannot be correct . Your ability to put a logical argument has abandoned you it seems! What happened to the reasoned start you made? It seems to me that your claim that the American Midwest suffered more/worse storms in the 20's and 30's might be true, but that's not what I am discussing. Storms are not droughts, for example. The Midwest is not the whole planet for another. Here's my initual claim: "It certainly seems to me that the greenhouses gases mankind has caused to go into the atmosphere are creating a greenhouse effect and that in turn is unsettling the climate. The weather events are more often than in previous decades, damaging to human activities, especially farming. The frequency of these events is increasing. I'm concerned that this pattern will result in widespread problems for humans, especially in terms of food availability." You've chosen a very, very narrow measure - severe storms, and a narrow geographical range, the Midwest, and a narrow time band, 2 decades, to create your own 'strawman' about hich you seem determined to argue, despite my alerting you to the restrictions you are putting on the discussion. I want to pursue the discussion with you though. I reckon you can do it.
By the way the incidence of hurricanes is also less,, sorry , but thats the facts . Your assurances aren't convincing, anonymouse - you are using the 'it's true becuase I say it's true' method - not one I subscribe to, nor one I respect. Back to agriculture and southland .. do you think a vibrant export ecconomy can be sustained with horticulture ? Yes, I do. I'd like to see it supported by a number of other 'industries' though, for example, manufacturing,and educative arm, some resource extraction (silicon looks promising) and so on. It's a pity you are ditching the climate change discussion and moving to this one, but I can't stop you from avoiding something that's getting difficult for you :-)
It is interesting that although you propose there has been a climate change ,, you never produce any data to back it up.. yet you ask everyone else to run round and disprove you,, Id have to say i thought buster swamped you with in formation. You have not shown me anything to convince me that the climate isnt doing anything that hasnt happend before . That seems to be the opinion of the majourity of people. Now agriculture ,,horticulture i suppose you have a business plan? model . proposal as to how this might be achieved ? .
anonymouse said... It is interesting that although you propose there has been a climate change ,, you never produce any data to back it up.. yet you ask everyone else to run round and disprove you, That's not the case, anonymouse. I don't ask that anyone try to disprove me. I'm asking that you back up your own claim. You haven't been able to. I've said loud and clear that I'm expressing my opinion about climate change and that I'm not faintly interested in reading screeds of material from the likes of bs. I am interested though, in following a clean, logical argument such as the one you began regarding the Midwest. For some reason you folded. I'm disappointed, but can live with your retreat. Swamping me with links and claims, the way bs tries to do and sally would love to do, will not draw my interest. It's a redundant method, in my opinion. You began to develop a viable argument. I'd invite bs, sally and paranormal to do the same, but they seem to revert to ad hom and ideological pish too quickly to develop any sort of discussion.
Id have to say i thought buster swamped you with in formation. He wasted his time. I find his approach and inability to adapt, disappointing.
You have not shown me anything to convince me that the climate isnt doing anything that hasnt happend before . I'm not trying to 'show' you anything, anonymouse. Discussion of the logical sort, where we pursue an idea through to its logical conclusion, would be a great way to 'tick off' some of the questions we both have. What I'm arguing is not that individual events 'haven't happened before', but that the pattern of all such ecvents is different this time around, more immediate, more compressed and global, rather than local. You haven't been able to talk to that, ducking off to the Midwest each time I mention it That seems to be the opinion of the majourity of people. I don't think that's very relevant, anonymouse - tens of thousands of Americans also believe in the Rapture!
Now agriculture ,,horticulture i suppose you have a business plan? model . proposal as to how this might be achieved ? . Why do you suppose that? What do you think I am, CEO of Venture Southland, Mayor of Invercargill?...now there's a thought...
So behind all the words there is no substance ,, is that what you admit to? As far as climate science is concerned it is you that proposes change , adaptation, and that everyone should believe as you do. Convince me?/ you have failed so far . This is not in the class room where children assume you know what you talking about
anonymouse said... So behind all the words there is no substance ,, is that what you admit to? That's the interpretation I expected to you make but do you really think I'm basing my confident claims on a whim? I have said, often, that I read widely, take expert advice and debate these issues with pro and con individuals alike. If you wish to hold that I'm without substance on this issue, go ahead, I don't care. As far as climate science is concerned it is you that proposes change , adaptation, and that everyone should believe as you do. I do propose change and adaptation. I haven't asked you to believe as I do. If you can show me where I've said that, cut and paste and I'll believe you. Convince me?/ you have failed so far .I am not trying to convince you, anonymouse. I'm posting on what I think and you are joining the debate (though you don't last long). I would like to debate the issues with you, but you revert to this silly talk. This is not in the class room where children assume you know what you talking about. Really? I thought it was! I learned long ago never to assume the people knew what I was talking about, especially in the classroom. I see more misunderstanding/misinterpretation/misconstruing on blogs than I ever saw in a classroom. Maybe it's the medium or maybe on blogs you are 'talking' with people who are opinionated and bound to their ideology, as you seem to be.
Careful , your arrogance is shining through Mr Guyton. You consider you`re widely read on the topic of global warming , reading your own posts does`nt count! You did`nt look like you did too well with bs buster when it came to the facts. Id like to see you elaborate on your direction for this region for a lively sustainable land based financial future , Surely this is of importance, particularly as you`ve mentioned that narrow minded mind sets are an impediment to realizing opportunity.I consider the farmers of this region, who are obviously incredibly innovative and adaptable would like you to explain these, as yet unrealized potential for diversity and wealth?
anonymouse said... Careful , your arrogance is shining through Mr Guyton. Not arrogance, anonymouse, honesty. You consider you`re widely read on the topic of global warming , reading your own posts does`nt count! Is that humour? I'm reasonably well read on the topic. You did`nt look like you did too well with bs buster when it came to the facts. I've explained this to you over and over. I'll let it go. Id like to see you elaborate on your direction for this region for a lively sustainable land based financial future , Certainly. It would be my pleasure> Surely this is of importance, particularly as you`ve mentioned that narrow minded mind sets are an impediment to realizing opportunity. That's quite correct. I consider the farmers of this region, who are obviously incredibly innovative and adaptable would like you to explain these, as yet unrealized potential for diversity and wealth? Would they? I'm surprised to hear that they would give me such credence, being independent, innovative thinkers themselves, what would they care for the opinions of someone like me? Still, I'm happy do do that. And I'll do it in the morning. I have a lovely romantic evening ahead of me and I'm not going to spend it at this keyboard. Til then....
23 comments:
This is always the quickest way to get in touch with you Robert :-)
Can I use this photo of Greendrinks please?
http://www.invsoc.org.nz/events/
Take care! Nice to see you again, and to be introduced to your badge :-)
http://www.adbusters.org/cultureshop/blackspot/unswoosher
Jordan
Certainly. It was a great Greendrinks session - I like that quickfire debating situation. Many political scandals were exposed, many a scam sprung :-)
no.. i dont think id be going for willows to replace pasture ,. but as i said anything that is an adjunct to what we already do is worth considering,, we have a lot of areas not utilized in nz .
But if you want to retain and improve soil health and fertility you need animal returns ,,
I would agree,, bees , or the pressure they are under is a majour concern.
we need lots a bees.
i wouldnt worry about the carbon capture mr guyton, the theory is proving to be weak
mmmmmmmmm im obviously in the wrong topic
The 'theory' of carbon capture and sequestration is very, very weak, anonymouse and I've said so to Don Elder. He disagrees and champions the 'theory'.
Ha!
i was meaning the theory as to why you would want to use willows to capture carbon,
the idea that this is desirable seems piontless
What 'theory' then, is proving weak?
i dont think man is causing the climate to change ,, i think man is an inconsequential little cog in a much bigger and more complex cyclical climate sytem
Nicely and openly put. Good for you.
My understanding of the situation differs from yours. It certainly seems to me that the greenhouses gases mankind has caused to go into the atmosphere are creating a greenhouse effect and that in turn is unsettling the climate. The weather events are more often than in previous decades, damaging to human activities, especially farming. The frequency of these events is increasing. I'm concerned that this pattern will result in widespread problems for humans, especially in terms of food availability.
i dont think that what climate records show actually.
back in the 20s and 30s storms were more severe and regular .. they have a severity index.
i think wee always had storms , but we have more people now so i think there is more impact
"back in the 20s and 30s storms were more severe and regular"
Anonymouse - I'm enjoying the tone of our discussion very much. Can you back up this claim with a link to the records? I don't accept it on face value and it's too narrow a claim - are you referring to storms across the globe or just in NZ or the USA? Your claim cover 2 decades - are you comparing with the past two decades. globally? I'm concentrating on the weather events of the past 5 years in my claim about recent adverse weather events, which I believe are increasing in frequency. It's the frequency that I was focussing on, not severity, as you have moved, in part, to.
