×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Swedish Farmers Have Doubts About Climatologists and Climate Change

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the collection-of-data-is-not-an-anecdote dept.

Earth 567

cold fjord (826450) writes with this excerpt 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 ... was initially looking into how agricultural magazines covered climate change. 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." (Original paper here.)

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

People living in the polar regions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344463)

...don't believe in Global Warming

Film at 11.

Re:People living in the polar regions (4, Funny)

nospam007 (722110) | about 6 months ago | (#47344491)

"...don't believe in Global Warming"

A little polar bear goes up to his mum and asks her, “Am I real polar bear?”

“Of course you are” his mum replies. “I’m a polar bear, your dad’s a polar bear, so you’re a polar bear”.

“But are you sure I don’t have any brown bear or grizzly bear in me?” he asks.

“Listen, if you don’t believe me go ask your grand-dad”

So he goes and asks his grand-dad

“Grand-dad, are you sure I’m a polar bear. I don’t have brown bear or grizzly bear in me?”

His grand–dad looks down on him and smiles.

“Listen, my boy, I’m a polar bear, my mum and dad were polar bears, and your granny, she was a polar bear, so your dad is a polar bear and so is your mum and her mum and her dad and her grand parents. We’re all polar bears so you are a pure, 100% polar bear”

The little polar bear doesn’t look convinced so his grand-dad asks him’

“What’s worrying you?”

“Well” he replies, “If both mum and dad are polar bears and all my grannies and grand-dads are polar bears, and even their mums and dads were all polar bears, and there’s no trace of grizzly or brown bear in methen why am I so fucking cold?”

Re:People living in the polar regions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344613)

Racist

Re:People living in the polar regions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344831)

The fuck??

Re:People living in the polar regions (4, Interesting)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 6 months ago | (#47344667)

Some people.

My friend from Norway is paranoid about Global Warming slowing the gulf stream and leading to a localised ice age.

There's something rotten in Denmark too (2, Informative)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 6 months ago | (#47344675)

Bjorn Lomborg Is Part Of The Koch Network — And Cashing In: http://thinkprogress.org/clima... [thinkprogress.org]

"Surprising"??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344469)

There's alot of ppl. who don't believe in climate change (or its cause). I doubt Swedish farmers are the only group so I wonder why they are newsworthy while the groups are not?

I'd be more concerned about politicians and corporations that deny climate change.

Strange study.

Re:"Surprising"??? (1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344521)

Sweden is a liberal hellhole. They are attempting to shame the people into compliance like they did with their insane immigration policy.

Posting anonymously because Slashdot is also a liberal hellhole.

Re:"Surprising"??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344567)

Sweden is about as overtly liberal as you are intellectual...

Re:"Surprising"??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344827)

(Score:-1,Undeniable Truth that sides with Life, Liberty and Property)

Any person holding a philosophy that opposes life, liberty and property has to deal with the moral guilt of the death of tens of millions of people with wich said philosophy is permanently and irrecoverably linked. Any stigma can lick a good dogma. It's done to the Christian world all the time because it proclaims a world with meaning. Only in a meaningless world are people free to pursue their erotic and political passions.

Re:"Surprising"??? (0, Troll)

durrr (1316311) | about 6 months ago | (#47344531)

Might as well be more concerned about politicians and corporations that deny the lord and saviour Jesus Christ.
He have about as much evidence as mmgw does.

Re:"Surprising"??? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 6 months ago | (#47344587)

"There's alot of ppl. who don't believe in climate change (or its cause). I doubt Swedish farmers are the only group so I wonder why they are newsworthy while the groups are not?"

It's because when they were still called Vikings, they followed a guy named Eric the Red, a famous Global Warming believer, to Greenland where they perished almost all.
Now they are cautious.

Re:"Surprising"??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344747)

They all died.

Guess what, Greenland is about the same today as it was when the colonies were first established.

The problem is that farmers memories don't go back far enough. The memory of how cold farming was in the 800s has been lost.

Re:"Surprising"??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344607)

Try those who still believe in science rather than going with the band wagon. I've been told climate is long term, is it not? The changes thus far observed are short term, making them weather patterns; also, you must account for the fact that the models used to support climate change are broken, they cannot back-cast nor fore-cast with known data corresponding to historical data, meaning they are worthless. The sea level change statistics are so wrong it's funny, as they never bothered to account for the lower density of ice versus sea water, nor the change in ocean area as sea levels rise, nor the geography on rock below ice masses.

