A recent article in Forbes, titled “Climate Change’s Toll On Global Agriculture: A Looming Crisis,” claims that climate change is “wreaking havoc” on cocoa, olive oil, rice, and soybeans. This is false. Certain regions, like those the author Monica Sanders focuses on, are seeing bad seasons for these crops, but it is not indicative of long-term trends at those locations or globally. Thus it cannot be attributed to the modest warming of the past hundred-plus years, and certainly not due to human CO2 emissions.
Sanders claims that important crops “such as cocoa, olive oil, rice, and soybeans are particularly vulnerable, and their declining yields due to climate-induced stressors have far-reaching implications.”
Beginning with cocoa, Sanders focuses on West Africa, which she says “has been hit hard by dry weather conditions exacerbated by El Niño,” and quotes a climate scientist from Ghana who claims that the frequency and intensity of droughts are increasing and it’s making “cocoa cultivation increasingly untenable.”
Agricultural data for the region suggest that this claim is false.
This year and 2023 have seen some reduced cocoa yields, but it is an outlier for the overall trend. If climate change was making cocoa production “untenable” one would not expect the record production to have occurred as recently as 2022. According to the latest data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) covering the last three decades of climate change:
- West African cocoa production has increased 167 percent;
- West African cocoa yields have fluctuated, but overall increased 8 percent. (See figure below)
Climate Realism has gone into greater depth about the alarm surrounding cocoa beans and climate change here, here, and here.
Next, regarding olive oil, we see a similar story, and again, Climate Realism has already debunked these claims here, here, and here. FAO data discussed in those posts show olives set production records 11 times between 1990 and 2022.
Rice is a particularly puzzling crop to become alarmed about. Saunders writes that it is “under threat from climate change,” citing Italy, which produces half of the European Union’s rice, and India.
Italy is an interesting case, their rice production and yield has fallen off significantly since at least 2020, and their last yield record was set in 2017, production record in 2012. Though from the FAO data, production through 2020 was within normal Italian rice seasonal fluctuation ranges. 2022 represented the big drop off due to the year’s drought. (See figure below)
There is no reason to believe the present drought is permanent and there is no long-term trend for increasing droughts in Italy, nor as the Earth has modestly warmed, has Italy displayed a consistent rice crop decline. Rather, rice farmers in Italy are experiencing what farmers around the globe have always experienced, seasonal crop declines and failures tied directly to short-term weather fluctuations. This is a temporary, though for the farmers painful, phenomenon.
As importantly, Saunders fails to acknowledge that part of the reason for the decline in rice has nothing to do with weather but rather reflects a nearly 12 percent decline in the land devoted to growing rice over the past 14 years.
That Sanders claims rice in India is likewise threatened is absurd. Rice production in India has broken records nearly every year since 2015, and since the 1990s has done nothing but trend upwards overall.
Since 1990, Indian rice has:
- Seen production increases of 75 percent;
- Seen yield increased of 61 percent. (See figure below)
Soybeans in both the United States and South America have likewise seen increasing production and yields over the past three decades of climate change, with no indication of stopping. Climate Realism discussed United States soybean production, here, and in South America, FAO data show that the most recent all-time soybean production record was set in 2021, the most recent record for yield was set in 2017. In short, production and yields have increased during the three decades that climate alarmists have claimed to be the warmest period on record.
Since 1990, South American yields have increased 47 percent, production has increased an incredible 424 percent. (See figure below)
Each section of the Forbes article also gives examples of weather resilience strategies which are worthwhile for farmers to undertake whether or not climate change impacting the weather. In any case, overall crop production is increasing across the board with no climate signal visible.
These facts took only a few minutes to verify using publicly available databases, which should be the minimum for good journalism, but apparently for Forbes, pushing the climate change crisis narrative is too important for facts to get in the way.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.




I guess Jerry Brown’s use of Antarctic ice for his high-speed rail money hunt did not work out.
According to the USDA link crop yields are up pretty much across the board in the USA.pick a crop and the yield is up since about 1950. In the case of corn the yield is up over 4 times during that period.
In the 1950, the concentration of CO2 in air was about 310 ppm. This is 0.609 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of air. Presently, the concentration of CO2 in air is 427 ppm. This
is 0.839 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of air. This is an increase of 38% in the amount of CO2. in the air. This increased amount of CO2 has enhanced the growth of the plants. There also has been an increase in the use fertilizers.
Large amounts of natural gas are now used for the production ammonia and nitrates.
Australian rice will decline long term. Not because of any climate change but because the government is forcing the water that would normally be used for the rice to remain in the rivers and be used to dilute the salt in the ocean.
So green dreams are killing the rice in Oz. Next it will be almonds, grapes, citrus.
And still the ocean will be salty. When will it end?
Nut zero?
When people ask why I don’t believe in global warming, I first tell them that I do indeed believe the climate is warming, but I do not believe man is responsible for any more than some immeasurably small portion.
Then I point to reports like this, so easily shown to be lies and fraud, and ask them, Do you trust people who lie this much? If they had truth on their side, and if they really believed in that truth, would they lie so badly and so much?
I don’t have to understand The Science™. I only have to know that melting glaciers show it was warm enough 1000-1500 years ago to grow 300 year old forests in a warmer climate; that olive trees grew higher up mountains than now; that corals have survived hundreds of millions of years, including the asteroid which killed the dinosaurs 67 millions of years ago; that Pacific islands are larger now than they were 10-20-30 years ago; that snow has not disappeared; nor have polar bears and penguins; and a host of other lies.
Forbes. like Bloomberg, is another investor oriented publication whose subscribers hope to make $US trillions in profits off of so-called “climate change” spending.
‘Investors Call for Policy Unleashing $275 Trillion for Net Zero’
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-21/investors-call-for-policy-unleashing-275-trillion-for-net-zero
Since the families in the developing countries don’t have any extra to spend that means about $US 1 million per family in the developed countries to reach so-called Net Zero.
>> across the board with no climate signal visible.
I am not sure, you have to be careful with those things not to neglect other factors, but taken your words at what they say, there was a tremendous “climate signal” in the crop yields over the last 3 decades.
But like I said this needs to be taken with a grain of salt as certainly
changing precipitation patterns,
CO2 fertilization
and better crop breeds
should have impacted farming in the last 3 decades as well. On those time scales the average education level of farmers could have changed or maybe they make smarter decisions after watching the diy-youtube videos is an option now..who knows what other factors are playing a role here..
And as always I advocate to separate global warming from climate change.. these are very different things .. the Forbes article describes (wrongly) climate change related things but tries to imply that manmade global warming is to blame.
Ever since Wyner´s “p-hacking” statement in Mann´s trial (and maybe way before that), it is more and more obvious that the “certainty level of man-made warming attribution” in the press needs to be re-evaluated..
The press is owned by the millionaires and billionaires who hope to get much richer from “climate change” spending.
When I look at an agricultural production chart like the cocoa production chart (flat yields, sharply increasing total production), in every case that I have examined closely – the cause is always the same.
Less ideal land is being put into production!
People always grow crops first on the MOST productive land for that crop. The only exceptions are when governments interfere, or when there is an even more valuable crop that can be grown on that land.
I have no idea of the actual truth behind the large increase in West African cocoa production. But I bet my wild a$$ speculation is certainly a significant factor.
Very nice Linnea. Journalism has become a joke. If journalists don’t see a need to be honest and truthful why should I show any interest in their work. It has gotten to the point where I almost never believe what I hear see or read from the mainstream media. They are bad and getting worse.
Climate change definitely impacts agriculture . . . global warming and increases in atmospheric CO2 over the last 70 or so years have definitely lead to increased “greening” of Earth and, consequently, increases in food production per unit acre being cultivated.
Greenhouse growers like to target CO2 levels of 800–1200 ppm inside their “warm” enclosures to maximize their crop yields. We are currently short of that, at about 420 ppm CO2 average in the atmosphere.
Climate change can not impact anything.
Climate change is a mathematical definition, not a physical function.
The current definition of climate hijacks the original micro climate definition of 30 years average weather in a give location or area.
An average is not a function and can not cause a damned thing.\
Global warming trends can be measured and trend analyzed Global warming, likewise is not a function but a mathematical definition.
It’s all about weather, solar system, the moon, volcanos, etc.
Well, I assert that Earth’s climate that changed from the last glacial period to the current interglacial period had a huge, beneficial impact on flora and fauna (including humans) around the planet.
Please provide the mathematical definition of climate that is needed, in turn, to establish that a change in such is NOT a physical change (i.e., “function”).
Microsoft’s Excel spreadsheet program (and similar programs and coding languages) definitely have an “average” mathematical function that returns a useful value for a defined set of data.
(a) “Average” life expectancy of humans definitely affects the US social security system and insurance premiums, and (b) “average” mpg as displayed on stickers on new cars definitely affects most buyer’s purchase decisions . . . to name just a few things impacted by averages.
Forbes was a much better news source before Malcolm turned it over to his son.
Linnea,
If you have sent material to these authors, have they responded in any ways for us to share and understand better? Geoff S
I have literally starved in the past. No food for weeks. Just stale bread. I also have been very well fed in the past. I will take well fed every time. Thank you to all our farmers. I hope they are immensely successful every crop! God Bless all our farmers.
Agricultural plants are subject to many diseases and insects. It’s not just about the weather.
The population of the hottest continent, Africa, will double by 2050 and they are stating they want to become the bread basket of the world- some climate change!!
hey-ho, even Hilary got in on the act-
“More and more, the world will look to Africa to be its breadbasket, and I hope that when the world looks… it is Africans and African farmers who will profit from becoming the world’s breadbasket,” said Hillary Clinton during her visit to Africa.
https://www.africa-business.com/features/land-in-africa.html
I agree the claims of climate driven crop failure have no merit but I would prefer to see graphs where the y axis starts at 0. By only bracketing the numbers represented by the data it exaggerates substantially the fluctuations which gives an impression of much more variable production that reality.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of the news.
/s
Key factors about soybean production in Brazil:
Canola is an example – the oil seed crop.
Farmers couldn’t just use the combines they had for barley/oats/rye/wheat because they would break too many of the little oil pods.
As Brazil grows much corn and corn-soybean combination works well in Iowa, I’d presume soybean would be a good crop to add to Brazil. But climate is different – it snows in Iowa.
Integration is essential to analysis and prediction.
While I have not dug for data, I happen to know factors to consider:
Good analysts read, talk to people, ….
Can’t find Edit command:
Another thing I noticed along the way is that there have long been connections between Brazil and Japanese persons.
And I believe that Japanese have money to invest.
This with motivation to have better supply of soybean would speed increase in Brazilian production, I predicted.
Key factors about soybean production in Brazil: