RICHARD BLACK INVENTS RICE DECLINE SCARE

[marchesarosa]

MARCHESAROSA YOUR LOCAL GIRL REPORTER GETS NATIONAL SCOOP !!!

STOP PRESS

RICHARD BLACK, BBC ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT, DISTORTS RICE PRODUCTION FORECAST IN TYPICAL BBC EXAGGERATION OF PURPORTED CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECTS!

Richard says "Global warming is cutting rice yields in many parts of Asia, according to research, with more declines to come. Yields have fallen by 10-20% over the last 25 years in some locations.”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10918591 NB this link now gives the amended version

whereas

the press release says ”Rising temperatures during the past 25 years have cut the yield growth rate by 10-20 percent in several locations."
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/uoc--htt080610.php



Rice production is still rising! Only the rate of increase has slowed a bit.

Do you need any more proof that the BBC is a scare-monger, NOT the be-all and end-all of climate reporting? I got the correct data via WUWT. Read this and the comments for the REAL picture about rice production. wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/10/rice-yields-co2-and-temperature-you-write-the-article/#comment-453700

Even the original research quoted was only for 6 years data on 227 farms in 6 countries. Where do they get their “25 years” from? How do they know temperature is the only or even main explanatory variable for purported differences observed?

Total CARP! Just typical scare-mongering from so-clled ‘climate researchers” to keep the research funding flowing and themselves in a job.

[rsmith77]

Well spotted Mary!
Of course the BBC's fossicking around for scare stories has nothing to do with the impending September climate summit.
The RSPB have now stated that fish stock "depletion" is down to climate change.
I'll be looking for an apology since, for the last 25 years, it's been "unequivocally" down to overfishing.
p.s. The fisheries leadership (SFF NFFO etc) are very quiet on the subject.

[marchesarosa]

High Fives Mr Smith!

Have you seen wolgrumpfy's attack on the purveyors of misinformation here?

www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7680662&skip=20&show=20#p99367842

[marchesarosa]

BBC to issue correction on rice yields story

Posted on August 12, 2010 by Anthony Watts
wattsupwiththat.com/


From: Richard Black
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:01 AM
To: Anthony Watts
Subject: RE: Your article on rice yields

Dear Anthony,

Thanks for your email. You are correct – I am mistaken – a correction will be made to the news story shortly.

Best regards,
Richard Black



Yeah!!!

MARCHESA'S CLIMATE BLOG INVICTA !!

MARCHESA'S CLIMATE BLOG VICTORIOSA !!



But I sent Richard an email first! Where's MY reply?
Yippee! Vindication!

Who cares who gets the credit! Twas herself who first informed Anthony Watts at WUWT of the silly error.

[rsmith77]

Hi Mary,
I'm following the discussion on the BBC board and have some experience with industry authorities that might shed some light on the rice institute's AGW stance.

Our local and national fishermen's associations have, for over a decade, argued that lobster stocks are in decline. They aren't - they've remained stable for over 170 years.
Now why would they do such a thing?
Money and power - simple.
The local association, since taking this stance, has received hundreds of thousands of pounds for various spurious "re-stocking" schemes.
They have fallen into step with the EU on the suggestion that the fishery should be micro-managed to prevent stock "collapse".
And who will be the local "controllers" if this micro-management comes to pass?
The local association of course.
They would have total power over individual fishermen.....me.

Unfortunately for them, I have exposed them constantly - for over a decade - for the corrupt, un-representative shower of charlatans they are and this grubby little cartel will never be formed.

If the rice institute is to remain viable, it will have to feature the pet "problem" of it's financier.
The UN will be there somewhere.
It always is.

[marchesarosa]

Yes, too much public money encourages the creation of pseudo problems to solve to keep the money flowing.

I have since had a reply from Richard Black. Perfunctory to say the least.

If there is a "problem" with rice production in future it will be from the demand side not the supply side. Uncontrolled population growth is more likely to be the scary future scenario, but the numpties can see no further than "climate change".

Ever-increasing rice production is a world success story. Why would the BBC science correspondent want to spin it as in any sense problematic?

As you said before, Mr Smith, its a planned and deliberate assault on the public consciousness in the lead up to the climate summit. Same as we saw pre-Copenhagen. Judging by that fiasco I don't believe any amount of propaganda is going to bridge the gap between the participants or reverse the decline in public support for the AGW hypothesis.

