I find it a little surprising that farmers are among the biggest skeptics of manmade climate change.
A 2015 Pew Research poll had 78 percent of farmers saying that they believe that climate change wasn’t an issue that needed to be taken seriously. While most farmers do believe in climate change in the general sense of definition, they do not believe that it is manmade or that there is anything humans can do about it to alter outcomes.
The following were some trains of thought from farmers on the web on the topic of climate change. Note that there is a universal theme that the issue is being used to control us:
- “Farmers are and have always dealt with weather/climate extremes. It is a way of life. Some of the worst weather has happened in the distant past as well as present time. The difference is our education system has promoted the idea that climate change is a problem. Go to your school and check it out. I am convinced that climate change is “man made up” and taught in school to form an agenda for taxing and manipulating business and people.
- “Yes, climate change is real. Man has little or no effect on it. All one needs do is look at the printed temperature data and compare it to the adjusted temperature readings they now have and you will see how they lowered the temps from the 40s and 50s because the thermometers were not accurate, and then raised the temps in the 80s because they weren’t accurate and waa-laa we have an acceleration of warmth. There has always been a bunch of elitists that thought they are better than the rest of us and it’s no different now. They want to control us.”
- Last night I read my American Scientific magazine. I also read Discovery among the varied resources that I follow for this report. I am not a scientist, but I am intrigued by science. Nanotechnology, CRISPER, archeology, astronomy, layman’s physics, cancer research, robotics. I find it fascinating. The acceleration of human development in the past century has been boosted beyond all historical precedent by science. We are going to Mars and the science they are discovering in the process is mind boggling. Cancer survivability in general has gone from 20 percent to 80 percent and my granddaughter is breeding zebra fish in her Mayo Clinic work study cancer research.
- I back science every time I challenge GMO safety deniers. I buy the orange juice that doesn’t have the GMO-free label on it because of sound science. I reject the need for such labels as being absurd. We fight to use science in trade policy to determine by science what is acceptable so countries do not use bogus trade barriers that are unscientific. I eat steak, medium rare, that came from cattle fed hormones or ham from hogs fed ractopamine and love it.
- Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists, including ISU’s Dr. Elwynn Taylor, believe that climate change is being impacted by manmade activity. Yet farmers don’t buy into climate science the way that they do science in general. What makes climate science different? Why is it that most science is taken seriously yet when science says that climate change is man-made the conclusion is rejected. They make an exception for climate science to the point of denigrating it as a conspiracy plotted against them.
- Scientists can be nerds but most often they are not elitists in the sense that the term is used against them. Academics do generate an advanced perspective on most things and those perspectives have led to some enormous advances in the development of the human race. Science and scientists are a good thing. It is why there are old folks that have lived long enough to be climate science deniers.
- NOAA has confirmed that climate change is real, is mankind influenced and very serious. The degree that it can be mitigated is debatable, but if you don’t believe that there is a pothole ahead, let alone a cliff, there is no consensus to try to avoid it. Humans are pretty resourceful and got to where they are at by embracing science. When you have a president who says that climate change is a conspiracy orchestrated by China to ruin the U.S. economy, that is not a science-based opinion. It is a BS opinion. (Then again, this is the same president that does not believe 17 National Security agencies that have confirmation that Russia interfered with our election process.)
- I have seen the climate change that has occurred in my lifetime evidenced in the records showing an increase in average rainfall for the western Corn Belt leading to South Dakota becoming a larger corn-growing state than Ohio. We get more days each year with rain, a larger number of 4-inch-plus rains, and 100-year floods coming every 17 years. I have invested a lot of money into field tile because of climate change. NOAA and NASA have enormous weather and climate tracking capabilities and are launching a number of new satellites that will greatly advance their ability to track climate change. Who knows, Trump may want to use them for missile target practice or donate their use to Exxon. Big Oil funds the science denying climate change.
- They have sophisticated computer models that forecast serious consequences for the planet that were they on any other subject other than the climate, the deniers would be balanced in support. I think that climate science is just as good as any other science. It is the science. The studies are peer reviewed and they are legit. I find it hypocritical when I support science on GMOs, trade, biofuel and other issues to accept an exception on climate science. The debate centers around “accelerated climate change” with mankind being the kick in the proverbial rear end making it occur faster. There will be consequences to Agriculture. I don’t think that there is any denying that.
David Kruse is president of CommStock Investments Inc., author and producer of The CommStock Report, an ag commentary and market analysis available daily by radio and by subscription on DTN/FarmDayta and the Internet.
Please Enter Your Facebook App ID. Required for FB Comments. Click here for FB Comments Settings page