I wonder why NBC didn't interview any agriculture professors or agricultural economists for this piece. They interviewed a medical doctor (not an agriculture or crop production specialist), a spokesman for NOAA (not an agriculture or crop production specialist), and corridor design ecologist (not an agriculture or crop production specialist).

The dead giveaway that they were just looking for a headline and some quotes to support their ideology was their factoid about the amount of corn planted YTD vs 2012. Anyone involved in crop production knows that the weather this year has been quite different than last year -- specifically, cooler and wetter. If your corn is planted too early (weather too cool), your yield decreases. When your fields are too wet, you can't get your equipment around your fields without getting stuck.

Maybe they should talk to people who are actually producing our food supply about what state it's in.

How do I get my information? Let's consider your comment about seed purchases. From the USDA's May 13, 2013 Crop Progress report:

"The non-probability crop progress and condition surveys include input from approximately 4,000 respondents whose occupations provide them opportunities to make visual observations and frequently bring them in contact with farmers in their counties. Based on standard definitions, these respondents subjectively estimate the progress of crops through various stages of development, as well as the progress of producer activities. They also provide subjective evaluations of crop conditions."

The figure mentioned in the article has nothing to do with seed purchases.

You should check the USDA crop report from May 10, which said:

"In a report released Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated farmers would bring in 14.1 billion bushels of corn in 2013, a billion bushels more than the previous record set in 2009."

and

"Farmers are planting more than 97 million acres of corn, the most since 1936."

This is why I posited that someone with agriculture knowledge be interviewed for the story, not non-agronomists.

I'm positing that you're deliberately confusing the two in an attempt to support a thesis that has no evidence unless you make it up.

Maybe you're right. Maybe I don't get it. What was my thesis, anyhow? I only said that they should interview agronomists for crop production articles.

I also don't think I'm the one who is confusing weather and climate -- the author of the NBC article did that. He tried to use the late planting of the 2013 corn crop as evidence that climate change is ruining our food supply. But, the difference in planting date is caused by weather, not climate, and he ignored USDA forecasts that 2013's corn yield will be the largest on record.

When media "experts" blather on about how climate change is a hoax and that climate merely heats up and cools back down naturally throughout history, etc., I wonder how quick George is to remind people that we need to listen instead to real climate scientists.

??? Are we reading the same article (the Bill Briggs article linked at the very top of this page)? I only found three people interviewed for the article (Robert Lawrence, John Ewald, and Lee Hannah) and one incomplete out-of-context reference to a USDA report. Lawrence, Ewald, and Hannah may be very credible people, but none of them are crop scientists.

What historical CO2 data are you talking about? He referenced the CO2 measurement at Mauna Loa, but that number at that weather station has little to do with crop production elsewhere. You can't have possibly followed me for 20 years, b/c my career hasn't been that long. But, if you have read my peer reviewed papers, I thank you. Perhaps you don't like the links I have made, but they are all .edu links or scientific journal links.

Also, what is the message you think I'm trying to spread? I don't have a position on climate change. I just don't like it when popular press articles don't use evidence when makign claims and I pay particular attention to environmental and crop production issues.

There were two data sources, USDA and NOAA as well as the three sources you cited. I hardly think we can source the 1958 data to this guy.

(link...).

The article was not about short term crop production but long term food supply.

(link...).

Here is a link to the credentials of one of the men you claim is not qualified to be a credible source in an article concerning the long term food supply of the earth. It would appear to me, that your point is that because of his medical degree, he is somehow incapable of understanding and relating climate change to the world's food supply. I would submit that his credentials and experience suggest that you're wrong.

Finally, here's Lee Hannah's link.

(link...)

The idea that these folks are less than qualified to comment on climate and how it relates to the food supply is preposterous. In fact, the article was clearly written and stated and its thesis is superbly supported.

I also noted that you haven't clearly stated just what information or conclusions are wrong and presented a counterargument. Perhaps you could point us to one of your peer reviewed papers.

John Ewald works for NOAA and gave the author the NOAA data. That doesn't count twice -- you can't double dip. And, I already included the USDA data in my post.

But, you're missing the point. None of these sources have brought to the table any evidence to support their claims. The author did tell us that the most recent CO2 measurement was higher than ever recorded at the Mauna Loa weather station, but he didn't tell us how that impacts crops.

The author mentions some problems with the citrus greening bacteria, but he ignores the USDA reports that 2013's crop will produce only 5% less citrus on 15% less land than in 2012 -- and this year's crop has higher sugar content and flavor ratings than last year's crop. Reserchers at the University of Florida have developed management practices for this and say that it's not as big a problem as the media has made it out to be. They also say that it's not a climate issue, but a short-term weather issue. Why did the author not consult a crop scientist or UF citrus physiologist for this information?

We already discussed how the author mistook short-term weather conditions for longer-term climate conditions with his needless mention of corn plantings.

It looks like the author came in with the intent to write a "global warming is dooming us all" article, whether the facts supported his position or not. The bottom line is that he provided no evidence to support his position. I'm not saying that his position is necessarily wrong. But, I *am* saying that he didn't use evidence to support his headline.

The baseline data I gathered for the acid deposition study in the GSMNP is source data. I am the source.

The source data gathered by others comes from other sources. Steve Moore's review and conclusions about that data are yet another.

The data is one thing, the conclusions drawn by a scientist about that data are another.

But you knew that because Toby's link (link...)

Established the same data, minus the opinion.

The author did tell us that the most recent CO2 measurement was higher than ever recorded at the Mauna Loa weather station, but he didn't tell us how that impacts crops.

“That warmer and more moist air (caused by the CO2) creates the conditions that certain pathogens thrive on,” Lawrence said. “That’s the dilemma with things like the coffee fungi and some of the problems with citrus.”

Again, you simply ignore everything that doesn't fit your fantasy.

There are too many words here for me to adequately reply to George from an iPad while on vacation, but if he doesn't "believe" in AGW he has no credibility on any scientific issue.

Strike 1 -- The citrus issue is a bacteria whose function has nothing to do with humidity (rather unchanged in FL) or CO2 (relatively unchaged in FL). Production per acre is also up over last year.

Strike 2 -- The latest word from the American Phytopathological Society (APS) is that coffee rust in Guatemala is the result of using old, susceptible coffee varieties and ignoring the newer, rust-resistant varieties. APS says that climate has little to do with this. In case you're wondering, the largest coffee sellers using Guatemalan beans say there is no hint of disruption in their supply.

Again, if the author would have spoken to someone with crop production knowledge, all these problem could have been avoided.

(link...)

...Because deniers tend to go to the OpEd pages and TV, rather than science journals, the public perception is skewed in their favor; people think this is a bigger controversy than it is. The only controversy here is a manufactured one; made up by people who are basing it on ideology, not facts, evidence, and science. That’s not just my opinion; that statement itself is backed up by facts, evidence, and science. ...

You claim that deniers go to OpEd pages, then you link to one! Ha Ha Ha!

I guess you got the last laugh!

Have you even read the paper?

I did follow the link. I've linked to Slate on this board in the past and was told that it was a biased OpEd site. So, I thought that was true no matter who linked to it.

But, I've noticed that you still haven't linked to the original paper. Why would you send us to Slate instead of sending us to the original paper to get the author's comments?

Methinks you are regurgitating what others are telling you instead of thinking for yourself.

The links are there. Such articles are written for lay persons and are perfectly appropriate.

Do you recognize AGW?

Do I recognize AGW? I don't know. There's so much conflicting information out there that I'm just not sure. The study you cited even said that 66% of the abstracts they scanned thought the same way. I don't know that I have enough evidence to commit totally to one side or the other.

But, my personal thoughts on this subject don't matter here. This isn't about me. Going all the way back to my original post, this is about proper journalism.

Well done. Your good manners and simple concise points have driven these three into a slobbering frothing meltdown of insults, lies, half truths, and gross innuendo.

I especially like the ludicrous claim, "I win". The clarion call of every third grade blowhard.

What next boys, hold your breath until you turn blue?