Australian wheat market points to climate danger.

Right again.

Thanks Larry. Dan and the peanut gallery will wake up any minute. :)

I think you have to be the biggest global warmist hypocrite on Gather Chris, you claim a weather event is proof of AGW as you make up stories (Snow disproves global warming.) about skeptics saying that snow is proof of no global warming and then criticizing then for it.

Oh! BTW,
The price of wheat in Australia is not proof of AGW.

Thanks for pointing out this important ramification of the continued warming of this planet by our burning of fossil fuels. As you've noted many many times, there are millions of data points, over 100,000 peer-reviewed research publications, 100+ years of science, and basic physics that tells us that we are warming our planet.

And one of the fallouts from all of those unequivocal data is that we are likely to experience more and more of these unprecedented droughts like Australia has been experiencing this year.

Frankly, it's amazing that the denialist industry can continue to be so profoundly ignorant - or so blatantly dishonest - in their intentional misrepresentation of the data.

Meanwhile, virtually every scientist, every Academy of Sciences, and every major scientific organization agrees that these 100+ years of data from multiple lines of evidence unequivocally demonstrates we are warming the planet because of our burning of fossil fuels.

Sea level rise can also cause salt intrusion, which means the soil becomes saltier. Rising seas means less land for agriculture.

Glad you mentioned sea level rise in the article, how are the Maldives doing these days you know the ones those islands that you all said would be under water soon. Guess they never saw the script seeing that they built all those new airports and new luxury hotel accommodation. Funny that, you would have thought that they would have done a runner like all those from Tuvalu did in 2007 except that they did not do a runner the population is still 11,000 and the islands of Tuvalu are still there all of them.

Oh and by the way talking of food shortages Australia are quite adept at solving how to grow food especially in the desert and they use sea water to do it as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/24/growing-food-in-the-desert-crisis?CMP=twt_gu

Since you can't seem to get even the most basic facts right I'll repeat what I already explained to you elsewhere.

Glad you mentioned sea level rise in the article, how are the Maldives doing these days you know the ones those islands that you all said would be under water soon.

Wrong. The Maldives are preparing for the very high likelihood that future sea level rise due to climate change will make the islands uninhabitable. You seem to not be able to understand this basic concept, instead making up an straw man that equates projections of 100 years from now as being "today." That's just idiotic. In fact, the Maldives remains among the most vulnerable to climate change related impacts to food security.

Guess they never saw the script seeing that they built all those new airports and new luxury hotel accommodation.

I'm sure you would wonder that given you can't seem to differentiate between 100 years from now and now. This explains why you plagiarize so much; you seem incapable of basic understanding.

Funny that, you would have thought that they would have done a runner like all those from Tuvalu did in 2007 except that they did not do a runner the population is still 11,000 and the islands of Tuvalu are still there all of them.

Wrong. Again you can't seem to get even the most basic facts right. Meanwhile, the Australian government has concluded that Tuvalu is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including from sea level rise and from El Nino and La Nina. The South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission also ranks Tuvalu as extremely vulnerable to the impacts of future climate change.

Oh and by the way talking of food shortages Australia are quite adept at solving how to grow food especially in the desert and they use sea water to do it as well.

So you think that we should continue to trash our planet - even though we know how to fix the problem - just because we can grow some food in the desert. That will be useful to a large part of the world that will be under drought conditions much worse than they are today. And all those people dying today from the inability to grow food in the desert will miraculously come back to life. Or perhaps you think that the deaths of millions of people is a good thing because, after all, it would reduce the overall world populations that need to have desert grown food?

Of course, this won't help those people who experience greater floods than now. Nor will it stop the migrations of people from their countries and states into other people's countries and states.

And also of course, you've decided that you can simply deny the science because some day you think we can fix it. That is both irresponsible and economically suicidal.

No need to explain we are all bored stiff with your reply's. Give it up man have some respect for yourself. You and your crowd have lost spectacularly and all you have left is a small heatwave in Australia. What a spectacular end to it all. a small heatwave in a country in its summer months what an embarrassing end. But one that was expected. But hey keep churning out the old tired comments at least I can have a good old laugh at them while I savor your embarrassment. By for now until the next embarrassing article that will be written.

No need to explain

You find no need to explain why what you said is false? And shows you can't get even the most basic facts right?

we are all bored stiff with your reply's.

So you willfully choose to remain ignorant?

Give it up man have some respect for yourself.

I suspect that I am fairly well respected on this venue.

