Down The Rabbit Hole

Another breathless headline : “Climate Change Has Cut Global Agricultural Productivity by 21% Since 1961

Climate Change Has Cut Global Agricultural Productivity by 21% Since 1961

The exact opposite is true. Crop yields across the world, South America and Africa increased dramatically since 1961.

Crop Yields – Our World in Data

Hunger has declined sharply.

Hunger and Undernourishment – Our World in Data

Poverty has declined sharply.

The short history of global living conditions and why it matters that we know it – Our World in Data

Illiteracy has declined sharply.

Global Rise of Education – Our World in Data

Life expectancy has increased sharply.

Life Expectancy – Our World in Data

And as CO2 has risen, deaths from natural disasters have plummeted.

Global natural disaster death rates – Our World in Data

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Down The Rabbit Hole

  1. gregole says:

    These people must live in an alternative universe.

  2. Peter says:

    As often, the headline of the MSM is a complete mismatch with the title and contact of the ‘scientific’ article. The title of the Nature article is

    “Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth”

    The researchers basically say that if there was no manmade climate change, food production growth would have been bigger. The research ‘know’ this because they developed a “robust econometric model of weather effects on global agricultural total factor productivity (TFP) and combine this model with counterfactual climate scenarios to evaluate impacts of past climate trends on TFP”.

    Still a lot of BS. Combine a model with another model, and you get an even worse model. Plus I wonder how they know the weather in the 60’s in places where there was no (accurate) measurement of basic weather conditions (temperature, precipitation, wind) that have an influence on the growth of crops.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01000-1

    • arn says:

      There is no mismatch between such articles and those of science.

      The MSM uses desaster-reports and big headlines for the masses,
      while the science reports are there to keep the educated idiots in line.
      Both do their job perfectly well.

      One is crying Wolf all the time,
      while the other (succefully) pretends to be scientific and objective
      and creates cheap excuses(look,we never were as one sided as the msm,it’s not our fault) for themselves and the pseudo intellectuals.

      It’s the same pattern as with the yellow press
      and NYT/Time etc.

      The yellow press is using sensationalism the hard way,
      while NYT/Time etc pretends to be balanced
      while in fact BOTH groups always push for the same globalist agendas and wars-
      the outcome is the same.
      Both are the two sides of the same coin
      and if scientific magazines etc were so different than MSM they would have started attacking the fake MSM propaganda,the Al Gore movies etc long time ago.
      They know very well what crap is being written by the MSM(as it is impossible to escape the 24/7 propaganda) and they dont say a word because they are accomplices and just as bad.
      They never attacked the ice age scare,they never attacked harmfull charlatans
      like Paul Ehrlich,
      they didnt even touch those scientists who promoted ice age first and then switched to global warming,
      though one of the biggest achievements one can reach be it in sports or science or whatever
      is taking one of the big guys out and therefore proving that you became better them.

      The most dangerous and worst of them is NOT the yellow press ,
      as almost all yellow press readers are aware that the yellow press is sh!t.
      It”s the scientific magazines,the NYT,time etc
      that legitimizes wars and agendas and it is
      their readers that are not aware that they are being fooled and manipulated by a bunch of crap.

      The difference is a bit as between national socialism and communism(
      iternational socialism).
      The first one will create its own enemys and critics as it is pretty obvious to most people and therefore it is hoenest to a certain degree.
      While communism is wrapped into so many good intentions,intellectualism,good doings(all are the same,brothers,sisters yadayada)
      and still has hundred of millions of followers.
      You cant go around and be a proud nazi
      but you can still parade around as a proud communist and kiss your own butt in awe in front of all people if you follow an ideology that killed several times more people
      than nazis and ALWAYS has ended in tyranny-every single time.

    • mddwave says:

      I followed the same path as you.

      The University of Maryland’s link read just like the article referenced by Mr. Heller. Independent thinking is too hard, just copy and paste the prepared message.
      https://agnr.umd.edu/news/umd-collaborates-quantify-how-climate-change-has-slowed-agricultural-productivity-growth

      As you stated, B. S. confirm a model with a model without validation from production data as Mr. Heller simply did!

  3. G W Smith says:

    To the Left their desires are more real than reality, and they will bent truth and ignore facts any way they can to make themselves right, and the Right wrong. This is not about logic and reason, but power and control.

  4. Dan says:

    AGW is out and forgotten, now we have ACC – Wonder why.

    Prof. Ariel Ortiz-Bobea explores links between weather and agricultural productivity
    https://youtu.be/Zm_Le4YKwTM

  5. Peter Carroll says:

    That has to be one of the dumbest articles ever printed. In 1960, the worlds population was just over 3 billion, 3.031 billion to be precise. In 2020 it had risen to 7.8 billion,
    +4.8 billion.
    So, a 160% INCREASE in the worlds population, combined with a world wide DROP, of 21% in agricultural production, DIDN’T, lead to mass famine?

    • Jean-Marc says:

      Never mind the logical my friend!
      The article is written by a site where you see the word science in it so….it has to be true!

  6. arn says:

    That headline uses the same strategy as co2vid and climate change.
    Shameless lying combined with incompetence on one side
    and naive,submissive,intellectually lazy people on the other side
    who don’t even dare to ask questions when they know the authorities lie
    on purpose,because they fear that the truth may overwhelm and hurt them
    or at least make them feel like outcasts within their own group.

  7. Timo, Not That One says:

    I think you should add the atmospheric CO2 concentration to each of these graphs. This would clearly link the relationship between CO2 and the improving human living conditions.

  8. Paul Ilott says:

    Thanks for these graphs. Very useful in combatting the ongoing alarmist narrative pushed by Extinction Rebellion activists and protesters in the UK. Graphs and stats like these are never even considered by mainstream media, whose job you might think would be to occasionally pose the odd awkward question to headline grabbing net zero fundamentalists.

  9. David A Nichols says:

    It’s called “lying through your teeth.” You know, grinning while telling you that agriculture is down 21% when actually it had gone up. But then, if Al Gore, et al, were so worried about CO2 and human-caused global warming, they would move into small, energy efficient houses, sell their jets, quitting flying all over the world to yet another AGW conference, and just video conference. That is, IF they really were concerned about AGW.

  10. Martin says:

    The quoted article is dated 1st April in the header – perhaps thats a clue :)

  11. Robert Rust says:

    So, a 21% drop in agriculture increases world population from 3 billion (1961) to 7.8 billion (2020). Imagine what a 21% increase would have done, we’d be sitting at no less than 200 billion by now. Thank Jesus the sun, thank CO2 for saving modern humanity’s butt, turn up the smokestacks quick, rush laws strictly enforcing 0.001 mpg, gas-guzzling engines, 8 billion is only going to be worse.

  12. David Beemer says:

    I love how you just ripe this study a new one!

Leave a Reply

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