iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Farm Bill Climate Change Policies Could Help Or Hinder Sustainability Efforts

Flooded Farm

First Posted: 12/13/11 04:02 PM ET Updated: 12/13/11 04:02 PM ET

It wasn't a hurricane that devastated Mark Doyle's apples this year. Rather, an unusually cold and wet spring in the Northeast had already done enough to force Fishkill Farms in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., to resort to federal crop insurance.

In the years ahead, farmers like Doyle can anticipate more damaging floods, droughts, heat waves and pest infestations, according to climate scientists. Annual crop productivity, as notoriously unpredictable as it is, will likely become increasingly erratic and volatile.

"Insurance, subsidized by the USDA, is very well worth it," Doyle, head of development management for Fishkill Farms, told HuffPost.

There is consensus in the farm community that risk management is the key to the age-old problem of weathering year-to-year income variations caused by low prices and natural disasters, according to Doyle. And in its 2012 renewal, the Farm Bill is expected to oblige with beefed-up crop insurance as a replacement for the direct subsidies that farmers have received regardless of crop prices or yields.

"It's really clear that because of the frequency of extreme weather that climate change is creating, farmers are going to need an increased level of risk mitigation," said Julia Olmstead, senior program associate at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. "We are all for getting farmers what they need. But we're concerned that nobody is talking about the root causes of their increased risk. No one seems to be making that connection with climate change."

Olmstead recently co-authored a report that outlines that connection and warns of the potentially disastrous consequences for both the environment and the economy if the risks of climate change go disregarded.

Agriculture, she writes, is an "undeniably important focus for combating climate change."

In May 2010, the USDA's Risk Management Agency published a study on the potential effects of climate change on crop insurance. "This was one of the first efforts to tie the economic model of crop systems with the climate forecast," said Bill Hohenstein, director of the USDA's Climate Change Program Office. The analysis found that effects would vary, with agriculture in Alabama and Arkansas affected more negatively than west coast states, for example. However, as Hohenstein noted, the report only looked at average temperature and precipitation patterns. Extreme weather events were not included.

"We know enough now to know that changes in extreme events with climate change, whether droughts or floods, are costly to agriculture," Hohenstein said.

Some severe climate impacts are less noticeable to those outside of the agriculture industry, including "prolonged droughts followed by heavy rains" that "could reduce important pollinating insects and severely impact soil quality and increase pest infestations," notes the USDA report.

"One of the biggest fears is going to be pest invasion," Olmstead told HuffPost. "Almost all of the models show big increases, including some pests that we haven't seen before that are moving up from warmer climates."

California is already well acquainted with rise of crop-devouring insects, noted Jeanne Merrill, policy director for the California Climate and Agriculture Network. The latest addition to the roster is the stink bug, which arrived on the west coast just a few years ago. "This is certainly making farming a lot tougher," she told HuffPost

Merrill noted other troubling agricultural challenges that her state has experienced in recent years due to changing weather patterns and increasing water scarcity. Changes in California's winter chill, for example, have resulted in losses to fruit and tree nut production. The winter chill is essential for the growth of fruit and nut trees, but these temperature dips are becoming fewer and shallower in the state that has long been the country's largest supplier of both types of commodities.

While the climate can have a strong influence on a farmer's productivity, the farmer can also significantly affect the stability of the climate. Sustainable forms of agriculture may increase carbon sequestration while decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, an agriculture system that is dependent on fossil fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides, or greenhouse gas-emitting livestock, can further accelerate climate change.

"If you're emitting less, you're doing a big favor there to the climate," said Olmstead.

To achieve a sustainable truce with the planet, she suggests the need for more small- to mid-sized, diversified, sustainable farms that mix row crops with livestock and perennials. Depending on local conditions, drought-resistant varieties or buffer strips could be included.

Unfortunately, these tend to be the very farms that have a tough time securing crop insurance, according to Roni Neff, research and policy director at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Center for a Livable Future. As she explained, the insurance is allocated based on formulas that require a substantial history of yields and prices for each particular crop type grown in a particular county. "Those data may not be available for a diversified farm producing 20 types of crops," she said.

In addition, under the current Farm Bill, organic farmers have to pay a 5 percent surcharge on insurance policies for some crops, and are only reimbursed at conventional prices, despite evidence that these sustainable operations are more climate-friendly and more resilient when faced with climate-related disasters.

