Saturday, April 13, 2013
Incomprehensible
Federated Farmers president Bruce Wills was 'chatting' in the Herald’s live-chat this week. (Hat-tip, Homepaddock) when he was asked this question:
"If farmers have been suffering so much from the recent droughts, why have many farmers (& your association) in the past been deniers of climate change?"
Bruce answered, if you can regard his response as an answer, thus:
"We aren’t scientists we are farmers, we choose not to debate the science but work hard to deal with changing weather patterns. "
There's so much to dissemble here, but let's start with the questioner's point that the Federation (farmers union) through the statements of many of it's members, branches and presidents, has expressed denial of AGW.
"We choose not to debate the science" doesn't address the charge, Bruce. Your Federation is known for its denial of Climate Change (AGW). Pretending that you don't hold a position on it is less than straight, I'd say.
Next, the claim that farmers are somehow dealing with changing weather patterns is a nonsense - are they somehow changing them to suit their industry? How, with HARP technologies? Witch doctory? They may be trying to deal with the effects of the weather, but they are steadfastly refusing to do anything about Climate Change, to which they contribute a considerable amount. I suppose DCD was one tool farmers were using that reduced their contribution to AGW but that's fallen over and in any case, was never touted as being applied for that purpose.
Lastly, I'm astonished that Bruce would say that farmers aren't scientists. While it will be essentially true, the number of times I've been assured by farmers that they are up with the latest science, or using science as the number one tool on their farm, might surprise you. To back his Federation away from a position of supporting science seems a little feeble, it seems to me.
That's all. Bruce only uttered a couple of sentences on the topic, but they didn't cast him or his union in a very good light, in my view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You would have to have no understanding of NZ climate and the history of droughts that goes back long before humans arrived here to think that the recent dry spell was linked to Climate Change
That is not to say that there is not Climate change just that drought are nothing new
Farmers have been trying to drought proof but guess who will not have a bar of that
Droughts may well 'go back long before humans arrived here', Ray but I can't understand what you base your claim that they are not linked to Climate Change. I'd be very interested indeed to hear your reasoning.
Secondly, some farmers have been trying to drought-proof, I know that for certain - one of them visited me yestarday - a Mr Brosnan from th Hakataramea Valley, you might know of him. His efforts featured on Country Calendar a while back and showed all of the changes he'd made to his dessicated, blowin' in the wind farm, including riparian management with new willow species and multi-grass herbal ley pastures and a whole lot of sensible, effective systems that would be good models for other farmers who now find themselves facing a future with increased likelihood of drought.
If that was Mike Brosnan , yes I know him well and he did some really interesting work on new species, salt bush being a real winner but his whole philosophy about dealing with the dry times was outstanding. Of course he lived in a very dry area so used to it
One of the things that are being opposed by certain elements (the greens) is the storing of a percentage peak flood waters for irrigation, something that seems like a win win for everybody
My point on droughts is that they are nothing new so don't point to change as against some of the things happening in the Northern hemisphere which indicate quite rapid warming
It was Mike, yes. We had a tremendous time talking about such issues and wandering around my forest-garden to see what grows here and why. His approach to the issue of dry is one I subscribe to and one the Greens would doubtless champion. He has thought his way out of the conventional model and found solutions that are nuanced, diverse and sustainable. I knew that you were referring to water storage, Ray and that doesn't fit into any of those categories. That it's being pushed by the National Party is another negative for me - they have no history at all of "Mike Brosnan" thinking. Water storage is a system that suits farming, not rivers, nor the wider environment, in my view, based on what I perceive to be the proposals. It's an engineering solution to a 'natural' problem. It'll end in tears. It will also facilitate the further intensification of agriculture and its spread into previously un or lightly used areas, including higher land and land that is sloping and more prone to erosion.
Your point about the present-day droughts not pointing to Climate Change is I think, incorrect. They are exactly what was predicted the models. I still would like to hear from you as to why they are not indications of AGW. Stating that there have been droughts before does not do that. If there were droughts in the Northern Hemisphere presently, and if there is, as you say, quite rapid warming there, your argument (they are not due to climate change, there have always been droughts) would still be used to deny reality.
Mostly, I have to add, because of the rate of occurance and the intensity.
Aren't you tiring of hearing about 'driest month in a century', 'hottest since records began', over and over again? It's not rare now, to hear those sorts of claims, it's commonplace. That's what to look out for when you are trying to entertain the 'there have always been droughts', or 'this has happened before (in 1954, whatever...)
I think from now on I will refer to FF as "the Farmer's Union (Federated Farmers)"
In principle, water storage is a good idea, though it does need to be done properly to minimize its effects. A lot of currently proposed schemes are poorly thought through and justifiably criticised.
Post a Comment