If climate change impact can be observed in nature, has that had any effect on rural, i.e. farming community, perception of the scientific consensus? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?Are farmers in the Great Plains aware of the Dust Bowl?Is it true that the United States currently has no debt ceiling?Did George W. Bush try to alter the power of the presidency by using a theory that had never been implemented?Would the Congressional Apportionment Amendment have any effect on the House of Representatives if it were ratified today?Can a bill that has passed the US Senate or House expire?How is it that the USACE found there will be no significant environmental impact of DAPL?Is there any time limit that the President has to obey when speaking of signing a law?What laws has congress passed that allows the traffic intersection cameras in USA?Has any relevant American politician ever admited that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie?What would be the effect of a change in the US Senate?How can half agree with the 3 percent of research that can't

How do I keep my slimes from escaping their pens?

∞ symbol in external pdf disappears when used as figure

What is the musical term for a note that continously plays through a melody?

"Seemed to had" is it correct?

Storing hydrofluoric acid before the invention of plastics

If 'B is more likely given A', then 'A is more likely given B'

Should I discuss the type of campaign with my players?

How to recreate this effect in Photoshop?

Check which numbers satisfy the condition [A*B*C = A! + B! + C!]

When to stop saving and start investing?

What is the correct way to use the pinch test for dehydration?

How does a Death Domain cleric's Touch of Death feature work with Touch-range spells delivered by familiars?

Java 8 stream max() function argument type Comparator vs Comparable

Did Kevin spill real chili?

How does cp -a work

Can a non-EU citizen traveling with me come with me through the EU passport line?

If Jon Snow became King of the Seven Kingdoms what would his regnal number be?

What causes the vertical darker bands in my photo?

How discoverable are IPv6 addresses and AAAA names by potential attackers?

Output the ŋarâþ crîþ alphabet song without using (m)any letters

What are the motives behind Cersei's orders given to Bronn?

Should gear shift center itself while in neutral?

Is the address of a local variable a constexpr?

Should I call the interviewer directly, if HR aren't responding?



If climate change impact can be observed in nature, has that had any effect on rural, i.e. farming community, perception of the scientific consensus?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?Are farmers in the Great Plains aware of the Dust Bowl?Is it true that the United States currently has no debt ceiling?Did George W. Bush try to alter the power of the presidency by using a theory that had never been implemented?Would the Congressional Apportionment Amendment have any effect on the House of Representatives if it were ratified today?Can a bill that has passed the US Senate or House expire?How is it that the USACE found there will be no significant environmental impact of DAPL?Is there any time limit that the President has to obey when speaking of signing a law?What laws has congress passed that allows the traffic intersection cameras in USA?Has any relevant American politician ever admited that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie?What would be the effect of a change in the US Senate?How can half agree with the 3 percent of research that can't










10















Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And the rejection of climate change theory has been a bedrock of Republican politics for years by now.



If one assumes* that we are seeing early signs of persistent changes in weather pattern, then farmers, who professionally have been very attuned to long term weather conditions to be successful, ought to be aware of them.



Some examples of persistent weather patterns:



  • California has had multiple years of drought.

  • BC has had massive forest fires for 3 out of the last 4 years.

  • Extremely deadly forest fires in Portugal and Greece.

  • Global land and ocean temperature anomalies

  • the Mountain Pine Beetle decimated pines in the BC Interior Plateau. This happened because we didn't enough -35C winter temperatures, which are the only real natural constraint to this pest.

Now, clearly, some of these can be attributed to modern forest management practices. But farmers are precisely the kind of people who analyze weather trends for a living. So I would expect at least some of them to be worrying about long term temperature and precipitation trends.



Has there been any grassroots movement among the US farming and ranching communities (specifically, on the Republican side of things), questioning the wisdom of continued rejection of the IPCC findings? Even if they retain conservative views on other issues such as crime, abortion and immigration.



* If you disagree with climate change or any signs of it happening at all, that's fine and you can put that as an answer. That's self-explanatory as to why farmers wouldn't worry then.










share|improve this question



















  • 2





    Remember that the process so far has been relatively slow and people tend to adjust rather quickly. This is why fishery communities often don't realize that they are overfishing; they just think the catch has always been what it is.

    – henning
    Apr 12 at 11:11











  • re. the close vote. this question is certainly about trends within political parties so does that leave it off-limit? there are numerous questions on this site about party positions, for example politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40461/…

    – Italian Philosopher
    Apr 12 at 19:08












  • Note that climate change can have a positive impact locally, not just a negative one. Most of Canada will benefit from an increase in global temperatures.

    – JonathanReez
    yesterday















10















Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And the rejection of climate change theory has been a bedrock of Republican politics for years by now.



If one assumes* that we are seeing early signs of persistent changes in weather pattern, then farmers, who professionally have been very attuned to long term weather conditions to be successful, ought to be aware of them.



