Defining Climate Science

A plant physiologist who got caught trying to pass bad data, is described by the press as being “a top climate scientist.”

Top climate change scientist quits USDA, says Trump administration tried to bury his study | TheHill

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Defining Climate Science

  1. Stewart Pid says:

    I remember when this “nutrient” thing first surfaced and at that time it appeared to be a blatant attempt by the alarmists to counteract the positive news of increased plant growth with higher CO2 levels …. ie the greening of the planet. Anyway the chicken littles couldn’t ignore the increased growth of plants so they had to find something about the increased growth that was negative and so they invented the “bigger plants have no nutrients” smear job. Mickey Mann likely did the statistical work for the study.
    The study seems backassward with this student thinking a more robust plant will be able to produce a superior rice kernel …. but what do I know since I am just a dumb geologist ;-)

    • arn says:

      I still wonder how big plants got rid of all the nutrients they had before they became big?

    • Adrian Roman says:

      The same thing happens with irrigations: less nutrients / mass unit, obviously because of the bigger water content. Nobody sane would claim to not use irrigations or to grow crops in desserts, to avoid the ‘bad’ nutrient content due of more water content.

      • mabarnes says:

        Spot on. I actually read the paper, and try as I might could not find any raw data on the ABSOLUTE amount of nutrients (primarily B Vitamins) supposedly “lower” – yes, as a PERCENTAGE of total weight. Almost as if the pesky facts were hidden, eh.

        I’d only add that the additional weight is likely (again, it’s not in the paper) more starch as well as water. Sigh….

      • David A says:

        Additionally the CO2 allowed greater uptake of nutrients. Farmers add nutrients based on soil use-plant growth. If the nutrients are not added, the plant will be nutrient deficient.

        Also there is not a reduction in protein. Total protein increases, just a small drop in concentration. The benefits are real.

  2. Invisible LIKE button pushed!

  3. Bob Hoye says:

    Another “Geo” says the same.
    The climate hucksters can’t stand that increasing atmospheric CO2 is mighty good stuff.

  4. Gator says:

    How is a plant physiologist (biologist) a climate expert? And how is a biologist a plant food denier? Amazing how these charlatans are willing to throw away all of their ethics and their reputation in attempts to further the agendas of their masters.

    • Al Shelton says:

      AND….. Typically it is always someone else’s fault.
      Lewis Ziska must have got 100% on all his tests over the years, because he is never wrong. He never made a mistake. …. right??
      It MUST be somebody else’s fault.

    • arn says:

      Since Greta,Sigourney and Leonardo became climate experts
      anyone is a climate expert who cries “global warming”-
      especially those with a degree in taxpayer money.

  5. McLovin' says:

    I enjoy watching the weather reports on the new. I am an expert.

  6. David of Aussie says:

    Intensive cropping will always remove trace element nutrients from the ground. This is why farmers leaves paddocks fallow, plant legumes in between plantings of seed crops or apply natural or artificial fertilisers.

    Big healthy plants fed by extra CO2 will of course suck this nutrient out of the ground faster then smaller weedier plants and require greater replenishment by fertilisation. It is total crap to suggest that increasing CO2 is causing a depletion of nutrient. It will cause an adjustment to farm management practices but the end result can only be for greater yields from each unit area of farm land.

  7. Dave N says:

    ..and of course if a scientist attempted to release an inaccurate report that downplays the threat of “climate change”, the MSM would be celebrating that “disinformation was stopped in its tracks” (or similar). There would be absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that they were being “censored”.

    The sad irony is that they’re totally incapable of making the distinction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *