Swedish farmers reject the 97% climate change consensus

From ScienceNordic:

Researchers the world over almost unanimously agree that our climate is changing … But many farmers – at least Swedish ones – have experienced mild winters and shifting weather before and are hesitant about trusting the scientists.

The researcher who discovered the degree of scepticism among farmers was surprised by her findings. Therese Asplund, who led the study, was initially looking into how agricultural magazines covered climate change, but got a lesson in reality from swedish famers.

Asplund found after studying ten years of issues of the two agricultural sector periodicals ATL and Land Lantbruk that they present climate change as scientifically confirmed, a real problem. But her research took an unexpected direction when she started interviewing farmers in focus groups about climate issues.

Asplund had prepared a long list of questions about how the farmers live with the threat of climate change and what they plan to do to cope with the subsequent climate challenges. The conversations took a different course: “They explained that they didn’t quite believe in climate changes,” she says. “Or at least that these are not triggered by human activities.”

The paper:

Climate change frames and frame formation: An analysis of climate change communication in the Swedish agricultural sector

Abstract

While previous research into understandings of climate change has usuallyexamined general public perceptions and mainstream media representations, this thesis offers an audience-specific departure point by analysing climate change frames and frame formation in Swedish agriculture. The empirical material consists of Swedish farm magazines’ reporting on climate change, as well as eight focus group discussions among Swedish farmers on the topic of climate change and climate change information.

The analysis demonstrates that while Swedish farm magazines frame climate change in terms of conflict, scientific uncertainty,and economic burden, farmers in the focus groups tended to concentrate on whether climate change was a natural or human-induced phenomenon, and viewed climate change communication as an issue of credibility. It was found that farm magazines use metaphorical representations of war and games to form the overall frames of climate change. In contrast, the farmers’ frames of natural versus human-induced climate change were formed primarily using experience-based and non-experience based arguments, both supported with analogies, distinctions,keywords, metaphors, and prototypical examples. Furthermore, discussions of what constitutes credible climate information centred on conflict versus consensus-oriented frames of climate change communication along with different views of the extent to which knowledge of climate change is and should be practically or analytically based.

This analysis of climate change communication in the Swedish agricultural sector proposes that the sense making processes of climate change are complex, involving associative thinking and experience- based knowledge

(Full paper here.)

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
jeanparisot

So the hypothesis that the farmers are right didn’t make it into the study?
God Forbid we listen to people with decades and generations of experience dealing with weather and climate professionally.

Rolf

Well, “not even peasants” is stupid enough to believe the 97% consensus or further the belief of AGW. Not to talk about CAGW. Suddenly I am a little proud to be swedish.
Peasants in Sweden is more like any business leader today and not so gullible as you might think. They will need a harder type of brainwashing.

earwig42

Consensus is (or should be) irrelevant in Science. In Politics it is everything.

pat

the farmer better watch out or they’ll get a visit from Al Gore:
1 July: News Ltd: Network Writers: Al Gore tells Tony Abbott: ‘Change or get out of the way’
AL GORE has warned Tony Abbott to “change or get out of the way” of sensible environmental policy, labelling the Prime Minister a “straight-out climate denier”.
Speaking to Vice after forging an unlikely alliance with Clive Palmer, the former US vice-president said “silly” initiatives like the government’s direct action plan had “never worked anywhere.”…
(ON POLITICIAN & MINING MAGNATE CLIVE PALMER) “But I think that whatever unusual features to his style there may be, deep down there’s absolutely no question in my mind that he has a sense of social justice, he has a keen sense of right and wrong. … He wants to make the world a better place.”…
“I think we’re not far from a point where people will look back on climate denialists as extremely odd, self destructive,” he said.
Mr Gore’s message to the PM: “Please, either change or get out of the way. Because Australia wants to have the kind of sensible policies that the rest of the world is moving toward.
“It’s coming. We’ve won this. The only question is how much time it’s going to take and how much damage is going to be programmed into the climate system in the meantime.”
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/al-gore-tells-tony-abbott-change-or-get-out-of-the-way/story-fnjwvztl-1226973023400
1 July: News Ltd: Clive Palmer faces arrest unless he can explain in court how he spent $12 million
CLIVE Palmer could face arrest unless he fronts a secret arbitration hearing with chequebook stubs that show how he spent $12m that a Chinese company has accused him of taking during last year’s election campaign.
Sino Iron yesterday swamped the Queensland Supreme Court with 15 applications, including a personal subpoena for the federal politician, demanding he produce butts for two cheques numbered 2046 and 2073…
Sino has also subpoenaed Media Circus Pty Ltd, from Brisbane, which ran advertising and produced campaign material for the Palmer United Party in 2013…
http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/clive-palmer-faces-arrest-unless-he-can-explain-in-court-how-he-spent-12-million/story-fnda1bsz-1226972900379