"If the Farm Bill is going to include an expansion of crop insurance, the only sensible thing to do is to also help farmers really mitigate the risks on their fields," said Olmstead. "If we don't do that, we put our food system at risk and expose U.S. taxpayers to huge outlays."

Currently, there are no limits on the amount of federal dollars that can be spent on crop insurance and no requirement for farmers to maintain basic conservation practices in order to qualify. "That seems pretty reckless," Olmstead added, "especially in this climate of extreme fiscal austerity."

In her paper, Olmstead compares the situation to providing a home owner with a fire insurance policy without requiring even basic preventative measures such as smoke alarms or fire extinguishers. (The current Farm Bill offers an array of conservation programs that can help to mitigate climate-related risks, even if climate change isn't actually named as a factor.)

"We're looking at ways farmers can protect themselves against catastrophic risks," said Dale Moore, a farm policy specialist at the American Farm Bureau Federation, the largest farming lobbyist organization. "Mother Nature is full of them and likes to put them in interesting combinations year in and year out."

"But I'm not sure one should be designing farm programs or crop insurance that are tied too much to some kind of climate change process until there's a little more concrete evidence behind it," Moore added. "There have always been extreme weather events. My granddad told me about extreme weather events."

As HuffPost has reported, science is solidifying the link between climate change and extreme weather events. "We do need to come to grips, whether we like it or not, with a changing climate," David Degennaro, legislative and policy analyst at the Environmental Working Group. "We should build it into our policy and thinking."

The USDA's Hohenstein told HuffPost that the agency is continuing to improve its understanding of the physical impacts of climate change on crops -- while developing new strategies to tolerate these events, such as improved water management systems and drought-tolerant seeds.

An unheated, climate-controlled greenhouse called a high tunnel is another tool that could help farmers mitigate the effects of a changing climate. With the help of federal funds through the Farm Bill, Doyle is working to install a 100-foot-long version at Fishkill Farms.

"I'm anxious to try growing cherries inside," he said. "Because the weather is more erratic in the spring than it used to be, it's harder to get a crop of cherries. But if you put them under cover, there's a far better chance of getting the crop and reducing fungi and the need for spraying. It gets you much closer to producing organically."

"Over the next 50 years, we have to think of a way out -- a different kind of agriculture," added Dan Imhoff, co-founder of Watershed Media. "Maybe we may eat fewer animal products and more foods with higher nutrient values. I think we can work towards solving both public health and environmental problems at the same time."

The fourth of a series looking at how the next Farm Bill could affect the food system, the environment and public health.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

It wasn't a hurricane that devastated Mark Doyle's apples this year. Rather, an unusually cold and wet spring in the Northeast had already done enough to force Fishkill Farms in Hopewell Junction, N.Y...
It wasn't a hurricane that devastated Mark Doyle's apples this year. Rather, an unusually cold and wet spring in the Northeast had already done enough to force Fishkill Farms in Hopewell Junction, N.Y...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 662
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
12:47 PM on 12/18/2011
A hypothetical scenario:

A species of mammals living on a 7900 mile diameter planet discharges 2,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, a heat trapping gas, into their atmosphere every second. Since the temperature on their planet never gets below the boiling point of carbon dioxide, the gas never precipitates out of the atmosphere as CO2 snow or CO2 rain, but it does get scrubbed by natural planetary processes that take out about half of the carbon dioxide per year. Still, the heat trapping gas is rapidly building up in the atmosphere of the mammal home planet.

Observant members of the mammal species known as scientists have shown that it is highly likely that the buildup of gas will cause numerous problems over time such as erratic weather patterns and diminished food production.

Since the production of non metabolic CO2 (fire) is pleasurable and gainful for many members of the mammal species (“conservatives”), attempts to encourage the mammals to stop engaging in non metabolic CO2 producing activities (fire) is quite difficult.

If the scientist mammals want to keep the conservative mammals from wrecking their home planet, what should they do?

1. Find alternative activities for the conservative mammals to use for pleasure and gain and encourage them to indulge in those activities.
2. Educate conservative mammals on the folly of their current activities.
3. Let the conservative mammals wreck the planet for a little while until they "get it".
4. Some combination of the above
5. None of the above.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
stuart100s
I started with nothing, & still have most of it.
10:24 AM on 01/02/2012
This hypothetical conservative mammal (HCM) planted 4000 trees last year and has ordered 2000 for this spring. This HCM also restored 6 acres of wetlands at $28000 cost out of his own pocket. At which point hypothetical liberal mammals (HLM) insisted that his property tax increase due to the land being "improved" in value. HLM's just can't look at anything without seeing additional taxes at the root. What could HLM's do to improve their chances of HCM agreeing to help save their home planet?

1) Admit the books were cooked, and agree to start over with verifiable documents.
2) Admit that increased taxes and regulations are not always beneficial.
3) Quit calling people that don't agree with them names, like "denier".
4) Some combination of the above.
5) None of the above.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:45 PM on 12/16/2011
WOW!
It hasn't been this bad since the last time it was this bad!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
09:17 AM on 12/18/2011
Take the time to learn the facts.

A good intro is at http://climate.nasa.gov
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:30 PM on 12/15/2011
From Carlos Slim Helu, $74 billionaire, World's Richest:

I would like to highlight some of the necessary actions to combat climate change. 

The first one regards water... Water is a vital, renewable and recyclable resource.  Its shortage, quality and cost, as well as the disasters produced by water, are all consequence of deficient and insufficient investments and inadequate management.

We need to implement good quality potable water networks, enable cross subsidies that benefit low-level consumers, allow for diverse types of water treatments, including advanced third level treatments, foster recycling, regulating dams, infiltration areas, zonal rain drainage systems and desalinization. 

Reforestation should be more profitable for communities than deforestation...

Another element is the greening of cities.  We know that nature, plants and trees are responsible for the absorption of carbon dioxide; they produce oxygen and, indeed, contribute to the conservation of biodiversity....

A third important element regards waste.  Waste should be transformed from an environmental liability into an environmental asset. Once huge wastelands reach their maximum capacities they should be converted into gardens.... Recovered lands could be an important source of financing.

Another important topic is energy...Cultural change in this area is fundamental, particularly regarding consumption and refuse.  One should focus on the efficiency and efficacy of energy management and, of course, on the development of renewable and clean energies.

http://www.carlosslim.com/desde_slim_alcaldes_ing.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:09 PM on 12/15/2011
From BILL GATES blog:

“... scientists now pretty much agree that greenhouse gases are building up in the earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activity. There are many different measurements indicating that carbon dioxide levels have been rising since at least the 1950s and probably since the beginning of the industrial revolution. From analysis of carbon isotopes and other things, scientists have identified industry as the source of most of this CO2. And everybody agrees that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from the sun, which tends to produce a greenhouse effect.

“... Most scientists believe there’s at least a significant risk of serious warming unless we reduce CO2 emissions. In an editorial, The Economist argues that the risk is big enough to justify action.

I agree, especially because even moderate warming could cause mass starvation and have other very negative effects on the world’s poorest 2 billion people. This is one of the reasons why I’ve gotten very interested in new energy technologies that could move us toward zero carbon emissions. ... my dream is to create zero-carbon technologies that will be cheaper than coal or oil. That way, even climate skeptics will want to adopt them...”

http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Topics/Energy/Recommended-Reading-on-Climate-Change

BTW, netdr (maybe a fossil fuel shill) seems to want to say that people like Gates are mentally challenged.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/netdr/farm-bill-climate-change-crop-insurance-subsidies_n_1146058_123576205.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Harvey
Don't F with the Jesus
12:27 AM on 01/09/2012
So here's 700 people that think differently.

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:50 PM on 12/15/2011
BTW, who's a) an honest global warming skeptic, b) denier, from a c) shill, like NETDR?

A) Honest skeptics are rare and don't stick around. Maybe initially loud but, faced with overwhelmi­ng evidence, they go silent, and move to other topics.

B) Ideologica­lly-driven deniers remain willfully ignorant. Regardless how often they get factually refuted, they drone on ad infinitum, learning nothing. For them, ideology trumps all facts. So, there's no getting through their self-conco­cted bozone layer. However, they also post on politics.

But who's a paid SHILL?

Shills are like deniers, except, 1) They never lash out. Regardless of provocatio­n, they're instructed to remain unfailingl­y polite, as that enhances their minimal credibilit­y. 2) They rarely, or never post on other topics; doing so nets them no pay. 3) Via flagrant lying and incessant out of context quotes, they're much more deceitful and more clever than simple deniers.

Netdr and Richard2 fit the shill profile perfectly.

E.g., netdr can't lie his way out of his comment history:

a) Since day 1, all netdr's comments are on climate change. Who but a shill posts monomaniacally on just one topic nearly 1,200 times in less than seven weeks ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/netdr?action=comments&display=all&sort=oldest

Comparitively, I've posted 2,610 times in 2.5 years, mostly on climate change. But I'm an atmospheric scientist. And only 4 of my first 100 posts were about climate change.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells?action=comments&display=all&sort=oldest
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:43 PM on 12/16/2011
How would the Kyoto treaty reduce C02 emissions?

Now what kind of people refuse to answer that question?
A: The ones that don't know the answer, and who have never even thought about it, and don't want to think about it.
B: The ones who already know that it would INCREASE C02 emissions and real pollution.
C: The ones in on the scam, and who know Kyoto is a socialist wealth redistribution scheme, and to hell with the consequences for the environment.
D: All of the above.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
09:21 PM on 12/16/2011
netdr is nearing bobblehead status around here. Lot's of posts, but zero content. Always bouncing off the walls, attempted disruption, change of subject, all those standard denier antics. I think of netdr as a daffy duck figure. Stan already has chosen an appropriate figure for his bobblehead.
PATOISJAM
reason: strategize: succeed
03:11 PM on 12/15/2011
In the past each country farmed and noted only the conditions that affected their country. They made their farming calendars and it seemed that other people's countries were afar off and not connected. Now climate change is affecting everyone's country and making everyone one realize that we are a connected world - what we do in one place affects the other.

This is where it gets really sad for people in poor or so-called under-developed countries for they have no aid to get from the government, they just starve and to death. They and the domesticated and the wild animals.

It is obvious that the 1% by their leadership through commerce and politics care naught about the earth and the people. These 1% people are like poachers who will kill every last rhino to get its horn. Wanton in their greed and stupidity.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:24 PM on 12/15/2011
U.S. National Academy of Sciences:

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate...

The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:00 PM on 12/15/2011
WALMART:

“Location: Bentonville, Ark., corporate headquarters
Description: Walmart has pledged to eliminate this equivalent - 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions - from our global supply chain by the end of 2015. That is 150 percent of our company's estimated global carbon footprint growth over the next 5 years.”
Announcement made in collaboration with Environmental Defense Fund.

http://walmartstores.com/sustainability/9660.aspx?sourceid=greenhousegas&ref=http%3a%2f%2fbusiness.edf.org%2fprojects%2fwalmart%2fwalmart-and-global-warming
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:03 PM on 12/15/2011
EXXON:

"The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) provides an update of scientific understanding regarding GHG emissions, global warming and the risks of climate change, and the way changes could unfold in the future. Emissions scenarios and results from climate models (see Figure 1) estimate that, without policy intervention, temperatures could increase 1 to 5 º C by 2100."

GHG stabilization in the policy debate

"In recognition that GHG concentrations influence long-term risks from climate change, the climate policy debate has shifted from a focus primarily on targets to limit near-term emissions to also include consideration of long-term emissions pathways that ultimately stabilize GHG concentrations."

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate_mgmt_report.aspx
01:16 PM on 12/15/2011
The article stated

It wasn't a hurricane that devastated Mark Doyle's apples this year. Rather, an unusually cold and wet spring in the Northeast had already done enough to force Fishkill Farms in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., to resort to federal crop insurance
******
Do you notice that the alarmists have started attributing COLD WEATHER to CO2 ?

There is no scientific justification for this !

Silly Rabbits.
01:18 PM on 12/15/2011
CO2 is the god particle, it can cause everything.
04:06 PM on 12/15/2011
CO2 is the God and Dr Hansen is the pope !
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:21 PM on 12/15/2011
Q. Why can't science deniers understand that global warming leads to climate change, including colder weather in some regions?

A. Because they are science deniers, of course.
04:01 PM on 12/15/2011
Could it be because it is mentally challenged to believe it ?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:21 PM on 12/15/2011
Netdr: "Could it be because it is mentally challenged to believe it ?"

It could be that science deniers are too mentally-c­hallenged to understand it.

For many science deniers, howver, I think it instead comes down to willfull denial for ideological and/or selfish monetary reasons.

------------------------------
"You have to be mature enough to recognize something can be true even if you don't like the consequences of it. That's what it means to be a mature adult."

-- Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, addressing climate science deniers
12:41 AM on 12/15/2011
I love this part..."In the years ahead, farmers like Doyle can anticipate more damaging floods, droughts, heat waves and pest infestations, according to climate scientists. "

So pretty much anything can happen.. droughts or floods and it all proves climate change .. foolproof !!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
08:29 AM on 12/15/2011
"droughts or floods and it all proves climate change "

Nobody said that except you.
09:01 AM on 12/15/2011
er..." Climate scientists" said the years ahead hold increases of D and F's .. what do you think they are attributing it to??? If you are saying no one said it was because of climate change then we agree that any future floods or droughts are part of the natural cycle.. well done..
09:29 AM on 12/15/2011
That is not true.

I have seen EVERYTHING linked to CO2.

CO2 causes

Volcanoes [No joke, just after the Iceland volcano there were peer reviewed studies
linking it to global warming]
Earthquakes [Same thing after the Japan earthquake]
More snow
Less snow
Heat waves
Intense cold
( ICS) Irritable Climate Syndrome
Floods
Droughts
More extreme weather
Less extreme weather
Melting ice

Fewer hurricanes
More cloud
Fewer clouds
Stratospheric warming
Stratospheric cooling
etc. etc. ad nauseum.
The science is settled.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CBasilJr
62 Retired Vet
09:12 PM on 12/15/2011
Flagged for deliberately misconstruing the facts and the validity of the scientific method.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
flipacoin
Heads they win, tails we lose.
07:53 PM on 12/14/2011
According to the global warmist, if CO2 production was cut the way they want it cut by 2020, there would be no change in the weather until 2050. How convenient. They couldn't be proved wrong for over 30 years while they rake in hundreds of billion of dollars in wealth redistribution put through their 1000 agencies they have already created.
09:54 PM on 12/14/2011
"According to the global warmist, if CO2 production was cut the way they want it cut by 2020, there would be no change in the weather until 2050. "

[citation needed]
09:34 AM on 12/15/2011
If CO2 is reduced by the Kyoto protocol and any follow ups how much would it reduce the temperature increase ? .01 or .02 ° C?

And what would be the cost ?

I would be willing to spend $1.50 for that much CO2 reduction but no more.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:56 AM on 12/15/2011
That is because it takes self examination and self development to mature beyond selfishness and greed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bldr1bob
07:29 PM on 12/14/2011
An article about farmers without one opinion by a farmer to back up the headline. Only opinions and statements from politicians like "Julia Olmstead, senior program associate at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy". Way to go HP....great stuff.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Bogstomper2
Secular conservative
07:38 PM on 12/14/2011
"An article about farmers without one opinion by a farmer to back up the headline."

Except for the farmer mentioned in the article, Mark Doyle. Maybe you missed it, since it was buried deep in the first three paragraphs.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bldr1bob
07:40 PM on 12/14/2011
And what exactly was his opinion..........about insurance........duh, maybe you missed it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bldr1bob
07:46 PM on 12/14/2011
And don't talk down to me clown. I was raised on a farm. My family IS farmers. Crop production has always been unpredictable and based upon weather. The old timers read Ben Franklin's "The Farmers' Almanac" to try to figue it out.
MGhamma
Reality is 100% biased!
09:33 PM on 12/14/2011
You're becoming increasingly emotional, irrational, and illogical.

Calm down.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hans Littooy
06:02 PM on 12/14/2011
Really? Another scare mongering global warming hit piece, yet US farmers just had a record year in production and profits. Go figure. Maybe all that CO2 is helping them out, as it's plant food after all that was selfishly buried eons ago, starving the planet now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kenneth Alton
06:56 PM on 12/14/2011
I'm puzzled. While I've seen some numbers from the FRB to indicate that indeed 2011 was a banner year in dollars for the US agricultural sector (due to higher global agricultural commodity prices), other numbers I've seen suggest that total US production was slightly below past highs (particularly in wheat, rye, and rice) and, given the increase in planting this year, actual yield per acre was down significantly. Stock seed supply is down.

That would indicate that while the US agricultural sector still has the capability produce (and even to expand) in the coming decades, input costs (excluding fuel, too volatile) to do so will be higher as more marginal land is forced back into production.

And when you talk to small growers - they all seem to have accepted climate change and are adapting as best they can.

