Climate Doom Hoax: Debunking the Latest Agricultural Scare
The Latest Climate Pivot: From Warming to Agricultural Ruin.
Here we go again. As public interest wanes in the endless parade of climate doom, first global warming, then extreme weather, activists and complicit media have pivoted once more. Their latest scare? Subtle warming and rising CO₂, proven to boost crop yields and green the planet, will somehow trigger agricultural collapse. It’s the same tired, debunked narrative, repackaged as ‘groundbreaking’ science.
I’ve extensively dissected these narratives before. For instance, I’ve detailed how NASA’s own data undermines claims of crop devastation, showing global production of staple crops like rice, wheat, and corn surging approximately 50% since the mid-1990s, precisely when warming is said to have accelerated dramatically. Notably, rice production skyrocketed without significant expansion in cultivated land, proving the tangible benefits of CO₂ fertilization and agricultural innovation.
Similarly, my critique of IPCC predictions spotlighted how their 2007 forecast of agricultural collapse in Africa failed spectacularly. Instead of a predicted 50% yield reduction, agricultural output in regions like the Sahel, East Africa, and Southern Africa soared. Ethiopia alone increased agricultural output by nearly 64% since 2007.
Additionally, I’ve thoroughly discussed the critical role of synthetic fertilizers made from fossil fuels, essential in sustaining nearly half of the world’s population.
Yet, despite these repeated failures, prestigious journals like Nature continue publishing papers that echo the same unfounded fear-mongering. Why? It’s simple, fear fuels funding. Activist scientists, universities, and research institutions profit from a perpetual state of alarm. The more dire their predictions, the richer the rewards.
This brings us to the latest paper published in Nature, predicting massive agricultural disruption due to climate change, echoing the IPCC’s discredited claims from 2007.
Why This Paper is Just More Climate Propaganda
Here’s the real kicker, the new Nature paper isn’t groundbreaking science, it’s recycled nonsense. If you’ve followed my previous writings, you already know what to expect, carefully orchestrated doom, selective data omission, and a complete disregard for observable agricultural trends.
Notably, this research was heavily funded by influential organizations, including the Carnegie Corporation, the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, the Sloan Foundation, and several philanthropic entities like the Heising-Simons Family Fund and the Ray and Dagmar Dolby Fund. This extensive financial backing clearly illustrates the vested interest in promoting climate alarmism, driving more funding and policy influence through fear.
If you want to understand exactly why this paper is scientific nonsense, why it’s essentially a rerun of the IPCC’s debunked predictions, and how the real world agricultural data utterly demolishes their narrative, you’ll want to continue reading. Subscribe today to IrrationalFear.com, and for about the price of one cup of coffee, you’ll not only unlock this critical analysis but also gain access to over 350 unique articles systematically dismantling the climate crisis narrative.
See more here Substack
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Len Winokur had concluded his comment to the 1/24/2025 article listed as related to this article “How ‘the science’ blows hot and cold.” Len seems to forget that topic of that previous article and this article Is WEATHER. For the science is to get to CLIMATE one needs to study the weather of that given day for the past 20 years. Len is the guy who needs to better inform himself.
And we must remember that ACTUAL HISTORY is fact. During 2018 two of my articles were published here. (The Natural World Is Cyclic 3/14/2018 and History, Erratic Boulders, And Science 5/17/2028). In the first I had written “Then, when I recently read that the last glaciers, which covered large portions of the Northern Hemisphere’s continents, recently melted only about 12,500 years ago, I began to ponder if there might be some relationship between the precession of the earth’s axis and climate change. So, as I ponder, I conclude there may be many things, which we know, about which are not being commonly written at this time.”
Now, 7 years later, I am considering the near being of another glacial period because the natural world is CYCLIC.
Have a good day
Reply