[rsmith77]

Yep, but they're not all numpties. So what's your opinion on the objective of the "thinking" warmists?
It's probably a complex brew of agenda and self interest with the global socialist utopia fantasy very prominent.
Most of the people I know never think about any of this. They happily bimble along, blissfully ignorant to the fact that they're getting royally shafted by a tiny minority of activists.
I'd be surprised if the hard core activists number more than a few thousand. This makes your efforts all the more commendable and, more importantly, effective.
It's a pity that these activists have achieved massive penetration into the world's media and education system.
But what can one do?

[marchesarosa]

"It's probably a complex brew of agenda and self interest with the global socialist utopia fantasy very prominent"

There's also arrogance - the belief that they CANNOT be wrong. That the matter is so obvious and settled that no-one but an idiot could question it. Maybe they are too young to realise that it is perfectly POSSIBLE to change ones mind about something over time and that the more information one acquires the more open to alternatives one becomes? These people have closed their minds to ever acquiring an undrstanding of alternative explanations. It's Orwell's "protective stupidity"

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

[marchesarosa]

I bet Richard Black isn’t spinning THIS story on his Rice Blog!

“Plant breeders will probably be able to increase yields considerably in the CO2-enriched environment of the future, and most weeds and airborne pests and diseases should remain controllable, so long as policy changes do not remove too many types of crop-protection chemicals. However, soil-borne pathogens are likely to be an increasing problem when warmer weather will increase their multiplication rates; control is likely to need a transgenic approach to breeding for resistance.

"There is a large gap between achievable yields and those delivered by farmers, even in the most efficient agricultural systems. A gap is inevitable, but there are large differences between farmers, even between those who have used the same resources. If this gap is closed and accompanied by improvements in potential yields then there is a good prospect that crop production will increase by approximately 50 per cent or more by 2050 without extra land. However, the demands for land to produce bio-energy have not been factored into these calculations.”

Possible changes to arable crop yields by 2050
Keith W. Jaggard*, Aiming Qi and Eric S. Ober
Philosophical Transdactions of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences

rstb.royalsocietypub...

P.S. Notice the modest "Possible" in the title of the paper, folks. (How very different from our own dear Richard Black's "Rice Yields to fall under Global Warming" headline! ) Did you notice that? That's how proper scientists express themselves - they give you permission to conclude otherwise because they know circumstances alter cases.

The REAL scientist is modest in his claims. Remember that, you footsoldiers of Catastrophic CO2-induced runaway climate apocalypse.

[havelock]

That's a very interesting science paper - did you read the entire abstract? I've pasted it below for ease of reference and highlighted their opening sentence (which you omitted when you posted part of their report)

"By 2050, the world population is likely to be 9.1 billion, the CO2 concentration 550 ppm, the ozone concentration 60 ppb and the climate warmer by ca 2°C. In these conditions, what contribution can increased crop yield make to feeding the world?

CO2 enrichment is likely to increase yields of most crops by approximately 13 per cent but leave yields of C4 crops unchanged. It will tend to reduce water consumption by all crops, but this effect will be approximately cancelled out by the effect of the increased temperature on evaporation rates. In many places increased temperature will provide opportunities to manipulate agronomy to improve crop performance. Ozone concentration increases will decrease yields by 5 per cent or more.

Plant breeders will probably be able to increase yields considerably in the CO2-enriched environment of the future, and most weeds and airborne pests and diseases should remain controllable, so long as policy changes do not remove too many types of crop-protection chemicals. However, soil-borne pathogens are likely to be an increasing problem when warmer weather will increase their multiplication rates; control is likely to need a transgenic approach to breeding for resistance. There is a large gap between achievable yields and those delivered by farmers, even in the most efficient agricultural systems. A gap is inevitable, but there are large differences between farmers, even between those who have used the same resources. If this gap is closed and accompanied by improvements in potential yields then there is a good prospect that crop production will increase by approximately 50 per cent or more by 2050 without extra land. However, the demands for land to produce bio-energy have not been factored into these calculations. "

I find the opening sentence very interesting. These scientists assume that the world will be warmer by 2 deg Centigrade by 2050. You seem to be commending these scientists for their work so I assume you also support this assumption that they make?

Or do you just agree with scientists when they agree with your preconceived ideas?