LA Times Tony Barboza gets caught fear mongering the IPCC report, becomes first victim of facts that don’t agree with claims

This sentence…

“One of the panel’s most striking new conclusions is that rising temperatures are already depressing crop yields, including those of corn and wheat. In the coming decades, farmers may not be able to grow enough food to meet the demands of the world’s growing population, it warns.”

…is in this LA Times story by babout the latest IPCC report which has so much gloom and doom in it, one of the lead authors, Dr. Richard Tol, asked his name to be taken off of it for that very reason.

Problem is, the agricultural data doesn’t match the LATimes/IPCC claim, see for yourself:

 

wheat-corn-soybeans-yield-trend

Source: USDA data at http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/ plotted by Dr. Roy Spencer.

World-wheat-corn-rice_trends

Not only is the LATimes/IPCC claim about agriculture false for the world, but also the USA:

US_ag-trends

Source: USDA Data here compiled by Dr. Mark J. Perry at the Carpe Diem blog.

In fact, U.S. Corn Yields Have Increased Six Times Since the 1930s and Are Estimated to Double By 2030 according to Perry.

Note that temperatures in the US Corn belt aren’t rising, but models are, and as we know, the IPCC prefers model output over reality.USHCN_corn_belt_temperatures

Source: USHCN data from NOAA, CMIP5 model data plotted by Dr. Roy Spencer

Why is it that checking such simple facts are left to bloggers and independent thinkers like Roy Spencer, instead of “professional” journalists like ?

Maybe he’s just too lazy to check facts like this? Or, is it belief mixed with incompetence?

 

 

About these ads

89 thoughts on “LA Times Tony Barboza gets caught fear mongering the IPCC report, becomes first victim of facts that don’t agree with claims

  1. Facts? FACTS !!

    We don’t need no stinkin’ facts. We are Warmongering Alarmists and can make up any crap we feel is the most hysterical.

    When will you evil Deniers figure out the danger from Glowball Warming.

  2. Boy, today has been a deluge of April Foolery. I wish it were actual April Foolery, but unfortunately the internet is clogged with Klimate Kooks all blathering their recited meme verses, in response to the ridiculously-timed IPCC release. I feel ill.

  3. Here are some facts that do meet the claims: Inhofe, Defense budget used by Obama as his climate change sludge fund. US West Coast no longer defended against incoming missiles from Russia and Iran, defense capability seriously undermined by scrapping perfectly functioning systems but hey, we now have solar panels.: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/04/01/Inhofe-Warns-Georgia-Moldova-Next-for-Russia-Attacks-Obama-for-Eliminating-Weapon-Systems

    Impeach the hack.

  4. Journalists need to be the first with a story nowadays, if they took 5 minutes to fact check the story, someone else would break it before them thanks to instant news on the internet. They also have huge work load, pressured to get as many stories out with little time to spend on each one, so often they are a ‘copy n paste’ story. Its not the journalists fault completely, its the mad news media system we now have and the system needs fixing. Blogs like this do much better as those who post have time to do a little research first and dont have to do 50 blog posts in 8 hours.

    The sad fact is most journalists are now just copy pasters, which has created the recent trend of ‘fake’ stories inserted into AP and Routers by environmentalists or univerties wanting media attention etc… and when your looking for huge volumes of content and there is a big PR system pushing their alarmism it will inevitably be published.

  5. The facts are boring and don’t sell newspapers, but scary unfounded stories sell newspapers.

    It is probably no more than this. Also, the hack was too lazy to check the facts, or so uninformed and pig ignorant that he did not know where to look.

  6. Tony Barboza is a name I expect to see on the back of a boxer’s robe. Sounds like his aspirations significantlly exceed his mental abilities. “Hey, with haf a brain, I coulda’ been somebody.”

  7. The difference between a good reporter and a poor one is this: a good reporter checks the facts; a poor one doesn’t. It seems as though the AGW movement, if we can call it that, survives and thrives because the quality of good media reporting has dropped considerably.

  8. CO2 causes food abundance. CAGW believer then counteract this buy coming up with the absurd idea that it’s a good idea to burn food as fuel.

  9. Maybe we could convince Lord Mockton to write a post that again uses the graph showing both CO2 vs Time and Temperature Anomaly vs Time with the thirteen plus year pause while CO2 continues to climb. Further in the post would be a second graph showing Agriculture Yields vs Time and CO2 vs Time, illustrating the correlation between CO2 concentration growth and Agriculture Yields. In other words CO2 equals Plant Food. QED via the Correlation yields Causation logic of the Alarmists.