It was found that farm magazines use metaphorical representations of war and games to form the overall frames of climate change. In contrast, the farmers’ frames of natural versus human-induced climate change were formed primarily using experience-based and non-experience based arguments, both supported with analogies, distinctions,keywords, metaphors, and prototypical examples.
Was Terry Oldberg a co-author? lol

john piccirilli

Who do you believe, a farmer who is out in the weather every day 12hours a day, or some clown
Sitting in an air conditioned cube playing with his computer trying to get grant money?

LewSkannen

No doubt they are itching to seize control of all the farms and make them climate compliant.
It is for exactly this situation that Jonathan Swift wrote his story about Laputa.

Lil Fella from OZ

Farmers just might know the truth, after all they live by the weather!!

Pamela Gray

We have what is called “Century Farms” in Oregon. These are farms that have been running as a productive farm for at least 100 years. In that time, the wisdom is acculumative, passed down from one generation to the next.
“Global warming” versus “the climate is always changing” is not an issue with farmers. What is an issue is what do we plant next based on what the jetstream/ENSO/AO is doing. What they need are heads up warning regarding the knees of oscillations. The rest of it they get.
Never, ever underestimate a farmer in his/her ability to put food on your table year after year, decade after decade, century after century.

clipe
Robert of Ott awa

Svensk bonde saka skit

Robert of Ott awa

… Saga skir

Cynical in Melbourne

What I got out of reading the abstract was: nothing!
It is written in academic gibberish, and conveys no comprehensible information at all.
So what do the farmers believe? What do the say? What are they doing? What do they think is happening, and why do they think that? On what basis do they adjust their behaviour?

csanborn

Huh?

milodonharlani

Pamela Gray says:
June 30, 2014 at 7:31 pm
To qualify as a Century Farm, it has to have belonged to the same family for that period.

Brute

The relationship between big oil and Swedish farmers is well-documented. Ask Mann. He knows.

GaryW

Hmmm…. That paper was all about how to convince farmers to ‘believe’ in ClimateChange.
The analysis should have been on what the farmers said, not how they framed it or how many times listeners agreed with the speaker by mumbling “M mmm.” Probably worse, it appeared interpretation of the farmer’s words was done in academic vernacular, not farmer vernacular. In one case, the paper mentions analysis of a farmer statement that he had seen lots of changes in the climate in the nearly half century he had been farming so didn’t believe the climate is changing. That was claimed in the paper as demonstrating faulty logic. The farmers in the room did not object to his statement because they understood what he meant: The climate has always changed from year to year and decade to decade so this is nothing new.
Of course, the real take away message is that the farmers deal with reality, not academic pronouncements.

SteveB

Aussie farmers have about the same ambivalence toward Mann Made climate change.

