In recent days, numerous media have published a new Associated Press (AP) article “Scientists who block agriculture from climate change need more public funds, but they are becoming less and less.” [emphasis, links added]
The Associated Press's claim is wrong and completely contradicts the actual agricultural performance data.
The evidence clearly shows that farmers are not overwhelmed by climate change. In contrast, the vast majority of crops benefit from long-term growing seasons and higher CO2 levels, thereby inducing record crop yields.
Articles from the Associated Press state Climate change exceeds farmers’ ability to adapt, and the only solution is more federal funding for speculative research.
This hypothesis is refuted by real-world data.
As a glance outline of the climate overview, and supported by USDA data, American farmers have repeatedly broken production records in recent years.
The yields of corn, soybean and wheat all show a long-term uptrend – although considered to be a destruction of climate damage. This is not a question of opinion; it can be measured directly as shown in the figure below.
Meanwhile, as shown in the figure, while the yield and yield of Chuang cereals has increased, the land use of cereals is declining, proving that agricultural innovation has significantly increased yields.
Faced with the history of science and technology development, the Associated Press quoted Erin McGuire of Davis University in California, saying: “I don't think private companies can replicate how federal funds usually support early stages, speculative science…because economics doesn't really work.”
Absolute interruption, but what planet is thinking?
The private sector has long been the driver of game-changing innovation, from SpaceX’s reusable rockets to mRNA vaccines to GMO crops to AI-Driven Intive Ag-Tech.
None of these breakthroughs come from speculative governments, they are led by entrepreneurs who see opportunities rather than apocalypse.
Agriculture is a helpless victim, and the idea of waiting to be rescued by government grants is inconsistent with the reality of modern agriculture.
American farmers are using precision planting, advanced weather modeling, drought-tolerant seed hybrids, GPS-guided equipment and AI-based pest management – almost all of which are developed or commercialized By the private sector.
Although the Associated Press article has been invested in federal funding, it completely ignores the enormous growth in agricultural productivity generated through private innovation and market-driven adaptations.
Even assumed threats to agriculture by climate change, such as drought or extreme weather, do not exist in the data and certainly do not translate into a decline in output.
More than 200 climate realist posts show that crop yields and yields have increased significantly during the recent slight warming period, partly because.
This is the case with almost every crop being inspected on all continents and countries. one Climate Realism For example, the post shows data showing that farmland is becoming more productive, rather than less.
In fact, mild warming and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide are improving crop toughness and accelerating growth, even if this phenomenon is conveniently overlooked in climate alert circles. Carbon dioxide is not an evil pollutant of plants. Literally, they breathed.
Perhaps most frustrating is how the article sees “climate-smart agriculture” as a justification for an unlimited growth federal budget, while providing no evidence that such fantasy plans (usually or any clearly determined effort) do produce the results that farmers actually need.
This is a classic case of bureaucratic inertia: first funding, later prove. The article acknowledges that the USDA’s climate intelligence initiative is a multi-billion dollar effort, but where is the cost-benefit analysis?
Where to show better yield because These programs, but aren't it?
What we see here is another example of narrative-oriented reporting as an analysis.
The AP article cites the demands of researchers and bureaucrats and relies heavily on anecdotes to avoid hard data. This story framework reduces public funding as a crisis without providing any evidence, less certain evidence, that any kind of climate funding is necessary and much less efficient.
By the end, the Associated Press will issue such shallow reasons for grants to achieve more government spending, which is disappointing, but no surprise.
Without speculative climate plans, American farmers do a great job. It's time for the Associated Press report to reflect this reality.
Top photo by Denley Jones
Read more in Climate Realism