Re:"Surprising"??? (4, Funny)

Richy_T (111409) | about 6 months ago | (#47344619)

"We're gonna need a bigger re-education camp"

Libtards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344481)

libtards are so stupid they observe how blacks run black nations and black cities like detroit - go move there i dare you!. they see how blacks are a net drain on society with crime and welfare. they see how blacks contribute so very little new inventions and science compared to whites and asians. then they somehow conclude blacks are equals. they can perform the mental gymnastics to convince themselves of anything!

libtards are so stupid they know the gov't lies to everybody all the time and is run by the worst most crooked kind of ppl. then they want gov't to have more control over everything. now its health care. tomorrow itll be something else. they can perform the mental gymnastics to convince themselves of anything!

libtards are so insecure they cant STAND anybody who disagrees with them. you don't just disagree with a libtard. you commit SACRILEGE! how DARE YOU question our global warming err sorry climate change narrative! HERETIC!

Re:Libtards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344523)

Your aids has affected your brain.

Re:Libtards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344539)

Your rapant racism betrays you as a closet member of the racist Democratic Party. Stop hating yourself.

Weather is NOT climate (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 6 months ago | (#47344487)

Repeat that after me, Mr. Fjord.

It is expected that there will be areas of happy, mild weather in any scenario you care to imagine. It is to be expected that a bunch of locals in regions suffering from happy, mild weather might not be as concerned about the issue as someone who had their house wiped out by a tornado.

But it the concerns and insights of either set of persons would be irrelevant to the discussion of GLOBAL climate change (hint, the word that is BOLDED is important).

Climate in not weather. Weather is not climate.

Re:Weather is NOT climate (4, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 6 months ago | (#47344529)

Meh, I live in Canada, future home of 250,000 km of tropical coastline.

What's your retirement plan? I've invested all my RRSPs (like a 401k) into scuba gear and sunblock.

Dive Nanasvik!

Re:Weather is NOT climate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344589)

This.
All the people worrying about the coast disapearing need to realize that the rest of us wouldn't mind some coastal property in the future.

Re:Weather is NOT climate (0)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 6 months ago | (#47344621)

But apparently you assholes don't care about what you are going to eat while your permafrost thaws.

Re:Weather is NOT climate (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#47344657)

But apparently you assholes don't care about what you are going to eat while your permafrost thaws.

Don't worry, they will just slash and burn the [remaining] forests to provide arable land. What could possibly go wrong?

Re: Weather is NOT climate (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 6 months ago | (#47344691)

Or y'know, high density gardens

Re:Weather is NOT climate (1)

Time_Ngler (564671) | about 6 months ago | (#47344551)

climate
noun: climate; plural noun: climates

        the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

So, climate *is* weather.

Re:Weather is NOT climate (3, Insightful)

itzly (3699663) | about 6 months ago | (#47344681)

If climate *is* weather, then you and I have 1.7 children.

Re:Weather is NOT climate (1)

Time_Ngler (564671) | about 6 months ago | (#47344791)

You can look up weather by different time periods. By the hour, the day, so why not the week, the month, the year, or even the century? As per the definition, there is no time period where weather ceases to be weather. Therefore climate is just weather over a longer period then we normally use, but that doesn't mean it is no longer weather.

Which is why climate is weather but weather isn't (always) climate.

Re:Weather is NOT climate (0)

tmosley (996283) | about 6 months ago | (#47344553)

So where's the warming? Both poles have more ice than usual.

If you want to claim its the oceans, then you are going to have to explain where your heat pump is, or why the oceans just now started warming instead of a hundred years ago. Yes I have had this conversation before.

We do have AGW, but it is caused by humanity shifting the water vapor equilibrium (through irrigation, paving, combustion, and cooling towers). It is a tight equilibrium, so there is very little chance of runaway global warming. Ocean acidification, however, is an extreme problem that is far more likely to do grievous harm to humanity. But no-one wants to actually think for themselves and do the calculations themselves. They just want to fit in.

Re:Weather is NOT climate (4, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#47344683)

No, ice at both poles has been melting: Antarctic ice is melting [ossfoundation.us] and Arctic ice is melting [nsidc.org] . Sea level is rising [wikipedia.org] mostly because of thermal expansion and also the previously mentioned melting. You can also just look at the instrumental temperature record [wikipedia.org] . You can see the warming and its effects, right?

Re:Weather is NOT climate (3, Informative)

itzly (3699663) | about 6 months ago | (#47344711)

No, the poles have less ice than usual. You may be confused by the Antarctic sea ice which is getting bigger in the winter. The Antarctic land ice is shrinking. The arctic ice is shrinking both in volume and area.

Re:Weather is NOT climate (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344715)

So where's the warming? Both poles have more ice than usual.

Oh, really? [uiuc.edu]

Re:Weather is NOT climate (1, Funny)

nospam007 (722110) | about 6 months ago | (#47344557)

"Repeat that after me, Mr. Fjord."

You're talking to a Norwegian, the Swede is over there, the one with the H&M Jacket, on the IKEA stool, drinking Absolut Vodka, listening to ABBA, all dead giveaways.

Re:Weather is NOT climate (3, Informative)

itzly (3699663) | about 6 months ago | (#47344845)

It's probably a reference to the submitter: cold fjord (826450) writes with this excerpt from ScienceNordic...

Re:Weather is NOT climate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344669)

hint, the word that is BOLDED is important

lol. No words are bolded.

Drill Drop Squirt Boom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344493)

How many times do we have to perform this sequence before everyone realises it's a one-way process?

Who CARES what non-science approaches "think"? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344501)

Anecdotally, I don't believe the Earth revolves around the sun and YOU CAN'T MAKE ME.

That doesn't mean it's not the case, that I'm qualified to research or understand the model or that my opinion holds ANY weight whatsoever.

What it means is that on some topics, the "majority opinion" doesn't really have much bearing on the facts of the matter - and thus "Democratic" approaches to dealing with problems that are important but beyond the scope/scale of one person or group's anecdotal experiences probably won't be successful without education.

Should we listen to what they have to say? Absolutely. With that grain of salt handy, absolutely. They aren't 99% of the world's climatologists.

Re:Who CARES what non-science approaches "think"? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344603)

I think the point of the article isn't that this means anything about climate change, rather that these are people likely to be more heavily affected by climate change than anyone else - they are the ones that should be taking an interest and being involved, and the exact opposite appears to be happening, they are denying it.

Re:Who CARES what non-science approaches "think"? (1)

u38cg (607297) | about 6 months ago | (#47344641)

While in general I agree with you - you are talking about a group of people here who do their life's work at the junction of the earth and the air. It is true they may be misguided or misinformed. But their opinions were not arrived at through talk radio.

Re:Who CARES what non-science approaches "think"? (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#47344663)

While in general I agree with you - you are talking about a group of people here who do their life's work at the junction of the earth and the air. It is true they may be misguided or misinformed. But their opinions were not arrived at through talk radio.

No, they formed them through the internet, like everyone else these days. Where do you think these people live, anyway?

funny (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344507)

"Researchers the world over almost unanimously agree that our climate is changing" if this was true, there would be no climate deniers, we would all agree. Record polar ice this year :)

A fact means the models should match the observed results, I am not a denier, I Am a fence sitter, when models don't dramatically fail, I will be no longer on the fence.

Shall we burn people at the stake for not believing the religion ?

Re:funny (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344609)

"Researchers the world over almost unanimously agree that our climate is changing" if this was true, there would be no climate deniers, we would all agree"

If you were a RESEARCHER, that is.

Re:funny (5, Insightful)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about 6 months ago | (#47344773)

But, but, but...

What happens if we clean up the environment and it not the cause of global warming. All we'd have then is no smog, non-polluting power and clean water.

Re:funny (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#47344815)

But, but, but... You forgot the one-world gubment ruled by socialist dictator Obamabot!

Re:funny (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344615)

There's plenty of people who believe that germs don't cause disease, that the Earth is the center of the universe, that Einstein was wrong, that the Holocaust didn't happen.... so does their denial indicate they have a point, or that there's always a few idiots who believe nonsense?

Re:funny (0)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 6 months ago | (#47344789)

Then there is the Aether theory. You think scientists are somehow magically infallible or something like that?

Re:funny (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 6 months ago | (#47344849)

Nobody thinks scientists are magically infallible, just that they have a much better track record than Swedish farmers.

