Thermometers across North America descended to record lows over the last week. Yet if you were to believe the environmentalists, global warming is going to destroy the earth and food production is one of the leading contributions. The article, “As more eat meat, a bid to cut emissions” in NY Times is a great example of that scare.
While one week can’t predict climate changes, this winter makes one question how we’re getting warmer. Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian climatologist at the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, helps put this in perspective. “In my experience, farmers care more about the environment than most. It is their livelihood, but it s also their backyard, where they live and their children play. They constantly face the challenge of balancing survival with protecting the environment. They also face direct attacks on what they do, usually without justification but they rarely know until later. For example, methane was never a problem and atmospheric levels have declined in the last 15 years with no apologies to the farmers. In the late 1980s, central North American farmers were blamed for a 50% decline in waterfowl. Draining wetlands, clearing woodlands and their chemicals were the culprit. Actually, it was the drought and shift in wind patterns. When rainfall returned in the early 1990s, the highest level of waterfowl for over 70 years were recorded. Again, there was no apology.”
Fox News reported on questionable temperature recording last fall, which raises additional questions.
Before the pundits come after me as being uncaring about the environment – or you’re wondering why I’m writing about this, it’s simple. This is another case of consensus being reached without valid science. It’s misinformation that’s grossly impacting agriculture and ultimately, our economy. Ball’s theory, albeit debatable by weather experts, points to carbon dioxide as being less than 4% by volume of greenhouse gases and the human portion of that is 0.4%. He indicates that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are low at 385 parts per million and reducing them HAS SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANTS – meaning crops.
Do we need to wait until mandates impact the way crops are grown in North America? Take a second look at “global warming” and find some science to share in your circles about the cyclical patterns of weather. If you’re in food production, you’re exposed to the infamous weather risks more than nearly any other sector of the population. Shouldn’t you have a voice in it?