Satellite imaging is great for when you don't have accurate reports on the ground. However, in many areas (certainly all of North America) we already have a ver

Satellite imaging is great for when you don't have accurate reports on the ground. However, in many areas (certainly all of North America) we already have a very good indication of how crops are faring. Professionals walking through the fields every day are, no surprise, pretty good at knowing what's going on with a crop that determines their livelihood. Go look at the article. They talk to a farmer that knows perfectly well that the wheat harvest is going to suck without looking at a single satellite photo. I don't know about the french gov, but I strongly suspect they issue very detailed reports about current conditions and outlooks just like the US. There is trillions of dollars at stake. What we don't have is accurate weather forecasts past 5-10 days in the future. Your crop might be doing great until a single weather event wipes the whole thing out, and there is nothing you can do about it. This happens ALL THE TIME. You can look at 12 hr old satellite photos and say, "Wow! This crop is looking very healthy". Meanwhile the farmer on the ground is looking at a bunch of plants that just got destroyed by too much rain/frost/wind/heat. Its not that they're being anti-science, its that this isn't a new idea, and probably doesn't expose information that the experts didn't already know.