An article posted to the World Economic Forum (WEF) blog on climate claims that climate change is having “unusual effects around the world.” In a short post, not all of the claimed effects can be checked, but the ones for which data is readily available suggest any climate impact is overblown if not entirely non-existent.
The article, “8 unexpected side effects of climate change,” lists several claimed deleterious effects of climate change, but upon further examination, available data easily refutes the claims.
Interestingly, there is a discrepancy between claims made in the article’s summary and the actual claims made in the paper itself.
The summary’s bullet points definitively state that climate change IS “impacting everything from the sex and size of animals to the state of wine and coffee crops,” and “it’s also making flights a lot bumpier and lightning strikes more frequent.” By contrast, the sections of the article related to these claims give no evidence that any of this actually happening. Instead, the WEF hedges its claims, by stating, the effects “could” or “may” be happening or might in the future. In addition, the WEF fails to examine other factors, besides climate change, possibly contributing to the changes it says are occurring, and unscientifically represents a single year’s weather anomaly as if it were representative of a long-term trend.
The WEF says that bearded dragons, native to Australia, are threatened by global warming because of a genetic trait where male embryos can “end up developing as female if incubated in a nest at a temperature of 32°C or higher[.]” This is a concern because “males could become increasingly rare as temperatures keep rising, leaving the entire species at risk of extinction.”
Among the problems with the WEF’s assertion about bearded dragons is that the environment is not a temperature-controlled incubator, and bearded dragons are able to choose where to lay their eggs. Field studies of this exact situation have been done, and while the researchers involved in one particular study, “Evolving thermal thresholds explain the distribution of temperature sex reversal in an Australian dragon lizard,” assert in the abstract that the dragons were particularly susceptible to climate change, their findings failed to actually show this. Instead, their research found that sex reversal is predominantly observed in a certain part of the species’ eastern range, and neither “climatic variables during the inferred incubation period nor geographic population genetic structure explain this disjunct distribution of sex reversal.” The researchers concluded that genetic adaptation can “counteract” the effect of high temperatures on sex reversal.
The science is hardly straightforward on this topic, because life and evolution are complex. Considering the fact that crocodilians and other reptiles that also display temperature induced sex-reversal have survived through long periods of much warmer and much colder average temperatures, it is unlikely that bearded dragons are at existential risk from modern climate change. Indeed, research indicates that ancestors of the bearded dragons themselves originated more than 250 million years ago, and that bearded dragons themselves originated more than 40 million years ago — eras when the planet was warmer than at present
Next, the WEF article claims that the quality and taste of wine is being impacted by climate change, or, at least, could be in the future. This claim is as misguided as it is unverifiable. As Climate Realism has pointed out, here, here, and here, for example, grape production has been rising over the past few decades of modest warming. That localized weather conditions like drought and temperature impact the flavor of wines is well known to wine producers. Vineyards are found in a variety of different climate regions around the globe, and there is no data showing that weather is becoming more unpredictable than in the past. Modest warming over the past hundred-plus years has not destroyed winemaking, but there is evidence that the range of winemaking regions has expanded with warming. This is a benefit.
WEF also claims coffee production is threatened by climate change, citing as proof, the case of Brazilian coffee producers, writing they “have faced substantially lower yields of Arabica beans this year because of frosts and droughts.” The WEF’s worldwide predictions of coffee losses are based on computer modelled growing projects for the next 30 years.Climate Realismhas posted dozens of articles demonstrating computer models are seriously flawed and that, as a result, their projections can’t be trusted. Lest one be concerned about Arabica bean production, data from Statista, shows Arabica bean production has increased by approximately 25 percent since 2005.
