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? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhy don't many of the Republicans in the House and Senate believe in climate change?Are any celebrities actually leaving now that Trump has won the presidency?Has the United States ever had a travel ban similar to the current one?How is it that the USACE found there will be no significant environmental impact of DAPL?Why do people believe that efforts against climate change are futile even though they accept that the climate is changing?Why is the climate change debate so often framed in terms of whether or not it's due to human activity?Has any relevant American politician ever admited that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie?Did any or many conservative news outlets report on the new IPCC climate change report today?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
What does もの mean in this sentence?
Accepted by European university, rejected by all American ones I applied to? Possible reasons?
Does adding complexity mean a more secure cipher?
Correct punctuation for showing a character's confusion
Why can I use a list index as an indexing variable in a for loop?
Why doesn't UInt have a toDouble()?
Is bread bad for ducks?
Does HR tell a hiring manager about salary negotiations?
Is it okay to consider publishing in my first year of PhD?
How do I free up internal storage if I don't have any apps downloaded?
How can I have a shield and a way of attacking with a ranged weapon at the same time?
What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation
Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
Likelihood that a superbug or lethal virus could come from a landfill
Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?
Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?
A female thief is not sold to make restitution -- so what happens instead?
Button changing its text & action. Good or terrible?
How to type this arrow in math mode?
Is it ok to offer lower paid work as a trial period before negotiating for a full-time job?
Why didn't the Event Horizon Telescope team mention Sagittarius A*?
Old scifi movie from the 50s or 60s with men in solid red uniforms who interrogate a spy from the past
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?
Is Cinnamon a desktop environment or a window manager? (Or both?)
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?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhy don't many of the Republicans in the House and Senate believe in climate change?Are any celebrities actually leaving now that Trump has won the presidency?Has the United States ever had a travel ban similar to the current one?How is it that the USACE found there will be no significant environmental impact of DAPL?Why do people believe that efforts against climate change are futile even though they accept that the climate is changing?Why is the climate change debate so often framed in terms of whether or not it's due to human activity?Has any relevant American politician ever admited that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie?Did any or many conservative news outlets report on the new IPCC climate change report today?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
Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And 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 be 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 anomilies
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
add a comment |
Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And 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 be 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 anomilies
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
add a comment |
Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And 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 be 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 anomilies
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
Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And 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 be 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 anomilies
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
united-states climate-change
edited 4 hours ago
JJJ
6,36222456
6,36222456
asked 4 hours ago
Italian PhilosopherItalian Philosopher
1,050314
1,050314
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such), however, they don't always agree it's due to human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth), 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.
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such), however, they don't always agree it's due to human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth), 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.
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.
add a comment |
Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such), however, they don't always agree it's due to human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth), 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.
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.
add a comment |
Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such), however, they don't always agree it's due to human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth), 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.
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.
Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such), however, they don't always agree it's due to human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth), 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.
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.
answered 4 hours ago
JJJJJJ
6,36222456
6,36222456
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered 3 hours ago
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
1,774815
1,774815
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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