Vijay Jayaraj's guest essay
For two decades, the public has bombed severe warnings about the agricultural revelation caused by the imminent climate. It is claimed that the overly warm climate of carbon dioxide emissions from human activities will destroy food supplies and plunge humans into famine and chaos.
None of these makes any sense for many reasons. Now, a new study published in the scientific report makes this narrative of disaster mind narrative reveal that global temperatures and even 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) do not reduce crop yields and may even increase harvests.
Written by economist Ross McKitrick, the paper removes the key pillar of the “carbon social cost” that the Biden administration has always adjusted, an indicator used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to quantify the economic damage of carbon dioxide emissions. The social cost of carbon has increased fivefold, from $51 per ton of carbon dioxide to more than $250, in part based on the assumption that warming will undermine agriculture.
New discoveries are not only minor revisions to scientific records. They are reversals of dangerous conclusions drawn from sloppy (and perhaps even fraudulent) analysis. All information about climate change and food security is wrong.
How does EPA achieve the social cost of carbon, which is equivalent to mass hunger?
In 2014, a meta-analysis of widely cited crop model studies claimed that warm climates would cut crop yields worldwide, a claim that incorporated later models that affected the social costs of carbon polyps in Biden EPA.
However, this original dataset is flawed – attracted by missing variables. Of its 1,722 records, nearly half lacked critical data, such as changes in carbon dioxide concentration, leaving only 862 available entries. This incomplete picture depicts a grim crop appearance, while the crop yields are only moderately warming down.
McKitrick, not being overshadowed by the climate orthodox thing, digs deeper. By reexamining the original material, he retried 360 additional records, bringing the total to 1,222, an increase of approximately 40% of the available data.
Additional information shows that “average yield growth for all crop types in the warming scheme is even up to 5 degrees Celsius” – the jump in temperatures far exceeds the warm forecasts of the UN International Climate Change International Panel. This is not picky; this happens when the full scope of evidence is examined.
In his concluding remarks, McKitrick wrote: “If yields for all crop types will increase over the next 100-200 years, McKitrick wrote in his concluding comments: “There is no reason for the yields for all crop types to believe that global trade models can generate global benefits. ”
McKitrick's findings are built on a more comprehensive dataset, suggesting that the apocalypse assumption is based on the sand. Data show that crops can at least remain stable and even improve through massive warming.
Furthermore, plants are not too weak for a warm world. Their construction flourished in the contemporary temperatures of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Most crops are divided into two categories: C3 and C4 plants, named reflecting their different photosynthesis processes. C3 crops such as wheat, rice and soybeans flourish under elevated carbon dioxide conditions in the 21st century.
Carbon dioxide is food for plants, and for the food required for the photosynthesis process, it is a process in which oxygen is a by-product.
Higher levels of carbon dioxide act like superchargers, improving photosynthesis and water utilization efficiency. Research has long shown that carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouses can increase C3 yield by 20% to 40%. C4 crops (such as corn and sorghum) react less to CO2, but do well in hotter, dry conditions.
In short, if crop yields do not collapse (if they remain stable or grow), then the reason for the high social cost of carbon disappears.
McKitrick's research is consistent with a wide range of historical records that record the thriving humans during early warmer periods. 3,000 years ago the warmth of the Minoans and the subsequent warmth of the Romans and the warmth of the Middle Ages are examples.
Unfortunately, the UN’s International Group on Climate Change (categorized by many as standard bucks for climate change information) will adhere to climate dogma compliance rather than strict scientific inquiries. It usually ignores McKitrick's cutting-edge discoveries.
So where do we go from here?
First, the social cost of carbon calculation needs to be reset. Realistic assessments will show that carbon dioxide is a benefit, not a pollutant, and that increasing carbon dioxide increases global productivity rather than imposes costs on society.
The EPA must revisit its quantity, deprive the swelling agricultural losses, and grasp its estimates in all available data. It’s time to study facts, believe in real science, and end the irrational government messaging that provides climate hysteria.
The comment was originally Daily Signal March 16, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Assistant company2 allianceArlington, Virginia. he He holds a Master of Environmental Science from the University of East Anglia and a Bachelor of Science in Energy Management from Robert Gordon University in the UK, and a Bachelor of Engineering from Anna University in India.
Related
Discover more from Watt?
Subscribe to send the latest posts to your email.
