Climate change in dispute: Dr Jock Allison
The Dairy
Exporter Climate Change Great Farming Guide : Not worth the Paper it is Written
On : Jock Allison July 2010
The recent
“Climate Change Great Farming Guide” included with the June issue of the Dairy
Exporter is disappointing for a number of reasons.
Firstly the
foreward by Dr Rick Pridmore states “It sets out the agreed science, which was
discussed at Copenhagen in December 2009, and also discusses what the science
indicates for New Zealand so you (the farmer) can consider the potential implications
for your region and your farming operation”. With regard to climate change
there is no such thing as “agreed science”. There is considerable scientific
debate as to the magnitude of the warming, and clearly urban heat island (UHI,
or intensive population centre effects) effects from records within
increasingly urban areas skew the data. Numerous peer-reviewed papers show
observed longer term warming is 30 to 50% from UHI and land use change effects
unrelated to actual temperature see ... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/poilcy_driven_deception.html
In addition there is debate about the contribution of human activities on any
warming, as the level of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is small indeed (<4%)
in comparison with CO2 (or equivalent) emissions from natural sources. There is
strong evidence that solar cycles are the main determinant of world
temperature, with manmade Greenhouse Gases having a minor effect only.
Temperature records over the past 10 to 15 years indicate no significant warming.
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models project
steadily increasing warming.
Secondly,
because CO2 is the “farmer’s friend”, increasing the amount in the atmosphere
would be very beneficial. Doubling the CO2 levels from 385 ppm to 760 ppm is
predicted to increase pasture production by about 30%, with only minor effects
on the warming of the globe. This of course would be a major boost for
agriculture and world food production. In fact the CO2 levels in the atmosphere
stated by the IPCC to be the cause of global warming (the magnitude about which
we disagree) have not been shown any detectable warming anyway. Anyone can
provide a single peer reviewed paper showing causality between atmospheric CO2
and increased temperature might like to claim a $US 10,000 prize offered by
Professor Michael Economides, a Professor of Chemical and Biological
Engineering at the University of Houston. The prize has been available for the
last 5 years, with no takers!!
Thirdly the
climate graphs and predictions for the various regions of New Zealand within
the Guide are worthless and misleading products of a computer model which has
never been validated.
pg. 2
Of more
interest perhaps is whether or not the Farming Guide could impart any useful
information to the Dairy Farming public. The answer is a resounding No! Most
farming businesses are of limited tenure, and climate variability is such that
major changes in strategy and or management’ to better fit the climatic factors
have probably been well thought through by others previously.
The data
reviewed and the Regional Climate Maps in the Guide are based on a continuation
of ............
The N & E of the North Island
being 10% wetter and 5% cloudier since the late 1970s with more frequent
droughts, and
The W & S of the South Island
have been about 10% wetter and 5% cloudier since the late 1970s, with some
evidence that extreme daily rainfall events have increased in the west.
The period
with which these observed changes has been compared, isn’t specified, although
it is also stated “the scenarios are not predictions – they are plausible
“pictures” of future climate for NZ”. The authors are confident that
temperatures are increasing on average and will continue to do so. There are
however a number of qualifications and I quote three from the Guide....
p16 :
Climate change scenarios for New Zealand consistently show a pattern of
rainfall change that suggests wetter conditions on average in the west, and
drier conditions on average in the east. However, there will still be dry years
in the west and wet years in the east, as well as changing variability between
years, seasonal patterns, and rainfall forecasts.
p16 : In
the short term, what will matter most to dairy farmers will be changes in
variability between years, changes in seasonal rainfall patterns and
distribution, and changes in rainfall intensities, all of which are uncertain.
p20 :
However, there is a lot more uncertainty around scenarios of rainfall change
and even more so with scenarios of wind change. These caveats need to be kept
in mind with the following summary information ........... etc etc
It is
incomprehensible that any farmer would take the climate projections in the
Guide seriously and attempt to work these into his or her farm management
planning, when this sort of qualification is proffered.
pg. 3
Fourthly,
the two Case Studies of Dairy Farmers Adapting to Climate Change, at the end of
the Guide, are really just the documentation of two innovative farmers changing
their management to better fit with the environment in which they farm. In
Southland over the past 40+ years soil conditions have always been wet. Soil
compaction and pasture damage during wet periods have always been problems. The
development of wintering sheds is simply an approach to these problems, and
nothing to do with any “adaptation to climate change”, as is portrayed in the
Guide. Thus far most farmers use run off properties rather than building sheds
as has been the solution in the example put forward.
Finally
there is a matter of Dairy NZ serving their farming funders. 75% + of the
funding for Dairy NZ comes from farmer levy, and it is clear that there are
..........
a) Many
farmers are sceptical about climate change and any effects on their businesses,
and
b) Most
farmers are even more sceptical about the recently adopted Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS),
and thus
Dairy NZ’s non critical acceptance of the political and incorrect science plus
engagement in activities servicing policies based on that so called science
might not be viewed by the funding providers as acceptable?
Obviously
Dairy NZ obtains funding for “beating the drum” on climate change and indeed is
now running MAF funded workshops for advisors on climate change issues and land
management practices across the country. In these seminars the science of
global warming isn’t to be discussed in detail, and the presenters will most
likely follow the IPCC “party line” anyway, this being the basis for the
derived MAF funding. Is the funding base of Dairy NZ comfortable about such
activities when arguably there are few climate related issues other than
natural variability?
Dairy NZ
should at least become more informed about climate science, and give the
general farming and general public an opportunity to hear differing points of
view re climate science, manmade global warming and whether New Zealand should
undertake various strategies for mitigation, and or adaption to any threats or
opportunities in the future. Presently any questioning of the climate change
dogma on which Government Policy is based puts the questioners in the “denier”
category but any engagement in discussion re principles of science is
studiously avoided. Worldwide there are many many highly competent scientists
who accept that the climate changes naturally and can find no evidence that
anthropogenic emissions are the main cause.
|
PRINTABLE
VERSION
TOP