Some examples of persistent weather patterns:



  • California has had multiple years of drought.

  • BC has had massive forest fires for 3 out of the last 4 years.

  • Extremely deadly forest fires in Portugal and Greece.

  • Global land and ocean temperature anomalies

  • the Mountain Pine Beetle decimated pines in the BC Interior Plateau. This happened because we didn't enough -35C winter temperatures, which are the only real natural constraint to this pest.

Now, clearly, some of these can be attributed to modern forest management practices. But farmers are precisely the kind of people who analyze weather trends for a living. So I would expect at least some of them to be worrying about long term temperature and precipitation trends.



Has there been any grassroots movement among the US farming and ranching communities (specifically, on the Republican side of things), questioning the wisdom of continued rejection of the IPCC findings? Even if they retain conservative views on other issues such as crime, abortion and immigration.



* If you disagree with climate change or any signs of it happening at all, that's fine and you can put that as an answer. That's self-explanatory as to why farmers wouldn't worry then.










share|improve this question



















  • 2





    Remember that the process so far has been relatively slow and people tend to adjust rather quickly. This is why fishery communities often don't realize that they are overfishing; they just think the catch has always been what it is.

    – henning
    Apr 12 at 11:11











  • re. the close vote. this question is certainly about trends within political parties so does that leave it off-limit? there are numerous questions on this site about party positions, for example politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40461/…

    – Italian Philosopher
    Apr 12 at 19:08












  • Note that climate change can have a positive impact locally, not just a negative one. Most of Canada will benefit from an increase in global temperatures.

    – JonathanReez
    yesterday













10












10








10








Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And the rejection of climate change theory has been a bedrock of Republican politics for years by now.



If one assumes* that we are seeing early signs of persistent changes in weather pattern, then farmers, who professionally have been very attuned to long term weather conditions to be successful, ought to be aware of them.



Some examples of persistent weather patterns:



  • California has had multiple years of drought.

  • BC has had massive forest fires for 3 out of the last 4 years.

  • Extremely deadly forest fires in Portugal and Greece.

  • Global land and ocean temperature anomalies

  • the Mountain Pine Beetle decimated pines in the BC Interior Plateau. This happened because we didn't enough -35C winter temperatures, which are the only real natural constraint to this pest.

Now, clearly, some of these can be attributed to modern forest management practices. But farmers are precisely the kind of people who analyze weather trends for a living. So I would expect at least some of them to be worrying about long term temperature and precipitation trends.



Has there been any grassroots movement among the US farming and ranching communities (specifically, on the Republican side of things), questioning the wisdom of continued rejection of the IPCC findings? Even if they retain conservative views on other issues such as crime, abortion and immigration.



* If you disagree with climate change or any signs of it happening at all, that's fine and you can put that as an answer. That's self-explanatory as to why farmers wouldn't worry then.










share|improve this question
















Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And the rejection of climate change theory has been a bedrock of Republican politics for years by now.



If one assumes* that we are seeing early signs of persistent changes in weather pattern, then farmers, who professionally have been very attuned to long term weather conditions to be successful, ought to be aware of them.



Some examples of persistent weather patterns:



  • California has had multiple years of drought.

  • BC has had massive forest fires for 3 out of the last 4 years.

  • Extremely deadly forest fires in Portugal and Greece.

  • Global land and ocean temperature anomalies

  • the Mountain Pine Beetle decimated pines in the BC Interior Plateau. This happened because we didn't enough -35C winter temperatures, which are the only real natural constraint to this pest.

Now, clearly, some of these can be attributed to modern forest management practices. But farmers are precisely the kind of people who analyze weather trends for a living. So I would expect at least some of them to be worrying about long term temperature and precipitation trends.



Has there been any grassroots movement among the US farming and ranching communities (specifically, on the Republican side of things), questioning the wisdom of continued rejection of the IPCC findings? Even if they retain conservative views on other issues such as crime, abortion and immigration.



* If you disagree with climate change or any signs of it happening at all, that's fine and you can put that as an answer. That's self-explanatory as to why farmers wouldn't worry then.







united-states climate-change public-opinion agriculture






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 12 at 19:20







Italian Philosopher

















asked Apr 12 at 0:50









Italian PhilosopherItalian Philosopher

1,086316




1,086316







  • 2





    Remember that the process so far has been relatively slow and people tend to adjust rather quickly. This is why fishery communities often don't realize that they are overfishing; they just think the catch has always been what it is.

    – henning
    Apr 12 at 11:11











  • re. the close vote. this question is certainly about trends within political parties so does that leave it off-limit? there are numerous questions on this site about party positions, for example politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40461/…

    – Italian Philosopher
    Apr 12 at 19:08












  • Note that climate change can have a positive impact locally, not just a negative one. Most of Canada will benefit from an increase in global temperatures.