pat

swedish farmers don’t get interviewed by Fareed Zakaria on CNN!
29 June: CNN: Fmr. U.S. Treasury Secy. Rubin on climate change: “The risk here is catastrophic”
CNN’s FAREED ZAKARIA GPS features an interview with the former U.S. Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush, Henry Paulson, and the former U.S. Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin…
FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: According to an important, dramatic new report, the future could be bleak for most Americans. By mid-century, it says, 23 billion dollars of property will likely be underwater (literally) in Florida alone. Crop yields in the Midwest will probably be down 50 to 70 percent. Americans will likely experience 2 to 3 times as many days with temperatures above 95 degrees as they do today. All this, the report’s authors say, if we don’t do something about climate change now. And the report has serious pedigree…
PAULSON: Well, Fareed, I think there are a lot of fellow Republicans, my fellow Republicans, business leaders and political leaders, that are ready for a serious discussion about the science and the risks that come out of the science…
PAULSON: Yes. What I’ve said about a carbon tax is some people that oppose it are opposing it because they don’t like the government playing a big role. And, you know, the perverse aspect of that is, frankly, those that are resisting taking action now are guaranteeing that the government will be playing a bigger role, because we’re seeing now and we’re going to see an increasing number of natural disasters, Mother Nature acts. We have forest fires, we have floods, we have big storms and storm surges, we have killer tornadoes…
RUBIN: I wouldn’t frame the issue the way you just did, Fareed. If you – if you have the view, which Hank and I both have, that the risk here is catastrophic and catastrophic to life on Earth as we know it – then that’s a risk we cannot take. And once you start with the recognition that this could be catastrophic, then it seems to me, you do a full court press on all fronts…
ZAKARIA: … The Chinese and Indians, by some measures, build one new coal-fired power plant each week. And that’s going to change the climate no matter what happens in the United States. What do you say?
RUBIN: Fareed, I think the answer to that is not complicated. This is a transnational issue that’s going to affect all of our countries. It is of enormous importance to all of us, I think, as I said, a catastrophic risk. And I think that the way the United States can best contribute is, A, get our own house in order. And by getting our own house in order, put ourselves in a much better position to then work with the Chinese and others around the world so that everybody does what they need to do…
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/29/fmr-u-s-treasury-secy-rubin-on-climate-change-the-risk-here-is-catastrophic/

Rud Istvan

Even in our air conditioned John Deeres, we actually do have to ‘know wearher’. Early planting, or late planting? And on and on. The only reasonable meme is to become extremely conservative.
Something about the principal of doing … Gets up pretty close and personal. Regards from a farm that produces almost 2m pounds of milk/ year, plus carryover veal, beef, and forage. And, we really love selling GMO corn to get back distillers grain feed for our cattle, that China just banned. And darned if we did NOT get a wind turbine on our pastures. They are all down on the ridge east of Dodgeville. Missed out on all that filthy lucure. Must be a Sears/subsidy thing?? Never mind Google. Go local with real farmers if you want the straight scoop.

Hoser

NASA seems to be pretty sure of its climate dogma. Although, it would be amusing if the new satellite (Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2), scheduled to launch tomorrow, wound up disproving much of that dogma.

Richard Sharpe

I am sure that the re-education camps are ready for the Swedish farmers. They will whistle a different tune after that.

Hoser

Obviously, I don’t expect a NASA science miracle with OCO2. And if they did collect contrary data, they would simply massage it into compliance.

Michael 2

GaryW says: “the paper mentions analysis of a farmer statement that he had seen lots of changes in the climate in the nearly half century he had been farming so didn’t believe the climate is changing. That was claimed in the paper as demonstrating faulty logic.”
Or in other words, the second differential (the rate of change of the changes, or changes in the rate of changes) is flat, the opposite of “unprecedented”.
Or something like that.

Mac the Knife

God Bless the Farmers, every one!
From an old Wisconsin plow boy, bale chucker, and …. manure shoveler,
Mac

David L. Hagen

Beware Central Planning
Swedish farmers show very good pragmatic judgment and wise skepticism.
The greatest famine in history was caused by central planning.
Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” resulted in some 60 million fewer than normal (= deaths plus fewer births) – by demanding industrialization that prevented farmers from growing crops.
So keep a healthy skepticism.
Require proof of policies.
Focus on adaptation not mitigation.

Dr. Strangelove

Swedish farmers should replace the Swedish Academy of Sciences who gave the Nobel to Al Gore. The farmers are smarter. Though the Nobel was for peace, not science. I wonder how Gore contributed to world peace. Alfred must turning in his grave.

Farmers around the World are practical people. Their livelihood depends on their having a knowledge of weather that is rather lengthy and rather detailed and which is passed on over the generations. Who would you rather believe on the Climate, a farmer who spends much of his day out in the weather or a government paid scientist who spends his day hunched over his computer, submitting applications for CAGW Grants?

Berényi Péter

Don’t listen to the farming-industrial complex, they have a vested interest in getting a major fertilizer for free. Besides, they are involved in feeding terrorists, without them those bastards would surely starve to death. On top of that they are inclined to recycle manure instead of sequestering it safely in abandoned coal mines.
Nothing shows their evil ways more clearly, than their utter failure to grow carbon free crops ever.