And you? Well, you can't get even the most basic facts right, you plagiarize and try to hide that fact, and you are verbally abusive to others. I suspect most people on this venue have formed their opinions about you.

You and your crowd have lost spectacularly

Your statement is nonsensical. There is the science and then there is the denial of the science. It's rather easy to see who understands the science and who doesn't.

and all you have left is a small heatwave in Australia.

Again, nonsensical. No one has suggested that a heat wave (even an unprecedented record breaker like this one) means we have global warming. What has been suggested is that the unequivocal global warming demonstrated by 100+ years of science is likely to increase the frequency and severity of such massive heat waves and droughts in places like Australia. Your ignorance of the facts should not be projected onto others.

What a spectacular end to it all. a small heatwave in a country in its summer months what an embarrassing end.

Besides dishonestly trying to diminish the severity of the drought/heat in Australia, you seem to be getting even more delusional in your belief that somehow man-made climate change has ended. In fact, we are guaranteed to have at least another degree of increased atmospheric temperatures just from the CO2 we've already emitted, even if we were to miraculously stop emitting CO2 today. Again, your ignorance should not be misconstrued to be shared by others.

But one that was expected.

But once again you're wrong. Which makes your arrogance even more embarrassing to watch.

But hey keep churning out the old tired comments at least I can have a good old laugh at them while I savor your embarrassment.

Projection is both a tactic and symptom of denialism. And rather obvious to all who read these comments.

By for now until the next embarrassing article that will be written.

Given your history of plagiarism (even to the point of trying to hide it) and incoherent meanderings about things you can't even get the basic facts right on, I'm sure embarrassing is the appropriate descriptor for your articles. Which is why I stopped bothering to even notice them long ago.

It's certainly your right to embarrass yourself. Feel free to do so on your own page and not waste everyone's time elsewhere.

Attempting to remain open to opposing views, my click on the desert agriculture article provided by Graham revealed another linked article.

The United Kingdom's Lord Nicholas Stern - author of the government-commissioned review on climate change that became the reference work for politicians and green campaigners - now says he underestimated the risks, and should have been more "blunt" about the threat posed to the economy by rising temperatures.

Source

I expect he did not read that part, Hyper. :)

Lord Nicholas Stern has a Bachelor of Arts degree and is economist and academic He was the Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 2000 to 2003. No way can he be called a climate scientist. When people like him who are commissioned to review climate science that is then put to Government for them to make policy's you have to wonder whats in it for him and his family who are in a wonderful position to make quite a bit of money on green issues, windy mills and solar come to mind. In some quarters the review was likened to a Government dodgy dossier on the Iraq weapons of mass destruction. Like Bill McKibben who again has no climate science background but is a green activist like so these people are on Gather Nicholas Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford words should be taken for what they are nothing more than words to forward his own agenda and opinions.

Attempting to remain open to opposing views

Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with opposing views. It has to do with people repeating over and over things that have proven to be false time after time. It's like someone screaming that Elvis is alive, being shown that Elvis is unequivocally dead by all the people who have expertise in the matter, and then going on to repeat again and again that Elvis is alive. And not just repeat it, but attack all others who know Elvis is dead. This arrogance of ignorance is the problem.

All of the falsehoods Graham prattles on about have been revealed as falsehoods dozens, perhaps now even hundreds, of times. There is nothing new. There is no excuse for being so ignorant. And while he is free to be as embarrassing ignorant as he wants, there is no justification for then so overbearingly attacking others because they choose not to be so ignorant.

Lord Nicholas Stern has a Bachelor of Arts degree and is economist and academic He was the Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 2000 to 2003. No way can he be called a climate scientist.

You conveniently left out that he is chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. Wonder why you left that out.

But here again you show that you completely fail to grasp even the most simple concepts.

The purpose of the "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change" was to examine the economics of climate change. The very topic you just admitted he is eminently qualified to address.

The science of climate change is based on 100+ years of science, which recently has been summarized in a series of reports by the IPCC.

So again you blather off about something you got wrong.

It is interesting that you question the qualifications of those who are working within their expertise while routinely plagiarizing from non-scientists like the people at GWPF and lawyers like James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, which funds people to mislead the public about climate change.

Thank you for the added info, fellows.

Keep in mind, David, that shorter comments are easier to digest for the average person, making you even more effective;-]

While I am hopeful Graham et al. are correct, it seems wise to plan as if David et al. are.

I have the utmost confidence that people who want to learn are capable of reading the comments.

The True.

Also The True: human desire for The True has its limits, so we often settle for The Dominant Quick And Dirty Narrative;-]