Thread: Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

The report notes that average temperatures increased by about 1C since 1950 and compares Australia’s climate over the period 2000 to 2019 with the period from 1950 to 1999 by

holding other variables, including farm output and commodity prices, constant

.

More fancy dancing with statistics, farm output and commodity prices are NEVER "constant" and along with management practices these would have a FAR greater impact on farm profitabillty that climate change ever would.
Claiming the 22% loss in farm "Profits" (Not productivity) solely on "Climate Change" is simply "Scare Mongering" and "Sensationalism", Yet another piece of crap journalism from the Guardian.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Here are some facts, from the Department of Agriculture no less, to say that climate change is so real it is already reducing our agricultural output by 22% a year, year on year. How's that for real data from an unbiased source?

Climate change has cut Australian farm profits by 22% a year over past 20 years, report says

Climate change has cut Australian farm profits by 22% a year over past 20 years, report says | Australia news | The Guardian

Agriculture is one of the issues causing accelerated Climate Change. It plays a bigger part in Climate than Carbon emissions.

It’s an area that has a solution available, yet isn’t being publicly addressed as it has no “clout”

Part of the solution would be to destock much of the 80% of land used for grazing, much of it now wasteland, let the vegetation recover, concentrate the cattle industry and reduce meat consumption, but that's unlikely to be accepted.

Originally Posted by trout1105

More fancy dancing with statistics, farm output and commodity prices are NEVER "constant" and along with management practices these would have a FAR greater impact on farm profitabillty that climate change ever would.
Claiming the 22% loss in farm "Profits" (Not productivity) solely on "Climate Change" is simply "Scare Mongering" and "Sensationalism", Yet another piece of crap journalism from the Guardian.

Variables have to be minimised in any comparison to get a statistically more correct comparison. Their method seems totally correct to me.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Variables have to be minimised in any comparison to get a statistically more correct comparison. Their method seems totally correct to me.

Variables can be minimised, maximised or even omitted altogether to gain whatever "Statistics" an "Agenda" requires to push its point of view, Of course you approve of this article because it is "Slanted" to suit your agenda.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Part of the solution would be to destock much of the 80% of land used for grazing, much of it now wasteland, let the vegetation recover, concentrate the cattle industry and reduce meat consumption, but that's unlikely to be accepted.

Cropping is FAR more invasive than running livestock will ever be, Maybe we should ban that as well and all starve to death.
Also if you "Concentrate" the cattle/sheep/goats/whatever you will need to feed all that "Concentrated" stock and that can only be done by more cropping.
You also have to remember that we only have a very small amount of land that is suitable for growing crops.

Originally Posted by Tote

No, I was attempting in a lighthearteed way to point out that scientists are people too and are affected by biases that will make them adhere to a particular viewpoint. Scientists are not gods, and the amount of training that they have done and the qualifications that they have gained will increase those biases. An example of the impact of those biases in action is demonstrated in the vitriol that is directed at anyone who dares to question the popular common belief. This is a people thing, not a climate change thing which goes back to my last comment. It's also not confined to one side of the discussion either, there are plenty of rabid climate change deniers who use the same arguments.
Here is a list of biases, have a look an d see how many might apply to a professional climate scientist who is immersed in his profession. Or you could apply the same logic to a Defender Vs Landcruiser discussion and get the same result.
List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia

Regards,
Tote

But the fact of the matter is that 97% of experts say it is happening. Peer reviewed journals say it is happening. Check after check after check. So the science is valid. It's personal interpretation which isn't valid - I think we might actually agree there! Peer reviewing takes out the majority of bias - it is designed to remove the confirmation bias to which you refer. Sitting on your couch looking up data that supports your opinion isn't peer reviewing.

There isn't a single piece of peer reviewed evidence that I'm aware of (it could exist, I'm just not aware of it) that says our current rapid climate change is not cause by humans.

So the bias is taken out of the science through a rigorous process. To my mind, the remaining 3% of people that believe that it is a natural phenomenon and unrelated to humans are simply wrong.

There is accepting the science. And there is not. There is no belief here. No faith. If you choose not to accept the science, you are choosing to ignore the facts. It is not a case of not believing in climate change. It is happening regardless of your "belief".

Gravity is a proven scientific theory. Climate change is the same.

Originally Posted by trout1105

Variables can be minimised, maximised or even omitted altogether to gain whatever "Statistics" an "Agenda" requires to push its point of view, Of course you approve of this article because it is "Slanted" to suit your agenda.

One of the first things I would look for in deciding if a comparison might be valid would be if it made a serious attempt to minimise the variables to narrow the focus to the indicator being compared. You have to compare 'like' with 'like'. If this study had not minimised the variables then it would be worthless. It does minimise the variables, so that makes it more accurate.