    – JonathanReez
    yesterday












  • 2





    Remember that the process so far has been relatively slow and people tend to adjust rather quickly. This is why fishery communities often don't realize that they are overfishing; they just think the catch has always been what it is.

    – henning
    Apr 12 at 11:11











  • re. the close vote. this question is certainly about trends within political parties so does that leave it off-limit? there are numerous questions on this site about party positions, for example politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40461/…

    – Italian Philosopher
    Apr 12 at 19:08












  • Note that climate change can have a positive impact locally, not just a negative one. Most of Canada will benefit from an increase in global temperatures.

    – JonathanReez
    yesterday







2




2





Remember that the process so far has been relatively slow and people tend to adjust rather quickly. This is why fishery communities often don't realize that they are overfishing; they just think the catch has always been what it is.

– henning
Apr 12 at 11:11





Remember that the process so far has been relatively slow and people tend to adjust rather quickly. This is why fishery communities often don't realize that they are overfishing; they just think the catch has always been what it is.

– henning
Apr 12 at 11:11













re. the close vote. this question is certainly about trends within political parties so does that leave it off-limit? there are numerous questions on this site about party positions, for example politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40461/…

– Italian Philosopher
Apr 12 at 19:08






re. the close vote. this question is certainly about trends within political parties so does that leave it off-limit? there are numerous questions on this site about party positions, for example politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40461/…

– Italian Philosopher
Apr 12 at 19:08














Note that climate change can have a positive impact locally, not just a negative one. Most of Canada will benefit from an increase in global temperatures.

– JonathanReez
yesterday





Note that climate change can have a positive impact locally, not just a negative one. Most of Canada will benefit from an increase in global temperatures.

– JonathanReez
yesterday










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















12














Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such),



however, farmers don't always agree climate change is a result of human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth) and it's not something we have influence on, then we don't need to take action. The reasoning is, that if we cannot do anything to change it, then it's not worth trying and putting money into.



I will quote some research to illustrate my point.



The first few lines of the conclusion of an article titled: Skeptical but Adapting: What Midwestern Farmers Say about Climate Change in the American Meteorological Society:




The farmers in our focus groups expressed skepticism about global, human-induced climate change and yet articulated climate change impacts they have experienced on their farms. They struggled to separate climate change adaptation actions from all the management decisions they make in an ever-shifting agricultural world. That farmers struggle to define the term, referring instead to “management decisions,” reflects this disconnect.




Another more accessible article by Scientific American:




In 2011, Arbuckle and his colleagues used the annual Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll to survey over 1,200 farmers in the state about their views on the subject.



Only 10.4 percent of participants agreed with the statement, "climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly by human activities."



The highest number of respondents, 35 percent, said climate change was caused about equally by natural changes in the environment and human causes. Just under a quarter (23 percent) said climate change was mostly caused by natural changes, 27 percent said there was not sufficient evidence, and 4.6 percent said climate change was not occurring.







share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    So in the 2011 poll, 45.4 % of farmers agreed that humans have notable effect on climate change, but they still vote for party that denies it, which may cost them their living? Would the answers be different now, after polarization of voters?

    – Tomáš Zato
    Apr 12 at 9:01







  • 4





    At first i tought you were saying: "I'm being eaten by a bear. But that's a natural process and not my doing, i shouldn't invest energy into not being eaten". On second reading, your links point at the idea that we ARE walking into the bear's damn cave, and even if we're not, we might still carry a rifle if we're around bear-county. I think that you might make that a bit clearer.

    – CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName
    Apr 12 at 9:17






  • 2





    Given that the Dust Bowl was caused by more "local", i.e. regional rather than global "management decisions" I'm not too surprised to see that view among US farmers regarding the current changes.

    – Fizz
    Apr 12 at 13:50












  • @CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName I edited it, I hope it's clearer now. If not, feel free to propose your own edit. ;)

    – JJJ
    Apr 12 at 14:00











  • N.B. there's no guarantee the Dust Bowl won't return if the irrigation water runs out; at least the farmers interviewed by PBS were aware of the possibility. youtube.com/watch?v=o7Uwg8BT6qQ

    – Fizz
    Apr 12 at 14:01



















3














Whereas one would expect farmers to notice changes in climate locally, it doesn’t follow that they are well placed to judge whether there is a broader pattern and whether the change is due to natural processes or due to anthropogenic change.



As rural areas tend to be conservative, one would expect, if all things are equal, that farmers would tend to favour initiatives to keep or conserve the climate as is rather than those promoting more climate change. However, all things are not equal: the climate change debate is heavily politicised as one would expect given that the fossil fuel industry has had several centuries to embed itself within the industrial fabric of a nation and has huge investments and industries at stake.



