From: Richard Black
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:01 AM
To: Anthony Watts
Subject: RE: Your article on rice yields
Dear Anthony,
Thanks for your email. You are correct – I am mistaken – a correction will be made to the news story shortly.
Best regards,
Richard Black
…my letter follows
From: Anthony Watts
Sent: 11 August 2010 00:51
To: Richard Black; Richard Black-Internet
Subject: Your article on rice yields
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Black,
I’m writing as a courtesy to advise you that I believe your article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10918591
Which says “Yields have fallen by 10-20% over the last 25 years in some locations.”
…is in error.
The actual press release says ”Rising temperatures during the past 25 years have already cut the yield growth rate by 10-20 percent in several locations.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/uoc–htt080610.php
It is not the gross yield that has supposedly fallen, but the rate of increase in the yield.
Further, I have a graph from the International Rice Research Institute which supports this and demonstrates that gross rice yields are still increasing in Asia:
http://beta.irri.org/test/j15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=393&Itemid=100104
I think it’s just a simple interpretive error on how you read the press release, but it does have large consequences for how the story is interpreted by readers. Here in Northern California, one of the largest rice growing areas of the world, a call to our local Rice Association confirmed this. A correction might be in order.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards,
Anthony Watts
=============================================
See these related WUWT stories:
Rice yields, CO2 and temperature – you write the article
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Congratulations. Richard Black has been promulgating this sort of exaggeration for years. Maybe he will learn that, in science, you cannot get away with this sort of thing. Maybe, just maybe, he will check his facts next time, before he writes his article.
It is theoretically impossible for the growth in yields double every 12 years.
You would be surprised how forthcoming some people are about letters you write. I wrote my senator a few times about global warming and was polite and firm about how I was worried about our economy under cap and trade would go.
She was very polite in the letter back and reassured me that she is worried too about it. Not sure if that means much in the larger context, but I think it does show that even one letter/email can make a difference in at least people’s perspectives.
I will say this, be polite above all. This is case in point Anthony, I think this was good work in that the truth is important in the context it is in.
Anthony,
A shift by you from mainly a constantly curious questioner to include a growing role in active auditing?
With greatest respect,
John
I notified the Independent via a comment that they made exactly the same error – no response and no correction to date.
I see if they react to a more direct contact. Perhaps many people should try.
Well done Anthony. Of course nobody will notice the correction. The damage has been done, presumably as intended.
Thank you. I was wondering what I might do this afternoon. I will now compose a nice letter to Mr Richard Black and tell him how much I resent the attitude of the BBC towards CAGW, and draw to his attention a few simple facts, like it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period and there was no catastrophic feedback, how the warming effect of CO2 is strongly logarithmic, and if it was so bad, why is it 62′ F here in the middle of August 2010.
I wonder if you will get a BBC h/t ?
Well done Anthony, this shows the power of rigorous scientific review and pointing out errors in interpretation. Well done the BBC for openly correcting. Now all we need is a few more honest sources out there to see and correct high profile errors.
Nice one Anthony…..no correction yet tho’ @ur momisugly 15:44 Uk time..
It will be interesting to see how fast the high priests of doom mongering are in correcting their story – seems like they haven’t managed to get a correction posted during their working day, Thursday 12 August.
How long do you suppose we will have to wait for the correction?
Easy enough error to make, I don’t think there was any ‘secret’ motive on this one. Good on you for correcting this mistake though.
Amazing. You actually got a reply. He just ignores my emails about their lying propaganda on so-called “global warming,” as does everyone else at the British Brainwashing Corporation.
The devil is in the details. Those pesky details.
Nice to see that, in pointing out the error in civil terms, the error was acknowledged.
ice – rice – what’s next? – lice ?!
“A department strategy group reported last year that the lice have rapidly developed resistance to available veterinary chemicals, and rising sea temperatures have helped their populations survive and increase year by year since 2002. ”
see:
http://www.globalwarming.ie/content/view/3980/1985/
So the error is resolved in a courteous and proper manner, as it should be. However, how can the damage of mis-represented facts be undone? The erroneous meme will stick and the retraction, if noticed at all, will evaporate like it never existed. Watch for the original article to be repeated and cited as fact without the correction appended. Journalists/publicists ought to be obligated to amend the original article with *attached* corrections and updates so at least there is a chance that subsequent readers will get the right information.
:-), very nice!
Of course, waiting on the correction may be a different issue entirely.
Your email sounds like Chris Monckton, Anthony – lol!
Good work Mr. Watts.
Anthony, you can be very diplomatic. And congratulations to Richard Black for correcting the error.
Sorry – letter sounds like…
“”Rising temperatures during the past 25 years have already cut the yield growth rate by 10-20 percent in several locations.”
===========================================================
Anthony, temperatures have had nothing to do with it.
I know this study only deals with Asian rice production, so it does not take into account Brazil, USA, etc. Less rice has been produced in Asia, for two reasons.
They are converting to more profitable crops, like bio-fuel, etc.
And more countries, like Brazil, are increasing their production.
It’s mainly competition from other countries that’s driving the production down.
Asian rice took a 25% drop in price in the past two years. That’s a big hit.
All they did was the most simplistic of studies, Asia is not producing as much rice at the same rate, and it must be because of climate change.
And this sort of thing gets peer reviewed by the same in house morons that suggested the study in the first place.
Allelujah!
I always smell a rat when a warming story relates to food reduction. (fear factor)
IMHO there is only so much juice you can squeeze out of an orange anyway and temp effects remain to be seen.
Wow – I’m impressed… direct from the top.
I’ve often wondered if there’s a way I could start a business “correcting” the ridiculous spelling and grammar seen on some Asian product instruction manuals and packaging. Now I’m thinking it would be lots of fun to “correct” ridiculous science errors on “science related” items in the mainstream media. There certainly would be a HUGE market for it…