  10. Will the refutation of their just plain wrong claims be allowed in their letters to the editor?

  11. The cynical journalist has given way to the mindless puppet, dutifully regurgitating snippets of press releases … research and thought are processes too demanding of these puppets … today the best journalists are those denigrated the most – the blogger, hunters of the sacred cows.

  12. Corn is for you car not for poor kids breakfast.

    Corn prices should be high don’ t ya know, its for the planet.

    Cults get worse and worse then they self destruct.

  13. “Maybe he’s just too lazy to check facts like this? Or, is it belief mixed with incompetence?”

    The third possibility is a willingness to ‘shade the truth’ sufficiently to create a perception of alarm…. and sell more subscriptions to secure his paycheck.

  14. White House sources who required to be not named told U.S. not to drive our cars cause it will burn the planet total in 7 more years and cause the temp.’s to rise 7 degrees. (AP)

    put it on the wire, it will be the truth,,,, cause we say so

  15. Tony Barboza gets caught …… .
    At first I thought “Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy …. /sarc”
    But then I though, that isn’t fair, the poor guy has just been duped like so many others. Like so many other MSM workers, he has a family to feed and probably a boss who won’t let him do much digging for facts.

  16. “””””…..Col Mosby says:

    April 1, 2014 at 11:39 am

    Tony Barboza is a name I expect to see on the back of a boxer’s robe. Sounds like his aspirations significantlly exceed his mental abilities. “Hey, with haf a brain, I coulda’ been somebody.”…..”””””

    Well it would be more appropriate on an MMA robe; Mixed Misrepresentation Arts.

    Besides, in MMA, somebody mean, would get to smash that fool’s empty head on the floor, until the ref stepped in to rescue him. Or he would be forced to tap out of some guillotine strangle.

    I don’t believe in violence, but squishing a watermelon, really isn’t violence.

  17. Tony did his job. He spread fear so the Progressive boot can be pressed against our necks.

  18. This is what helps skepticism to grow.

    Global warming threatens food and water supplies, security and economic growth, and will worsen many existing problems, including hunger, drought, flooding, wildfires, poverty and war, says the report by hundreds of scientists from 70 countries.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-0401-climate-change-20140401,0,1584240.story#ixzz2xfC17h6K

    It’s really funny how so many of the projected bad things are bound to outnumber the benefits of global warming such as longer growing seasons, drought resistance in crops, winter mortality etc.

  19. The facts also show the one real impact of policy and that is the distortion on corn production to follow the incentive to use food for ethanol fuel. The environment and taxpayers suffered in the process.

  20. I was watching The Weather Channel last night. They were furiously promoting the IPCC presser and all the scare mongering over global warming. Without any sense of irony they then went directly into the blizzard warnings for an ice storm … on March 31st. Hullo??

  21. If it keeps getting colder, we will see crop reductions. So Tony may have his predictions right even if he’s a bit off regarding causation.

  22. This is what the WG II report says:

    Many studies of cropping systems have estimated impacts of observed climate changes on crop yields over the past half century, although they typically do not attempt to compare observed yields to a counterfactual baseline, and thus are not formal detection and attribution studies. These studies employ both mechanistic and statistical approaches (7.3.1), and estimate impacts by running the models with observed historical climate and then computing trends in modelled outcomes. Based on these studies, there is medium confidence that climate trends have negatively
    affected wheat and maize production for many regions (Figure 7-2) (medium evidence, high agreement). Since many of these regional studies are for major producers, and a global study (Lobell et al. 2011) estimated negative impacts on these crops, there is also medium confidence for negative impacts on global aggregate production of wheat and maize. Effects on rice and soybean yields have been small in major production regions and globally (Figure 7-2) (medium evidence, high agreement). There is also high confidence that warming has benefitted crop production in
    some high-latitude regions, such as Northeast China or the United Kingdom (Jaggard et al., 2007, Supit et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2010; Gregory and Marshall, 2012).

    http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap7_FGDall.pdf

    Missing “(” inserted.
    The Figure is not yet available.

  23. it’s like arguing with “flat earthers” or maybe fundie xtians (the 6000 year old bunch) no amount of real evidence will convince them otherwise that their belief system is up for discussion…AGW is not the only great myth that’s become mainstream and blindly reported on over and over and again and no amount of evidence will sway the mindless rhetoric…oh well

  24. It is possible that US grain production could decrease in the next several decades as the Ogallala aquifer get depleted? the IPCC crowd would probably like to blame this on global bull warming. Now if only they could find the missing heat.

