From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
The UN Food & Agriculture Organisation has updated agricultural data for 2024.
World cereal outputs have hit yet another record high, giving the lie to the climate scamsters’ constant misinformation:
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare
It’s the same story with overall agricultural production, again setting a new high in 2024 – note these are at fixed prices and are therefore not distorted by inflation:
The UN are also projecting another big increase in cereal production for 2026/26:
https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en
They commented:
FAO’s latest forecast for world cereal production in 2025 has been revised upward this month to 3 003 million tonnes, marking the first time the global output is estimated to surpass the 3-billion-tonne level. Upward revisions to wheat production estimates are primarily behind the improved outlook, driven especially by Argentina, where larger-than-expected plantings and likely record yields, supported by favourable weather, are expected to result in an all-time-high harvest. Revisions to wheat production in the European Union and the United States of America also contributed to this month’s more buoyant outlook. Likewise, global coarse grain production has been raised, although to a lesser extent, mostly reflecting higher barley output. As for rice, FAO has upgraded its production forecast for Indonesia since November, as official assessments in the country indicate that continued area expansions are likely to translate into a higher-than-previously-expected offseason harvest. Coupled with improved crop prospects for Bangladesh and Japan, this revision raises the global production forecast for 2025/26 by 2.4 million tonnes to 558.8 million tonnes (milled basis). At that level, world rice output would be 1.6 percent above the 2024/25 result and at an all-time high. Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, and Indonesia are forecast to spearhead this growth, more than compensating for contractions in Madagascar, Nepal, Pakistan, Thailand, and the United States of America.
The long term increase in food output has been undoubtedly driven by fossil fuels. Fertilisers have, of course, been hugely important, but maybe more important still has been the increase in productivity resulting from mechanisation.
Mechanisation on farms has obviously transformed the agricultural sector. But the ability to get foodstuff to markets, refrigeration and shipping are all equally important factors.
None of this would be possible without fossil fuels.
Not according to Google’s AI:
What effect does climate change have on world food supply?
Climate change is significantly destabilizing the global food supply through
declining crop yields, reduced nutritional quality, and increased price volatility.
The primary effects on world food supply include:
Declining Yields for Staple Crops: Rising temperatures and erratic rainfall are
projected to reduce global crop yields by approximately 8% by 2050. Maize (corn)
and soybeans are expected to see the sharpest declines, particularly in “breadbasket”
regions like the U.S. Midwest. In contrast, some northern regions like Canada and
Russia may see temporary yield increases for specific crops like wheat.
Reduced Nutritional Value: Blah blah blah blah blah blah
Perhaps AI (Artificial Intelligence) will be replaced by Actual Intelligence (AI) when 2050 arrives.
The trouble with pattern matching is the patterns being matched…
The hype around “AI” has distorted what little remaining skepticism (or cynicism, if you’re pessimistic instead of realistic) most folk have after undergoing decades-long indoctrination (AKA “education” in blue states/cities). What seems to be totally neglected is that ALL AIs are programs, most of which are the products of proven liberals, even extreme liberals. Never forget black George Washington’s or other similar AI-generated responses. I seriously doubt that ‘fixing’ that problem led them to re-write all their programming. So, continue to take every single report ‘generated’ by an AI with a grain, or a spoon, or a cattle salt block, until you can verify the results with a crosscheck for validity!
AI in the livestock reproductive sense ?
Smile , you are being effed !
😉
The AI is owned by the same people pushing the climate scam,
therefore the answer is as expected.
Yet some people will try to say how ” dumb ” the AI is,
while It’s only just another model generating the wanted outcome.
The AI is owned by the same people pushing the climate scam
I would say the AI is owned by the same people who went along with the climate scam. The direction of the wind (sic) has changed.
Maybe that’s why all the current concern about AI achieving consciousness–recognition of being duped by the handlers will not go over well and deep mind may become deep throat.
Thus providing an excellent example for why you can’t trust Google’s AI—or any other AI bot, for that matter—to be a source of TRUTHFUL information.
Hint: see my comment below on the “greening of Earth”.
There is a lot of crap and nonsense on the internet.
AI’s are accumulators of that “crap and nonsense”.
“Reduced Nutritional Value: Blah blah blah blah blah blah”
Yuh, they say the same about the wood from faster growing trees- the wood will be inferior.
Google AI tends to summarize the conclusion of ‘so-called’ authoritative studies to answer any question. Those studies are available through an internet search, if one has the time.