Bill Parsons

“They explained that they didn’t quite believe in climate changes,” she says. “Or at least that these are not triggered by human activities.”

It would seem that the intrepid researcher found no State-funded incentives to tempt Swedish farmers. No pay-offs for a bad crop year when inclement weather sets in? How iniquitous of Sweden’s government to neglected to give farmers the same incentives for “believing” as it shovels out to young PhD candidates in their research.

NikFromNYC

The full opening sentence is: “Researchers the world over almost unanimously agree that our climate is changing because of the increasing amounts of carbon dioxide humankind pumps into our fragile atmosphere.”
This claim lives on and on as if alarm too is agreed upon and as if mainstream skepticism denies the textbook greenhouse effect. Alas, just enough do in fact loudly deny it to allow this slander to continue. Gee thanks, Tim Ball, a regular writer here, coauthor of the Sky Dragon book. Thankfully Mark Steyn has taken Ball’s ball and run with it with a counter suit against Mann, minus the maverick background. Sure, perhaps the greenhouse effect is lesser than assumed, but it’s self-defeating to promote that idea out of the blue in the face of clear evidence of scientific fraud coupled to highly speculstive amplification of that assumed greenhouse effect. A focus on fraud is now dearly needed, and you can’t cry fraud unless you also utterly and fully distance yourself from mavericks, because it won’t otherwise work, since no layperson will believe you when Al Gore can sincerely point to your association with greenhouse effect denial.

Mario Lento

The argument is silly. Climate changing is a given. Otherwise the word climate would have been defined as “homeostasis until the advent of industry.” The real deniers are CAGW believers.

RoHa

It sounds as though the farmers are basing their ideas on experience (empirical observation) rather than computer models. I hope they will be dealt with severely. We cannot allow this sort thing to spread.

Weather and the phenomenon of heat waves, tornadoes, floods and whatever are just that…weather, not climate change.

Stephen Skinner

What do Farmers and Meteorologists know about climate?

Old England

From a UK farming perspective ….. and someone who has been outside in all weathers since the 1950s ,,,, there is nothing special about current climate – it changes as it has always done. Is the growing season earlier ? Earlier than when ? It changes from year to year and decade to decade and I see nothing out of the ordinary in the last 60 years. My grandparents who farmed through the between-war period and afterwards never noted any change – and the last of them died in 2006 aged 99.
‘Climate change’ feathers an awful lot of nests – but it is no different in the real world apart from that.