  25. The LA Times is like the SF Chronicle: no fact checking, even in their own backyard. The Chronicle regularly headlines sea level rise doom stories for the San Francisco Bay Area, which center around sea level rising 4 to 6 feet by 2100. Even the IPCC doesn’t predict such an unbelievable increase in sea level. The IPCC predictions are hard to understand, but appear to predict a sea level rise of 20 to 38 inches by 2100. Catastrophic, if true. The IPCC also says in their Summary for Policy Makers that warming to date already is causing problems, such as almost-Hurricane Sandy, and flooding from other strong storms. So let’s look at sea level from a West Coast perspective. We are lucky to have tide gauge records for each of our four major coastal cities – San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Seattle – that each cover 100 years or more. However, for all four cities, the 2013 sea levels are slightly less or about the same as they were in 1941, and all four show sea level falling since 1997. Also all four cities show that sea levels rose more and at a faster rate before 1950, and are now falling when they should be rising rapidly, according to CAGW “experts”.

    Is the whole US West Coast rising on surging plates? Maybe, but it wasn’t before 1950. And Seattle to San Diego is 1,065 miles – a long distance to synchronize tectonic plate activities for over 100 years.

    Unlike the IPCC’s report, you can easily verify these facts. Just go to the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level website, and click on station ID numbers, (http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/ ) then go to the annual record at the lower left-hand side for each station (city). San Francisco (Station ID 10) has the longest tide gauge record in the Western Hemisphere, and since 1854 the rate of sea level rise is less than 3 inches per century. And is now negative.

    It’s too bad the San Francisco Chronicle reporters don’t have a “nose for news”. Then they would actually have something interesting to report, such as how IPCC predictions don’t hold true.

  26. “Based on these studies, there is medium confidence that climate trends have negatively
    affected wheat and maize production for many regions ”

    Wonder how they reconcile this with the fact that Western Canada has had higher than historical average wheat crops over the past 10 years, with a bumper crop last fall?

  27. NBC led with this last night, including the bit about corn and wheat. The entire report ranged from somewhat misleading to completely untrue albeit with an emphasis on the latter. How can they get away with this?

  28. CO2 has had the exact polar opposite effect on agriculture as stated. Indisputable benefits in the trillions.

    It’s like all these people had lobotomy’s on the part of their brain that leaned about the proven LAW of photosynthesis in elementary school and then, had transplanted in a synthetic replacement programming their brains to only recognize CO2 as pollution, ignoring all the powerful evidence in the world that completely contradicts that.

    http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf

    It’s bad enough to program global climate models with the wrong mathematical equations to represent the physics of the atmosphere, then defend their lack of skill but to ignore the massive benefits of increasing CO2 can only happen to somebody that is:
    1. Corrupt
    2. Blatantly effected with confirmation bias and brainwashed
    3. Very naive and brainwashed
    4. Ignorant and brainwashed

    So it would seem that the majority are brainwashed and being led by the corrupt!

  29. This suddenly-discovered vulnerability of crop yields to slight temperature rises makes the work of Norman Borlaug and his “Green Revolution” even more remarkable as the dramatic improvements in yields around the globe were achieved when it was actually warming. Those achievements are hard facts which are rather more convincing than another surge of model output from the alarmists.

  30. German press was delighted to posit the same thing; just like the LATimes person they are too stupid to understand the difference between absolute decline and decline of the rate of growth, and too lazy to quickly find a statistic, and too ignorant to know even
    http://www.gapminder.org .
    And that’s a level of ignorance you actually gotta select for these days.

  31. Zea Maise is semi-tropical. The corn belt is not. So that claim was very silly. This year, because of the coldest fall and winter in more than a hundred years, the frost has gone down to six foot. Some have predicted that planting, which would normally start in a couple weeks, will be put off until June. Think about what -that- will do to yields. . .

  32. Barboza has a long history of climate alarmists articles in the L A TImes which are supported by any credible science. But then the L A Times is one of the news media venues which have an absolute ban on not allowing any rational climate letters being published in the paper. Like so many of the climate alarmist media outlets these organizations are so in bed with climate alarmism that all that is allowed in print is climate fear propaganda.

  33. Climate change would have depressed yields, except that the farmers have been using Borlaug’s GMO trick to hide the decline.

  34. bealtine says:
    April 1, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    it’s like arguing with “flat earthers” or maybe fundie xtians (the 6000 year old bunch) no amount of real evidence will convince them otherwise that their belief system is up for discussion…AGW is not the only great myth that’s become mainstream and blindly reported on over and over and again and no amount of evidence will sway the mindless rhetoric…oh well
    ********************************************************************************************************************
    You mean the same “real” evidence that drives CAGW which also drives evolution and age of rocks theory?

  35. “Journalists” are not journalists anymore. They are agenda driven cult followers.

    In fact, they want to be the “messengers” of the green religion, so they do so.

    Facts are the first things to be discarded in such an arrangement.

