Study puts ‘agriculturally-driven climate change’ on the alarmist menu

Posted: November 9, 2020 by oldbrew in Agriculture, Emissions, research, Temperature

Irish farm [image credit:]

Get ready to be told what the new rules of food consumption should be, according to climate-obsessed researchers. That seems to be the message being pushed here. All based on the assertion that minor trace gases in the atmosphere are going to dictate what happens to the weather, of course.
– – –
Reducing fossil fuel use is essential to stopping climate change, but that goal will remain out of reach unless global agriculture and eating habits are also transformed, according to new research from the University of Minnesota and University of Oxford.

A paper published Thursday in the journal Science reveals that emissions from global food production alone could lead to a global temperature increase of more than 1.5°C by mid-century and of nearly 2°C by the end of the century, even if emissions from fossil fuels were to end immediately, reports

The study also identifies the need for large and rapid improvements in farming practices, as well as changes in what we eat and in how much food we waste, to help achieve the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global temperature increases to 1.5°C or 2°C.

“Our work shows that food is a much greater contributor to climate change than is widely known. Fortunately, we can fix this problem by using fertilizer more efficiently, by eating less meat and more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nuts and by making other important changes to our food system,” said Jason Hill, professor in the Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering in the University of Minnesota’s College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences and College of Science and Engineering.

The study determined that, if left unchanged, future greenhouse gas emissions from food production would alone lead to the world warming by 1.5°C by 2050 and by 2°C by the end of the century compared to pre-industrial levels.

The authors projected future emissions using expected trends in population growth, dietary changes and the additional amount of land required to feed the world.

“There are at least five different changes that would allow us to prevent this agriculturally-driven climate change” said David Tilman, Regents professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior in the College of Biological Sciences.

Continued here.

  1. Damian says:

    “ The study determined that, if left unchanged, future greenhouse gas emissions from food production would alone lead to the world warming by 1.5°C by 2050 and by 2°C by the end of the century compared to pre-industrial levels.”
    How many people understand that 1 degree of that warming has already occurred and that, to the climate zealots, all natural fluctuations in global temperature apparently ceased around 1850?

  2. stpaulchuck says:

    the tyranny of the anti meat people rises once again, using the excuse of ‘climate catastrophe’ to push their agenda. I know where I’d like to push their agenda.

  3. Kip Hansen says:

    Agenda driven science — in which the agenda comes first, then the recommendations, then the findings, and only then the research to support those — carefully conducted to lead to the correct results.

  4. Chaswarnertoo says:

    The stupid, it burns!

  5. oldbrew says:

    Eat less meat and watch that Arctic sea ice grow…yeah! Fools.

  6. Graeme No.3 says:

    If catastrophe is coming in the next 30 years, why didn’t it come in the last 30 years?
    Oops! I’ve probably caused a massive revision to get underway “adjusting” the records, so we get that 3℃ warming we were going to get by 2020, and The Maldives will be underwater retrospectively from all that Arctic floating ice melting by 2008 or 2010 or 2012 or 2013 etc.

  7. Phoenix44 says:

    Let’s take two fundamental points and apply them to Climate Science. First, how likely is it that every new “discovery” only ever goes one way – it’s worse than we thought? Surely extremely unlikely?

    Second, we know that perhaps 50% of all published papers are wrong, full of errors, faked or not reproducible. It may be more than 50%. So what papers in Climate Science have been retracted? Anything like 50%?

    Just using two basic tests we can be almost certain that a great deal of Climate Science is simply wrong. If this were a statistical test for cheating it would be flashing red. Yet nobody who ought to care does.

  8. oldbrew says:

    The paper points to recent research that shows all five strategies are readily achievable and have many benefits beyond controlling climate change

    Sheer fantasy and pathetic propaganda. Nobody is ever going to be ‘controlling climate change’ 🥱

  9. saighdear says:

    Heard it yesterday on Rad Highl news – So many Scottish total Plonkers! Don’t they feel ashamed to have studied so much and come out with this? For my Part, my teachers are long since gone and to have these idiots ” In higher echelons” of the Agri industry. For ~~sake, the man was a so-called VET and now a Farmer and who has been appointed to high office in the Scottish NFU, etc ( Miller that is) ….
    Now reading an article this morning in the Tesco Mag: ‘makes a change from eating meat…’ regarding meals for the festive season: THose of us well -balanced country folk would NEVER state that a Meal without Veg, or fish, or whatever , was a ‘Welcome’ break from that constituent, would we? Sounds like the sme Music sheet as Biden Remoaners et al….. nothing to see here..

  10. hunterson7 says:

    The climate insanity is in track to do more damage than eugenics Insanity.
    I’m glad to be older. Perhaps I’ll miss the worst of it.

  11. spetzer86 says:

    It’ll all be better when there’s fewer of us, I’m sure. They’ve got the UK grid teetering, they’re attacking your food production / imports (no nasty imported tropical fruits for you lot), and they’re destroying your ability to easily move around the country.

  12. hunterson7 says:

    OT but relevant:
    A perspective on how we arrived at this point:

  13. Coeur de Lion says:

    Despite huge fossil fuel driven improvements to Global Life, there are still about a billion people who really don’t get enough to eat. All this agrinonsense is produced by metropolitans who live inside the beltway/M25 and have never seen anyone who is starving to death.

  14. ivan says:

    All this is totally in accord with the UN Agenda21 and Agenda 30. If you read those documents you can see this is what the UN Church of Climatology is pushing for – reduction in world population and submission of those remaining to the overlords.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s