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
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
The physical world rejects the 97% consensus.
@Robert of Ottawa your [Swedish] is not correct did you mean “Svensk bonde snackar skit” but that dont sound right it should be plural “Svenska bönder snackar skit” but I personally doubt that Swedish farmers talk crap.
sedish should be Swedish
I keep posting this comment in the ScienceNordic writing my comment:
”
Check out original Swedish and Norwegian temperature data from meteorological year books:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-sweden-and-norway-280.php
Especially checkout temperature data made public (red) vs. full original datasets (blue):
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/AORIT/Sweden/8a.gif
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/AORIT/Sweden/8b.gif
Perhaps farmers are a bit more in contact with the real world.
K.R. Frank Lansner
”
And then after few minutes they delete it…
The climate is hokey dokey.
Robert W Turner says:
July 1, 2014 at 8:52 am
///////////////
The Climate has not changed. Whether it will or not is a different matter.
A warming of a few tenths of a degree C, is not a change of climate.
The impression that the climate has changed. is one of the biggest deceptions.
Another big deception is the discussion of global climate. Apart from being either in a glacial period or an ineter glacia periodl, there is no such thing as global climate. Climate is regional, not global.
Finally, the other big deception is global warming. Again there is no such thing as global warming. It is all regional. Some parts of the globe are warming, some are cooling, and some are experiencing no significant change in temperatures..
Of course, this is all part of the political spin. We are all in it together, and we must all act together. When in reality there will be winners and losers should the globe significantly warm. If each country were to evaluate what ‘climate change’ really meant for them, there would be no prospect of global governance via the UN. If countries were guided by self interest, it would quickly all apart, and hence the need for ‘consensus’ that has perverted this ‘science’.
I have in front of me a copy of “Australian Agriculture” The complete reference on Rural Industry first published in 1987 by Morscope Pty Ltd Camberwell, Victoria ISSN 0818 -4771 it covers in great detail the Livestock, Cropping Industry, Fishing, Forestry, Chemical, Fertiliser, Tractor, World agriculture, Industries and has comprehensive guides on Farm Taxation, Finance, Education, Rural media, servicing of farmers needs, Government policy and Farm organisation. Inevitably in each section climatic conditions and old fashioned weather considerations are discussed plus it has many reference maps on land use, value of land use, sown pastures and fodder crops, livestock ratios, grazing density, native pastures, Median Annual rainfall among other detailed information from many sources including a whole section provided by the then Bureau of Meteorology for the information of Farmers on a subject that is very close to their heart the tradition of farming in Australia.
At Page 67 the Bureau presents “Climate of Australia” the section on climate runs through to page 83, it is interesting to read the introduction that sets the scene for Australia’s climate Summer to Winter documented extremes, the causes and effects of our weather that impact on Australian farming. After extensive reading of this and other chapters in this book one comes to the conclusion there is the stark contrast with later writing and publication issued by our present Bureau of Meteorology.
The content of this chapter is absolutely free of anthropogenic climate change, weather weirding, future escalation of warming, grave fears of catastrophic weather changes due to carbon or C02. Todays constant BOM and CSIRO anthropogenic catastrophic climate change propaganda, carbon and C02 hysteria are absent, the facts and history of our climate are presented just as farmers know it, and need it. It’s the weather and the BOM of that day seeking to serve the needs and aspirations of the farmer to deal with natural weather events and produce the best they can in the circumstances.
The whole reference book is a pleasure to read as it was clearly written before clever corruption and political propaganda changed the agenda of the BOM and CSIRO. Even the section on Government policy is an easy read, and also free of any reference to climate alarmism, C02, or carbon pollution.
So for me it is simple, the weather and climate is a key element that farmers deal with all their lives they know and live on the vagaries of our weather, they understand what they are dealing with, and that issue never really changes. It is the political agenda and propaganda that changes, farmers are used to dealing with bullsh*t and know it for what it is. Bullsh*t generated by city slickers who don’t understand farming.
When you read the BOM official history “The Weather Watchers” you can sense the corrupting influences as meme and agenda took hold of the Bureau that was also involved in a turf war with an aggressive CSIRO who wanted a slice of the climate pie . It is probably time to interview many of the retired meteorologists who resisted this insidious change from practical weather to meme promotion. They hate what happened as it has sullied an institution they served with pride as the Bureau worked for the people of Australia and the farmers in those days.
Hardly surprising that farmers here and in Sweden resist or distrust propaganda. Farmers are attuned to dealing with natural variability of weather and environments, it is more than just an agenda to them.
They also make beer and moonshine so they are pretty much independent, except subsidies from the government 🙂
Both Al Gore and Tony Abbott have said what they believed.
Al Gore believed he was going to be President of the US.
Al believed the North Pole was going to melt by 2010.
Tony Abbott believed Tim Flannery would keep giving us his climate opinions without the Government having to pay a penny.
Abbott is the only one whose climate-related beliefs have come true.
Pat says:” 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. ”
Well Pat, after you said that the continents drifted apart during warming periods I would have hung up on you too.
Context indicates that he didn’t literally mean that warmth caused the continents to move apart, but that they became separated by rising seas. He (not Pat but Zev ___, whom he quoted: