Cool! Hey I wonder why potato is rarely included in these. At some 400 MT, it is a far more important source of calories than Sorghum or Millet, though not a cereal.
Cool. Also water content is higher in potato than grains, I think we must divide by 2 or possibly 3 to get actual calories. But still an important crop.
i would love to see the productivity rather than just the size of the harvest. the thought leapt out at me when i saw the chart for Palm oil. common knowledge (i.e. I'm not going to look up sources at this point) say that the increase in palm oil production comes at the cost of hectares of primary rainforest. there's nothing good in that and it would useful to see if there is any increase in the production per hectare and whether that increase plays out in the same way across this whole dataset.
Not for palm oil though, and tropical rainforest is still being clearfelled. We are losing the real option value we would have from retaining tropical forest.
Not so in the UK. For example, Church Field gave 95 bales last year, 25 this year. The price of feed is very high, and one farmer is taking about having to slaughter cows. Climate Chaos has caused huge problems that will be felt for a long while.
When debating climate and food, dairy does tend to get forgotten (at least by me). It’s impact is supposed to be around the same level as pork, and a fifth of the impact that beef cattle have.
Are we maintaining/growing output? I can’t imagine that plant-based substitutes are having a massive effect.
Plant based totally is having now recognized impacts as well. Animal fats are now said to be protective of the vagus nerve system though I haven't researched any study confirming that.
some studies have estimated that climate change since the 1960s has already reduced global agricultural productivity by a significant amount (e.g., a 21% reduction according to one Cornell University study), effectively "wiping out" years of technological improvements.
Conclusion
The data from the scientific community is clear: while rising CO2 levels do have a positive fertilization effect on certain crops, it is a secondary contributor to the massive increase in global crop yields since 1960. The primary driver has been the Green Revolution, fueled by breakthroughs in breeding, fertilizer use, irrigation, and other technological and management innovations. The positive CO2 effect is also being increasingly challenged and even outweighed by the negative impacts of climate change on agriculture, such as heat stress and extreme weather.
On the other hand a large fraction of the maize crop is being used to make biofuel.
Another "green" initiative that is causing massive soil erosion and buildup of pesticides and toxins, and killing rivers and coastal waters with excess nitrogen.
George W. Bush Administration. That would be ah of course, a Republican. It was a bipartisan bill though, but one must ask "Was it acceptable to the wider environmentalist community as a viable solution?"
No, the original RFS and its subsequent expansion were ultimately rejected by most major environmental groups as a viable, long-term climate solution.
So labelling that initiative as "green" is more than a little off base.
Bush used the RFS to pretend he was solving climate change after failing to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
PS: I have no time for either political party, they are both obviously captured by corporate interests it's a wonder the country still functions at all.
In the UK, we tend to use wheat for biofuels. Much of that is used to power vehicles.
The same land used for photovoltaics would provide 40 to 70 times as much mileage for vehicles, with no build up of pesticides and toxins and a significant improvement in biodiversity.
Alex : One guy I worked with at Stoke-on-Trent used to collect the USED oil from his local "fish and chip" shops , filter it and clean it up [ get rid of the particles and the water ] and use it in his car ! He made us all feel hungry as he drove off leaving behind the enticing odour of freshly prepared "fish and chips" !
As there is a FUEL TAX in the UK on 'all fuels' including BIO-FUELS , he would have to calculate the volumes used and remit the appropriate tax each month !
Coming from the UK I would say the current generation of farmers is the first to really worry about soil quality. You cannot get long term improvement in productivity if your soils are being degraded; the evidence is that we do have long term improvement in productivity, which can only mean that soil quality is being maintained or improved. As so often in farming, political theory says one thing but practice shows the opposite.
I just couldn't let this one pass "the current generation of farmers is the first to really worry about soil quality". It's as though history isn't a thing in your world. The best resource I can offer you right now is this.
But the whole of the above article shows that the studies you refer to are wrong. Maybe in some regions, and under some production methods, climate change has reduced productivity. In theory wheat yields per acre should be falling. Experience shows that they are not. Either the theory is right, but the losses have been offset by incredibly successful levels of innovation, or else we should reassess those predictions of falling production.
What an absolute shocker that we see increasing crop yields at a time of milder, warmer weather, in combination with an increase in airborne plant food!
The greater threat is from soil degradation, not an increase in Co² and conditions being a bit warmer. Plus, in the UK, eco zealots in government with little to no understanding of agriculture actually legislate to prevent farmers from keeping the soil in good condition by the restrictions placed on spreading muck. Often referred to by the term "putting heart in the land"
There appears to be a generalised attack on farming across the West, so when the famine comes, it will be owing to government delusion and incompetence and not an increase in Co² with some general warming. In fact, the warming and the extra Co² will help to mitigate the disastrous agricultural policies of the UK government.
and why is it that you don't take the time to simply do some research on your own beliefs, ideas, and statements, BEFORE posting them?
Oh wait, this is rhetorical bias playing out before our very eyes.
As an exercise, try putting your post through an AI to assess the bias. That is if you somehow believe what you're saying is actually true.
You missed a really critical aspect of your "farming is under threat" claims.
In the relatively water-rich UK, agriculture is facing both immediate water stress and long-term supply challenges. The "milder, warmer weather" narrative completely ignores these realities that UK farmers are already dealing with. Put simply:
More intense winter rainfall (flooding) but drier summers when crops actually need water
Rain falling as heavy downpours rather than steady, absorbable amounts.
Can I refer you to a response I made to another climate alarmist on the SS, it will save me the time to rewrite for you, as I doubt you will bother to read and absorbe. Plus, your understanding of farming is a bit one-dimensional and makes the assumption that any changes in rain patterns is only attributable to an increase in Co²!
“The saturation argument… not accurate/oversimplification although there is a grain of physics in it.”
The saturation argument isn’t just a “grain of physics”—it’s rooted in hard data. The Schwarzschild equation, as graphed, shows CO2’s warming effect diminishes logarithmically at ~420 ppmv, with ~85% saturation already reached. Doubling to 840 ppmv adds a negligible ~1% warming, per Happer and Lindzen’s analysis. You claim it’s an oversimplification, but where’s the lab experiment proving CO2’s back-radiative effect drives significant warming? No such test exists, as noted in the sources. The physics is clear: CO2’s thermal conductivity is half that of nitrogen or oxygen, so a 0.03% change in atmospheric conductivity is within measurement error—hardly catastrophic. If you’ve got evidence showing otherwise, produce it. Science demands proof, not assumptions.
“Problem of making consistent model… scientific method can do it, while side trying to neglect the evidence cannot.”
Consistent models? The IPCC’s radiative forcing models, cited in Ref. [27], assume “radiative equilibrium” but consistently overpredict warming, as Happer’s table of model failures versus observed data demonstrates. That’s not science—it’s speculation dressed up as fact. The scientific method requires falsifiable predictions, yet climate models fail this test. Meanwhile, Milankovitch cycles, evident in EPICA Dome C ice core data, explain historical climate shifts far better than CO2. My side isn’t neglecting evidence; we’re questioning unproven claims. Science isn’t a popularity contest—geocentric models held sway for centuries until evidence overturned them. Show me a model that matches reality without cherry-picking, and I’ll listen.
“Don’t like talking about abstract—prefer solid examples.”
You want solid examples? Here they are. The 33°C greenhouse effect (80% water vapour, 20% CO2) is a theoretical construct, not a measured phenomenon. Lab tests show no “superinsulation” from CO2, as claimed in the sources—unlike a real greenhouse, where glass traps heat. NOAA’s South Pole ice records show natural variability, not CO2-driven meltdown. On the flip side, experiments like FACE show 800-1200 ppm CO2 boosts crop yields by 20-40%. Why obsess over abstract warming risks when tangible agricultural gains are clear? If warming’s so dire, explain why the Medieval Warm Period saw thriving agriculture, while the Little Ice Age brought starvation.
“You say CO2… cannot influence significantly climate… how important that and future increase is for agriculture.”
You’re misrepresenting my stance, but I’ll clarify. CO2’s climate impact is minimal at current levels—doubling to 840 ppmv adds ~1% warming, per the Schwarzschild data. Yet its agricultural benefits are undeniable: greenhouse growers use 800-1200 ppm because it drives plant growth, backed by studies showing significant yield increases. You can’t claim CO2’s a climate villain while ignoring its role as plant food. If it’s so dangerous, where’s the data linking CO2 to specific weather events like hurricanes? NOAA records show no clear trend. Science demands evidence, not contradictions.
“Sticking to scientific method, with proper dose of skepticism (not cynicism) is the best way…”
Absolutely agree—scepticism is key, but it cuts both ways. The scientific method exposes alarmist claims as flimsy. The “97% consensus” is a political term, not a scientific one, as your sources note—countless historical “truths” (e.g., the flat Earth theory) were once “consensus” but fell apart. You rely on models and experiments, but where’s the reproducible proof of CO2-driven catastrophe? Happer and Lindzen show models fail against real-world data. Meanwhile, Montford’s “Costing the Green Grid” PDF highlights the astronomical costs of net zero—trillions for negligible impact. Why impoverish ourselves when CO2’s benefits are measurable and its climate role is dubious?
Addressing Your Broader Questions
Your alarmist narrative sidesteps critical questions. Is warming negative? No evidence proves it’s universally harmful—some regions benefit. Can we mitigate better than net zero? Practical measures like flood defences or forest management are cheaper and more effective than emission cuts. Is CO2 the main driver? Natural cycles have driven climate for millennia. Why dismiss CO2’s agricultural upside? Shifting emissions to other countries just enriches them while we pay the price. What’s the ideal temperature? No one knows, and controlling it to a hundredth of a degree is a fantasy. Science demands we question these gaps, not bow to “experts.”
And finally
They claim UK agriculture is "facing both immediate water stress and long-term supply challenges" as if this is a settled fact tied straight to climate change. But this is an overreach—it's an assumption based on cherry-picked trends, ignoring that weather variability has always been part of the UK's climate. Attribution studies show we can estimate how much more likely certain events are under warming, but we can't say with certainty that today's stresses are caused by it. For instance, while models suggest a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture (potentially leading to heavier rain), the signal for "long-term supply challenges" is drowned out by natural variability like the North Atlantic Oscillation.
Bias alert: This phrasing implies inevitability, shutting down debate. It's rhetorical sleight-of-hand—why not say "potential risks" instead of "facing these realities"?
I'm not even going to provide a summary. Read it or not. I care little whether you are able to at this point.
It's incredible that you might honestly think that someone of my calibre would be fooled for a moment by your outrageously out-of-date information. I didn't even need to look up many of them to know they were invalid.
In summary virtually every major scientific claim in the post is either a misrepresentation of the current scientific literature or a long-debunked argument that has been repeatedly addressed in peer-reviewed journals.
Do you even internet?
Try this: Paste your post into any AI and ask honestly whether any of it is still valid or has not been debunked.
I'm not even going to wait for you to realise your mistakes.
This is really sad to see. Supposedly intelligent humans, still stuck in the 90s.
Truth is I don't often spend time trolling morons like you two.
Still the challenge of facing reality lays right there before you.
I double dare you to try that AI question and maybe learn a thing or two about the misinformation you've bought hook line and sinker.
As a follow up, consider learning about how climate denial arises as a perfectly understandable fear reaction and how you can overcome that.
So, I'm done here. It's been kinda fun watching you twist and turn like cockroaches with the lights turned on.
The Sun’s Heat: How Mainstream Climate Models Get It Wrong
Mainstream climate science tells us Earth would be a chilly -18°C without the greenhouse effect, warmed to a comfy 15°C by gases like CO₂ trapping heat. But what if this story hinges on a flawed assumption—one that drastically underestimates the Sun’s raw power? A compelling critique reveals that the models underpinning this narrative rely on a bizarre simplification: treating Earth as a flat disk when calculating solar heat input. This misstep leads to a cascade of errors, inflating the role of greenhouse gases and sidelining the Sun’s true potential.
The standard model, often called the spherical Earth blackbody (SEBB) approach, assumes Earth absorbs sunlight as if it were a flat disk facing the Sun, with an area of πR² (a quarter of its spherical surface). The incoming solar energy, about 1366 watts per square metre (W/m²), is then diluted across Earth’s entire surface (4πR²), yielding an average of ~240 W/m² after accounting for albedo (reflectivity). Plug this into the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and you get an effective temperature of -18°C (255 K)—the supposed “background heat” without an atmosphere. To reach the observed 15°C (288 K), climate science invokes a +33°C “greenhouse effect,” driven by gases absorbing infrared radiation.
But here’s the rub: Earth isn’t a flat disk. It’s a sphere, absorbing sunlight across its illuminated hemisphere, not a two-dimensional plane. This flat Earth assumption artificially spreads solar energy too thinly, as if Earth were twice as far from the Sun. A proper spherical model, accounting for absorption over the hemisphere, yields a far higher baseline temperature—closer to 0°C or even higher. Suddenly, the +33°C gap shrinks, and the need for a dramatic greenhouse effect diminishes. The Sun’s heat, properly calculated, is far more potent than mainstream models admit.
Consider the Sun’s maximum potential. At the subsolar point—where sunlight hits directly—a surface in vacuum with no albedo could reach ~121°C (394 K). This isn’t a fantasy; it’s basic radiative physics. The atmosphere, far from “trapping” heat to warm Earth, actually cools it through convection, moving ~70 W/m² of energy via air and water vapour, dwarfing radiative effects. Yet, mainstream models cling to the flat disk, underestimating solar input and overhyping CO₂’s role. Why? Because early models, like those from the 1960s, baked in this assumption and tuned convection to match observed temperatures, not because experiments proved it.
Direct evidence backs this critique. Since John Tyndall’s 1859 experiments, we’ve known gases like CO₂ absorb infrared radiation in labs. But scaling this to Earth’s complex atmosphere—where convection dominates and lapse rates align with dry adiabats—lacks a definitive experiment. Atmospheric measurements, like those from NASA’s AIRS satellite, show CO₂’s radiative signature, but they don’t prove it drives net warming over convective cooling. The greenhouse effect’s +33°C is less a physical fact and more a modelling artefact, propped up by a flat Earth miscalculation.
Mainstream climate science’s failure to grapple with the Sun’s full power distorts our understanding. By correcting the geometry to a spherical Earth, we see the Sun can account for much of Earth’s warmth without invoking a bloated greenhouse effect. Convection, not radiation, does the heavy lifting. It’s time to rethink the models and demand experiments that test radiative forcing in the real atmosphere, not just in equations!
I think this is a much more plausible explanation for heat variations on Earth over time and the subsequent effect on the climate that an increase in a trace gas that is not even the most effective at absorbing radiant heat. But it is difficult for you to accept this while the high-status opinion you crave acceptance from is ignorant of this basic understanding and thus keeps parroting "Co² is causing Climate Change" regardless of how mad that sounds.
Oh, and your confidence in AI is misplaced and demonstrates your lack of understanding of how LLM work! But hey ho, I am sure there is someone out there to validate your flawed understanding and whose authority you can appeal to! After all, you have managed to convince yourself that a trace gas is responsible for "Climate Change"! Even though we have had periods of much higher concentrations of Co² when the temperatures were lower than today! How would you square that if if Co² is the sole driver of current Climate Change?
The use of this term indicates you are not a serious person or someone to be taken seriously. But it amuses me to try to educate you and get you to wake up. Can you point to a time when the climate was static?
Your response is yet further confirmation that you don't have an argument of your own and have instead contracted the process out to someone you think is more intelligent than yourself and who you consider to be an infallible "Expert". On the other hand, I don't need to refer to AI or look for affirmation by an appeal to authority argument.
I am left bemused by your claim of bias and fail to see why you place so much relevance on this as though facts care about bias!
Given you are keen on AI, run my argument through AI and get it to tell you where it is wrong! But be careful, as you might be shocked!
But do come back to me, though I already know you can't.
======
The Myth of CO2 Radiative Forcing: Unproven and Overstated
The claim that CO2 drives catastrophic global warming through radiative forcing—the mechanism by which it traps heat in the atmosphere—has become a cornerstone of climate science. Yet, a critical examination reveals this idea lacks experimental proof and is riddled with inaccuracies. Here’s why the CO2 forcing narrative doesn’t hold up.
First, the greenhouse effect, the foundation of CO2 forcing, has never been experimentally validated. The analogy comes from greenhouses, which warm by blocking convection, not trapping radiation as claimed for CO2. No laboratory or real-world experiment has isolated CO2’s radiative impact on global temperatures, leaving the theory as an unproven hypothesis.
Second, climate models exaggerate CO2’s role through flawed assumptions. These models, rooted in early work from the 1960s and 1980s, assume the greenhouse effect without evidence, treating convection as secondary to an unverified radiative forcing. The IPCC’s reports further this by reversing causality, presuming CO2 drives warming without direct proof. This circular logic inflates predictions of CO2’s impact.
Third, natural feedbacks like cloud formation counteract any CO2-driven warming. Warmer temperatures increase evaporation, forming clouds that reflect sunlight and cool the planet—a natural thermostat. Models struggle to account for clouds and assume constant albedo (Earth’s reflectivity), yet a documented albedo decrease over the past 30 years, allowing more solar absorption, could explain observed warming without CO2.
Fourth, historical data show no clear link between CO2 and climate impacts. The 1930s–1940s saw intense heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires—often worse than today—despite lower CO2 levels. This points to natural variability, not CO2, as the primary driver of climate trends.
Finally, alternative explanations, such as atmospheric pressure and density, better account for temperature variations. These models suggest CO2’s effect is negligible, overshadowed by natural processes. The CO2 forcing narrative, amplified by media and groupthink, lacks the rigorous evidence to be called settled science.
In short, CO2 radiative forcing remains an untested, overstated claim. Climate science must prioritise empirical validation over model-driven assumptions to uncover the true drivers of our planet’s climate.
Your education is your responsibility. I can only give you the evidence.
Here we go. I have a little time before going to have some actual fun in real life with good people.
-----
The post is strongly and explicitly biased against the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change.
Stance: Its core bias is to reject the significant role of CO2 as a climate driver (a position known as climate change denial or scepticism).
Framing: It uses dismissive and provocative language ("Myth," "overstated," "flawed assumptions," "circular logic," "groupthink") to frame the scientific consensus as unreliable, dogmatic, and non-rigorous.
Selection of Evidence: It cherry-picks or misrepresents facts to support its claim while ignoring overwhelming contradictory evidence.
It cites historical heatwaves from the 1930s to suggest natural variability is the only driver, ignoring the clear, long-term warming trend and the physics of CO2 accumulation.
It incorrectly attributes the warming in a physical greenhouse only to blocked convection, ignoring the fact that the atmosphere and Earth's surface warm through a different, well-understood mechanism involving the absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases like CO2.
Misleading Appeals: It makes a misleading appeal to "rigorous evidence" and "empirical validation" while ignoring the vast body of peer-reviewed empirical evidence (satellite measurements, spectroscopy, paleoclimate data) that does validate the CO2 radiative forcing mechanism.
PS: I can back everything with multiple references, using AI and then cross checking them and have already read them, several more than a decade ago. Can you say the same?
How reliable are these data, considering the politicisation of US government data? Are there not other reliable non- (or less-) politicised data sources, eg FAO?
There is also the obvious "cherry picking" of data, as though a single year's data in one region are sufficient to ignore the IPCC reports and everything related to climate change.
Ah. Thank you for implicitly noting the strong regional bias in some of the commentary. For some the rest of the world is an amorphous blob of "other people and places that are not here".
"Global cocoa production in the 2024/25 season was significantly impacted by declining yields in West Africa, with Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana experiencing substantial drops. While the precise total 2025 global production is not available, forecasts indicated a continued decline due to factors like the cocoa swollen shoot virus and challenges with aging cocoa trees. In contrast, some Latin American regions were showing emerging potential, though not enough to offset the sharp decline in the West African market"
There is a bit of confusion with "seasons" - I suspect it's more around monsoons than annual winter. Hopefully the 25/26 season will be better.
Do record harvests imply low prices for farmers? Can this be correlated with farm profits? The farmers need to “feed” their employees too. Financial sustainability may differ from ecological sustainability.
Well done. The pity is that the evidence will be completely ignored by those who insist that capitalism and intensive farming are destroying agriculture and farmers. There was a move a few years back to boost the breeding of tropical crops. I guess that like all plant breeding it takes several years to get new varieties out in the field, and the less profitable a crop the lower the incentive to enhance it, and the poorer the country the greater the likelihood that politicians will listen to anti-science voices from the West.
On climate, I am coming to doubt the prophecies of doom. The climate has changed and so far it has not cut productivity. In many areas we must have passed the temperature limits for wheat, but the farmers keep it growing. We only need to maintain the current trajectories for a decade or so before the population flattens out and starts to fall.
One final point. All this is about primary production. Do we have data on meat production and the quantity of crops diverted to raising animals rather than going to people? My understanding is that beef consumption may be flattening out, or that just wishful thinking?
Yeah sugar shouldn’t be as a compared as one category. It’s an mixed family of crops as in Europe it’s mainly refined from suger beet, in the US from corn and cane (and rarely from beet) and in Asia mainly from sugar cane (as well in the Caribbean, fiji, Brazil and Cuba). Pakistan and Brazil use GM varieties.
"It’s not uncommon for people to tell me that global food production is already collapsing due to climate change. They are then surprised to hear that we typically hit record harvests year after year (even as things get hotter). [ AND YET....DESPITE ALL THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY ............they PERSIST with their nonsensical "beliefs" ......and "our ability to adapt and survive "! ]
But there are large and genuine risks of climate change to agriculture — I’ve written about this a lot, and it is probably my biggest concern when it comes to climate impacts — and there’s no guarantee that rising productivity continues" [ EXCEPT OF COURSE ,that it ALWAYS does continue to improve , and with higher yields from ever smaller land areas under cultivation !
That's human innovation , inventiveness and persistence for you !!!]
.
So Hannah , it's about time that YOU REVISED your "doom and gloom" predictions and began to QUESTION YOUR OWN "BELIEFS" . Cold is "our" enemy ! Warmth is "our" friend !
Carbon Dioxide is "plant food" and plants are "food for animals" and "we humans" eat both !
Carbon Dioxide is THE BUILDING BLOCK for all lifeforms on planet Earth , and increases in CO2 and "slight warming" have ALL BEEN BENEFICIAL so far ! .As the planet warms , due to the cyclical climate change warming , a NATURAL EVENT , the ocean "degasses" some of the dissolved CO2
into the air and the atmospheric CO2 content increases........the warmth ALWAYS PRECEDES AND CAUSES THE CO2 INCREASE.....not the other way around ! This increased CO2 level is stimulating and 'fertilising' all the plants.....and the entire planet is "greening" as a result ! More OXYGEN from the plant life [ some from terrestrial plants but most from marine plants ! ] as to removes the carbon fron the CO2 molecules to create "food" for itself using sunlight [ photosynthesis ] and water , in the form of sugars and starches ! Miraculous really !! Solar power at it's best !!
.
First, what is an ice age? It’s when the Earth has cold temperatures for a long time – millions to tens of millions of years – that lead to ice sheets and glaciers covering large areas of its surface.
We know that the Earth has had at least five major ice ages. The first one happened about 2 billion years ago and lasted about 300 million years. The most recent one started about 2.6 million years ago, and in fact, we are still technically in it. [ We still have ICE at both poles and
on most of the HIGH MOUNTAINS ....even in the TROPICS ! ].
So why isn’t the Earth covered in ice right now? It’s because we are in a period known as an “interglacial.” In an ice age, temperatures will fluctuate between colder and warmer levels. Ice sheets and glaciers melt during warmer phases, which are called interglacials, and expand during colder phases, which are called glacials.
.
Right now we are in the most recent ice age’s warm interglacial period, which began about 11,000 years ago.Almost all hominins disappeared during the Ice Age. Only a single species survived. “It’s not that we had something these extinct hominins lacked,”
“It’s that we used those skills differently.”
"But H. sapiens had appeared many millennia prior to the Ice Age, approximately 200,000 years before, in the continent of Africa....That said, approximately 70,000 to 60,000 years ago, in the midst of the Ice Age, our species started to spread throughout the planet for a variety of potential reasons. .......We moved into flourishing forests and arid, dry deserts."
'"[ It was ] found that the body temperatures of non-mammaliamorph synapsids were around
24-29⁰C, similar to extant lizards, but jumped by 5-9⁰C in mammaliamorphs around 233 million years ago, during the Late Triassic.
This pushes the date for the evolution of endothermy later than anticipated."
With a body temperature of approximately 37 degrees Celsius , we mammals . humans , are a relative new-comer to the world-stage ! "Humans, as anatomically modern Homo sapiens, have existed for about 300,000 years, with the oldest known fossils found in Africa dating to that time. While our lineage of human ancestors diverged from chimpanzees about 6 to 8 million years ago, and complex behaviors like tool-making appeared millions of years ago, the species Homo sapiens is a relatively recent development in human history."....but has been around long enough to experience and SURVIVE at least ONE COMPLETE CYCLE of an ICE AGE ......and it is cyclical ....meaning , IT WILL RECUR !!! That is the ONE SURE THING about climate change ! It changes !!
"In the last 300,000 years, Earth has experienced at least two major glaciations (or glacial periods) within the ongoing Quaternary Ice Age, which started about 2.58 million years ago. These glacial periods, characterized by extensive ice sheets, were separated by warmer interglacial periods." .
.
"Overall, changing climate conditions provided our species an opportunity to perfect our biggest and best skills — our communication and willingness to make our mark on the world. And when we emerged from the frost, our species only improved upon those talents. When the world thawed about 11,700 years ago, humans began banding together to cultivate crops and create settlements for the first time, forming the foundations for the first civilizations.
The CYCLICAL "warming phase" of this INTER-GLACIAL PERIOD is the coolest of all them so far , and the WORLD is actually getting COLDER , and if this continues , then it is entirely possible that the ONCOMING PHASE OF THIS CURRENT ICE-AGE will be the COLDEST and the most severe and
that "civilisation" and "mankind" as we know it will today will JOIN THE OTHER 99.9% OF ALL THE LIFE FORMS THAT HAVE BEEN EXTINGUISHED ON THIS PLANET !
.
So Hannah , "eat , drink and be merry , for tomorrow we die ".......but let's enjoy ourselves in the meantime ! Let "us" all celebrate the 'accident of birth' that has enabled us to live in such a truly pleasant and abundant and convivial time !
Tronicum ....... "Tr ".........it's a good start.........as in Trevor.
Well......as you may have gathered I am NOT a fan of the anthropogenic cause of CLIMATE CHANGE. I think it is both natural and cyclical and I think those promoting the anthropogenic view are deluded , corrupt and pretty damned evil.