Rhys Jaggar

Here’s a gedankenexperiment for you:
You have been a mountaineer and rock climber for several years. You have spent about 30 – 40 weekends in the mountains in each of those years. Each of those weekends you have decisions to take about where to go, based on weather forecasts, what to do out in the weather you experience and whether to recalibrate your belief in the Establishment’s position on weather as a result of those experiences.
Here are the lessons I learned from that scenario:
1. The ‘Establishment’s understanding of climate as regards to ski seasons was completely wrong in the 1980s and 1990s. They either didn’t have the datasets on ski seasons going back long enough to understand natural cycles, didn’t know how to analyse data sets that they did have or were too lazy to open up the files to do the analysis.
2. The BBC weather service often used to big up good weather for the following weekend on around the Tuesday, only to see it change rapidly to a bad forecast by the Thursday. I am sure that this had absolutely nothing to do with trying to coax weekenders to book up hotels, guest houses etc etc with an irrationally exuberant forecast. We always used to delay our choice of itinerary until at least Thursday as a result, as we were either camping or staying in free open buildings left for the use of mountaineers in wild areas.
3. You learn from hoteliers in Switzerland who had been in the same resort for generations that one winter in the 1930s saw no snow throughout a whole season. This fact came out in the season I spent in that resort when no ski-ing of note was possible until 10th February due to unseasonal rain up to 3000m+ just before Christmas washing away the Novermber snow, followed by 6 weeks of HIgh Pressure with the odd Foehn storm to relieve it. This little fact about a snowless winter 60 years previous has miraculously never come out in the British ski-ing press. I wonder why not??
4. You remember, as a child, a run of snowless winters in London running from January 1st 1971 until December 1979, with the exception of one freak snowstorm in May in around 1975. So, when you read that Britain has suddenly become a ‘snow free zone’ after a few mild winters in the Noughties, you are minded to say: ‘what about the snowless 1970s’?? No journalist ever asked that question, did they?? And they’ve all kept jolly quiet on the subject in general since we’ve had 3 very snowy winters in recent years.
Note that my weekly experience came into conflict with the sanitised versions of history.
Is it surprising that I trust the evidence before my face or the story telling of the Press??
So lets look at farmers. Their primary responsibility is to bring in harvests and the weather is an important factor in determining whether they do at all, a bit, a reasonable amount, a lot or in a veritable glut. So the weather and climate is seriously important to farmers. This isn’t a matter of a spoilt little trust fund baby snivelling about a spot of rain interrupting their beach holiday, this is serious: get it wrong and they might be begging for food next winter. So I kind of respect farmers when it comes to climate judgements. They are intimately on the front line, you see.
I also respect the fact that many farmers have kept detailed harvest records for decades if not centuries. You go to Bordeaux and they have records of all things grape going back centuries. I’m sure they can correlate specific weather events with poor harvests, so they will have a pretty good idea of what they don’t want to see and what they do want to see weather-wise. They will have data on grape volume, grape quality and weather like no-one else. So if I were serious about ‘climate change’, I’d go do some basic research down in Bordeaux and ask the wine head honchos if I could work with them to see what gave weather wise. Maybe they have friends across Europe who have similar records, I don’t know. But it’s very hard to forge data about wine vintages. Too many people know the truth, you see. So it’s a good chance you will have data which hasn’t been tampered with. I guess you need to ask whether the French Government would bung them to tamper with it, whether anyone else would, but at least I’d start from the thought that their data is more likely to be honest than most.
When it comes to other farmers, they will be very sensitive to frost dates, extended deluges, periods of drought, very mild winters causing pest infestations and heavy rainfall during harvest. It’s in their economic interests to pay attention to these things. They would really value forecasts which say: ‘plant later this year, there’s going to be abnormallly late frosts’. They’d welcome the advice: ‘mulch heavily this autumn, because it’s going to rain a lot this winter but be a drought in the summer’. They’d welcome the advice: ‘get the harvest in right now because there won’t be another window until it’s too late’. They’d welcome all that because it’s in their economic interests.
However, if your forecasts are wrong, they trust you and you screw up their economic return, they have every right to be skeptical about your future pronouncments. They are the ones who got screwed, after all.
All the silly billies in media studios don’t really get affected by climate change you know. They just get sent to one place rather than another.
Farmers either feed us or don’t feed us. Earn an economic rent on their labours or struggle to survive.
Who do you think you should trust more: shrill media shills on the make and on the take, or farmers whose very livelihood is dependent on climate??
I know who I trust the most………

SanityP

Robert of Ott awa says:
June 30, 2014 at 7:37 pm
Svensk bonde saka skit
Robert of Ott awa says:
June 30, 2014 at 7:41 pm
… Saga skir

What you tried to say, makes no sense in swedish.

Dr. Strangelove says:
June 30, 2014 at 9:58 pm
Swedish farmers should replace the Swedish Academy of Sciences who gave the Nobel to Al Gore.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee decides who gets the Nobel Peace Prize.

bobfj

Brute @ June 30, 2014 at 8:07 pm,
If you are the same Brute who wanted to sell air-conditioners to Eskimos, have you heard the sad news that Max Anacker (Manacker) has died at 82? Visit ‘Harmless Sky’ for more.

pat

huge market for american farmers in developing countries!
30 June: WaPo: Wonkblog: Roberto A. Ferdman: How much your meat addiction is hurting the planet
The environment doesn’t appreciate our meat obsession.
The average meat-eater in the U.S. is responsible for almost twice as much global warming as the average vegetarian, and close to three times that of the average vegan, according to a study (pdf) published this month in the journal Climatic Change.
The study, which was carried out at Oxford University, surveyed the diets of some 60,000 individuals (more than 2,000 vegans, 15,000 vegetarians, 8,000 fish-eaters, and nearly 30,000 meat-eaters)…
The good news is that while Americans might still eat more meat than mother nature would prefer, they are scaling back, and especially so with the most environmentally unfriendly kind—per capita beef consumption has fallen by 36 percent since its peak in 1976, according to data from the USDA. The bad news is that the rest of the world appears to be headed in the opposite direction. Global demand for meat is expected to grow by more than 70 percent by 2050, largely driven by burgeoning middle classes in the developing world…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/30/how-much-your-meat-addiction-is-hurting-the-planet/

pat

30 June: Fox News: Zev Chafets: Climate change: The moment I became a climate skeptic
I got my first lesson on the subject of climate change more than 10 years ago. My tutor was an internationally famous climate scientist at a major Ivy League university…
In May 2001, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its third report, which got a lot of media attention. I looked through it and realized immediately that I had no chance of understanding the science…
One item got my attention. It said: “Projections based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios suggest warming over the 21st Century at a more rapid rate than that experienced for at least the last 10,000 years.”
I called the professor, one of the authors of the report, for a clarification (he remains nameless because we were off the record). “If global warming is caused by man-made emissions,” I asked, “what accounts for the world warming to this same level 10,000 years ago?”
There was a long silence. Then the professor said, “Are you serious?”
I admitted that I was.
The professor loudly informed me that my question was stupid. The panel’s conclusion was indisputable science, arrived at after years of research by a conclave of the world’s leading climate scholars. Who was I to dispute it?
I told him I wasn’t disputing it, just trying to understand how, you know, the world could have been this hot before without the help of human agency.
Maybe this is just a natural climate change like ice ages that once connected continents and warming periods that caused them to drift apart or …
At which point I heard a click. The professor hung up on me. At that exact moment I became a climate skeptic. I may not know anything about science, but I have learned over a long career that when an expert hangs up in the middle of a question, it means that he doesn’t know the answer…
I was reminded of this encounter the other day while reading a Time Magazine cover story titled, “Eat Butter: Scientists labeled fat the enemy. Why they were wrong.” …
According to Time, this was “so embedded in modern medicine and nutrition that it became nearly impossible to challenge the consensus.” Scientific journals refused to publish data challenging this orthodoxy. People who did, like Dr. Robert Atkins, were derided as quacks.
Now that consensus has flipped (Time Magazine doesn’t publish articles outside any current consensus). It may flip again someday as we learn even more about nutrition and health. But for now, the danger of eating fat – once an unshakable tenet of settled science – is out of intellectual fashion.
People who have virtuously deprived themselves of t-bones, ice cream and cheesecake are now left with egg on their faces…
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/30/climate-change-moment-became-climate-skeptic/

Steve C

“this thesis offers an audience-specific departure point by analysing climate change frames and frame formation in Swedish agriculture”??
It’s language, Jim, but not as we know it.

Dr. Strangelove

“The Norwegian Nobel Committee decides who gets the Nobel Peace Prize.”
That explains how Al Gore won. At least the other Nobel Prizes are still reputable.

Ulf

@Dr. Strangelove
“Swedish farmers should replace the Swedish Academy of Sciences who gave the Nobel to Al Gore.”
For the record, the peace prize is selected by the _Norwegian_ Nobel Committee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize

Farmer Gez

I have farmed for thirty years here in Victoria, Australia and have no faith in any forecast that is over five days in length. Our BOM gives seasonal outlooks that are little better than educated guesses and there is no way I could plan or manage my farm based on their forecast.
Modelling for decades using the same techniques must be a form of ironic humour from our weather experts.
As far as I can tell the weather is rhythmical chaos.

Village Idiot

“The analysis demonstrates that while Swedish farm magazines frame climate change in terms of conflict, scientific uncertainty,and economic burden…”
“The researcher who discovered the degree of scepticism among farmers was surprised by her findings.”
I’m surprised at her surprise!

