The article mentions more than farmers using the data. Not sure how anyone can take you seriously when the first paragraph mentions oil companies using the data as well..
And what do they use the data for, exactly? If it was vitally important to their operations and profitability, don’t you think the authors would have explained specifically how they would suffer if this data was discontinued?
The reason they don’t is obvious. They don’t use this data at all. The government uses it to monitor their emmissions and browbeat them into funding green initiatives to pay for their carbon sins. It’s used to make charts that congressmen use as props on the house and senate floor when they promote climate regulation. It’s used to make sensational fundraising emails for the Sierra club and eye-catching headlines at NPR and CNN.
But also one guy at the Iowa State extension office used it in a few papers, so yeah, farmers use this vital information, too.
MisterMower|6 months ago
The reason they don’t is obvious. They don’t use this data at all. The government uses it to monitor their emmissions and browbeat them into funding green initiatives to pay for their carbon sins. It’s used to make charts that congressmen use as props on the house and senate floor when they promote climate regulation. It’s used to make sensational fundraising emails for the Sierra club and eye-catching headlines at NPR and CNN.
But also one guy at the Iowa State extension office used it in a few papers, so yeah, farmers use this vital information, too.