Re:funny (1, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#47344651)

Why would there be no deniers if researchers almost unanimously agree? Biologists nearly unanimously agree that evolution is caused by random mutations and natural selection, but there are many millions of people that believe an intelligent agent designed all DNA. Never underestimate the power of a person to disagree if agreeing means that they will need to alter their worldview.

Re:funny (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 6 months ago | (#47344689)

Biologists nearly unanimously agree that evolution is caused by random mutations and natural selection, but there are many millions of people that believe an intelligent agent designed all DNA.

I don't believe the two concepts are mutually exclusive, for a few reasons. First, "Random" is a subjective term, in the sense that a particular person considers something "random" if he can't spot a pattern. Secondly, most Christians I know consider it perfectly consistent with their worldview to believe that evolution is a mechanism by which God achieves His goals.

Never underestimate the power of a person to disagree if agreeing means that they will need to alter their worldview.

Then presumably that's true for persons on every side of an issue, no?

Re:funny (3, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#47344795)

If you think an intelligent agent is causing changes to DNA, that is absolutely at odds with thinking the changes are random mutations. When I hear people say that some Christians believe that evolution is how God achieves his goals, I always thought that meant that an intelligent designer set the process in motion and went away and let nature run its course. Are you saying that people who say this believe that an intelligent agent is actively changing DNA? If so, how many changes are due to the agent and how many are natural? And how do you tell?

People who disagree because of their worldview are typically at odds with vast amount of evidence that falsifies their beliefs. From the disagreements I've seen, it generally a two-sided issue with evidence firmly coming down on one side, and the other side unwilling to change their beliefs to fit the evidence. In the case of evolution and AGW, the evidence comes down firmly on the side of natural process without intelligence for evolution, and human-produced greenhouse gases causing warming for AGW.

Re:funny (2)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 6 months ago | (#47344801)

Secondly, most Christians I know consider it perfectly consistent with their worldview to believe that evolution is a mechanism by which God achieves His goals.

Yes. I think he was smart enough to realize it is a lot easier and kewler to do creation using procedural generation with DNA evolution than having to hand carve every model by hand.

Re:funny (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 6 months ago | (#47344829)

I don't believe the two concepts are mutually exclusive, for a few reasons

They are for a lot of people, which is what matters for the analogy.

Re:funny (1)

u38cg (607297) | about 6 months ago | (#47344659)

I take it you don't believe in atom decay either?

Re:funny (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 6 months ago | (#47344723)

A fact means the models should match the observed results

Unfortunately, there are no correct models. The question is: does a model with a smaller climate sensitivity produce a better match with reality ?

Re:funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344725)

Well, I believe, here in south hemisphere, year after year, we face abrupt changes from high and lows temperatures, short winter with less days of low temperatures and records of high temperatures exactly how models are predicting.

In other words.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344509)

Farmers who haven't read up on climate change state that mild winters, on their own, aren't sufficient evidence for climate change.

That proves it (5, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | about 6 months ago | (#47344517)

We can safely discard decades of satellite data and trends on global weather and climate, and the analysis of all climatologists all around the world, because a few carefully choosen farmers in sweden think that it is not happening.

Re:That proves it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344561)

We can safely discard decades of satellite data and trends on global weather and climate, and the analysis of all climatologists all around the world, because a few carefully choosen farmers^h^h^h^h^h^h congessmen in sweden^h^h^h^h^h^h the US think that it is not happening.

Re:That proves it (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 6 months ago | (#47344579)

you are funny, the actual tale told by the satellite data shows cooling in 70s then warming and now slight cooling

satellite data shows no warming for past 17 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344585)

Check the data, satellite data shows no warming for the past almost 18 years, despite a time when 25% of all human CO2 has been emitted.

Hmm, something wrong with the models !

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/the-pause-continues-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-9-months/

The surface temperature records are heavily manipulated to make the present warmer, and the past cooler to create a trend for political purposes. The satellite record is not so corrupted.

We do have a new pristine temperature series in the US, the CRN (climate reference network) with no flaky adjustments, but it is only 10 years old.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/noaa-shows-the-pause-in-the-u-s-surface-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/

And guess what, it shows NO warming. Scroll down in the article, to see the graph. Of course 10 years is a short period, but again NO warming detected with our best monitoring system.

Re:That proves it (1)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about 6 months ago | (#47344611)

That's not what the article says. Perhaps you should read it more carefully.

