BBC Claim Climate Change Is Cutting Crop Yields In Africa
By Paul Homewood
h/t Quaesoveritas
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b091s7zl
More lies from the BBC Today programme.
At about 44 minutes in, a fairly sensible report from Kenya about improving agriculture methods is introduced with this shameless comment:
Climate change is cutting crop yields [in Africa]
The data from the UN FAOSTAT shows the opposite to be true:
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare
In Kenya itself, the value of agricultural production has been at record high levels for the last two years:
Of course, these drastic increases in agricultural productivity are due to a number of factors, and trying to unravel a climate signal is well nigh impossible. Not that that will stop grant addicted climate scientists making up their own fake evidence.
One is entitled to wonder why the BBC thought it appropriate to even make the comment they did, instead of giving their listeners the actual facts?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
>
Then there’s this:
‘Increasing atmospheric CO2: effects on crop yield, water use and climate”:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378377483900756
interesting , but as usual paywalled; we pay the universities to produce research then they charge us to read it….. Canny business sense?
This will not get any press coverage of course as 97% of scientists, and Al Gore, know it must be incorrect.
I am sure it is a “knee jerk” reaction for the BBC and others to blame “climate change” when they really mean “weather”.
They never define precisely what they mean by “climate change” or provide any real evidence.
There was also an item about an eagle in Scotland having two mates simultaneously. I was surprised that they didn’t blame that on “climate change”, too.
Obviously any Russian claim needs skepticism but
I suspect the old Soviet numbers were heavily overstated.
Bumper tumble-weed crop maybe.
doh!
Forgot the link http://texasescapes.com/CFEckhardt/Aliens-Amongst-Us.htm
To be fair to the BBC, I think they meant crop yields in Africa, but apparently even that is not the case.
What I object to is the fact that bad weather has become synonymous with “climate change”.
Plus the fact that the real problem, of rapid population growth, was almost ignored.
The BBC has lost the ability to give listeners (or viewers) the facts. It is only capable of giving opinions, and those are invariably biased and/or wrong.
Only yesterday, The Farming Today programme had an item about a floating wind farm off the coast of Scotland that will power x,000 homes. What the item has to do with real farming I do not know, but that doesn’t stop the BBC propaganda machine.
Wind (subsidy) farming once promised to be the new cash crop for diversifying land owners.
Obviously any Indian claim needs skepticism but
https://twitter.com/ScotClimate/status/898242087614910464
You can tell Twitter reaction by looking at the hashtag #R4Today
basically no one noticed
Neither did the item appear in the running order.
No one tweeted with @bbcradio 4 either on any key words I could think of
like drought, Kenya, climate etc.
Is the Twitter reaction important?
quaesoveritas
Judging by Trump’s election, yes, very important.
In the last 30 years, Planet Earth has greened by 14%. I understand that about 70% of this greening is due to the increased level of CO2. This greening will have brought increased crop yields with it, due to the increased area available for crops as well as higher crop yields per unit area.
30 years ago, CO2 level was 350 ppm, now it is a little above 400 ppm. World population 30 years ago was 5 billion, now it is nearly 7.5 billion, or almost 50% greater.
Considering the reduced crop yields at 350 ppm relative to today’s yields, there is some doubt that this planet could support a population of 7.5 billion at this CO2 level. Consequently, when groups such as 350.org call for extraordinary measures to reduce our CO2 level back to 350 ppm, they are really calling for mass starvation and all the miseries and wars that this would entail. Remember this when environmental NGOs tell you they are working for the betterment of mankind.
Roger Graves
From the NASA report here https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth you are right. CO2 represents a 9% (net) global greening in 30 years of satellite measurement thanks entirely to increased atmospheric CO2.
However, I think it’s important that we understand that of the remaining 5%, influenced by man, there have been, and will be great strides in agricultural technology, GM crops being almost the least of them, better farming practises, fertilisers, crop breeding etc. in places like India and China.
So even if CO2 were successfully sequestered (a ridiculous concept that would bankrupt the world over many generations) technology would fill the void. Most of it commercial technology, not wasteful government funded knee jerk reactions to an isolated event.
Humanity will prevail, despite governments, and of course 350.org.
Since the BBC made it mandatory to listen or watch online by entering your D.O.B. and an email address I stopped listening and watching.
I haven’t missed the lies and propaganda they regularly spout and it has been good for my blood pressure.
So you use a fake ID and a fake D of B eh? I only listen to Today when I need reminding of the shite the programme peddles; however, TMS is a must, so Nora Gertibum of Scunthorpe, born in Jan 01 1905 is a keen BBC radio user…
I have to say I listen to Radio 2 all day and the only credible presenter is, of course, Ken Bruce.
Jeremy Vine is an utter joke (years ago I took him seriously) and a sensationalist designed to increase ratings. He has never presented a balanced programme in his life. However, he is the ‘fill in’ between Ken, who, true to great journalistic principles, never gives his opinion on anything JV proposes, and the complete muppet Steve Wright who is the most inane 1970’s broadcater to ever insult the airways.
The only reason I listen is because:
1. I like Ken Bruce and his acerbic wit.
2. It distracts me from my Tinnitus.
Don’t even mention the idiot ginger nut Evans who, to his credit, was brilliant on GLR with the Rumpy Pumpy’s and Hot Lips Hollie in the late 80’s, but got drunk for 20 years and has ended up a babbling imbecile getting paid £2M a year, including a salary for Top Gear which he bombed on. (Pause for breath)
Nor are many of the independents much better in the a.m. so I service my Tinnitus with the only thing BBC Radio 2 occasionally does well, it does play some good music.
Oh! And I wake up to the news, which invariably gives me a start to my day by scoffing.
Paul Jones Rhythm n Blues hour on Tuesdays.
Yup, noted down just in case! As with you, I only listen to Today when I feel like kicking the dogs. It helps with that.
JJB MKI. Quite. Brexit, Trump and then Grenfell nigh on drove me mad. One Today programme had 15 minutes on Grenfell, then a few other items, then a piece on a woman who was “recording London” (apparently). Interview opened .. “and of course, you live near Grenfell Tower”. Of course she ****ing did. Pah.
I find a lot of people saying – I am not interested in their opinions, I just want the news. Last week, for example, we were treated to Humphrys defending Sharia Law. It’s traditional, opined the twat. Not here it isn’t. He seemed quite happy to have a country running under two separate and completely opposed legal systems.
USDA sees bumper U.S. corn, soy harvests despite weather woes
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usda-crops-idUSKBN1AQ250
Aug 10, 2017
What is amazing is since 1997 the amount of land used for agriculture has been declining.
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/mission_and_values/
Obviously that’s in reverse order of what they imagine they could do.
One out of three?
Well how are they doing ?
Creative/Creativity = another word for lying
see also
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/publicpurposes/
The BBC consider themselves untouchable with a tax funded revenue stream so why should they care what people think? I am just disappointed that there are still so many who can’t see them for what they are and still think they are the esteemed and worthy organisation they were back in the 40s, 50s, 60s and maybe into the 70s.
The BBC have become increasingly shrieky and removed from reality recently – their fixation on climate change and Donald Trump seems like an illness. I tuned into Radio 2 the other day (which would normally be a music station) to hear a long religiously fawning segment about Al Gore, repeating the usual unsupported guff (Miami sea level etc). It’s reminded me to snip the arial cable next time the license fee comes round..