On a separate note: Have you seen the price of food these days? Yikes! Time was you could do a week's shopping with a twenty. Not anymore!
06:59 PM on 12/14/2011
"yet US farmers just had a record year in production and profits"

Thanks to rising crop and livestock prices and strong global demand for corn used in making ethanol.

Ironically, the drought plaguing many U.S. farmers this year helped drive up prices for commodities like corn and wheat, benefiting those lucky enough to get a decent crop.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:58 PM on 12/14/2011
Republican Climate Scientist Dr. Barry Bickmore:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve recently been involved with other scientists and scholars in Utah trying to stop the spread of outright lies, half-truths, abuses of data, and distortions about climate change. Much of this disinformation is coming from (or through) some Republican members of the Utah Legislature, and the other Republican (and some Democratic) members have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker...

In addition, I’m a Republican myself, and it galls me that my own party has locally fallen for a bunch of conspiracy theories and scientifically incompetent trash. In my opinion, something has to be done to save the party from disaster in the long run…

Democracy depends on accurate information being readily available to the public, and I see people who propagate such disinformation campaigns as enemies of Democracy.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/about-this-blog/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Bogstomper2
Secular conservative
07:04 PM on 12/14/2011
"In addition, I’m a Republican myself, and it galls me that my own party has locally fallen for a bunch of conspiracy theories and scientific­ally incompeten­t trash."

I'm getting closer every day to being an ex-Republican, but I still second what Bickmore says. The party has become a superstitious mess of competing personality cults fed by an endless stream of soap-opera conspiracy theories and invented rage.

What's sad is how isolated they've made themselves. They've basically declared themselves the victim of a conspiracy made up of everyone else on the freakin' planet. That's why they can't listen or talk normally with other people; they see everyone else as a threat.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:15 PM on 12/14/2011
Well said. I would add that this estranged profile of constituents is the only one that can be propagandized so far away from facts and reason. That suggests a concerted effort to corral such people is under way, likely because the only way to counter facts like climate change or increasing poverty is by politically trumping them.
05:50 PM on 12/14/2011
There are some things that we know:
1. Earth's surface is heated by absorbing light from the sun. There is no doubt about this. We know that it is true.
2. Earth's surface is cooleded by emitting infra-red radiation into outer space. There is no doubt about this. We know that it is true.
3. Earth's surface temperature is determined by the balance of these two effects. There is no doubt about this. We know that it is true.
4. Air is transparent to light. There is no doubt about this. We know that it is true.
5. Carbon dioxide is opaque to infra-red. There is no doubt about this. We know that it is true.
6. Earth's atmosphere has increased its carbon dioxide content by about 30% in the last century.
7. Human beings have burned about a trillion tons of carbon to carbon dioxide in the last century. There is no doubt about this. We know that it is true.
8. Abundant evidence, including ground-measured temperatures, remote-sensed temperatures, poleward migration of climate zones, glacial melting on all or almost all continents, and many other data indicate that earth's surface is becoming warmer.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bldr1bob
06:09 PM on 12/14/2011
so what's your point?
06:32 PM on 12/14/2011
The point is that the science behind global warming is very robust.
MGhamma
Reality is 100% biased!
09:09 PM on 12/14/2011
His point is clear.

You just showed yourself unable to argue the scientific facts he brought up.
06:12 PM on 12/14/2011
I thought (proved through ice core samples) that carbon dioxide increased behind temperature and not the other way around.....or at least this was the case throughout previous earth cycles. Also, why are portions of the south pole growing in size?

No doubt the earth is changing....but do we really have the ability to alter it as much as we think we already have......and if so, are we really arrogant enough to think we can stop it from changing?
06:40 PM on 12/14/2011
The trigger for ending an ice is that the stellar Melankovich cycle enters a warming phase. However, the Melankovich cycle itself is far to weak to drive the ice ages. What happens is that the Melankovich cycle causes a little bit of warming, which triggers the release of greenhouse gases--for example, by melting permafrost. This creates warming, which triggers more release, and so on in a positive feedback loop.

Yes, the three billion human beings, with all their accouterments, have the ability to change the earth. In fact we already have.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
greengrl
The more you know, the less you believe.
photo
golfvue3
It's all ball bearings these days.
05:11 PM on 12/14/2011
Too bad this article ignores the fact farming overall has had a very successful year.

http://www.cwbradio.com/news/?fn_mode=fullnews&fn_id=6172

But that wouldn't attract much attention, would it?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Bogstomper2
Secular conservative
06:02 PM on 12/14/2011
"...farming overall has had a very successful year."