I get quite excited and ANNOYED by the bare-faced-lies and the liars who promulgate this theory . It has "evolved into a form of sick religion " where 'they' have faith in 'models' [ that have been proven to be wrong IN EVERY CASE ] have cynically twisted and distorted 'science' into a cash-cow for themselves and their cronies , have deliberately and unnecessarily scared the living daylights out of at least 3 generations of our children , have diverted vast amounts of funding into 'climate science' that could have been of great benefit elsewhere , have DESTROYED societal cohesion and so distorted the political process that people with different views now literally HATE each other across the divide !
Part of that process has been to inculcate several generations of children with so little hope for their future that they are exhibiting mental instability in ways never experienced before ! Many young people have decided not to have children , because they can't tolerate the thought of bringing a child into this wrecked world ! So wrong !
I could go on for pages attempting to illustrate my fury and my reasons for it , but these "academics" have an awful lot to answer for ! And why do they do it !
To advance their shonky "careers" , and enhance their power and their ego trips !
They ALL KNOW what they are doing , but , for the moment , it is paying them FINANCIAL dividends......AND they don't give a damn about anybody else ! The ABSOLUTE WASTE of people's lives and the WASTED money and materials being thrown into this futile pursuit to "prove" that their "belief system.....their ideology ......their religious fervour " WiLL PREVAIL over NATURE and HISTORICAL FACTS is abysmally appalling !.
I use "capitals" to express EMPHASIS ! I am NOT yelling at you or anyone else !
I find it frustrating when many of the finest minds in science have expressed their opposition and their INFORMED views on the hollowness and stupidity of "anthropogenic climate change" only to be attacked and berated in the foulest manner .....as though invective and "feelings" are somehow the equivalent of a decent scientific argument.......which it's not.....and then watch POLITICIANS legislate this stupidity into LAW. In fact , the UN IPPC has become a "mouthpiece" for politicians !
The IPCC is not and has never been an objective science assessment organization. It was created by and has always been controlled by the governments of countries that perceive political benefits from international regulatory action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.....and it's corrupt through and through !
Please look up John F. Clauser , Richard Lindzen , Judith Curry , Roy Spencer , Ian Plimer , Patrick Moore , Freeman John Dyson , Steven Koonin , and Bjorn Lomborg
who has suggested that 'adaptation' will handle ANY given climate crisis.
And THAT is far from the "doom and gloom" that the media and school curricula constantly hand us !!!
Tronicum : Yep......I do...and grand-kids as well !
Sure........but......Australians fought hard to gain an enviable standard of living and it was all powered by carbonaceous fuel of one kind or another !
It started out with trees , charcoal , then moved on to coal and is now mainly oil and gas. Since the by-products of burning these products has been demonised by the "brain-dead-tree-huggers" it does make you wonder if they ever think about what 'powers a tree' ? Oh ! Sunlight ! Yes, but to do what ? Photosynthesise CO2 and H2O into carbohydrates and OXYGEN !
That stuff we inhale before we exhale CO2 .......like trees do in the dark at night ! It's all part of a MASSIVE carbon cycle to which humans add very little......and what they do add has proved beneficial.
So....the fuel wasn't wasted.....it gave us a great source of cheap energy and a damned good lifestyle and , bonus , the "fumes" greened the entire planet ! Are you aware that the aim of the "eco-nuts" is to LOWER the CO2 levels to what has been determined as "pre-industrial levels" of 280 parts per million. Currently it is about 423 parts-per-million....and everything is thriving ! Since most plants NEED a level above 150 parts per million just to survive , the 280 level puts them at risk of dying-out altogether , and they are certainly NOT productive ! [ With higher CO2 levels , the plants USE LESS WATER too ].
When you read about the PLAGUES and BLACK DEATH and so on in the
"pre-industrial-times" you will read of frequent crop failures and a starving and weakened population which makes then very susceptible to contagion of any sort ! The WORST THING we can do is re-institute those sort of low levels of atmospheric CO2 if we wish to maintain our prosperity and productivity. These "eco-nuts" SAY that they actually LOVE every-living-thing on the planet BUT HATE HUMANS and have often expressed their desire to SAVE THE PLANET by removing THE CANCER .....meaning us !! Lovely.......Great attitude !!
.
My problem is that ALL the evidence is "out there" if people can be bothered to access it .....but it seem that they prefer to mindlessly CHANT THE SLOGANS rather than access the evidence and KNOW THE TRUTH.
When you use the word pollute are you aware that the plastic is inert and virtually interacts with nothing unless it is set on fire and burns.? That is why plastic is the choice product to have around food. It is biologically inert !
And NO.....all those NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC photos of dead marine animals and birds with bits of plastic in them are FAKE ! The plastic was added to the already-dead corpses BEFORE the photos were taken and the plastic DID NOT KILL THEM. They then wrote an outrageous story about their "discoveries" and how terrible the plastic was....killing everything !!
Regrettably , not enough people do any FACT CHECKING.
Fortunately , a "wildlife tour group" had passed through the same area a few days before , photographed exactly the same animals , and were able to PROVE that there was little or NO plastic in the corpses. THIS is the kind of dishonesty that one would NOT expect from a "reputable magazine" , but ,
it turns out that they have done it quite often ! So...not so "reputable" !
FAKE IMAGES and BAD NEWS sell magazines as well as newspapers nowadays ! And David Attenborough has now become a thoroughly reprehensible liar and mis-representer of wildlife videos too ! How disappointing for everyone that is ! He was HONEST once upon a time !
Anyway , I hope that you will READ a lot and come to see the situation more clearly . Regards , Trevor.
Trevor is deeply invested in a worldview where fossil fuels = prosperity and climate science = scam. His “education” is fragmented, self-selected, and ideologically filtered. Bias is total—he interprets nearly all contrary evidence as deception or corruption. He’s unlikely to shift because his stance is less about data and more about identity, distrust of elites, and pride in human progress through carbon.
While CO2 does benefit some plant growth, you oversimplified complex climate interactions and don't acknowledge the broader scientific consensus on climate change impacts.
The claim about National Geographic using fake images would require specific documented cases to verify. What I did find was a massive amount of evidence supporting the claims about plastic pollution.
"Regrettably , you didn't do any fact checking." and that's a fact.
For someone following the science for 40 years, the reference list you gave mostly represents the small group of contrarian voices who focus on uncertainties in models and methodologies. Their work is useful mainly because it highlights recurring counter-arguments—such as cloud feedbacks, climate sensitivity, and model fidelity—that the broader scientific community has already examined many times.
Even most of those cited do not deny anthropogenic climate change—they argue about the scale, costs, or risks, rather than the basic reality.
The larger problem is that IPCC projections, while authoritative, are deliberately cautious. Because the process requires consensus, many known but less well-quantified positive feedbacks—such as permafrost carbon release, methane clathrates, and ice-albedo effects—are treated conservatively or left out. That means observed warming has often outpaced model expectations, and the risks of non-linear acceleration are likely higher than the “central” IPCC scenarios suggest.
So my position cannot be dismissed as ‘climate extremism’ or ‘alarmism’. I sit firmly within the scientific consensus, but I also take a pragmatic view of the limits of that consensus—recognizing that some risks are understated because of the cautious, consensus-driven nature of the IPCC process.
The hopium, misinformation, RWNJ talking points, and so on are really bothersome on this thread.
I've taken the time to engage with some of it, but of course Dunning-Kruger effect and the relative number of people who can think vs those who can't or don't bother is a overwhelming at times.
Good luck with ah whatever it is you "think" you're doing.
Cool! Hey I wonder why potato is rarely included in these. At some 400 MT, it is a far more important source of calories than Sorghum or Millet, though not a cereal.
JBjb4321............I suspect that you have IRISH ancestry !??
I can only assume because it is not a staple in any one region?
Your post made me search and I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_potato_production
The biggest potato producers are China, India, Ukraine and Russia. Not bad for something from South America.
According to Google AI: "Europeans are the heartiest potato consumers, with a per capita consumption of about 87.8 kg in 2005."
Cool. Also water content is higher in potato than grains, I think we must divide by 2 or possibly 3 to get actual calories. But still an important crop.
A staple in Belgium only?
Interestingly Alex......it was the BELGIANS that produced THE "FRENCH FRY" !
i would love to see the productivity rather than just the size of the harvest. the thought leapt out at me when i saw the chart for Palm oil. common knowledge (i.e. I'm not going to look up sources at this point) say that the increase in palm oil production comes at the cost of hectares of primary rainforest. there's nothing good in that and it would useful to see if there is any increase in the production per hectare and whether that increase plays out in the same way across this whole dataset.
I believe total global farm land is dropping, so increased productivity must account for the increase.
Not for palm oil though, and tropical rainforest is still being clearfelled. We are losing the real option value we would have from retaining tropical forest.
True. I was referring to staple crops.
Also shows that overpopulation concerns are exaggerated
Not so in the UK. For example, Church Field gave 95 bales last year, 25 this year. The price of feed is very high, and one farmer is taking about having to slaughter cows. Climate Chaos has caused huge problems that will be felt for a long while.
Land used for cows, whether silage, hay or grazing, is land that is not used for growing crops. We need to see meat production as a a luxury trade.
Perhaps, but this is dairy.
When debating climate and food, dairy does tend to get forgotten (at least by me). It’s impact is supposed to be around the same level as pork, and a fifth of the impact that beef cattle have.
Are we maintaining/growing output? I can’t imagine that plant-based substitutes are having a massive effect.
Plant based totally is having now recognized impacts as well. Animal fats are now said to be protective of the vagus nerve system though I haven't researched any study confirming that.
Why free trade / economic integration is important.
(And you might not want to extrapolate one field to the world. ;-)
The whole farming area around me is as this. That was simply one example, Matt.
And… https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/harvest-2025/harvest-2025-brings-extreme-variability-in-yields-and-falling-grain-prices/
some studies have estimated that climate change since the 1960s has already reduced global agricultural productivity by a significant amount (e.g., a 21% reduction according to one Cornell University study), effectively "wiping out" years of technological improvements.
Conclusion
The data from the scientific community is clear: while rising CO2 levels do have a positive fertilization effect on certain crops, it is a secondary contributor to the massive increase in global crop yields since 1960. The primary driver has been the Green Revolution, fueled by breakthroughs in breeding, fertilizer use, irrigation, and other technological and management innovations. The positive CO2 effect is also being increasingly challenged and even outweighed by the negative impacts of climate change on agriculture, such as heat stress and extreme weather.
On the other hand a large fraction of the maize crop is being used to make biofuel.
Another "green" initiative that is causing massive soil erosion and buildup of pesticides and toxins, and killing rivers and coastal waters with excess nitrogen.
George W. Bush Administration. That would be ah of course, a Republican. It was a bipartisan bill though, but one must ask "Was it acceptable to the wider environmentalist community as a viable solution?"
No, the original RFS and its subsequent expansion were ultimately rejected by most major environmental groups as a viable, long-term climate solution.
So labelling that initiative as "green" is more than a little off base.
Bush used the RFS to pretend he was solving climate change after failing to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
PS: I have no time for either political party, they are both obviously captured by corporate interests it's a wonder the country still functions at all.
In the UK, we tend to use wheat for biofuels. Much of that is used to power vehicles.
The same land used for photovoltaics would provide 40 to 70 times as much mileage for vehicles, with no build up of pesticides and toxins and a significant improvement in biodiversity.
https://alexterrell.substack.com/p/farmland-for-solar-and-not-biofuels
Or maybe just buy an Aptera when production comes and keep photovoltaics on your carports.
Alex : One guy I worked with at Stoke-on-Trent used to collect the USED oil from his local "fish and chip" shops , filter it and clean it up [ get rid of the particles and the water ] and use it in his car ! He made us all feel hungry as he drove off leaving behind the enticing odour of freshly prepared "fish and chips" !
As there is a FUEL TAX in the UK on 'all fuels' including BIO-FUELS , he would have to calculate the volumes used and remit the appropriate tax each month !
He still reckoned it was worth the effort !
Coming from the UK I would say the current generation of farmers is the first to really worry about soil quality. You cannot get long term improvement in productivity if your soils are being degraded; the evidence is that we do have long term improvement in productivity, which can only mean that soil quality is being maintained or improved. As so often in farming, political theory says one thing but practice shows the opposite.
I just couldn't let this one pass "the current generation of farmers is the first to really worry about soil quality". It's as though history isn't a thing in your world. The best resource I can offer you right now is this.
https://www.ecofriendlyhomestead.com/sustainable-garden/learn/the-time-travelers-guide-to-regenerative-agriculture-42-time-tested-sustainable-solutions
But the whole of the above article shows that the studies you refer to are wrong. Maybe in some regions, and under some production methods, climate change has reduced productivity. In theory wheat yields per acre should be falling. Experience shows that they are not. Either the theory is right, but the losses have been offset by incredibly successful levels of innovation, or else we should reassess those predictions of falling production.
Indeed. How do those warnings on financial advice go?
> Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Quelle surprise; who would have 'thunk it!
What an absolute shocker that we see increasing crop yields at a time of milder, warmer weather, in combination with an increase in airborne plant food!
The greater threat is from soil degradation, not an increase in Co² and conditions being a bit warmer. Plus, in the UK, eco zealots in government with little to no understanding of agriculture actually legislate to prevent farmers from keeping the soil in good condition by the restrictions placed on spreading muck. Often referred to by the term "putting heart in the land"
There appears to be a generalised attack on farming across the West, so when the famine comes, it will be owing to government delusion and incompetence and not an increase in Co² with some general warming. In fact, the warming and the extra Co² will help to mitigate the disastrous agricultural policies of the UK government.
and why is it that you don't take the time to simply do some research on your own beliefs, ideas, and statements, BEFORE posting them?
Oh wait, this is rhetorical bias playing out before our very eyes.
As an exercise, try putting your post through an AI to assess the bias. That is if you somehow believe what you're saying is actually true.
You missed a really critical aspect of your "farming is under threat" claims.
In the relatively water-rich UK, agriculture is facing both immediate water stress and long-term supply challenges. The "milder, warmer weather" narrative completely ignores these realities that UK farmers are already dealing with. Put simply:
More intense winter rainfall (flooding) but drier summers when crops actually need water
Rain falling as heavy downpours rather than steady, absorbable amounts.
Can I refer you to a response I made to another climate alarmist on the SS, it will save me the time to rewrite for you, as I doubt you will bother to read and absorbe. Plus, your understanding of farming is a bit one-dimensional and makes the assumption that any changes in rain patterns is only attributable to an increase in Co²!
“The saturation argument… not accurate/oversimplification although there is a grain of physics in it.”
The saturation argument isn’t just a “grain of physics”—it’s rooted in hard data. The Schwarzschild equation, as graphed, shows CO2’s warming effect diminishes logarithmically at ~420 ppmv, with ~85% saturation already reached. Doubling to 840 ppmv adds a negligible ~1% warming, per Happer and Lindzen’s analysis. You claim it’s an oversimplification, but where’s the lab experiment proving CO2’s back-radiative effect drives significant warming? No such test exists, as noted in the sources. The physics is clear: CO2’s thermal conductivity is half that of nitrogen or oxygen, so a 0.03% change in atmospheric conductivity is within measurement error—hardly catastrophic. If you’ve got evidence showing otherwise, produce it. Science demands proof, not assumptions.
“Problem of making consistent model… scientific method can do it, while side trying to neglect the evidence cannot.”
Consistent models? The IPCC’s radiative forcing models, cited in Ref. [27], assume “radiative equilibrium” but consistently overpredict warming, as Happer’s table of model failures versus observed data demonstrates. That’s not science—it’s speculation dressed up as fact. The scientific method requires falsifiable predictions, yet climate models fail this test. Meanwhile, Milankovitch cycles, evident in EPICA Dome C ice core data, explain historical climate shifts far better than CO2. My side isn’t neglecting evidence; we’re questioning unproven claims. Science isn’t a popularity contest—geocentric models held sway for centuries until evidence overturned them. Show me a model that matches reality without cherry-picking, and I’ll listen.
“Don’t like talking about abstract—prefer solid examples.”
You want solid examples? Here they are. The 33°C greenhouse effect (80% water vapour, 20% CO2) is a theoretical construct, not a measured phenomenon. Lab tests show no “superinsulation” from CO2, as claimed in the sources—unlike a real greenhouse, where glass traps heat. NOAA’s South Pole ice records show natural variability, not CO2-driven meltdown. On the flip side, experiments like FACE show 800-1200 ppm CO2 boosts crop yields by 20-40%. Why obsess over abstract warming risks when tangible agricultural gains are clear? If warming’s so dire, explain why the Medieval Warm Period saw thriving agriculture, while the Little Ice Age brought starvation.
“You say CO2… cannot influence significantly climate… how important that and future increase is for agriculture.”
You’re misrepresenting my stance, but I’ll clarify. CO2’s climate impact is minimal at current levels—doubling to 840 ppmv adds ~1% warming, per the Schwarzschild data. Yet its agricultural benefits are undeniable: greenhouse growers use 800-1200 ppm because it drives plant growth, backed by studies showing significant yield increases. You can’t claim CO2’s a climate villain while ignoring its role as plant food. If it’s so dangerous, where’s the data linking CO2 to specific weather events like hurricanes? NOAA records show no clear trend. Science demands evidence, not contradictions.
“Sticking to scientific method, with proper dose of skepticism (not cynicism) is the best way…”
Absolutely agree—scepticism is key, but it cuts both ways. The scientific method exposes alarmist claims as flimsy. The “97% consensus” is a political term, not a scientific one, as your sources note—countless historical “truths” (e.g., the flat Earth theory) were once “consensus” but fell apart. You rely on models and experiments, but where’s the reproducible proof of CO2-driven catastrophe? Happer and Lindzen show models fail against real-world data. Meanwhile, Montford’s “Costing the Green Grid” PDF highlights the astronomical costs of net zero—trillions for negligible impact. Why impoverish ourselves when CO2’s benefits are measurable and its climate role is dubious?