  36. mark 543 Apr 1 12:34pm quotes the WG II report :

    These studies [of cropping systems] [..] estimate impacts by [..] computing trends in modelled outcomes. Based on these studies, there is medium confidence that climate trends have negatively affected wheat and maize production [..]“.

    They just used the models. They said it themselves. 1984 is 30 years late.

  37. ” Mike Bromley the Kurd says: April 1, 2014 at 11:30 am
    Boy, today has been a deluge of April Foolery. I wish it were actual April Foolery, but unfortunately the internet is clogged with Klimate Kooks all blathering their recited meme verses, in response to the PERFECTLY-timed IPCC release. I feel ill.”

    Fixed it for you. No charge :)
    Happy April Fools day everyone.

  38. “…first victim of facts that don’t agree with claims.”

    You mean the first victim today don’t you?

    There has been an almost endless procession since the day CAGW was proclaimed “settled science”.

  39. Im sure there is lots of money greasing the presses and TV coverage. The newscaster I watched (she’s good) never even grinned when this number 1 headline story about how we will all be cooked by Global Warming and its getting worst after the winter we have had.

  40. re: Mumbles McGuirck says April 1, 2014 at 12:23 pm
    … The Weather Channel … furiously promoting the IPCC presser and all the scare mongering over global warming. Without any sense of irony they then went directly into the blizzard warnings for an ice storm … on March 31st. Hullo??

    TWC: Proven to be 1) impervious to facts; 2) resistant to logic; 3) and now, immune to the irony …

    .

  41. “…rising temperatures are already depressing crop yields…”

    Barboza is deliberately spreading propaganda on this issue just like the media has done on other global-warming issues like increases in extreme weather and accelerating temperatures. None of those things are currently happening, but the average college student is convinced they are because of the persistent lies, I mean messaging, of the main-stream media. Barboza doesn’t want to fact check his reports or he is knowingly lying. Either way, it’s clear that he believes alarmism for the cause is more important than reporting facts.

  42. WUWT says, “Why is it that checking such simple facts are left to bloggers and independent thinkers like Roy Spencer, instead of “professional” journalists like Tony Barboza?”

    Protect Freedom: No Multinational Control of the Internet.

    Dear President Obama and Members of Congress,

    America has kept the Internet free for decades. There is no reason to trust that dictators from Russia and China will protect our freedoms. Maintain American control and protect our online liberty.

    http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/dont-let-dictators-control-internet-keep-web-free

  43. @ Mike Maguire, April 1, 2014 at 1:07 pm: “CO2 has had the exact polar opposite effect on agriculture as stated. Indisputable benefits in the trillions.”

    FYI. Here is what the IPCC WG II report says:

    In addition to effects of changes in climatic conditions, there are clear effects of changes in atmospheric composition on crops. Increase of atmospheric CO2 by over 100 ppm since pre-industrial times has virtually certainly enhanced water use efficiency and yields, especially for C3 crops such as wheat and rice, although these benefits played a minor role in driving overall yield trends (Amthor, 2001; McGrath and Lobell, 2011).

    Emissions of CO2 often are accompanied by ozone (O3) precursors that have driven a rise in tropospheric O3 that harms crop yields (Morgan et al., 2006; Mills et al., 2007; 7.3.2.1.2). Elevated O3 since pre-industrial times has very likely suppressed global production of major crops compared to what they would have been without O3 increases, with estimated losses of roughly 10% for wheat and soybean and 3-5% for maize and rice (Van Dingenen et al., 2009). Impacts are most severe over India and China (Van Dingenen et al., 2009, Avnery et al. 2011), but are also evident for soybean and maize in the United States (Fishman et al., 2010).

    http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap7_FGDall.pdf

  44. What the IPCC report is saying, then, is that yields would have been higher were it not for “warming” and that there are a number of publications which they are relying on for this. Well, looking at the trends on the figures Anthony has included here (thanks to Roy for the work) these trends are pretty stable over the past 60 or so years. That would mean they were expecting an increase above a stable 60 year trend.

    I wonder where these studies were getting their trend increase? Models perhaps?

  45. These buffoons carry on like they are bitches to the cause in some intellectual prison. They are so weak and trapped by their own idiocy will offer the cause a blow job without any inducement at all let alone reflection on what they have become. What pathetic people.

  46. Agricultural production seems to be going up at the same rate as CO2, unlike the temperature of the planet, which seems to be quite independent of CO2 levels. It looks like we could do with more CO2 to increase agricultural production to feed people. It won’t affect the temperature at all.

  47. Lasse Hallström sums this up neatly in the movie Shipping news. In the absence of trailer I quote Robert J. Maxwell:

    ‘Spacey gets a job at the local newspaper. His assignment: write the shipping news, detailing which ships enter and leave port, and throw in any relevant bits of information…His career as journalist progresses, punctuated by the headlines he gradually learns to compose. An older colleague takes him to the shore, tells him to look at the horizon, and describe what he sees. “There are some mountains — and a lot of dark clouds,” ventures Spacey. “Nope: IMMINENT STORM THREATENS VILLAGE,” says his mentor. “But what if it doesn’t come?” Spacey asks. Answer: “DANGEROUS STORM SPARES VILLAGE.”‘

  48. “One of the panel’s most striking new conclusions is that rising temperatures are already depressing crop yields, including those of corn and wheat. In the coming decades, farmers may not be able to grow enough food to meet the demands of the world’s growing population, it warns.”

    These are predictions/forecasts/prophecies that can also be fulfilled by bad government policy and environmental activist attacks on agriculture and water use.

    Not only that, recent history shows that agricultural reforms by authoritarian/collectivist governments in N. Korea, Cuba, Romania, Cambodia, China, Germany and Russia have been the greatest threat to agricultural output and these agricultural reforms are a known method for governments who kill their own citizens.

    Another threat to Ceres are huge banks, such as Goldman Sachs, who trade in “futures” in commodities. These banks do not need to be gaming the worldwide prices of everyday items/necessities such as fruit, grains, and other foods. Commodities futures should not include food items.

    The greatest danger to food supplies is from governments and the model that does not acknowledge that fact is a coverup of mass murderers in the 1900’s.

  49. Never heard of Tony Barboza before. Hector Barbossa would get away with this by stating the professional code to be more like guidelines, not to be taken literally.

  50. where’s the primal scream icon ….. See, the models agree, CO2 is a poisonous pollutant. Even small trace amounts of CO2 ill cause irreversible climate change (i.e. too hot / too cold) with a greater certainty than less than certain. Exceeding 450 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the poles to melt, glaciers to recede, crops to fail because rain will not fall, polar bears will drown. Hmmm did I miss anything. I want to know HOW does the IPCC et al KNOW with 98% certainty that man produced CO2 will do all these things? Where is the proof the connection the clearly verifiable link that elevated amounts of CO2 will cause deserts to overtake farmland, globally? Honestly, this simple question is burning a hole in the IPCC report and causing policy to burn a hole in our collective pockets!

    Slightly off topic I encountered a climate scientist out having drinks at a local establishment I frequent. We got to talking and wow she shut me down when I said the models failed to predict the last 17 yrs of flat lined global temps. First she said the models are spot on then she said there was no pause and then she said she will not speak to me about it, end of discussion. Just thought yall would appreciate that.

  51. There you go again, addressing Climate Reality with scientific facts again. So inappropriate. Climate Reality, as everyone knows, is incontrovertible because it has been tweeted and re-tweeted so often.

  52. FYI. Here is what the IPCC WG II report says:”

    The link with the strongest correlation……………. is the one between increasing CO2 and increasing studies that speculate, postulate, theorize, estimate, model, project and forecast the harm that will occur from human emissions of CO2.

    Somebody should model this correlation and the money that is generated to fund it, along with the non scientific repercussions intended vs the much lower correlation between the conclusions of the research and the authentic empirical data that represents the realm of the real world.

    This paper below, though pertaining to medical studies, hits on some common elements with the widespread false climate science research results we’ve seen the last 2 decades.

    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

  53. That last post was in response to Mark’s, which just provided parts of the IPCC report for me.

  54. Tony Barbozo also redates the beginning of AGW back to the 1800’s. I note, that there’s been a trend in this sleight of hand recently. “The science guy said it too.”

    First, the IPCC is quite clear. In their most recent report, AR5, they repeatedly refer to having confidence of anthropogenic fingerprints on GW and other suspected climate change issues, since 1950.

    From NASA’s Global Climate Change – Consensus Page – http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus, where the summary statements of some 18 favorable to the ACC argument are posted, we find the following statements:

    I note that in introducing this “consensus site of theirs, NASA makes reference to “warming over the past century. ” That would take us back to 1914 – not late 1800’s.

    American Geophysical Union – Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years

    American Meteorological Society – the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced

    The Geological Society of America – global climate has warmed and that human activities . . account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.

    International academies: Joint statement – It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” [recent decades certainly is not since "late 1800's]

    U.S. Global Change Research Program – “The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    Tony Barboza – The Earth has warmed by about 1.5 degrees since the late 1800s because of the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels, industrial activity

    Making it up to fit their agenda as they go.

  55. @ Mike Maguire

    That’s an interesting paper. I will read it. It applies to individual studies not reviews of the literature. But it still looks interesting. Thanks.