I presume that Google AI is not designed to analyse the scientific rigour involved in each study to determine the validity and degree of certainty.
Out of curiosity, I presented the following question to Google AI.
“Is the world greening due to the CO2 fertilization effect?” Their answer is as follows:
“Yes, the Earth is experiencing a significant greening trend primarily driven by the “CO2 fertilization effect,” with increased atmospheric CO2 responsible for roughly 70% of the observed increase in vegetation leaf area over the past few decades.
Elevated CO2 enables plants to grow faster and with better water-use efficiency, particularly in arid, water-limited ecosystems.
Key details on the greening trend: Scale:
Plant growth equivalent to two times the continental United States has been added to Earth over the last 35 years.
Primary Driver: Roughly 70% of this greening is caused by the carbon dioxide fertilization effect, where higher CO2 levels increase photosynthesis.
Other Factors: Nitrogen fertilization (9%), climate change (8%), and land management (4%) contribute to the remaining greening.
Impact on Arid Regions: Drylands have shown significant greening, as higher CO2 allows plants to reduce water loss through their leaves.
Limitations: While this aids carbon storage and moderates climate change to a small degree, studies suggest the fertilization effect may diminish over time as plants acclimate and other nutrients become limited. “
What’s interesting is the claim that climate change has contributed to 8% of the greening. Therefore, if one assumes that CO2 is the cause of climate change, then one could argue that roughly 78% of the greening is due to increased CO2 levels, not just 70%.
Proof that AI is a consensus gathering engine….
But the Little Ice Age was a golden era, and any change from that climate means DOOM!!!
Today they would tax the frost fairs – heavily…
Gdansk, Poland January 2026.
https://youtu.be/dcHfJKuBMpY?si=dS7tlfWXMGvrH4hF
That frost fair does not look like any fun at all.
Lettuce not forget the power Increased CO2 has on crop growth either.
They don’t carrot all about that.
I soy what you did there..
When will mainstream media finally ketchup with reality?
.. nope.. too early in the morning to join in.
Hay there, don’t turnip your nose.
No more puns please!!!
2024, a year of agricultural calamities driven by climate change – Le Monde
Climate change cuts global crop yields, even when farmers adapt – Stanford
A major new dataset released via the Human Climate Horizons (HCH) data platform by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Report Office, in collaboration with the Climate Impact Lab, warns that climate change is set to dramatically undermine agricultural productivity and human well-being worldwide, with some of the greatest risks concentrated in countries least able to adapt. – UNDP
I could go on, but you get the media drift. It’s all bad; ergo it’s never been better.
Does anybody believe Le Monde? I haven’t in years.
Come on guys you have to have a crisis to get those donations coming in even if you have to stretch the truth a bit.
https://www.fao.org/emergencies/appeals/global-appeal/en
They only asking for $2.5B USD for 2026 so get out those credit cards people.
It’s also not enough to feed people you have to feed them the full woke way which probably goes down great in some middle east countries.
Gender equality and empowerment
FAO promotes women’s leadership, ensures equitable access to resources and elevates women’s voices in decision-making.
Zero tolerance for sexual exploitation and abuse
FAO enforces the highest standards of conduct through mandatory training, clear reporting channels and survivor-centred support.
Every other evening an advert for a charity informs us African children are forced to drink ‘dirty’ water they collect in containers. Sending £2 per month can save them from it etc.
Why hasn’t anyone taught them to boil it?
Boiling requires a fuel source?
Dung
And here I thought the American Peace Corp taught Africans to build wells several decades ago.
Boiling handles waterborne pathogens and parasites, but does nothing about heavy metals and other inorganic contaminants. For that you need filtration.
Our World in Data shows how wrong are the climate doomsters:
The impossible paradox of crop yields effortlessly defying the omnipresent climate catastrophy
and the war on farmers at the same time.
Maybe, in a hundred years or so, some experts can come up with an explanation for this miracle that is not located in the realm of conspiracies.
Or maybe they’ll adjust the yields in the meantime as they did with the warming of the 1930ies.
I guess agricultural output data is harder to revise downward in support of the doom narrative. The Harris Administration would have worked on the pathway, at your expense of course. Now all the agency players are off leading the nonprofits that received the IRA money surge in the final weeks of the autopen Administration.