That report doesn't say anything about farming "overall" since it only covers one country. It doesn't say anything about farming "overall" because it looks at only a few economic indicators. It doesn't say anything about farming "overall" because it is only one point in the data-time continuum. It doesn't say anything about farming "overall" because it doesn't mention just how bad some American farmers have had it this year.

It's an interesting report, and good news as far as it goes, but it doesn't say anything important about the overall agricultural challenges we face due to global warming.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bldr1bob
06:11 PM on 12/14/2011
what global warming? I thought it was climate change so you could ignore the temperature change, or lack thereof.
photo
golfvue3
It's all ball bearings these days.
12:00 PM on 12/17/2011
the Huffpo piece is only talking about US farming. US farming had a good year - "overall".

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/12/12/farmers-have-one-of-best-years-ever/

To pick out a few areas that had problems and blame it on climate change is a bit disingenious to say the least, but it doesn't surprise me. The left only likes facts when they support their cause. When they don't, they make stuff up and skew the facts like in this Huffpo piece.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bldr1bob
06:17 PM on 12/14/2011
Being raised on a farm I can remember cold years,short seasons and low crop yeilds. I also remember the good, warm years with long growing seasons and big harvests. I guess that's climate change.....
06:42 PM on 12/14/2011
No, that's weather.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Bogstomper2
Secular conservative
04:55 PM on 12/14/2011
The subject of this article is more important than it sounds. Without agriculture, there's no civilization. That means the first task in a civilized society is to keep the pantry filled by protecting the farms and farmers. For anyone who would like to see America remain a working nation for more than a few days, farm policy should be a big concern.

When government policy is working properly, it's little more than a codification of best practices as determined by experience. Now that agricultural best practices are being challenged by climate change, policy is going to fall behind. It always does during times of innovation.

If we want farm policy to keep up with reality, we really need a smarter and more scientifically literate Congress.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hans Littooy
06:05 PM on 12/14/2011
CO2 is plant food. Farmers are having another record year. Seems agriculture is doing just fine, thankyou.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
10:14 PM on 12/14/2011
CO2 is not ONLY plant food. It's also a powerful greenhouse gas, which will affect climate, which will affect growing conditions. There was lots of CO2 in Texas this summer--didn't help the crops much.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
whirlpool
founder walnut tree congregation
12:29 PM on 12/15/2011
As any gardner and ecologist knows, plant primary productivity is dependent on a number of factors: water availability, soil fertility, soil texture, soil and water pH, CO2 concentration, sunlight, trace elements and so forth. CO2 is not a limiting factor in plant production since CO2 levels have been going up for years. There is far more CO2 than the plants on earth can use. Some other factors are limiting.
10:43 AM on 12/14/2011
The financial costs of Climate Change Inactivity will Far Outweigh the profits from allowing Big Oil to continue it's economy Crushing Cartel...We need to rescind their Tax exemption and Anti Trust Law Exemptions and allow Clean Energy to compete in a fair and unbiased market....If Big Oil didn't OWN Congress and pretty much every other politician then they wouldn't get the favoritism, handouts and Blind Eyes to their Monopolizing....Yeah Were Screwed.
04:51 PM on 12/14/2011
I agree with almost everything you say. You would need to define what you mean by inactivity though. Alternative energy-yes, carbon tax-no. Alternative energy because, contrary to popular belief, on this website at least, it's going to start getting colder. We are headed toward a Grand Solar Minimum in ~2030.
Also, it's not necessarily just Big Oil that owns Congress, it's also Big Corporate and Big Green is just a tool for Big Corporate, hence the government. Yeah, we are screwed unless we do something about it. We can't depend on the government to do it for us. We are not in their best interest. Become as self reliant as you can in food, energy and income.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:34 PM on 12/14/2011
juancarnuba: "contrary to popular belief, on this website at least, it's going to start getting colder. We are headed toward a Grand Solar Minimum in ~2030."

Wrong.

You need to stop getting your "science" from science denier sites, Juan.

-------------------------

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L05707, 5 PP., 2010

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth

The current exceptionally long minimum of solar activity has led to the suggestion that the Sun might experience a new grand minimum in the next decades, a prolonged period of low activity similar to the Maunder minimum in the late 17th century... Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042710.shtml