But, like their members, farm groups remain opposed. For the American Farm Bureau Federation it's been a tradition. The Farm Bureau heavily lobbied against the House and Senate bills to create a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases in 2009. It also rejected U.S. EPA's 2009 endangerment finding, which established that climate change is a threat to public health.
"Most of our members understand, realize, that the climate has been changing, since the beginning of established agriculture," said Andrew Walmsley, director of congressional relations for the Farm Bureau. "I don't know if their alarm is as big as others."
However, he said, the Farm Bureau does recognize that a cap-and-trade system can offer benefits to growers, who sequester carbon by planting crops and trees.
Farm Bureau members want easy access to the tools -- biotech seeds or upgraded machinery, for example -- to adapt to changing weather patterns, Walmsley said. But they don't want to be stifled by regulation.
What's the bigger risk?
The perceived severity of the risks of climate change varies, Walmsley said. But farmers see clear problems in climate regulation. EPA's forthcoming regulations on new and existing power plants are no exception, especially in regions dependent on coal-fired electricity.
"A lot of our folks don't have the luxury of having wind or nuclear," he said. Dairies, temperature-controlled poultry houses and grain-drying units are examples of energy-intensive infrastructure.
J. Gordon Arbuckle Jr., an associate professor and extension sociologist at Iowa State University, has done extensive research on how farmers view climate change. "Here in the Corn Belt, farmers have a long relationship with the government because of the farm programs," he said. "There's much less wariness of government than in other parts of country."
Still, though, the wariness is there. Rather than climate change, he added, Midwestern growers are more concerned about water quality regulations to curb runoff fertilizer pollution in rivers, lakes and oceans. Nitrogen-rich fertilizers create algae blooms that kill fish and can be toxic to humans.
Arbuckle surveyed 5,000 farmers across 22 Midwestern watersheds in February 2012. He found that two-thirds of farmers believe that climate change is occurring but 8 percent of the total thought it was mostly due to human activities.
A plurality of the total number surveyed -- 33 percent -- thought it was caused by a mix of natural and human influences. One-quarter believed it was strictly a natural phenomenon.
A small portion, 3.5 percent, of farmers didn't think climate change was happening at all. The rest, 31 percent, were unsure.
"Those farmers that believe it's primarily human-caused are much more supportive of mitigation, both individually and at the government level," he said.
An attitude that comes with the land?
Some people call farmers gamblers because they are always betting on or against an imponderable: the weather. Arbuckle prefers to call farmers "professional problem solvers." More than any other profession, he believes, "farmers are constantly adapting."
Farmers who do believe in the advance of climate change are confident they will be able to beat it, Arbuckle said. One of the farmers quoted in the Niles study of California growers reflects this train of thought.
"I still have to be a farmer just like I've always been and I still have to react to it [climate change] and adapt to it," the Yolo County farmer wrote. "But that's been my business. In agriculture, you're dealing with the weather, that's what you have to deal with."
Others, it seems, just can't be bothered.