Given the nature of the debate, the proper forum for understanding what’s at stake, disentangling misinformation from information is the legislature. One instance of this is the Texas legislature which at the beginning of the millennium mandated that utilities get part of their energy from renewable sources, a mandate that was promoted by a tax credit. This has led to 18% of the states energy being sourced from renewables.



This remarkable achievement in only two decades has been so successful that it has attracted the attention of fossil fuel lobbyists. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation who employ around 20 lobbyists to target renewable energy subsidies.






share|improve this answer























  • I'm surprised that this answer is upvoted. It's full of unsourced claims about the "fossil fuel lobbyists" and other conspiracy theories.

    – Sjoerd
    Apr 12 at 18:09






  • 4





    @Sjoerd Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it's not a conspiracy theory (it's not even a secret) that the fossil fuel industry (like all other industries) employs lobbyists to advance their industry's interests.

    – divibisan
    Apr 12 at 18:52











  • @Sjoerd. I kinda of agree. I was asking about the effect on rural Republican voters of seeing (or not) signs of long-term changes in the weather. Not about what lobbyists might be doing to further the interests of their clients.

    – Italian Philosopher
    Apr 12 at 19:06


















-1














Vineyards in the south of England started out using German grapes. The result is a wine that is of slightly lower quality, but these German grapes are much less sensitive to bad / cold weather than French ones.



About ten years ago, they have been replaced (source: Talking to the guys running Chapel Down in Kent) with French grapes which could then be grown successfully in England.






share|improve this answer























  • This is an interesting fact, but does not seem to address the question.

    – Alexei
    19 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40512%2fif-climate-change-impact-can-be-observed-in-nature-has-that-had-any-effect-on-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









12














Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such),



however, farmers don't always agree climate change is a result of human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth) and it's not something we have influence on, then we don't need to take action. The reasoning is, that if we cannot do anything to change it, then it's not worth trying and putting money into.



I will quote some research to illustrate my point.



The first few lines of the conclusion of an article titled: Skeptical but Adapting: What Midwestern Farmers Say about Climate Change in the American Meteorological Society:




The farmers in our focus groups expressed skepticism about global, human-induced climate change and yet articulated climate change impacts they have experienced on their farms. They struggled to separate climate change adaptation actions from all the management decisions they make in an ever-shifting agricultural world. That farmers struggle to define the term, referring instead to “management decisions,” reflects this disconnect.




Another more accessible article by Scientific American:




In 2011, Arbuckle and his colleagues used the annual Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll to survey over 1,200 farmers in the state about their views on the subject.



Only 10.4 percent of participants agreed with the statement, "climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly by human activities."



The highest number of respondents, 35 percent, said climate change was caused about equally by natural changes in the environment and human causes. Just under a quarter (23 percent) said climate change was mostly caused by natural changes, 27 percent said there was not sufficient evidence, and 4.6 percent said climate change was not occurring.







share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    So in the 2011 poll, 45.4 % of farmers agreed that humans have notable effect on climate change, but they still vote for party that denies it, which may cost them their living? Would the answers be different now, after polarization of voters?

    – Tomáš Zato
    Apr 12 at 9:01







  • 4





    At first i tought you were saying: "I'm being eaten by a bear. But that's a natural process and not my doing, i shouldn't invest energy into not being eaten". On second reading, your links point at the idea that we ARE walking into the bear's damn cave, and even if we're not, we might still carry a rifle if we're around bear-county. I think that you might make that a bit clearer.

    – CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName
    Apr 12 at 9:17






  • 2





    Given that the Dust Bowl was caused by more "local", i.e. regional rather than global "management decisions" I'm not too surprised to see that view among US farmers regarding the current changes.

    – Fizz
    Apr 12 at 13:50












  • @CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName I edited it, I hope it's clearer now. If not, feel free to propose your own edit. ;)

    – JJJ
    Apr 12 at 14:00











  • N.B. there's no guarantee the Dust Bowl won't return if the irrigation water runs out; at least the farmers interviewed by PBS were aware of the possibility. youtube.com/watch?v=o7Uwg8BT6qQ

    – Fizz
    Apr 12 at 14:01
















12














Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such),



however, farmers don't always agree climate change is a result of human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth) and it's not something we have influence on, then we don't need to take action. The reasoning is, that if we cannot do anything to change it, then it's not worth trying and putting money into.



I will quote some research to illustrate my point.



The first few lines of the conclusion of an article titled: Skeptical but Adapting: What Midwestern Farmers Say about Climate Change in the American Meteorological Society:




The farmers in our focus groups expressed skepticism about global, human-induced climate change and yet articulated climate change impacts they have experienced on their farms. They struggled to separate climate change adaptation actions from all the management decisions they make in an ever-shifting agricultural world. That farmers struggle to define the term, referring instead to “management decisions,” reflects this disconnect.




Another more accessible article by Scientific American:




In 2011, Arbuckle and his colleagues used the annual Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll to survey over 1,200 farmers in the state about their views on the subject.



Only 10.4 percent of participants agreed with the statement, "climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly by human activities."



The highest number of respondents, 35 percent, said climate change was caused about equally by natural changes in the environment and human causes. Just under a quarter (23 percent) said climate change was mostly caused by natural changes, 27 percent said there was not sufficient evidence, and 4.6 percent said climate change was not occurring.







share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    So in the 2011 poll, 45.4 % of farmers agreed that humans have notable effect on climate change, but they still vote for party that denies it, which may cost them their living? Would the answers be different now, after polarization of voters?

    – Tomáš Zato
    Apr 12 at 9:01







  • 4





    At first i tought you were saying: "I'm being eaten by a bear. But that's a natural process and not my doing, i shouldn't invest energy into not being eaten". On second reading, your links point at the idea that we ARE walking into the bear's damn cave, and even if we're not, we might still carry a rifle if we're around bear-county. I think that you might make that a bit clearer.

    – CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName
    Apr 12 at 9:17






  • 2





    Given that the Dust Bowl was caused by more "local", i.e. regional rather than global "management decisions" I'm not too surprised to see that view among US farmers regarding the current changes.

    – Fizz
    Apr 12 at 13:50












  • @CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName I edited it, I hope it's clearer now. If not, feel free to propose your own edit. ;)

    – JJJ
    Apr 12 at 14:00











  • N.B. there's no guarantee the Dust Bowl won't return if the irrigation water runs out; at least the farmers interviewed by PBS were aware of the possibility. youtube.com/watch?v=o7Uwg8BT6qQ

    – Fizz
    Apr 12 at 14:01














12












12








12







Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such),



however, farmers don't always agree climate change is a result of human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth) and it's not something we have influence on, then we don't need to take action. The reasoning is, that if we cannot do anything to change it, then it's not worth trying and putting money into.



I will quote some research to illustrate my point.



The first few lines of the conclusion of an article titled: Skeptical but Adapting: What Midwestern Farmers Say about Climate Change in the American Meteorological Society:




The farmers in our focus groups expressed skepticism about global, human-induced climate change and yet articulated climate change impacts they have experienced on their farms. They struggled to separate climate change adaptation actions from all the management decisions they make in an ever-shifting agricultural world. That farmers struggle to define the term, referring instead to “management decisions,” reflects this disconnect.




Another more accessible article by Scientific American:




In 2011, Arbuckle and his colleagues used the annual Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll to survey over 1,200 farmers in the state about their views on the subject.



Only 10.4 percent of participants agreed with the statement, "climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly by human activities."



The highest number of respondents, 35 percent, said climate change was caused about equally by natural changes in the environment and human causes. Just under a quarter (23 percent) said climate change was mostly caused by natural changes, 27 percent said there was not sufficient evidence, and 4.6 percent said climate change was not occurring.







share|improve this answer















Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such),



however, farmers don't always agree climate change is a result of human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth) and it's not something we have influence on, then we don't need to take action. The reasoning is, that if we cannot do anything to change it, then it's not worth trying and putting money into.



I will quote some research to illustrate my point.



The first few lines of the conclusion of an article titled: Skeptical but Adapting: What Midwestern Farmers Say about Climate Change in the American Meteorological Society:




The farmers in our focus groups expressed skepticism about global, human-induced climate change and yet articulated climate change impacts they have experienced on their farms. They struggled to separate climate change adaptation actions from all the management decisions they make in an ever-shifting agricultural world. That farmers struggle to define the term, referring instead to “management decisions,” reflects this disconnect.




Another more accessible article by Scientific American:




In 2011, Arbuckle and his colleagues used the annual Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll to survey over 1,200 farmers in the state about their views on the subject.



Only 10.4 percent of participants agreed with the statement, "climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly by human activities."



The highest number of respondents, 35 percent, said climate change was caused about equally by natural changes in the environment and human causes. Just under a quarter (23 percent) said climate change was mostly caused by natural changes, 27 percent said there was not sufficient evidence, and 4.6 percent said climate change was not occurring.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 12 at 13:58

























answered Apr 12 at 1:15









JJJJJJ

6,66522457




6,66522457







  • 1





    So in the 2011 poll, 45.4 % of farmers agreed that humans have notable effect on climate change, but they still vote for party that denies it, which may cost them their living? Would the answers be different now, after polarization of voters?

    – Tomáš Zato
    Apr 12 at 9:01







  • 4





    At first i tought you were saying: "I'm being eaten by a bear. But that's a natural process and not my doing, i shouldn't invest energy into not being eaten". On second reading, your links point at the idea that we ARE walking into the bear's damn cave, and even if we're not, we might still carry a rifle if we're around bear-county. I think that you might make that a bit clearer.

    – CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName
    Apr 12 at 9:17






  • 2





    Given that the Dust Bowl was caused by more "local", i.e. regional rather than global "management decisions" I'm not too surprised to see that view among US farmers regarding the current changes.

    – Fizz
    Apr 12 at 13:50












  • @CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName I edited it, I hope it's clearer now. If not, feel free to propose your own edit. ;)

    – JJJ
    Apr 12 at 14:00











  • N.B. there's no guarantee the Dust Bowl won't return if the irrigation water runs out; at least the farmers interviewed by PBS were aware of the possibility. youtube.com/watch?v=o7Uwg8BT6qQ

    – Fizz
    Apr 12 at 14:01













  • 1





    So in the 2011 poll, 45.4 % of farmers agreed that humans have notable effect on climate change, but they still vote for party that denies it, which may cost them their living? Would the answers be different now, after polarization of voters?

    – Tomáš Zato
    Apr 12 at 9:01







  • 4





    At first i tought you were saying: "I'm being eaten by a bear. But that's a natural process and not my doing, i shouldn't invest energy into not being eaten". On second reading, your links point at the idea that we ARE walking into the bear's damn cave, and even if we're not, we might still carry a rifle if we're around bear-county. I think that you might make that a bit clearer.

    – CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName
    Apr 12 at 9:17






  • 2





    Given that the Dust Bowl was caused by more "local", i.e. regional rather than global "management decisions" I'm not too surprised to see that view among US farmers regarding the current changes.

    – Fizz
    Apr 12 at 13:50












  • @CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName I edited it, I hope it's clearer now. If not, feel free to propose your own edit. ;)

    – JJJ
    Apr 12 at 14:00











  • N.B. there's no guarantee the Dust Bowl won't return if the irrigation water runs out; at least the farmers interviewed by PBS were aware of the possibility. youtube.com/watch?v=o7Uwg8BT6qQ

    – Fizz
    Apr 12 at 14:01








1




1





So in the 2011 poll, 45.4 % of farmers agreed that humans have notable effect on climate change, but they still vote for party that denies it, which may cost them their living? Would the answers be different now, after polarization of voters?

– Tomáš Zato
Apr 12 at 9:01






So in the 2011 poll, 45.4 % of farmers agreed that humans have notable effect on climate change, but they still vote for party that denies it, which may cost them their living? Would the answers be different now, after polarization of voters?

– Tomáš Zato
Apr 12 at 9:01





4




4





At first i tought you were saying: "I'm being eaten by a bear. But that's a natural process and not my doing, i shouldn't invest energy into not being eaten". On second reading, your links point at the idea that we ARE walking into the bear's damn cave, and even if we're not, we might still carry a rifle if we're around bear-county. I think that you might make that a bit clearer.

– CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName
Apr 12 at 9:17





At first i tought you were saying: "I'm being eaten by a bear. But that's a natural process and not my doing, i shouldn't invest energy into not being eaten". On second reading, your links point at the idea that we ARE walking into the bear's damn cave, and even if we're not, we might still carry a rifle if we're around bear-county. I think that you might make that a bit clearer.

– CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName
Apr 12 at 9:17




2




2





Given that the Dust Bowl was caused by more "local", i.e. regional rather than global "management decisions" I'm not too surprised to see that view among US farmers regarding the current changes.

– Fizz
Apr 12 at 13:50






Given that the Dust Bowl was caused by more "local", i.e. regional rather than global "management decisions" I'm not too surprised to see that view among US farmers regarding the current changes.

– Fizz
Apr 12 at 13:50














@CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName I edited it, I hope it's clearer now. If not, feel free to propose your own edit. ;)

– JJJ
Apr 12 at 14:00





@CaptainAwesomeMcCoolName I edited it, I hope it's clearer now. If not, feel free to propose your own edit. ;)

– JJJ
Apr 12 at 14:00













N.B. there's no guarantee the Dust Bowl won't return if the irrigation water runs out; at least the farmers interviewed by PBS were aware of the possibility. youtube.com/watch?v=o7Uwg8BT6qQ

– Fizz
Apr 12 at 14:01






N.B. there's no guarantee the Dust Bowl won't return if the irrigation water runs out; at least the farmers interviewed by PBS were aware of the possibility. youtube.com/watch?v=o7Uwg8BT6qQ

– Fizz
Apr 12 at 14:01












3














Whereas one would expect farmers to notice changes in climate locally, it doesn’t follow that they are well placed to judge whether there is a broader pattern and whether the change is due to natural processes or due to anthropogenic change.



As rural areas tend to be conservative, one would expect, if all things are equal, that farmers would tend to favour initiatives to keep or conserve the climate as is rather than those promoting more climate change. However, all things are not equal: the climate change debate is heavily politicised as one would expect given that the fossil fuel industry has had several centuries to embed itself within the industrial fabric of a nation and has huge investments and industries at stake.