Addressing Your Broader Questions
Your alarmist narrative sidesteps critical questions. Is warming negative? No evidence proves it’s universally harmful—some regions benefit. Can we mitigate better than net zero? Practical measures like flood defences or forest management are cheaper and more effective than emission cuts. Is CO2 the main driver? Natural cycles have driven climate for millennia. Why dismiss CO2’s agricultural upside? Shifting emissions to other countries just enriches them while we pay the price. What’s the ideal temperature? No one knows, and controlling it to a hundredth of a degree is a fantasy. Science demands we question these gaps, not bow to “experts.”
And finally
They claim UK agriculture is "facing both immediate water stress and long-term supply challenges" as if this is a settled fact tied straight to climate change. But this is an overreach—it's an assumption based on cherry-picked trends, ignoring that weather variability has always been part of the UK's climate. Attribution studies show we can estimate how much more likely certain events are under warming, but we can't say with certainty that today's stresses are caused by it. For instance, while models suggest a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture (potentially leading to heavier rain), the signal for "long-term supply challenges" is drowned out by natural variability like the North Atlantic Oscillation.
Bias alert: This phrasing implies inevitability, shutting down debate. It's rhetorical sleight-of-hand—why not say "potential risks" instead of "facing these realities"?
David : Thanks ! I really enjoyed ALL of that ! Regards , Trevor.
Says the person with massive bias and zero critical thinking or research skills.
https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Updated-projections-of-future-water-availability_HRW.pdf
I'm not even going to provide a summary. Read it or not. I care little whether you are able to at this point.
It's incredible that you might honestly think that someone of my calibre would be fooled for a moment by your outrageously out-of-date information. I didn't even need to look up many of them to know they were invalid.
In summary virtually every major scientific claim in the post is either a misrepresentation of the current scientific literature or a long-debunked argument that has been repeatedly addressed in peer-reviewed journals.
Do you even internet?
Try this: Paste your post into any AI and ask honestly whether any of it is still valid or has not been debunked.
I'm not even going to wait for you to realise your mistakes.
This is really sad to see. Supposedly intelligent humans, still stuck in the 90s.
Truth is I don't often spend time trolling morons like you two.
Still the challenge of facing reality lays right there before you.
I double dare you to try that AI question and maybe learn a thing or two about the misinformation you've bought hook line and sinker.
As a follow up, consider learning about how climate denial arises as a perfectly understandable fear reaction and how you can overcome that.
So, I'm done here. It's been kinda fun watching you twist and turn like cockroaches with the lights turned on.
Byey
The Sun’s Heat: How Mainstream Climate Models Get It Wrong
Mainstream climate science tells us Earth would be a chilly -18°C without the greenhouse effect, warmed to a comfy 15°C by gases like CO₂ trapping heat. But what if this story hinges on a flawed assumption—one that drastically underestimates the Sun’s raw power? A compelling critique reveals that the models underpinning this narrative rely on a bizarre simplification: treating Earth as a flat disk when calculating solar heat input. This misstep leads to a cascade of errors, inflating the role of greenhouse gases and sidelining the Sun’s true potential.
The standard model, often called the spherical Earth blackbody (SEBB) approach, assumes Earth absorbs sunlight as if it were a flat disk facing the Sun, with an area of πR² (a quarter of its spherical surface). The incoming solar energy, about 1366 watts per square metre (W/m²), is then diluted across Earth’s entire surface (4πR²), yielding an average of ~240 W/m² after accounting for albedo (reflectivity). Plug this into the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and you get an effective temperature of -18°C (255 K)—the supposed “background heat” without an atmosphere. To reach the observed 15°C (288 K), climate science invokes a +33°C “greenhouse effect,” driven by gases absorbing infrared radiation.
But here’s the rub: Earth isn’t a flat disk. It’s a sphere, absorbing sunlight across its illuminated hemisphere, not a two-dimensional plane. This flat Earth assumption artificially spreads solar energy too thinly, as if Earth were twice as far from the Sun. A proper spherical model, accounting for absorption over the hemisphere, yields a far higher baseline temperature—closer to 0°C or even higher. Suddenly, the +33°C gap shrinks, and the need for a dramatic greenhouse effect diminishes. The Sun’s heat, properly calculated, is far more potent than mainstream models admit.
Consider the Sun’s maximum potential. At the subsolar point—where sunlight hits directly—a surface in vacuum with no albedo could reach ~121°C (394 K). This isn’t a fantasy; it’s basic radiative physics. The atmosphere, far from “trapping” heat to warm Earth, actually cools it through convection, moving ~70 W/m² of energy via air and water vapour, dwarfing radiative effects. Yet, mainstream models cling to the flat disk, underestimating solar input and overhyping CO₂’s role. Why? Because early models, like those from the 1960s, baked in this assumption and tuned convection to match observed temperatures, not because experiments proved it.
Direct evidence backs this critique. Since John Tyndall’s 1859 experiments, we’ve known gases like CO₂ absorb infrared radiation in labs. But scaling this to Earth’s complex atmosphere—where convection dominates and lapse rates align with dry adiabats—lacks a definitive experiment. Atmospheric measurements, like those from NASA’s AIRS satellite, show CO₂’s radiative signature, but they don’t prove it drives net warming over convective cooling. The greenhouse effect’s +33°C is less a physical fact and more a modelling artefact, propped up by a flat Earth miscalculation.
Mainstream climate science’s failure to grapple with the Sun’s full power distorts our understanding. By correcting the geometry to a spherical Earth, we see the Sun can account for much of Earth’s warmth without invoking a bloated greenhouse effect. Convection, not radiation, does the heavy lifting. It’s time to rethink the models and demand experiments that test radiative forcing in the real atmosphere, not just in equations!
I think this is a much more plausible explanation for heat variations on Earth over time and the subsequent effect on the climate that an increase in a trace gas that is not even the most effective at absorbing radiant heat. But it is difficult for you to accept this while the high-status opinion you crave acceptance from is ignorant of this basic understanding and thus keeps parroting "Co² is causing Climate Change" regardless of how mad that sounds.
Oh, and your confidence in AI is misplaced and demonstrates your lack of understanding of how LLM work! But hey ho, I am sure there is someone out there to validate your flawed understanding and whose authority you can appeal to! After all, you have managed to convince yourself that a trace gas is responsible for "Climate Change"! Even though we have had periods of much higher concentrations of Co² when the temperatures were lower than today! How would you square that if if Co² is the sole driver of current Climate Change?
"climate denial "
The use of this term indicates you are not a serious person or someone to be taken seriously. But it amuses me to try to educate you and get you to wake up. Can you point to a time when the climate was static?
Your response is yet further confirmation that you don't have an argument of your own and have instead contracted the process out to someone you think is more intelligent than yourself and who you consider to be an infallible "Expert". On the other hand, I don't need to refer to AI or look for affirmation by an appeal to authority argument.
I am left bemused by your claim of bias and fail to see why you place so much relevance on this as though facts care about bias!
Given you are keen on AI, run my argument through AI and get it to tell you where it is wrong! But be careful, as you might be shocked!
But do come back to me, though I already know you can't.
======
The Myth of CO2 Radiative Forcing: Unproven and Overstated
The claim that CO2 drives catastrophic global warming through radiative forcing—the mechanism by which it traps heat in the atmosphere—has become a cornerstone of climate science. Yet, a critical examination reveals this idea lacks experimental proof and is riddled with inaccuracies. Here’s why the CO2 forcing narrative doesn’t hold up.
First, the greenhouse effect, the foundation of CO2 forcing, has never been experimentally validated. The analogy comes from greenhouses, which warm by blocking convection, not trapping radiation as claimed for CO2. No laboratory or real-world experiment has isolated CO2’s radiative impact on global temperatures, leaving the theory as an unproven hypothesis.
Second, climate models exaggerate CO2’s role through flawed assumptions. These models, rooted in early work from the 1960s and 1980s, assume the greenhouse effect without evidence, treating convection as secondary to an unverified radiative forcing. The IPCC’s reports further this by reversing causality, presuming CO2 drives warming without direct proof. This circular logic inflates predictions of CO2’s impact.
Third, natural feedbacks like cloud formation counteract any CO2-driven warming. Warmer temperatures increase evaporation, forming clouds that reflect sunlight and cool the planet—a natural thermostat. Models struggle to account for clouds and assume constant albedo (Earth’s reflectivity), yet a documented albedo decrease over the past 30 years, allowing more solar absorption, could explain observed warming without CO2.
Fourth, historical data show no clear link between CO2 and climate impacts. The 1930s–1940s saw intense heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires—often worse than today—despite lower CO2 levels. This points to natural variability, not CO2, as the primary driver of climate trends.
Finally, alternative explanations, such as atmospheric pressure and density, better account for temperature variations. These models suggest CO2’s effect is negligible, overshadowed by natural processes. The CO2 forcing narrative, amplified by media and groupthink, lacks the rigorous evidence to be called settled science.
In short, CO2 radiative forcing remains an untested, overstated claim. Climate science must prioritise empirical validation over model-driven assumptions to uncover the true drivers of our planet’s climate.
Your education is your responsibility. I can only give you the evidence.
Here we go. I have a little time before going to have some actual fun in real life with good people.
-----
The post is strongly and explicitly biased against the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change.
Stance: Its core bias is to reject the significant role of CO2 as a climate driver (a position known as climate change denial or scepticism).
Framing: It uses dismissive and provocative language ("Myth," "overstated," "flawed assumptions," "circular logic," "groupthink") to frame the scientific consensus as unreliable, dogmatic, and non-rigorous.
Selection of Evidence: It cherry-picks or misrepresents facts to support its claim while ignoring overwhelming contradictory evidence.
It cites historical heatwaves from the 1930s to suggest natural variability is the only driver, ignoring the clear, long-term warming trend and the physics of CO2 accumulation.
It incorrectly attributes the warming in a physical greenhouse only to blocked convection, ignoring the fact that the atmosphere and Earth's surface warm through a different, well-understood mechanism involving the absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases like CO2.
Misleading Appeals: It makes a misleading appeal to "rigorous evidence" and "empirical validation" while ignoring the vast body of peer-reviewed empirical evidence (satellite measurements, spectroscopy, paleoclimate data) that does validate the CO2 radiative forcing mechanism.
you presented no evidence
I watched that video misterandmaster posted. How about you do the quid pro quo thing and take a chance at being wrong.
You should probably also ask AI to point your twisted user of logical fallacies. Strawman, appeal to authority, ad hominem, the list goes on.
I'd do It for you but it's probably about time you learned how to use AI for yourself.
https://factsonclimate.org/infographics/concentration-warming-relationship
I did run your bs through AI.
As I advised you to.
The results were predictable, as I had already determined before doing so.
produce one peer reviewed scientific paper backing your claim co2 greenhouse effect has not been experimentally demonstrated.
I'll wait.
again
full of false claims and invalid pseudoscience.
PS: I can back everything with multiple references, using AI and then cross checking them and have already read them, several more than a decade ago. Can you say the same?
Go on, try.
How reliable are these data, considering the politicisation of US government data? Are there not other reliable non- (or less-) politicised data sources, eg FAO?
There is also the obvious "cherry picking" of data, as though a single year's data in one region are sufficient to ignore the IPCC reports and everything related to climate change.
Higher temperatures in already hot countries have potential to reduce agricultural yields. The concern is not with yields in temperate countries.
Ah. Thank you for implicitly noting the strong regional bias in some of the commentary. For some the rest of the world is an amorphous blob of "other people and places that are not here".
Now for the bad news, as delivered by Google AI:
"Global cocoa production in the 2024/25 season was significantly impacted by declining yields in West Africa, with Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana experiencing substantial drops. While the precise total 2025 global production is not available, forecasts indicated a continued decline due to factors like the cocoa swollen shoot virus and challenges with aging cocoa trees. In contrast, some Latin American regions were showing emerging potential, though not enough to offset the sharp decline in the West African market"
There is a bit of confusion with "seasons" - I suspect it's more around monsoons than annual winter. Hopefully the 25/26 season will be better.
Do record harvests imply low prices for farmers? Can this be correlated with farm profits? The farmers need to “feed” their employees too. Financial sustainability may differ from ecological sustainability.
Well done. The pity is that the evidence will be completely ignored by those who insist that capitalism and intensive farming are destroying agriculture and farmers. There was a move a few years back to boost the breeding of tropical crops. I guess that like all plant breeding it takes several years to get new varieties out in the field, and the less profitable a crop the lower the incentive to enhance it, and the poorer the country the greater the likelihood that politicians will listen to anti-science voices from the West.
On climate, I am coming to doubt the prophecies of doom. The climate has changed and so far it has not cut productivity. In many areas we must have passed the temperature limits for wheat, but the farmers keep it growing. We only need to maintain the current trajectories for a decade or so before the population flattens out and starts to fall.
One final point. All this is about primary production. Do we have data on meat production and the quantity of crops diverted to raising animals rather than going to people? My understanding is that beef consumption may be flattening out, or that just wishful thinking?
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production
sugar can be made from corn (maize), sugarbeet and sugarcane ... so what is meant here?
Yeah sugar shouldn’t be as a compared as one category. It’s an mixed family of crops as in Europe it’s mainly refined from suger beet, in the US from corn and cane (and rarely from beet) and in Asia mainly from sugar cane (as well in the Caribbean, fiji, Brazil and Cuba). Pakistan and Brazil use GM varieties.
why is sugar and coffee and cotton named as oilseed crops ...
I'm guessing it is simply a mistake
Is there a metric that tracks the diversity in crops? I read somewhere that the more we go deep into a few crops that worst it is for the soil.
"It’s not uncommon for people to tell me that global food production is already collapsing due to climate change. They are then surprised to hear that we typically hit record harvests year after year (even as things get hotter). [ AND YET....DESPITE ALL THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY ............they PERSIST with their nonsensical "beliefs" ......and "our ability to adapt and survive "! ]
But there are large and genuine risks of climate change to agriculture — I’ve written about this a lot, and it is probably my biggest concern when it comes to climate impacts — and there’s no guarantee that rising productivity continues" [ EXCEPT OF COURSE ,that it ALWAYS does continue to improve , and with higher yields from ever smaller land areas under cultivation !
That's human innovation , inventiveness and persistence for you !!!]
.
So Hannah , it's about time that YOU REVISED your "doom and gloom" predictions and began to QUESTION YOUR OWN "BELIEFS" . Cold is "our" enemy ! Warmth is "our" friend !
Carbon Dioxide is "plant food" and plants are "food for animals" and "we humans" eat both !
Carbon Dioxide is THE BUILDING BLOCK for all lifeforms on planet Earth , and increases in CO2 and "slight warming" have ALL BEEN BENEFICIAL so far ! .As the planet warms , due to the cyclical climate change warming , a NATURAL EVENT , the ocean "degasses" some of the dissolved CO2
into the air and the atmospheric CO2 content increases........the warmth ALWAYS PRECEDES AND CAUSES THE CO2 INCREASE.....not the other way around ! This increased CO2 level is stimulating and 'fertilising' all the plants.....and the entire planet is "greening" as a result ! More OXYGEN from the plant life [ some from terrestrial plants but most from marine plants ! ] as to removes the carbon fron the CO2 molecules to create "food" for itself using sunlight [ photosynthesis ] and water , in the form of sugars and starches ! Miraculous really !! Solar power at it's best !!
.
First, what is an ice age? It’s when the Earth has cold temperatures for a long time – millions to tens of millions of years – that lead to ice sheets and glaciers covering large areas of its surface.
We know that the Earth has had at least five major ice ages. The first one happened about 2 billion years ago and lasted about 300 million years. The most recent one started about 2.6 million years ago, and in fact, we are still technically in it. [ We still have ICE at both poles and
on most of the HIGH MOUNTAINS ....even in the TROPICS ! ].
So why isn’t the Earth covered in ice right now? It’s because we are in a period known as an “interglacial.” In an ice age, temperatures will fluctuate between colder and warmer levels. Ice sheets and glaciers melt during warmer phases, which are called interglacials, and expand during colder phases, which are called glacials.
.
Right now we are in the most recent ice age’s warm interglacial period, which began about 11,000 years ago.Almost all hominins disappeared during the Ice Age. Only a single species survived. “It’s not that we had something these extinct hominins lacked,”
“It’s that we used those skills differently.”
"But H. sapiens had appeared many millennia prior to the Ice Age, approximately 200,000 years before, in the continent of Africa....That said, approximately 70,000 to 60,000 years ago, in the midst of the Ice Age, our species started to spread throughout the planet for a variety of potential reasons. .......We moved into flourishing forests and arid, dry deserts."
'"[ It was ] found that the body temperatures of non-mammaliamorph synapsids were around
24-29⁰C, similar to extant lizards, but jumped by 5-9⁰C in mammaliamorphs around 233 million years ago, during the Late Triassic.
This pushes the date for the evolution of endothermy later than anticipated."
With a body temperature of approximately 37 degrees Celsius , we mammals . humans , are a relative new-comer to the world-stage ! "Humans, as anatomically modern Homo sapiens, have existed for about 300,000 years, with the oldest known fossils found in Africa dating to that time. While our lineage of human ancestors diverged from chimpanzees about 6 to 8 million years ago, and complex behaviors like tool-making appeared millions of years ago, the species Homo sapiens is a relatively recent development in human history."....but has been around long enough to experience and SURVIVE at least ONE COMPLETE CYCLE of an ICE AGE ......and it is cyclical ....meaning , IT WILL RECUR !!! That is the ONE SURE THING about climate change ! It changes !!
"In the last 300,000 years, Earth has experienced at least two major glaciations (or glacial periods) within the ongoing Quaternary Ice Age, which started about 2.58 million years ago. These glacial periods, characterized by extensive ice sheets, were separated by warmer interglacial periods." .
.
"Overall, changing climate conditions provided our species an opportunity to perfect our biggest and best skills — our communication and willingness to make our mark on the world. And when we emerged from the frost, our species only improved upon those talents. When the world thawed about 11,700 years ago, humans began banding together to cultivate crops and create settlements for the first time, forming the foundations for the first civilizations.
