“Here we go again. As public interest wanes in the endless parade of climate doom, first global warming, then extreme weather, activists and complicit media have pivoted once more.”
🧠 Claim: Rising CO₂ and warming have helped agriculture—crop yields have surged, so climate change isn’t a problem.
✅ Reality:
• Yes, global crop yields have increased—but not because of CO₂ or warming alone.
• Drivers: Modern crop breeding, synthetic fertilizers, irrigation, and better pest management have masked climate stress.
• Source: Ray et al. (2019, Nature Climate Change) found that global yields of major crops are already being suppressed by climate change, despite tech advances.
• CO₂ fertilization has limits: It’s less effective under drought, heat, nutrient-poor soils, or when pests flourish—all of which are worsening with climate change.
• The IPCC never claimed all of Africa would collapse agriculturally by 2020.
• Ethiopia’s gains came through massive investment in extension services and improved farming practices, not climate benefits.
• Conversely, many climate-sensitive regions (e.g. Sahel in dry years, Southern Africa) are experiencing more volatile yields.
📉 False Premise: “The Models Were Wrong”:
• The IPCC doesn’t “predict” in the way Wielicki implies—it provides scenarios based on emissions and adaptation levels.
• Agricultural forecasts are probabilistic, not deterministic, and IPCC reports have consistently said yields will initially rise in temperate zones but fall in tropical ones—which is what’s happening.
• New Nature studies use improved models that include heat stress thresholds, growing season shifts, and nutrient constraints.
📢 Funding Smear Tactic:
• Wielicki tries to discredit the paper by naming foundations (e.g. Sloan, Carnegie) that fund scientific research.
• Irony: He presents zero evidence of improper influence—just insinuation.
• Contrast this with fossil-fuel-funded think tanks (like CO₂ Coalition) that fund many climate “realist” authors.
• Research funding is transparent, peer-reviewed, and driven by public-interest science—not a secret conspiracy.
🧾 Misrepresents NASA Data:
• Wielicki claims NASA shows CO₂ boosts crops. True—but:
• NASA’s greening data (e.g. Zhu et al., 2016) also notes greening is slowing and may reverse under rising heat, drought, and nutrient limits.
• Greening ≠ food security—it includes invasive weeds and non-edible biomass, and doesn’t capture nutritional declines.
⸻
🔚 Bottom Line:
Wielicki’s argument is a classic “single-variable fallacy”: he credits CO₂ for crop growth while ignoring all other variables and long-term risks. He cherry-picks data, distorts the IPCC, and smears scientists based on who funds the research.
Modern agriculture is thriving in spite of climate change, not because of it—and its future resilience depends on facing reality, not ideology.
Fear porn?
🧠 Claim: Rising CO₂ and warming have helped agriculture—crop yields have surged, so climate change isn’t a problem.
✅ Reality:
• Yes, global crop yields have increased—but not because of CO₂ or warming alone.
• Drivers: Modern crop breeding, synthetic fertilizers, irrigation, and better pest management have masked climate stress.
• Source: Ray et al. (2019, Nature Climate Change) found that global yields of major crops are already being suppressed by climate change, despite tech advances.
• CO₂ fertilization has limits: It’s less effective under drought, heat, nutrient-poor soils, or when pests flourish—all of which are worsening with climate change.
🌍 Cherry-Picking Africa:
• Wielicki cites Ethiopia’s gains—but ignores context:
• The IPCC never claimed all of Africa would collapse agriculturally by 2020.
• Ethiopia’s gains came through massive investment in extension services and improved farming practices, not climate benefits.
• Conversely, many climate-sensitive regions (e.g. Sahel in dry years, Southern Africa) are experiencing more volatile yields.
📉 False Premise: “The Models Were Wrong”:
• The IPCC doesn’t “predict” in the way Wielicki implies—it provides scenarios based on emissions and adaptation levels.
• Agricultural forecasts are probabilistic, not deterministic, and IPCC reports have consistently said yields will initially rise in temperate zones but fall in tropical ones—which is what’s happening.
• New Nature studies use improved models that include heat stress thresholds, growing season shifts, and nutrient constraints.
📢 Funding Smear Tactic:
• Wielicki tries to discredit the paper by naming foundations (e.g. Sloan, Carnegie) that fund scientific research.
• Irony: He presents zero evidence of improper influence—just insinuation.
• Contrast this with fossil-fuel-funded think tanks (like CO₂ Coalition) that fund many climate “realist” authors.
• Research funding is transparent, peer-reviewed, and driven by public-interest science—not a secret conspiracy.
🧾 Misrepresents NASA Data:
• Wielicki claims NASA shows CO₂ boosts crops. True—but:
• NASA’s greening data (e.g. Zhu et al., 2016) also notes greening is slowing and may reverse under rising heat, drought, and nutrient limits.
• Greening ≠ food security—it includes invasive weeds and non-edible biomass, and doesn’t capture nutritional declines.
⸻
🔚 Bottom Line:
Wielicki’s argument is a classic “single-variable fallacy”: he credits CO₂ for crop growth while ignoring all other variables and long-term risks. He cherry-picks data, distorts the IPCC, and smears scientists based on who funds the research.
Modern agriculture is thriving in spite of climate change, not because of it—and its future resilience depends on facing reality, not ideology.