Given the nature of the debate, the proper forum for understanding what’s at stake, disentangling misinformation from information is the legislature. One instance of this is the Texas legislature which at the beginning of the millennium mandated that utilities get part of their energy from renewable sources, a mandate that was promoted by a tax credit. This has led to 18% of the states energy being sourced from renewables.



This remarkable achievement in only two decades has been so successful that it has attracted the attention of fossil fuel lobbyists. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation who employ around 20 lobbyists to target renewable energy subsidies.






share|improve this answer























  • I'm surprised that this answer is upvoted. It's full of unsourced claims about the "fossil fuel lobbyists" and other conspiracy theories.

    – Sjoerd
    Apr 12 at 18:09






  • 4





    @Sjoerd Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it's not a conspiracy theory (it's not even a secret) that the fossil fuel industry (like all other industries) employs lobbyists to advance their industry's interests.

    – divibisan
    Apr 12 at 18:52











  • @Sjoerd. I kinda of agree. I was asking about the effect on rural Republican voters of seeing (or not) signs of long-term changes in the weather. Not about what lobbyists might be doing to further the interests of their clients.

    – Italian Philosopher
    Apr 12 at 19:06















3














Whereas one would expect farmers to notice changes in climate locally, it doesn’t follow that they are well placed to judge whether there is a broader pattern and whether the change is due to natural processes or due to anthropogenic change.



As rural areas tend to be conservative, one would expect, if all things are equal, that farmers would tend to favour initiatives to keep or conserve the climate as is rather than those promoting more climate change. However, all things are not equal: the climate change debate is heavily politicised as one would expect given that the fossil fuel industry has had several centuries to embed itself within the industrial fabric of a nation and has huge investments and industries at stake.



Given the nature of the debate, the proper forum for understanding what’s at stake, disentangling misinformation from information is the legislature. One instance of this is the Texas legislature which at the beginning of the millennium mandated that utilities get part of their energy from renewable sources, a mandate that was promoted by a tax credit. This has led to 18% of the states energy being sourced from renewables.



This remarkable achievement in only two decades has been so successful that it has attracted the attention of fossil fuel lobbyists. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation who employ around 20 lobbyists to target renewable energy subsidies.






share|improve this answer























  • I'm surprised that this answer is upvoted. It's full of unsourced claims about the "fossil fuel lobbyists" and other conspiracy theories.

    – Sjoerd
    Apr 12 at 18:09






  • 4





    @Sjoerd Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it's not a conspiracy theory (it's not even a secret) that the fossil fuel industry (like all other industries) employs lobbyists to advance their industry's interests.

    – divibisan
    Apr 12 at 18:52











  • @Sjoerd. I kinda of agree. I was asking about the effect on rural Republican voters of seeing (or not) signs of long-term changes in the weather. Not about what lobbyists might be doing to further the interests of their clients.

    – Italian Philosopher
    Apr 12 at 19:06













3












3








3







Whereas one would expect farmers to notice changes in climate locally, it doesn’t follow that they are well placed to judge whether there is a broader pattern and whether the change is due to natural processes or due to anthropogenic change.



As rural areas tend to be conservative, one would expect, if all things are equal, that farmers would tend to favour initiatives to keep or conserve the climate as is rather than those promoting more climate change. However, all things are not equal: the climate change debate is heavily politicised as one would expect given that the fossil fuel industry has had several centuries to embed itself within the industrial fabric of a nation and has huge investments and industries at stake.



Given the nature of the debate, the proper forum for understanding what’s at stake, disentangling misinformation from information is the legislature. One instance of this is the Texas legislature which at the beginning of the millennium mandated that utilities get part of their energy from renewable sources, a mandate that was promoted by a tax credit. This has led to 18% of the states energy being sourced from renewables.



This remarkable achievement in only two decades has been so successful that it has attracted the attention of fossil fuel lobbyists. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation who employ around 20 lobbyists to target renewable energy subsidies.






share|improve this answer













Whereas one would expect farmers to notice changes in climate locally, it doesn’t follow that they are well placed to judge whether there is a broader pattern and whether the change is due to natural processes or due to anthropogenic change.



As rural areas tend to be conservative, one would expect, if all things are equal, that farmers would tend to favour initiatives to keep or conserve the climate as is rather than those promoting more climate change. However, all things are not equal: the climate change debate is heavily politicised as one would expect given that the fossil fuel industry has had several centuries to embed itself within the industrial fabric of a nation and has huge investments and industries at stake.



Given the nature of the debate, the proper forum for understanding what’s at stake, disentangling misinformation from information is the legislature. One instance of this is the Texas legislature which at the beginning of the millennium mandated that utilities get part of their energy from renewable sources, a mandate that was promoted by a tax credit. This has led to 18% of the states energy being sourced from renewables.



