Jul
17
2013

QotD, Maybe The Farmers Are RIGHT, #Slate edition.

You just can’t make stuff like this up:

The long-term prediction for the Corn Belt in Iowa says that the weather will get hotter and drier—much like western Kansas is currently. Yet, over the decades of [Iowa corn farmer and Farm Bureau economist Dave] Miller’s farming career, conditions have been increasingly wet. “If I had done what climate alarmists had said to do, I would have done exactly the wrong thing for 20 of the last 25 years,” Miller says.

…bolding on, and hold on.  For the benefit of the author of the Slate piece, who apparently missed this article: that was Miller telling you that if he had listened to the global warming enthusiasts he’d have long since gone belly-up.

Miller doesn’t speak for all farmers, of course, and there are few less monolithic constituencies. This is a group whose holdings range from a small farm in the Northeast following biodynamic principles to big agricultural outfits that count farmed land in square miles, not acres. A fifth-generation wheat farmer in Oregon, like Kevin McCullough, might say, “I think it’s just normal swings in the weather.” But an organic farmer in upstate New York who is the first in recent family history to work the land would say, “There is a scientific consensus that there is a change of climate even in light of the fluctuations that naturally occur.”

Do tell. Do tell.

Moe Lane

PS: There is a veritable plethora of things wrong with this article, starting with the fact that the author is apparently unaware that scientists are currently scratching their heads over the observed disconnect between CO2 levels and average temperatures.  But I am a busy man; besides, I’m sure that my readers are easily up to the task of ripping the article to shreds themselves.

PPS: Modern farming in this country is the province of a class of professional workers with at least bachelors’ degrees in a highly technical, interdisciplinary field. Which is to say, your average farmer has had more STEM education than, say, the average political-geek blogger (ahem) or even Slate writer. Being condescending about their opinions is probably not… smart.

10 Comments

  • Jeff Weimer says:

    I noticed David Biello was a smug asshole too:
    .

    (Given the basic physics of CO2 capturing heat that have been known for more than a century and the ever-larger amounts of CO2 put into the atmosphere by human activity, it’s not clear what “science” he’s holding out for.)

    .
    That was in parentheses in the article, too. IT is literally and figuratively gratuitous.

  • BigGator5 says:

    The only constant in the universe is change.

  • Finrod says:

    I’m amused that it’s the newbie farmer that takes global warming seriously. I sense his time in his chosen field is going to be self-limited.

    • jbird says:

      Also notice he doesn’t provide any reason other than that someone told him so.

    • midwestconservative says:

      I’m amused Slate thought that they could cite him as being an equally credible source as that of a 5th generation farmer.

  • jbird says:

    Since when have liberals ever acknowledged that constituencies aren’t monolithic?

  • BA Cyclone says:

    To bolster your PPS: sure the constituency *might* not be monolithic. However the average “organic farmer in upstate New York who is the first in recent family history to work the land” would not have the context of 25+ years of personal experience trying to raise crops in all manner of weather conditions, unlike the vast majority of commercial farmers in the Corn Belt.

    Most commercial farmers can give the quote you cite, because they have seen it with their own eyes. They don’t depend upon “scientific consensus” to reach that opinion.

    • qixlqatl says:

      Observed reality? Who are you kidding? That’s just anecdotal evidence with no bearing on scientific theories…….

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com