  56. Corn you mean Maize. It’s not grown in very cold temperate regions. It originally came from South America, like a lot of our fruit and veggies came from. In PNG, they had gardens that grew not cereal crops but Taro and yams, that gave them what carbohydrates they needed. I have grown corn in my garden but its quicker to buy it from the supermarket.

  57. I watched a documentary last night, and it said that workers in Asia were getting killed by a dangerous snake. There they were walking in thongs and sandals why not protection with gaiters and boots. Wellington boots would also provide protection.

  58. Don’t bother complaining to the L.A. Times. This bastion of free speech no longer accepts letters from “deniers.”

  59. Their loss not ours. They have to take notice of the advertisers and stock holders wishes. You could write a letter to another local paper and point it out their obvious lack of free speech?

  60. Have a look at this:

    “Indeed, the panel calculates that food demand is rising at a pace of 14 per cent per decade. But it estimates that climate change is already reducing wheat yields by 2 per cent each decade – compared with where they would be in the absence of climate change — and corn yields by 1 per cent.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/is-the-world-going-to-run-out-of-food-20140402-35xf5.html#ixzz2xgqjf1cY

    ‘Compared with what they would be’… is not the same as what actually is. These people live in another reality. In other words, models supplant reality,

    ‘what is would be without . ‘

    Surely the worlds scientists are going to start waking up to this nonsense from the IPCC and do something about it.

  61. ‘the panel calculates that food demand is rising at a pace of 14 per cent per decade’

    I wonder if that has anything to do with a rising middle class in Asia?

  62. The shrilly absurd alarmism and doom mongering of AR5 is a good thing. The average Joe Sixpack is going to start to smell a rat. He is not as ignorant as these progressive types think he is.

  63. george e. conant says:
    April 1, 2014 at 3:29 pm

    Slightly off topic I encountered a climate scientist out having drinks at a local establishment I frequent. We got to talking and wow she shut me down when I said the models failed to predict the last 17 yrs of flat lined global temps. First she said the models are spot on then she said there was no pause and then she said she will not speak to me about it, end of discussion. Just thought yall would appreciate that.

    “Who’s in denial now?”

  64. Real cause of pull back in corn production in US:

    U.S. Corn Farmers Cut Back Plantings as Global Competition Grows – WSJ.com

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304157204579473601544650432?KEYWORDS=corn&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304157204579473601544650432.html%3FKEYWORDS%3Dcorn

    After years of planting one massive crop after another, U.S. corn farmers are planning to pull back for the first time since the recession, signaling a new era of uncertainty for the nation’s largest crop.

    Midwest farmers ramped up production in recent years as biofuels boomed at home and demand around the globe soaked up nearly every last kernel. But the rest of the world boosted output too.

    The result is increasingly…

    Did you notice the rest of the world boosted output too?

  65. I was disappointed to discover today that the host of this page is a paid, ($44k Heartland Institute) retired weatherman, not a climate scientist. I thought this was an authentic scientifically based discussion forum, but obviously the commitment here is anti-science:

    Clipped from eco-watch page:

    Except that’s not what the study concludes at all. Rather, Doran and Zimmerman found a 96-97 percent consensus among specialized scientists that took part in the survey who agree that the earth’s temperature is rising and humans are the cause. The end of the paper specifically points out the greater understanding of climate change by scientists who took part in the survey and those without scientific expertise:

    “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

    graph

    Heartland’s other citations aren’t any better. One is Heartland president Joseph Bast‘s “reasonable interpretation” of conclusions he’ll never accept, and the rest comes from a retired TV weatherman named Anthony Watts (who’s not a climate scientist), who runs the climate denier blog WattsUpWithThat. Watts was on Heartland’s payroll last year for a $44,000 project to undermine climate change evidence gathered from weather stations, funded by Heartland’s billionaire “anonymous donor,” Barre Seid

    I feel strongly that we, humans currently alive, should and could be preparing our society for a sustainable and thriving life affirming economic and societal structure, but are unable to proceed when greed and personal interests confuse the community conversation which is necessary to allow positive societal outcomes. Call me naive, but I thought there was an authentic scientific analysis discussion going on here. So sad, really.

  66. A new study in PNAS may also help rebut alarm about climate change and corn. The abstract is available here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/24/1320008111.abstract?sid=6ce3996f-779e-48aa-8acb-175d7b3f8a6e.

    The study is about satellite monitoring of sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) to measure the gross primary production (GPP) of food crops. It shows that the U.S. corn belt in the summer is the most productive region on Earth: “Our SIF-based crop GPP estimates are 50–75% higher than results from state-of-the-art carbon cycle models over, for example, the US Corn Belt and the Indo-Gangetic Plain, implying that current models severely underestimate the role of management.”

    The authors say their study is significant because, “Our results show that chlorophyll fluorescence data can be used as a unique benchmark to improve our global models, thus providing more reliable projections of agricultural productivity and climate impact on crop yields.”

    I suspect the study is also significant because it shows that, despite alarms about climate change depressing corn yields, the U.S. corn belt is the most bio-productive region on Earth!

    PNAS does not seem to have an option to purchase individual articles online. If anyone has a subscription, I would be most grateful to receive a PDF of the full study. My email is marlo.lewis@cei.org.

  67. Sister Michelle says:
    April 2, 2014 at 8:58 am

    I was disappointed to discover today that the host of this page is a paid, ($44k Heartland Institute) retired weatherman, not a climate scientist. I thought this was an authentic scientifically based discussion forum, but obviously the commitment here is anti-science …

    I feel strongly that we, humans currently alive, should and could be preparing our society for a sustainable and thriving life affirming economic and societal structure, but are unable to proceed when greed and personal interests confuse the community conversation which is necessary to allow positive societal outcomes. Call me naive, but I thought there was an authentic scientific analysis discussion going on here. So sad, really.

    Gee.

    So, as you so evidently believe that one can “buy” a scientific opinion or a scientific facts with 44,000.00 in money – that WAS ACTUALLY used to provide specific SCIENTIFIC links FROM government sources FOR the public, not propaganda or political advertisements! – … How much “scientific “data and papers will 200 billion buy? When the government is paying “scientific” so-called researchers and in government-funded universities using government-funded computer labs and government grants to government-funded “scientific” agencies to create results favoring further government taxes and government controls … How much “research” can they buy with their grants, salaries, and NSA-funded overseas meetings?

    Gee.

    When the actual government-measured global temperatures have NOT gone up for 17 years while CO2 has risen steadily the whole time, why do I see scientific results that your religion rejects because those results do not fit your religious zealotry and prejudices?

    You mimic “care” and “concern” in your words, but YOU are requiring the world adopt energy policies of scarcity and high prices and restriction that WILL KILL (that ARE KILLING!) people now. So, 25,000 innocent elderly and poor DIED last year in the UK due to YOUR requirements of high energy so YOU would “feel” good about YOUR religion of CAGW. Feel better for their deaths?

    Worldwide, ALL plants are growing 12 to 23% FASTER, higher, taller, more fruitful and more plentiful.

    Does it irritate you – or please you – that more people are better fed and ARE living BECAUSE of CO2 increases and better transportation and better water and cleaner air and safer/cleaner sewage disposal and better buildings and safer cities?

    When YOU are demanding policies and energy restriction that WILL kill hundreds of millions of people every year for the next 86 years FOR NO RESULT AT ALL on global temperatures, why do I see YOUR demand for the immediate death of billions of innocents but the IMMEDIATE payment of trillions to government “scientists” and government politicians, shall we say, somewhat cynically?

    In the past one hundred 120 years,
    CO2 was steady, and global temperatures rose.
    CO2 was steady, and global temperatures were steady.
    CO2 was steady, and global temperatures fell.
    CO2 rose, and global temperatures were steady.
    CO2 rose, and global temperatures fell.
    CO2 rose, and global temperatures were steady.
    CO2 rose, and global temperatures rose.
    CO2 rose, and global temperatures were steady.

    Now, just what is that religious faith you claim that I and the world MUST follow to prevent global temperature rise? Why should I believe the results of any person whose “research” is bought and paid by the government specifically to produce results that will ONLY benefit that same government that paid for her research?

    There is NO HARM from increased CO2 levels. Why do YOU demand a right to kill people based on YOUR religion?

  68. Sister Michelle says:
    April 2, 2014 at 8:58 am

    I was disappointed to discover today that the host of this page is a paid, ($44k Heartland Institute) . . .

    This claim was refuted in another thread yesterday. See these comments:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/01/claim-nsidc-nasa-say-arctic-melt-season-lengthening-ocean-rapidly-warming/#comment-1603367

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/01/claim-nsidc-nasa-say-arctic-melt-season-lengthening-ocean-rapidly-warming/#comment-1603386

    Similar refutations have been regularly posted on WUWT for years in response to comments like yours. Nevertheless, the sources of those false claims—on which you rely—continue to make them.