This remarkable achievement in only two decades has been so successful that it has attracted the attention of fossil fuel lobbyists. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation who employ around 20 lobbyists to target renewable energy subsidies.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 12 at 2:13









Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah

1,817815




1,817815












  • I'm surprised that this answer is upvoted. It's full of unsourced claims about the "fossil fuel lobbyists" and other conspiracy theories.

    – Sjoerd
    Apr 12 at 18:09






  • 4





    @Sjoerd Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it's not a conspiracy theory (it's not even a secret) that the fossil fuel industry (like all other industries) employs lobbyists to advance their industry's interests.

    – divibisan
    Apr 12 at 18:52











  • @Sjoerd. I kinda of agree. I was asking about the effect on rural Republican voters of seeing (or not) signs of long-term changes in the weather. Not about what lobbyists might be doing to further the interests of their clients.

    – Italian Philosopher
    Apr 12 at 19:06

















  • I'm surprised that this answer is upvoted. It's full of unsourced claims about the "fossil fuel lobbyists" and other conspiracy theories.

    – Sjoerd
    Apr 12 at 18:09






  • 4





    @Sjoerd Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it's not a conspiracy theory (it's not even a secret) that the fossil fuel industry (like all other industries) employs lobbyists to advance their industry's interests.

    – divibisan
    Apr 12 at 18:52











  • @Sjoerd. I kinda of agree. I was asking about the effect on rural Republican voters of seeing (or not) signs of long-term changes in the weather. Not about what lobbyists might be doing to further the interests of their clients.

    – Italian Philosopher
    Apr 12 at 19:06
















I'm surprised that this answer is upvoted. It's full of unsourced claims about the "fossil fuel lobbyists" and other conspiracy theories.

– Sjoerd
Apr 12 at 18:09





I'm surprised that this answer is upvoted. It's full of unsourced claims about the "fossil fuel lobbyists" and other conspiracy theories.

– Sjoerd
Apr 12 at 18:09




4




4





@Sjoerd Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it's not a conspiracy theory (it's not even a secret) that the fossil fuel industry (like all other industries) employs lobbyists to advance their industry's interests.

– divibisan
Apr 12 at 18:52





@Sjoerd Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it's not a conspiracy theory (it's not even a secret) that the fossil fuel industry (like all other industries) employs lobbyists to advance their industry's interests.

– divibisan
Apr 12 at 18:52













@Sjoerd. I kinda of agree. I was asking about the effect on rural Republican voters of seeing (or not) signs of long-term changes in the weather. Not about what lobbyists might be doing to further the interests of their clients.

– Italian Philosopher
Apr 12 at 19:06





@Sjoerd. I kinda of agree. I was asking about the effect on rural Republican voters of seeing (or not) signs of long-term changes in the weather. Not about what lobbyists might be doing to further the interests of their clients.

– Italian Philosopher
Apr 12 at 19:06











-1














Vineyards in the south of England started out using German grapes. The result is a wine that is of slightly lower quality, but these German grapes are much less sensitive to bad / cold weather than French ones.



About ten years ago, they have been replaced (source: Talking to the guys running Chapel Down in Kent) with French grapes which could then be grown successfully in England.






share|improve this answer























  • This is an interesting fact, but does not seem to address the question.

    – Alexei
    19 hours ago















-1














Vineyards in the south of England started out using German grapes. The result is a wine that is of slightly lower quality, but these German grapes are much less sensitive to bad / cold weather than French ones.



About ten years ago, they have been replaced (source: Talking to the guys running Chapel Down in Kent) with French grapes which could then be grown successfully in England.






share|improve this answer























  • This is an interesting fact, but does not seem to address the question.

    – Alexei
    19 hours ago













-1












-1








-1







Vineyards in the south of England started out using German grapes. The result is a wine that is of slightly lower quality, but these German grapes are much less sensitive to bad / cold weather than French ones.



About ten years ago, they have been replaced (source: Talking to the guys running Chapel Down in Kent) with French grapes which could then be grown successfully in England.






share|improve this answer













Vineyards in the south of England started out using German grapes. The result is a wine that is of slightly lower quality, but these German grapes are much less sensitive to bad / cold weather than French ones.



About ten years ago, they have been replaced (source: Talking to the guys running Chapel Down in Kent) with French grapes which could then be grown successfully in England.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









gnasher729gnasher729

1,899415




1,899415












  • This is an interesting fact, but does not seem to address the question.

    – Alexei
    19 hours ago

















  • This is an interesting fact, but does not seem to address the question.

    – Alexei
    19 hours ago
















This is an interesting fact, but does not seem to address the question.

– Alexei
19 hours ago





This is an interesting fact, but does not seem to address the question.

– Alexei
19 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40512%2fif-climate-change-impact-can-be-observed-in-nature-has-that-had-any-effect-on-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?