Re:That proves it (-1, Troll)

Michael Simpson (2902481) | about 6 months ago | (#47344763)

Evidently climate scientists can ignore the data and falsify what they need to buttress the alarm.

The ends justify the means. The tired 97% of climate scientists agree...has been thoroughly debunked. People are seeing this for the scam that it really is.

If you doubt it, ask yourself why the solution to climate change looks like a tax increase. The have-nots want to whine about how the rich get richer and yet when the rich put forth solutions that will make them more money, the masses swallow. Al Gore gets a cut of every carbon transaction at the expense of the poor. California passed cap and trade. Twice a year, rate payers get a check for $30 - $40 for their "profit" in the cap and trade scheme. But rates just went up 25%; top tier 32 cents a kwh to 44 cents a kwh. This is the solution to climate change?

The largest producer of carbon is transportation. If that is so, why do I travel from red light to red light and then idle at the light? Escondido implemented a safety program where if you did the speed limit, you made it all the way through town on green lights. That was 5 miles of non stop travel. They dropped the program when revenue plummeted; people weren't speeding or running red lights. Most of the lights in San Diego are set so that if you do 10 to 15 mph over the speed limit, you will get a long string of green lights. Fast enough to catch speeders but not so fast as to create a safety issue. It's the money stupid. If the government really thought climate change was a threat, we would develop technology that would allow the traffic lights to communicate with each other and sense where the majority of traffic was located. Instead, I'll get a red light as I approach and there are no cars waiting. So, I sit there idling.

In the early 70's we were running out of gas. We were just months away from pumping that last barrel from the ground and gas prices soared. We were reduced to gas rationing. 10 years later, we were all driving gas guzzling Suburbans and Humvees.

In the early 70s, the alarm was that we were on the cusp of the next ice age. We were about to encounter global cooling and plans were introduced on ways to warm tjhe planet. Some solutions were, cover the ice with soot. Burn the forests, raise the carbon foot print.

People in general are stupid and gullible. Being in tech doesn't seem to correlate with critical thinking. If climate change is real; it's a threat and it's man made, I'll participate when the solutions look like solutions and less like a scheme to get more money from the masses. But my 50+ years as seen a string of alarms meant to extract money from the gullible only to see a decade later, we have moved on to the next alarm.

Re:That proves it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344825)

Are you retarded?

Re:That proves it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344843)

People in general are stupid and gullible.

If I've learned one thing in my life, it is this: whenever you feel the need to express this sentiment, look to thyself first.

Re:That proves it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344781)

my farmer almanac's accuracy begs to differ

The Earth is big. Really big. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344525)

Farmers also spend a lot of time outdoors, unlike researchers, and have a better idea of how minor human effects are.

Re:The Earth is big. Really big. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344535)

Your brain is small. Really small. Being outdoors probably isn't going to help you understand climate patterns any more than watching Fox News will help you understand politics.

We have measured the increase in the percentages of several gasses in our atmosphere, big or small, it has changed - denialists like you need a hole in the head.

You have no idea how "minor" or major the effects of human industry are, because you're too stupid/feckless even to honestly look. Go die of thirst already.

Re:The Earth is big. Really big. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344833)

Being outdoors probably isn't going to help you understand climate patterns any more than watching Mainstream Media will help you understand politics.

FTFY

You are really stoopid. Really stoopid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344545)

n/t

Re:The Earth is big. Really big. (4, Insightful)

nospam007 (722110) | about 6 months ago | (#47344569)

"Farmers also spend a lot of time outdoors, unlike researchers, and have a better idea of how minor human effects are."

They also shat in their fields for millenia giving all the population worms and other parasites before science told them to stop.

That was a 'human effect' too.

Re:The Earth is big. Really big. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344633)

... and fucked farm animals for entertainment thus spreading gloriously nasty bugs around the human race.

Re:The Earth is big. Really big. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344645)

At this point, I think I would trust a Swedish farmer to tell the truth more than a bunch of government funded scientists and UN bureaucrats with an eco-based-control agenda.

Who you gonna believe? (-1)

jamesl (106902) | about 6 months ago | (#47344549)

Some academic with a model in an ivory tower with a million dollar grant or the lyin' eyes of a farmer who spends his life outside dealing with the real climate?

Re:Who you gonna believe? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344591)

Someone who can see more than one paticular area and who keeps particular records of temperatures and weather patterns?

