Because warmer weather = longer crop growing season.
Here's why:
AGW (human caused climate change) has never overcome the null hypothesis (a basic hypothesis test), that the warming is a natural fluctuation. Why does this matter?
Allow me to explain:
A null hypothesis is a default position. To overcome (reject) the null hypothesis you have to show a certain statistical significance (or probability) that the evidence fits your hypothesis, better than the default position. We’re not talking about absolute proof, just probability.
Let’s use gravity as an example:
The evidence that best fits the law (by a high probability) is that gravity is generated by mass. If you were to say that gravity used to be generated by mass but now it’s mostly people you had better be able to show a high probability that the evidence fits your hypothesis, better than the current default position. If you didn’t you would be scoffed at.
However, human caused climate change has never done this, and the evidence fits the null hypothesis like a glove. Why? Climate change is the norm, not the exception!
When compared to paleoclimate records there is nothing unusual about the rate, duration, or amount of the meager warming we've seen! It always has and always will change: http://goo.gl/L7VAh
By not rejecting the null hypothesis the human caused climate change hypothesis has never qualified as a theory. The reason? Without the statistical probability (significance) there has never been enough evidence to justify belief in AGW within the standards of the scientific method! Therefore, these people who play it as a fact are in fact in denial, of the scientific method.
Ref: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
However, the AGW hypothesis has indeed been rejected, by scientific analysis.
The peer-reviewed paper Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming, recently published in a highly respected journal has falsified AGW. The paper finds that the warming of the late 20th century was not related to anthropogenic (human caused) forcing .
What does it all mean? It means that (again) there has never been enough evidence for anyone to reasonably justify belief in AGW, and now, AGW is: disproved, falsified, rejected.
It means despite the onus being on the warmists to prove their position, and not on skeptics to disprove it; AGW has been falsified anyways.
It means game over for the Alarmists. If you believe in AGW - science is not (and never has been) on your side.
Farmers live with the weather every single day, of course they keep an eye on it. They follow it closely and work hard to develop strategies for dealing with setbacks when they occur.
City people on the other hand? The weather is something that they mostly ignore. And why not? Most of them work inside all day, those who don’t stay inside and watch TV or play video Games. Even the kids rarely venture outside to play.
So because of that they are easily led in directions when it concerns the weather. And Man-made Climate change or Global Warming or whatever the Greens come up with next is easy to foist on them. And why not? Everything else in the world of their existence is man-made. So obviously Man is responsible for the Weather too.
Pol Pot, the ruthless Communist dictator of Cambodia, did have one brilliant idea. He emptied all the universities and made the elites go into the jungles to make their living.
He didn’t even have to spend money on bullets to get rid of them.
David Biello
“(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.) “
Dear Mr. Biello,
THIS science, ding-bat.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide
Basically, nearly all of the “Global Warming” attributable to CO2 has taken place and has been what is holding back another ice age. Throw in solar variation and increasing CO2 is a miniscule factor in global temperature.
Once Al Gore, et. al. figure out how to tax sunshine, they may back off on CO2.
Farmers are a lot smarter on average than the general population.
Simple....
Farmers understand the difference between climate and weather
Why Does Slate Believe in Climate Change? And does it really matter whether they do?
I’ve lived in farming regions my whole life and have lots of friends in farming, and I have observed something about farmers and the weather: No matter what the weather, farmers will complain about it.
From the late Alexander Cockburn, as hard-left a militant leftie as you'll find:
The essential quote:
Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That’s the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it’s at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai’i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn’t even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere’s CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.