The CYCLICAL "warming phase" of this INTER-GLACIAL PERIOD is the coolest of all them so far , and the WORLD is actually getting COLDER , and if this continues , then it is entirely possible that the ONCOMING PHASE OF THIS CURRENT ICE-AGE will be the COLDEST and the most severe and
that "civilisation" and "mankind" as we know it will today will JOIN THE OTHER 99.9% OF ALL THE LIFE FORMS THAT HAVE BEEN EXTINGUISHED ON THIS PLANET !
.
So Hannah , "eat , drink and be merry , for tomorrow we die ".......but let's enjoy ourselves in the meantime ! Let "us" all celebrate the 'accident of birth' that has enabled us to live in such a truly pleasant and abundant and convivial time !
Not sure what your point is in caps lock yelling and ice age references tbh
Tronicum ....... "Tr ".........it's a good start.........as in Trevor.
Well......as you may have gathered I am NOT a fan of the anthropogenic cause of CLIMATE CHANGE. I think it is both natural and cyclical and I think those promoting the anthropogenic view are deluded , corrupt and pretty damned evil.
I get quite excited and ANNOYED by the bare-faced-lies and the liars who promulgate this theory . It has "evolved into a form of sick religion " where 'they' have faith in 'models' [ that have been proven to be wrong IN EVERY CASE ] have cynically twisted and distorted 'science' into a cash-cow for themselves and their cronies , have deliberately and unnecessarily scared the living daylights out of at least 3 generations of our children , have diverted vast amounts of funding into 'climate science' that could have been of great benefit elsewhere , have DESTROYED societal cohesion and so distorted the political process that people with different views now literally HATE each other across the divide !
Part of that process has been to inculcate several generations of children with so little hope for their future that they are exhibiting mental instability in ways never experienced before ! Many young people have decided not to have children , because they can't tolerate the thought of bringing a child into this wrecked world ! So wrong !
I could go on for pages attempting to illustrate my fury and my reasons for it , but these "academics" have an awful lot to answer for ! And why do they do it !
To advance their shonky "careers" , and enhance their power and their ego trips !
They ALL KNOW what they are doing , but , for the moment , it is paying them FINANCIAL dividends......AND they don't give a damn about anybody else ! The ABSOLUTE WASTE of people's lives and the WASTED money and materials being thrown into this futile pursuit to "prove" that their "belief system.....their ideology ......their religious fervour " WiLL PREVAIL over NATURE and HISTORICAL FACTS is abysmally appalling !.
I use "capitals" to express EMPHASIS ! I am NOT yelling at you or anyone else !
I find it frustrating when many of the finest minds in science have expressed their opposition and their INFORMED views on the hollowness and stupidity of "anthropogenic climate change" only to be attacked and berated in the foulest manner .....as though invective and "feelings" are somehow the equivalent of a decent scientific argument.......which it's not.....and then watch POLITICIANS legislate this stupidity into LAW. In fact , the UN IPPC has become a "mouthpiece" for politicians !
The IPCC is not and has never been an objective science assessment organization. It was created by and has always been controlled by the governments of countries that perceive political benefits from international regulatory action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.....and it's corrupt through and through !
Please look up John F. Clauser , Richard Lindzen , Judith Curry , Roy Spencer , Ian Plimer , Patrick Moore , Freeman John Dyson , Steven Koonin , and Bjorn Lomborg
who has suggested that 'adaptation' will handle ANY given climate crisis.
And THAT is far from the "doom and gloom" that the media and school curricula constantly hand us !!!
I guess I am on team humans have impact on how our planet reacts on resource usage.
Our planet doesn’t care though, we are just a tiny time frame as species from it’s point of view.
My hope is though my kids can enjoy nature and not waste fuel and pollute the earth with plastic.
Do you have kids?
Tronicum : Yep......I do...and grand-kids as well !
Sure........but......Australians fought hard to gain an enviable standard of living and it was all powered by carbonaceous fuel of one kind or another !
It started out with trees , charcoal , then moved on to coal and is now mainly oil and gas. Since the by-products of burning these products has been demonised by the "brain-dead-tree-huggers" it does make you wonder if they ever think about what 'powers a tree' ? Oh ! Sunlight ! Yes, but to do what ? Photosynthesise CO2 and H2O into carbohydrates and OXYGEN !
That stuff we inhale before we exhale CO2 .......like trees do in the dark at night ! It's all part of a MASSIVE carbon cycle to which humans add very little......and what they do add has proved beneficial.
So....the fuel wasn't wasted.....it gave us a great source of cheap energy and a damned good lifestyle and , bonus , the "fumes" greened the entire planet ! Are you aware that the aim of the "eco-nuts" is to LOWER the CO2 levels to what has been determined as "pre-industrial levels" of 280 parts per million. Currently it is about 423 parts-per-million....and everything is thriving ! Since most plants NEED a level above 150 parts per million just to survive , the 280 level puts them at risk of dying-out altogether , and they are certainly NOT productive ! [ With higher CO2 levels , the plants USE LESS WATER too ].
When you read about the PLAGUES and BLACK DEATH and so on in the
"pre-industrial-times" you will read of frequent crop failures and a starving and weakened population which makes then very susceptible to contagion of any sort ! The WORST THING we can do is re-institute those sort of low levels of atmospheric CO2 if we wish to maintain our prosperity and productivity. These "eco-nuts" SAY that they actually LOVE every-living-thing on the planet BUT HATE HUMANS and have often expressed their desire to SAVE THE PLANET by removing THE CANCER .....meaning us !! Lovely.......Great attitude !!
.
My problem is that ALL the evidence is "out there" if people can be bothered to access it .....but it seem that they prefer to mindlessly CHANT THE SLOGANS rather than access the evidence and KNOW THE TRUTH.
When you use the word pollute are you aware that the plastic is inert and virtually interacts with nothing unless it is set on fire and burns.? That is why plastic is the choice product to have around food. It is biologically inert !
And NO.....all those NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC photos of dead marine animals and birds with bits of plastic in them are FAKE ! The plastic was added to the already-dead corpses BEFORE the photos were taken and the plastic DID NOT KILL THEM. They then wrote an outrageous story about their "discoveries" and how terrible the plastic was....killing everything !!
Regrettably , not enough people do any FACT CHECKING.
Fortunately , a "wildlife tour group" had passed through the same area a few days before , photographed exactly the same animals , and were able to PROVE that there was little or NO plastic in the corpses. THIS is the kind of dishonesty that one would NOT expect from a "reputable magazine" , but ,
it turns out that they have done it quite often ! So...not so "reputable" !
FAKE IMAGES and BAD NEWS sell magazines as well as newspapers nowadays ! And David Attenborough has now become a thoroughly reprehensible liar and mis-representer of wildlife videos too ! How disappointing for everyone that is ! He was HONEST once upon a time !
Anyway , I hope that you will READ a lot and come to see the situation more clearly . Regards , Trevor.
Trevor is deeply invested in a worldview where fossil fuels = prosperity and climate science = scam. His “education” is fragmented, self-selected, and ideologically filtered. Bias is total—he interprets nearly all contrary evidence as deception or corruption. He’s unlikely to shift because his stance is less about data and more about identity, distrust of elites, and pride in human progress through carbon.
Just mopping up now.
While CO2 does benefit some plant growth, you oversimplified complex climate interactions and don't acknowledge the broader scientific consensus on climate change impacts.
The claim about National Geographic using fake images would require specific documented cases to verify. What I did find was a massive amount of evidence supporting the claims about plastic pollution.
"Regrettably , you didn't do any fact checking." and that's a fact.
For someone following the science for 40 years, the reference list you gave mostly represents the small group of contrarian voices who focus on uncertainties in models and methodologies. Their work is useful mainly because it highlights recurring counter-arguments—such as cloud feedbacks, climate sensitivity, and model fidelity—that the broader scientific community has already examined many times.
Even most of those cited do not deny anthropogenic climate change—they argue about the scale, costs, or risks, rather than the basic reality.
The larger problem is that IPCC projections, while authoritative, are deliberately cautious. Because the process requires consensus, many known but less well-quantified positive feedbacks—such as permafrost carbon release, methane clathrates, and ice-albedo effects—are treated conservatively or left out. That means observed warming has often outpaced model expectations, and the risks of non-linear acceleration are likely higher than the “central” IPCC scenarios suggest.
So my position cannot be dismissed as ‘climate extremism’ or ‘alarmism’. I sit firmly within the scientific consensus, but I also take a pragmatic view of the limits of that consensus—recognizing that some risks are understated because of the cautious, consensus-driven nature of the IPCC process.
And for organics???
Which, if history’s any guide, means a record year for spoilage, surplus, and squandering the bounty.
because capitalism…
Bye bye for now @misterandmaster and assorted RWNJ keyboard warriors.
I may visit you when I have some spare time to school you again.
A final quote: "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking
The hopium, misinformation, RWNJ talking points, and so on are really bothersome on this thread.
I've taken the time to engage with some of it, but of course Dunning-Kruger effect and the relative number of people who can think vs those who can't or don't bother is a overwhelming at times.
Good luck with ah whatever it is you "think" you're doing.