The drought storms of the 30s gave rise to the musical ,," gone with the wind" ,
Theres been nothing like that since , and of course everyone in the Mid West learnt to build their house with a cellar because of the frequency and distructive power of tornados during the early 20s .
There were many many more tornados back then than recent times .
A book about tornados . "
natures ultimate windstorm,, its there on google
So you were only referring to the American Midwest, anonymouse? That's far too narrow a sample to be able to claim that "back in the 20s and 30s storms were more severe and regular", I'm sure you'll agree. Those Midwest dust storms were terrible indeed, but they don't support your claim. If you can't show that the whole planet was suffering worse weather events over all than it is now, then I guess my claim prevails. I'm not trying to be 'the winner' here, I'm just fo;;owing the logical argument. I hope you'll continue to do the same. I appreciate a clean challenge.
the fact remains , storms in the americas were far more frequent in the 20s and 30s /
They are indeed less frequent today,
So that means your claim,, the whole planet is suffering , cannot be correct .
By the way the incidence of hurricanes is also less,, sorry , but thats the facts .
Back to agriculture and southland .. do you think a vibrant export ecconomy can be sustained with horticulture ?
Awww, anonymouse, you started off so well!
anonymouse said...
the fact remains , storms in the americas were far more frequent in the 20s and 30s /
They are indeed less frequent today,
So that means your claim,, the whole planet is suffering , cannot be correct .
Your ability to put a logical argument has abandoned you it seems! What happened to the reasoned start you made?
It seems to me that your claim that the American Midwest suffered more/worse storms in the 20's and 30's might be true, but that's not what I am discussing. Storms are not droughts, for example. The Midwest is not the whole planet for another. Here's my initual claim:
"It certainly seems to me that the greenhouses gases mankind has caused to go into the atmosphere are creating a greenhouse effect and that in turn is unsettling the climate. The weather events are more often than in previous decades, damaging to human activities, especially farming. The frequency of these events is increasing. I'm concerned that this pattern will result in widespread problems for humans, especially in terms of food availability."
You've chosen a very, very narrow measure - severe storms, and a narrow geographical range, the Midwest, and a narrow time band, 2 decades, to create your own 'strawman' about hich you seem determined to argue, despite my alerting you to the restrictions you are putting on the discussion. I want to pursue the discussion with you though. I reckon you can do it.
By the way the incidence of hurricanes is also less,, sorry , but thats the facts .
Your assurances aren't convincing, anonymouse - you are using the 'it's true becuase I say it's true' method - not one I subscribe to, nor one I respect.
Back to agriculture and southland .. do you think a vibrant export ecconomy can be sustained with horticulture ?
Yes, I do. I'd like to see it supported by a number of other 'industries' though, for example, manufacturing,and educative arm, some resource extraction (silicon looks promising) and so on. It's a pity you are ditching the climate change discussion and moving to this one, but I can't stop you from avoiding something that's getting difficult for you :-)
It is interesting that although you propose there has been a climate change ,, you never produce any data to back it up.. yet you ask everyone else to run round and disprove you,,
Id have to say i thought buster swamped you with in formation.
You have not shown me anything to convince me that the climate isnt doing anything that hasnt happend before .
That seems to be the opinion of the majourity of people.
Now agriculture ,,horticulture
i suppose you have a business plan? model . proposal as to how this might be achieved ? .
anonymouse said...
It is interesting that although you propose there has been a climate change ,, you never produce any data to back it up.. yet you ask everyone else to run round and disprove you,
That's not the case, anonymouse. I don't ask that anyone try to disprove me. I'm asking that you back up your own claim. You haven't been able to. I've said loud and clear that I'm expressing my opinion about climate change and that I'm not faintly interested in reading screeds of material from the likes of bs. I am interested though, in following a clean, logical argument such as the one you began regarding the Midwest. For some reason you folded. I'm disappointed, but can live with your retreat. Swamping me with links and claims, the way bs tries to do and sally would love to do, will not draw my interest. It's a redundant method, in my opinion. You began to develop a viable argument. I'd invite bs, sally and paranormal to do the same, but they seem to revert to ad hom and ideological pish too quickly to develop any sort of discussion.