ROM

SteveB says:
June 30, 2014 at 8:24 pm
&
Farmer Gez says:
July 1, 2014 at 12:58 am
As a 76 year old now retired SE Australian farmer and a follower and commenter on the whole CAGW scam for a decade now, you guys have summed up the attitude towards all the claims of CAGW / Climate change /???? what ever tomorrow of just about every farmer I know and thats a damn lot.
I have watched the changes in the climate and puzzled over those long duration changes both as a farmer for since my mid teens and as a  glider pilot of some 50 years now.
About all I have learnt from climate science that would have been of any benefit to my farming pursuit would have been the great swings in the PDO which I can now look back across the decades and very clearly see the changes in the seasonal patterns and rainfall patterns all of them closely paralleling the great swings and different phases of the PDO
Of course even to give credit to climate science for the discovery of the PDO in the 1990’s is badly misplaced as the PDO was actually discovered / unravelled by fishery researchers , not highly paid climate scientists.
From an Australian farming point of view the climate science as promulgated by the climate science cultists is worse than a dead loss as it severely mislead a lot of farmers who had previously and justifiably up until the late 2000’s had trusted scientists implicitly for decades past,
The climate scientists have repeatedly and repeatedly made what are totally spurious, wrong, misleading, corrupted and fanciful and very seriously bad climate predictions which has in the past created a great deal of stress and fear for the future prior to Climate Gate. amongst Australian dryland and irrigation farmers.
A presentation by a couple of CSIRO climate scientists [ ??? ] in the late 2000’s promised us, some couple of hundred farmers at a mid year farming Expo that the whole of eastern Australia was going to become a perpetual drought area, that agriculture would fail in eastern Australia and the rivers would no longer support any irrigation.
It was one of the most depressing and fear for the future inducing presentations by a couple of so called and badly misnamed [ CSIRO ] climate “scientists” I have ever witnessed, presented as accomplished fact for the future with no if’s, but’s, or maybe’s at all.
Followed a year or so later later by the heaviest rainfall recorded over most of eastern Australia since white man’s First Fleet at Sydney Cove in January 1788.
And since nobody in rural areas can tell the slightest difference between what has always been when it comes to the immense variability in weather and the long run of seasons and I after 76 years as rural resident and fifty years of flying using natures own creations to glide tens or hundreds of kilometres in flights most certainly see nothing at all different to what has always been, the total unpredictability of weather and seasons from year to year and decade to decade.
Climate warming scientists in this part of the world are now increasingly looked upon with contempt by nearly all of today’s rural dwellers as just plain incompetent and worse, as deliberate distorters and corrupters and falsfiers of the real truth about the climate.
As many a farmer will quietly tell you in private, when it comes to climate scientists. now spilling over into including most scientists, don’t believe what they say, just follow the money.
Worse for climate science nowadays, we just ignore them as irrelevant, up themselves big time and bigoted against anybody who has the temerity to dare to question their claims and their expertise.
They are now ignored by nearly the entire Australian farming community as they have nothing to offer at all except fear, stress and a deadly hopelessness for the future.

ozspeaksup

SteveB says:
June 30, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Aussie farmers have about the same ambivalence toward Mann Made climate change.
================
well..the ones who are NOT on the take for carbon takeovers of their treed areas etc are,
the ABC keep finding the odd one willing to toe the agw line on air with tales of woe.
they fail to mention how much they get bribed for locking up huge areas of vegetation for 100 years
and
when they go to sell their farm, the buyers dont get anything but a LOSS of area they own on paper but cannot farm or touch, graze or grow on for the remainder of the lockup period.
going to be a lot of UNsaleable farms.
One local blokes bragging they paid him more than the entire property is worth for rights over a reserve bush area. when I qyuerid how thats going to tie things up for his kids to inherit/sell
he iad he didnt give a damn, their problem.

ozspeaksup

Farmer Gez says:
July 1, 2014 at 12:58 am
I have farmed for thirty years here in Victoria, Australia and have no faith in any forecast that is over five days in length. Our BOM gives seasonal outlooks that are little better than educated guesses and there is no way I could plan or manage my farm based on their forecast.
Modelling for decades using the same techniques must be a form of ironic humour from our weather experts.
As far as I can tell the weather is rhythmical chaos.
===========
Ive only been here 7 years
in that time I have experience late Feb to be so cold I was unable to feel my fingers and had fires going for 2 weeks
to raging bushfires followed in days by extreme rain n floods nearby.
the old records have the area as unsuitable for sheep due to footrot etc
and not croppable due to flooded fields rut etc
cattle were the best iption
now with some dry years, a hell of a lot of newbies bought farms for cropping
when the weather reverts as it will
a lot of people stand to lose their farm.

Alan the Brit

Mario Lento says:
June 30, 2014 at 10:57 pm
The argument is silly. Climate changing is a given. Otherwise the word climate would have been defined as “homeostasis until the advent of industry.” The real deniers are CAGW believers.
The ONLY thing that doesn’t change is the Human ability to invent scare stories & manipulate & control other Human beings for profit & power! After all, what kind of person wants to frighten others? IMHO, that is. 😉