Re:Who you gonna believe? (2)

GNious (953874) | about 6 months ago | (#47344705)

Definitely not the one who thinks that farmers dealing with weather means the same farmers are dealing with climate

Re:Who you gonna believe? (2)

itzly (3699663) | about 6 months ago | (#47344743)

Well, if you read the article, the farmers are not denying that the climate is changing, as they can clearly see this themselves. They are disagreeing about the cause. Now, how much experience do farmers have with climate change and its possible causes ? Not much at all. They've only seen climate change once in their lifetimes.

Re:Who you gonna believe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344819)

Yeah random farmers are qualified to understand long-term climate that they don't actually study based on their personal location, good thinking.

I'm outside right now and I can tell that you're a moron by the way the wind blows.

Sweden has been luck (2)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 6 months ago | (#47344565)

Maps showing anomalies for summer heat in the paper "Perception of climate change" by Hansen et al. show Sweden as having led a charmed existence so far. http://www.pnas.org/content/10... [pnas.org]

The US Northwest and Mid-Atlantic, A region around the Urals and China have been fortunate thus far as well.

Re:Sweden has been luck (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#47344577)

The US Northwest and Mid-Atlantic, A region around the Urals and China have been fortunate thus far as well.

I've been to Scandinavia and it's COLD there. TBH if I lived there I'd want all the warming I could get.

Re:Sweden has been luck (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 6 months ago | (#47344605)

That's what the saunas are for.

Re:Sweden has been luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344855)

Eh? Cold in Sweden? I go tanning nude starting in late March. August is the warmest month and the heat remains until September. Of course, the rest of the year sucks.

It's all a Viking plot (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 6 months ago | (#47344575)

They want to make Scandinavia the breadbasket of Europe.

Swedish farmers are wise (0, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | about 6 months ago | (#47344593)

patiently watching reality always trumps agenda driven hysteria

meanwhile the IPCC has been furiously back pedaling on its more dire predictions since 2000

Re:Swedish farmers are wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344765)

I remember back in 1991, Florida was predicted to be under water by now. If these people actually made reasonable predictions instead of insisting the sky was falling and always giving the most dire of possible outcomes, people would take them more seriously about legit concerns regarding real climate change. They literally spent 30 years pissing away good will, or at least letting the uninformed news media and political activists speak for them and contort the message. Of course people don't believe them now.

Re:Swedish farmers are wise (2)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#47344821)

I remember back in 1991, Florida was predicted to be under water by now.

[citation needed]

Re:Swedish farmers are wise (4, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 6 months ago | (#47344785)

... IPCC has been furiously back pedaling...

Furiously back pedaling? - or - Careful restatement of certain specific points based upon new information, while keeping the overall context intact?

.
I've seen so much over the top hype and hysteria from the climate change deniers, that I no longer believe their 10 word or less summaries of why climate change is not happening.

The climate change deniers need to start presenting a better level of peer-reviewed data and conclusions, and stop their unproven assertions (note: hypothetical research papers funded by the oil and coal industries, however well that funding is hidden, do not count.)

Climate is ALWAYS changing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344595)

It's part of natural solar and planetary cycles. There is certainly not a unanimous agreement among the scientific community about whether or not man made CO2 has any substantial effect. The NIPCC produces reports to counter the IPCC reports using the very same scientific research reports that the IPCC uses, except they prove that the research has the opposite conclusion. I don't care that the Libertarian leaning Heartland Institute helped create the NIPCC reports because the UN and government agencies helped create the IPCC report which also have their own political agendas.

Motivated reasoning (0, Flamebait)

benjfowler (239527) | about 6 months ago | (#47344671)

It's motivated reasoning: farmers are 'against' climate change, because the implications of it being true would force them to make difficult changes. Therefore they choose not to believe this fact.

Farmers are typically greedy and not very bright -- mostly due to a 'Dead Sea effect' of all the bright and motivated people leaving rural communities, leaving the genetic detritus behind.

Re:Motivated reasoning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344797)

Ahh, a John Kerry liberal. If your smart and rich you go to college, if not you become a farmer (he said join the military and get stuck in Iraq)

Did you ever stop to consider for a second that insulting people isn't the best way to get them to listen to your arguments? You liberals have insulted people to the point where by default they don't belive you so they look up for themselves. They then see things like what Phil Jones did at the CRU, they see no warming for 18 years, they check the IPCC predictions from past years against actual temperatures and make the conclusion that what you are saying isn't truthful. Instead of trying to correct your arguments, you instead double down on insults.

So we can either believe what we have looked up ourselves and "risk" being called names by you, or we can ignore facts we have seen just in hopes that you won't call us more names. Guess what most people are choosing these days?

Got some smart farmers up there..... (1)

bricko (1052210) | about 6 months ago | (#47344693)

Got some smart farmers up there.....

Ha! Sweden is full of Republican farmers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344713)

The infection! It is spreading! Where is the Last Ship now?

Skoh!

What The Hell (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 6 months ago | (#47344745)

So I went into the thesis.

There is NOTHING quantitative here. Department of Thematic Studies? WTF?

As far as I can tell this is a conclusion based on building castles in the air.

No (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344753)

Little miss leading on that first line. Make it sound as if scientists all agree on man-made climate change, but in reality it just that everyone agrees that the climate is always changing ever since the beginning of time. How would these farmers ever even know that people think there is man made climate change if they are not told?

This "almost unanimously agree" was 10 years ago, ever sense there have been fewer and fewer scientists that agree with this because of all the falsified studies to push man-made climate change. As some politicians have said in the last few months, they said something like.. "Its fine to lie about it as long as it gets people to believe it".

Re:No (2)

Layzej (1976930) | about 6 months ago | (#47344823)

Quite the opposite. As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[ no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

Uninformed researcher (2)

Livius (318358) | about 6 months ago | (#47344769)

The key is the last item in the article:

“This is a resistance to decrees which they think undermine competitive Swedish agricultural production,”

The researcher has probably never spent time on a farm. She apparently had a stereotype of farmers as victims of big industry helplessly struggling to live in harmony with nature in the face of changing climate. In real life farmers are industry - the agricultural industry. They work very hard to maintain a farm, a farm being something radically out of balance with nature. Unless the laws and 'free' 'trade' agreements change to alter their economic incentives, their focus will be on their immediate, short-term economic situation and whatever mythology is tied up with their understanding of those economics.

The telling part is "Or at least that these are not triggered by human activities." If the climate is changing, then the question of the cause is the first part of finding a solution, but the problem does not magically become less serious depending on who or what the cause is. Someone who goes off-topic about human activities is trying - poorly - to rationalize their denial.

Farmers also not sure of the whole sun centered so (3, Insightful)

rumpledoll (716472) | about 6 months ago | (#47344771)

And as we know, farmers are on the cutting edge of science.

Reverse that logic (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 6 months ago | (#47344775)

I've never eaten any food from Sweden, other than a few candy fish. Is it logical for me to doubt the existence of Swedish agriculture based on it not affecting me (as far as I know)?

D'oh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344807)

Climate changes. That's what it does. It doesn't remain at some optimum setting forever and ever. Farmers have continuously dealt with changing climate for millennia. Thus they don't see any reason to hyperventilate over a perfectly natural occurrence.

This is not to say that humans have no effect on climate. It just means people who deal with weather/climate on a daily/yearly basis and, indeed, depend on it for their livelihood, don't see any catastrophic changes happening. One might think that farmers in high latitudes would serve as a miner's canary but then what do I know?

Farmers may not trust the researchers. (-1)

Fringe (6096) | about 6 months ago | (#47344835)

She starts with claiming the researchers are almost unanimous. That's simply not true; more accurately, any who are not in agreement are drummed out of the committees. It's a selection problem, a bit like asking an lgbt studies group whether sexual orientation is nature or nurture. The farmers, though, play the long game. They see political fads come and go. If their families have been on these plots for just two centuries, they've seen parts of the Little Ice Age, the recovery from that and the Global Cooling hysteria of the late 1970s-early 1980s. If the researchers are wrong, they write follow-up papers and continue with their careers. But if the farmers make bad decisions, they lose their livelihoods and the historical homestead. The researchers may be right, but the farmers have more at stake and have a better long-term success rate.

And your posting this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344837)

And your posting this because there is any doubt, and we care what Swedish farmers think?
Reality distortions don't occur due to ignorance, or do they?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Film at 11! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47344839)

Random person trusts personal anecdotal evidence over well-researched science, is wrong. Fascinating.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?