Crop production varies from year to year due to localized weather conditions. Farmer have recognized this fact since the agricultural revolution first occurred more than 10,000 years ago. Nothing has changed since then. Brazil’s single year arabica coffee bean decline does not reflect a long-term trend indicative of climate change. In fact, Brazil’s coffee production has been trending upwards during the recent period of modest warming, according to data from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. (See Figure below)
Another assertion that the WEF makes is that air turbulence is getting worse because of climate change. However, as previously explained in Climate Realism here, here, and here, available data refutes this claim. According to a report from the International Civil Aviation Organization, there has been no increase in the accidents or injuries due to turbulence that one would expect if air conditions were worsening. (See figure below)
What the data shows, in fact, is that although air traffic and the number of passengers has increased dramatically, there has been no upward trend in increasing turbulence related accidents over the past 30 years.
While the WEF claim’s “clear air turbulence” is already increasing, the link provided by the WEF to support this claim provides no evidence to support it. Rather than providing real world data as proof for the claim, the study relies on projections from computer model simulations. Whereas the WEF claims that wind shear is stronger in the jet stream due to climate change, other climate research indicates the exact opposite has occurred. In either case, turbulence data shows no growing threat.
The claims made by the WEF, such Alpine mountain goats body size declining, an asserted increase in lightning strike frequency, a possible increase in volcano activity in the future, and “louder frogs,” are either pure speculation, sometimes based on flawed computer model scenarios, or fail to account for possible confounding or contributing factors aside from long-term climate change. WEF using words like “might” “could” and “may,” doesn’t inspire the same level of confidence as saying “data shows,” or “X has been measured.” The evidence suggests that the WEF is ignoring facts in pursuit of an agenda, because hard data fails to confirm any of the WEF’s “unexpected side-effects of climate change.”
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”
There is a market for panic porn.
And we all know how fake porn is.
It is true that Brazilian Arabica coffee yields are down this past year. Why I stocked up on Folger’s Colombian when on sale over the past year. But the yield problem was FROST, not warming. Oopsie.
It is also true that sea turtles, alligators, and crocodiles sex at hatching depends on average nest egg temperature. Hotter means more females. So some years in Florida there will be more females, and in others more males. As these are all long lived reptiles, on average they are all doing fine reproductively.
When ridiculous stuff like what is rebutted here gets posted by alarmists, you know they are scrapping the bottom of the alarm barrel. That is a good thing.
Climate change is the cause of everything. It wasn’t a meteor strike that killed the dinosaurs, it was climate change from the meteor strike. Every major die-off in earth’s history is now attributed to climate change.
Climate change and racism. Those two are the source of all of the world’s problems. Better throw in capitalism, just to be sure. Climate change, racism and capitalism.
It was climate change that gave us the Holocene. 1 mile of ice over Canada was so much better.
I just had a chuckle imagining Truedope under a mile of ice fretting about the eighth warmest May in the past 8 years.
Capitalism causes climate change and racism. So there’s a simple solution…
You forgot RELIGION.
So, pure race isolationism, communist tyranny and an unchanging climate, aren’t causes of the world’s problems?
Just as wrong as the WEF’s pronouncements on practically everything.
If only the barrel had a bottom.
When they’re hot, they’re hot, when they’re not, they’re not.
Did you ever notice that they don’t seem to fret about climate change threatening cod liver oil and kale supply?
It seems obvious that they stay up late thinking what do people like? Climate change is threatening that. What do people fear? Climate change is making that worse.
You are right on, Rud, and the same frost reduced the Argentina wine grape harvest by 40%, and there is nothing funny about that.
“When ridiculous stuff like what is rebutted here gets posted by alarmists, you know they are scrapping the bottom of the alarm barrel.”
In the imaginary Land of Oz, Dorothy and friends dreaded witches, or being eaten by, “Lions and tigers and bears — Oh no!”
In the REAL Oz, they’re only worried about the sex lives of bearded dragons. Is that an improvement?
We live in the land of Oz. It is time to know who the wizards are behind the curtain. Those who can print all they need to corrupt the system.
Does the World Economic Forum serve any useful purpose?
It is useful to those who wish to control us, or they hope so. Beyond that, not so much.