    . . . retired weatherman, not a climate scientist. I thought this was an authentic scientifically based discussion forum, but obviously the commitment here is anti-science:

    Watts wasn’t only a weatherman. He was and is also a computer whiz who has made and sold widely accepted advanced electronics products to broadcasters around the country. His IQ, by inference from that, and from the coherence of his comments, is high. It’s not impossible—as you imply—for a smart, technically oriented retiree to get up to speed on climatology if he focuses on it—as he has. From his head posts, it is apparent that he is not out of his league when it comes to reading and interpreting scientific papers.

    Going beyond that, he has already authored one peer-reviewed paper, and he has another one in the works. He’s not an ignoramus opining from a cracker barrel throne.

    The “not a climatologist” argument is double edged. How many climatologists are qualified meteorologists? Some don’t seem to know much about the basics. They mightn’t be able to pass the meteorology exams that Watts has.

    Some of these climatologists had their noses so high in the air that they couldn’t smell the coffee. They were so above it all that they were unaware of or unworried about the decrepit state of the US weather-monitoring network. It was Watt’s hands-on, lower-level focus that brought attention and reform to the situation, via his surface stations project. (I’m reminded of how a mere clockmaker, Harrison, solved the longitude prolem for Brtitish shipping, although the experts derided him as unqualified for not being an astronomer.)

    I presume the source where you made your “discovery” (without reading any of his material or seeking another source of information) didn’t see fit to tell you the rest of the story. That impugns their overall trustworthiness.

    Clipped from eco-watch page:

    Except that’s not what the study concludes at all. Rather, Doran and Zimmerman found a 96-97 percent consensus among specialized scientists that took part in the survey who agree that the earth’s temperature is rising and humans are the cause.

    Not exactly. Not THE cause. It asked (IIRC) only if mankind had “contributed” to the rise in temperatures since the 1700s. It made no mention of greenhouse gasses, so the contribution could have been from land-use changes.

    The end of the paper specifically points out the greater understanding of climate change by scientists who took part in the survey and those without scientific expertise:

    “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

    That statement implies that the 97% were all or mostly physicists and chemists who had published on the “attribution” (climate science) aspect of climate change, not environmentalists and economists who had published on the “impact” and “responses” aspects of climate change.

    I hadn’t realized this was the case. I thought that the only criteria used in the study were that they were the most frequently published authors in the field (over 50 papers, I think) and that they described themselves as specializing in a study of the climate. That would seem to allow in many outspoken and activist-type biologists, environmentalists and economists.

    Regarding two “97%” surveys that warmists more often cite, here is a summary of most of their flaws, by WUWT-commenter Robin Guenier:

    “The flaws in the Doran paper are well known: (A) it used a hopelessly inadequate sample size (79 respondents) and demographic (nearly all from N America) and (B) in any case, most sceptics would agree with both its propositions: (1) that the world has warmed since the 1700s and (2) that mankind contributed. It made no mention of GHG emissions.

    “Anderegg is more sophisticated than the hopeless Doran. But there’s a basic problem: it’s concerned with whether or not respondents agree that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most [i.e. more than 50%] of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century”. The only scientists qualified to evaluate that are those engaged in detection and attribution (both difficult and uncertain). Yet the research was not confined to such scientists.

    “And, in any case, the research itself is flawed. First, the total number of “climate researchers” who accepted the above statement was, according to the paper, 903 and the total that did not was 472. In other words, 66% – not the much-claimed 97%. The researchers got their 97% by restricting their findings to researchers “most actively publishing in the field” – in other words, the paper’s findings do not cover all “climate scientists”. Further, it wasn’t an opinion survey at all, but an analysis of scientists who signed pro/anti statements – not the most useful documents. And, again, it was essentially confined to North America and was not concerned with whether or not the warming was dangerous. For these reasons, it’s valueless as a measure of climate scientists’ opinion about the dangers of AGW.”

    This George Mason poll http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. It did not cherry pick the respondants who gave them the answer they wanted, and it asked more sophisticated questions, below:

    Under its “Major Findings” are these paragraphs:

    “Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
    “Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest [11%] are unsure.
    “Scientists still debate the dangers. A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is NOT “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
    “A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)

    “Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.”

    IOW, 59% doubt the “catastrophic” potential of AGW. I suspect that number would be higher now, after six more flat years.

  69. Maybe he’s just too lazy to check facts like this? Or, is it belief mixed with incompetence?

    The good old Nuremburg defence, “only doing his job” would my guess.

  70. Hi Kevin I agree with your last point. However, it is just a fact that the grading you refer to is very often regarded as and communicated as a lesson observation grade

  71. Sister Michelle? Who do you think is fantasying, sorry financing the global warming and evil CO2 factions, welll? If we didn’t have WUWT and similar thinking blogs, most people wouldn’t have the opportunity to hear the truth of this so called climate change scam. Sorry fellow skeptics this computer is driving me mad, it is so slow!

Comments are closed.