Opinions on anthropogenic climate change vary greatly across society, and it appears that Australia’s farmers remain largely skeptical about the causes of climate change – As is the view of Richard Eckard (Uni of Melbourne)

And Don Atkin (only identified via grapevine email) asks: Have I missed something? The astute ones were adapting to floods, droughts and market conditions then (evidence he collected from the 1950’s). “When they were seen to be successful, others in their neighborhood followed. What is new”?

CO2Land org notes that occupied land have weather data that goes back more than 150 years. Those groups, and lets not discount the recollections of those before occupation, they can see patterns in the data that help them make good decisions.

In Eckard’s work is shown: Recent surveys show that only 28% of primary producers accept that human activity is the cause of climate change, compared to 58% of urban dwellers.

The conclusions include that “Regardless of farmers’ beliefs on whether the climate is actually changing and what’s causing the changes, there are impacts that will need to be managed”. It could be argued that urban dwellers just believe what they are influenced by in terms of the news 24/7.

While Richard Eckard talks of the separate need to consider the physical, policy and peripheral impacts of climate change. Co2Land org wonders if one of the 3 P’s is ignored: The considerations of the past – the old person that remembers the days when!

Anthropogenic change can be proven; it is the responses that present the reason for alarm. Adaption means innovate and survive. Lets slow down at this point, as physical impacts are evident, so it is easy to engage with policy and peripheral impacts. For once it is now confused: Is it the market or sustainable practices that rein?