By Paul Homewood

h/t Patsy Lacey

Today’s junk science!

The drastic and unexpected shifts associated with climate change make it harder for harmers to plan productive strategies to yield the most successful harvest.

Topical regions like Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa have been hit the worst, with agricultural growth a third of what it could be.

Chambers and Ariel Ortiz-Bobea, an economist at Cornell University, created a model to calculate productivity both as it is now and where it would be if weather patterns had stayed where they were decades ago.

They found a 21 percent reduction in global agricultural productivity since 1961, the equivalent of losing the last seven years of growth.

The comments section reveals how unimpressed readers are with this pitiful article.

The study, as is normally the case with climate junk science, does not use any real world data, it is all based around a computer model, which naturally depends on what assumptions you factor in.

It goes without saying that actual crop yields have rocketed since 1970. However it is useful to compare global cereal yields with those of South America, which the study claims has been badly affected. Whereas global yields have risen by 203% since 1961, South America’s have gone up by 286%. The latter’s rate of increase since 1990 has been even more marked.

There are all sorts of reasons for increasing yields, and it is simply impossible to single out one solitary factor. But what we do know for certain is that world leaders in the 1970s were extremely concerned about the impact on food production caused by the onset of global cooling after the war: 

Nobody in their right mind would want to return to those days.


April 3, 2021 at 05:27AM