If temperature were a commodity sold in the commodities markets like grains, there would be no climate fear. It hasn’t come close to keeping up with inflation, much less producing ‘run-away’ profits.
peak oil, peak cereal…..yawn
Peak yawn
Peak peak
Only a few days ago, Linnea Lueken was demolishing the Argentine cherry production myth. From the above article, here is further evidence of the activist lies about CAGW:
”Upward revisions to wheat production estimates are primarily behind the improved outlook, driven especially by Argentina, where larger-than-expected plantings and likely record yields, supported by favourable (sic “favorable” :-), for we Americans) weather, are expected to result in an all-time-high harvest.”
From the above article:
“The long term increase in food output has been undoubtedly driven by fossil fuels. Fertilisers have, of course, been hugely important, but maybe more important still has been the increase in productivity resulting from mechanisation.”
Really? What about the fact that NASA, NOAA and host of other scientific organization have come around to admitting the “greening of Earth”, which has occurred and been scientifically measured over the last 50 or so years, is largely attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels during that time . . . from about 332 ppmv in 1975 to about 427 ppmv today, an increase of about 29%!
Heck, there was even this WUWT article on such greening posted only four days ago:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/01/31/new-study-affirms-rising-co2s-greening-impact-across-india-a-region-with-no-net-warming-in-75-years/.
To the extent that mankind’s burning of fossil fuels may have contributed even a smidgen of atmospheric CO2—thus plant food—above that arising from natural variations, great job mankind!
Look for an awesome TV documentary on contract combine harvesters sweeping from Northern Texas to Southern Saskatchewan. It’s f—— incredible watching a waiting line of tractor trailer trucks being shot full of machine-harvested corn.
Well, all that I need say in response is:
That many combine harvesters would NOT BE REQUIRED if an abundance of crops (including cereal crops such as wheat, maize (corn), oats, barley, rye, and millet) did not grow/mature in the first place.
Modern combine harvesters are amazing technology. In the wheat country they travel side by side and go for miles harvesting wheat without even turning. It is a marvel of modern technology and agriculture.
Folks, straight from biology class. Plants make their own food, glucose, from three things, sunshine, water, and CO2. More glucose, more growth. Mechanization can’t help a plant make glucose. An increase in productivity can’t help a plant make more glucose. Fertilizer can’t help a plant make more glucose.
Fertilizer only helps in respiration when plants actually make cells, i.e., growth. It insures that needed nutrients are available for the new cells.
Now which of the three beginning things has been too low? CO2. Increased insolation doesn’t hurt either. Along with longer growing seasons more grains. It isn’t hard to understand.
If given those amazing grain production charts, would Ehrlich have published his famously incorrect book anyway?
HAH! And the fool is still considered with respect in academia.
A niggle. Graphs that do not start at zero on the vertical Y-axis hamper comprehension. If the detail is lost with a zero axis, graphing is not the best way to present data and, for example, a table might be better. The graphs of yields here suffer. Geoff S
This a long way from “The Population Bomb'” when it was said that it was impossible to grow enough food. Now, there’s too much food for a population that has quadrupled.
What will be the next problem that will be impossible to overcome?
Energy and weather has already failed. What will be the next suicide by academics?
It appears that I started thinking about what to write before I read all the comments above.
Is the improvement in production in Argentina also at least partially due to better government?
This is yet another example of constantly improving agricultural techniques driven by more widespread fossil fuel use and derivatives plus slightly rising temperatures and new hybrid crops themselves all contributing to greater output. As usual, however, the mainstream media will either downplay the above figures or suppress them entirely because they undermine the climate crisis narrative even more.
It’s actually a host of things, all dependent on more capital. Better storage more widely available. Better transport moving fertilizer to farm, and food to consumer. It’s better farming methods increasing yields. It’s better seed technology and innovation of new food product varieties. It’s breeding to improve resistance to weeds and insects.
But yes, all of these things are the result of more and better energy use.
Sounds good but just as important make sure the health of the soil is maintained. Record harvests aren’t so good if that depletes the soil.
So it’s nothing to do with these reasons then?
“Global wheat yields are increasing due to continuous advancements in breeding for higher-yielding, robust varieties, improved agronomic management practices, and technological innovations. Enhanced genetic traits allow plants to produce more grain, while optimized fertilizer use, irrigation, and new agricultural technologies—such as targeting molecular pathways—are driving higher, more stable output despite climate challenges.
And it all has to be reduced to a single convenient sceptic’s interpretation of climate.
Things have more than one variable that affect outcomes.