Linnea says the study says might happen but the summary says will happen. Sounds like a good example of the one word hoax. See my
The climate change ,global warming is the greatest hoax ever attempted in world history.
At some time in the future when sanity prevales historians will ponder how this became to be accepted as truth for so many years,by so many governments.
What will it take for people to realize that they are being duped ,that this was never about the climate.
It has always been about control .
Many organizations starting with the United Nations have used the threat of runaway climate change to enforce their form of ideology on to the world .
I will just ask one question and that is .
” How will the world feed 8 billion people and rising without nitrogen fertilizer and without the use of fossil fuel on farms , and also the ridiculous anti animal farming lobby?”
I ask this because those pushing for carbon zero have no idea about how food is grown and how it is shipped around the world .
Those pushing for zero carbon policies have not thought about this.
In fact they are pushing ahead to a much poorer world with food shortages becoming a common occurrence.
Sorry but I do not see how your reply is related to my simple comment.
I do not presume to know what future historians will say, but I do think both the scientific and policy debates over the supposed threat of dangerous climate change are real. The alarmists, as always, own the simple argument. That is their sole advantage.
But the problem is that there isn’t much debate going on. One side refuses to debate the subject.
Odd that ‘net zero’ and plandemic policies aim for the same target: Less people
They have had more than 20 years to brainwash young people into fanatical Climate Jugend and Green Shirts. The Green Wave. We all know how dangerous fanatics are. We indeed have a profound crisis where other opinions are no longer tolerated. I would call that a totalitarian regime. Facts no longer matter.
So far out it reads like satire. Reminds me of …
A Modest Proposal For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick, commonly referred to as A Modest Proposal, is a Juvenalian satirical essay written and published anonymously by Jonathan Swift in 1729.
Just seen a comment about wrangling over the US debt and spending:
“How do you negotiate with those who believe that eating bugs will change the weather?”
Perhaps we need to use a similar tack on the WEF?
Use humor to show how ludicrous their views are.
Please don’t confuse them with the facts, you must get out the way so they can tell the rest of us how to live and what we should do.
Absurd claims are good for laugh. Attempting to discredit nonsense elevates it to a level of inquiry that it does not deserve.
There is one single gem of knowledge that discredits the belief that Earth’s surface temperature is controlled by a dedicate radiation balance:
OPEN OCEAN SURFACE CANNOT SUSTAIN A TEMPERATURE ABOVE 30C.
Once an ocean surface exceeds 30C, convective instability causes persistent cloud that limits surface sunlight so that temperature will not sustain more than 30C. It is the controlled limit. It is the way the atmosphere works and has done since water existed on the surface.
Imagine if climate models were constrained to limit open ocean surface to 30C – any notion of runaway global warming would be dead. Climate models are absurd concoctions bearing no relationship to science or physics.
Unfortunately, Rick, there are impressionable generations whose warped reality just laps up the rubbish that supports their beliefs.
“Imagine if climate models were constrained to limit open ocean surface to 30C – any notion of runaway global warming would be dead.”
Those climate models ought to incorporate this parameter, if they were honest, but, unfortunately, they are not honest. Instead, they have an agenda to promote. CO2-caused Climate Change is not science, it’s power politics.
Or, if RickWill’s theory is wrong- the climate modelers should prove it’s wrong rather than ignore it. Has this theory even been discussed at all by “climate scientists”?
WEF is none too good at economics either.
Except as it profits elitist billionaires.
WEF: “You VIL eat ze bugs!!”
And be happy.
I’ve met a few bearded dragons in my time
They are hired to talk to children, nowadays. !
We could always make our own wine in Yorkshire as we did in 1085 (according to the Doomsday Book)
What really causes wind turbulence…
.. is thousands of wind turbines !
From the article: “This is a concern because “males could become increasingly rare as temperatures keep rising,”
Assuming temperatures will keep rising. An assuption not backed up by any historical facts. An assumption disputed by the actual temperature record.
Won’t the climate alarmists be surprised if the temperatures actually fall instead of rise.
The Earth’s climate warms for a few decades and then cools for a few decades. The climate alarmists started this climate crisis hysteria when the climate was at its coolest in 1980. Since that time, it has warmed to the same magnitude as previous warmings, and going by history, the cool phase of the cycle should be kicking in, but climate alarmists ignore this and claim that there will be no cooling off and that the temperatures will just continue to climb higher.
That’s their claim. Time will tell. But the temperatures have not continued to climb above the highpoint of 2016. Instead, the temperatures have cooled by about 0.5C since that time, even though CO2 continues to increase. The climate alarmist claim of continuous warming isn’t holding up.
What they’re missing is that with fish, as with most terrestrial herbivores, not many males are needed.
The real reason for temperature-dependent sex expression is more likely to be that colder temperatures will support lower populations, so less females are hatched.
Oops, the reference was to lizards, not fish. Not sure about their required M/F ratios, so perhaps it’s an evolutionary hangover.
From the article: “Modest warming over the past hundred-plus years”
Ignores the modest cooling that has also happened over the past hudred-plus years,
The Earth’s climate warms and cools. It doesn’t just warm and warm and warm. That’s a climate alarmist delusion/talking point.
From the article: “WEF using words like “might” “could” and “may,” doesn’t inspire the same level of confidence as saying “data shows,” or “X has been measured.””
“Might”, “could” and “may” should not inspire any confidence at all since it is pure speculation.
Climate alarmists are stuck with using such speculation, assumptions and assertions, because they don’t have any evidence that CO2 is doing any of the things they claim it is doing. So they are reduced to speculation, assumptions and assertions. It’s pathetic and outragious the way climate alarmists bastardize science. “Could”, “May” and “Should” are not definitive science. But it’s all the climate alarmist have.
WEF was never about actual facts.
Their agenda came first, then the inconvenient truths are adjusted to fit the desired narrative.
Is it really that “air turbulence is getting worse because of climate change” ?
We now have enough wind mills of sufficient size to ask the question if it is actually these wind mills causing problems.
It also over time may raise the question as to whether power generating wind mills are, in fact, slowing the rotation of the Earth, killing endangered species .. and other fanciful questions that are ignored.
Weather cycles have always impacted agriculture good and bad. Rename ‘weather cycles’ climate change and instantly you have a threat narrative. It does not matter that renaming is an example of nominative fallacy Changing the name, label or attribution explains nothing.
The goal is to keep mouthing the threat in novel ways so the masses will keep repeating it in social media. The more absurd the greater the re-mouthing. It is the re-mouthing of the re-attribution by the masses in social media that gives it power even if the veracity of the reattribution is absurd or questionable.
Our reality is shaped not be mere facts but by impressions and we are far more impressionable than we were in 1980 with the internet and social media and the intellectual decline in public schools.
My Father’s generation tended to squelch this sort of propaganda with great annoyance because they were trained in logic and rhetoric and were too busy working hard to listen to fools.
Believability of evidence matters for correcting social impressionsJeremy Cone https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5968-6711 email@example.com, Kathryn Flaharty, and Melissa J. FergusonAuthors Info & Affiliations
Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved April 1, 2019 (received for review February 27, 2019)
April 29, 2019
116 (20) 9802-9807
This article is about the battle of truth and impression in social media with the purpose of combating misinformation. The question always arises whose misinformation and who cares. I posted the article not because I like authors or their purpose but it points to the dynamic of truth and impression that I stated above.
The next question is about believability and it’s relationship to novel repetition of reattributions and dubious claims.
AI will learn very quickly how side step believability and how to spit out a ubiquitous and continuous web of implicit impressions of everything in it’s program to shape reality, everywhere without making any truth claims or making them after we have been shaped to believe them.
Are we already pigeons in the skinner box….are we already “Beyond Freedom and Dignity”(Skinner)?
Do we already have examples of this operating in our global media.. I have the impression we do but I don’t trust my impressions.