If climate change impact can be observed in nature, has that had any effect on rural, i.e. farming community,...












4















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.










share|improve this question





























    4















    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.










    share|improve this question



























      4












      4








      4








      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.










      share|improve this question
















      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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 4 hours ago









      JJJ

      6,36222456




      6,36222456










      asked 4 hours ago









      Italian PhilosopherItalian Philosopher

      1,050314




      1,050314






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          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.







          share|improve this answer































            0














            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
























              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

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              3














              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.







              share|improve this answer




























                3














                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.







                share|improve this answer


























                  3












                  3








                  3







                  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.







                  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, 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.








                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 4 hours ago









                  JJJJJJ

                  6,36222456




                  6,36222456























                      0














                      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




























                        0














                        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


























                          0












                          0








                          0







                          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 3 hours ago









                          Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah

                          1,774815




                          1,774815






























                              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

                              Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

                              Single-Malt-Whisky

                              Czorneboh