Id have to say i thought buster swamped you with in formation.
He wasted his time. I find his approach and inability to adapt, disappointing.
You have not shown me anything to convince me that the climate isnt doing anything that hasnt happend before .
I'm not trying to 'show' you anything, anonymouse. Discussion of the logical sort, where we pursue an idea through to its logical conclusion, would be a great way to 'tick off' some of the questions we both have. What I'm arguing is not that individual events 'haven't happened before', but that the pattern of all such ecvents is different this time around, more immediate, more compressed and global, rather than local. You haven't been able to talk to that, ducking off to the Midwest each time I mention it
That seems to be the opinion of the majourity of people.
I don't think that's very relevant, anonymouse - tens of thousands of Americans also believe in the Rapture!
Now agriculture ,,horticulture
i suppose you have a business plan? model . proposal as to how this might be achieved ? .
Why do you suppose that? What do you think I am, CEO of Venture Southland, Mayor of Invercargill?...now there's a thought...
So behind all the words there is no substance ,, is that what you admit to?
As far as climate science is concerned it is you that proposes change , adaptation, and that everyone should believe as you do.
Convince me?/ you have failed so far .
This is not in the class room where children assume you know what you talking about
anonymouse said...
So behind all the words there is no substance ,, is that what you admit to?
That's the interpretation I expected to you make but do you really think I'm basing my confident claims on a whim? I have said, often, that I read widely, take expert advice and debate these issues with pro and con individuals alike. If you wish to hold that I'm without substance on this issue, go ahead, I don't care.
As far as climate science is concerned it is you that proposes change , adaptation, and that everyone should believe as you do.
I do propose change and adaptation. I haven't asked you to believe as I do. If you can show me where I've said that, cut and paste and I'll believe you.
Convince me?/ you have failed so far .I am not trying to convince you, anonymouse. I'm posting on what I think and you are joining the debate (though you don't last long). I would like to debate the issues with you, but you revert to this silly talk.
This is not in the class room where children assume you know what you talking about.
Really? I thought it was! I learned long ago never to assume the people knew what I was talking about, especially in the classroom. I see more misunderstanding/misinterpretation/misconstruing on blogs than I ever saw in a classroom. Maybe it's the medium or maybe on blogs you are 'talking' with people who are opinionated and bound to their ideology, as you seem to be.
Careful , your arrogance is shining through Mr Guyton.
You consider you`re widely read on the topic of global warming , reading your own posts does`nt count!
You did`nt look like you did too well with bs buster when it came to the facts.
Id like to see you elaborate on your direction for this region for a lively sustainable land based financial future , Surely this is of importance, particularly as you`ve mentioned that narrow minded mind sets are an impediment to realizing opportunity.I consider the farmers of this region, who are obviously incredibly innovative and adaptable would like you to explain these, as yet unrealized potential for diversity and wealth?
anonymouse said...
Careful , your arrogance is shining through Mr Guyton.
Not arrogance, anonymouse, honesty.
You consider you`re widely read on the topic of global warming , reading your own posts does`nt count!
Is that humour? I'm reasonably well read on the topic.
You did`nt look like you did too well with bs buster when it came to the facts.
I've explained this to you over and over. I'll let it go.
Id like to see you elaborate on your direction for this region for a lively sustainable land based financial future ,
Certainly. It would be my pleasure>
Surely this is of importance, particularly as you`ve mentioned that narrow minded mind sets are an impediment to realizing opportunity.
That's quite correct.
I consider the farmers of this region, who are obviously incredibly innovative and adaptable would like you to explain these, as yet unrealized potential for diversity and wealth?
Would they? I'm surprised to hear that they would give me such credence, being independent, innovative thinkers themselves, what would they care for the opinions of someone like me? Still, I'm happy do do that. And I'll do it in the morning. I have a lovely romantic evening ahead of me and I'm not going to spend it at this keyboard. Til then....
Still waiting on your expert opinion on how to revolutionize southern agriculture without going broke?
It's an important discussion, anonymouse and it won't hurt you to wait a little longer. Mind you don't get snappy now!
Post a Comment