The Washington Post published an article yesterday claiming climate change is devastating Massachusetts cranberry production and threatening to eliminate America’s Thanksgiving cranberry sauce.
In related news, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is forecasting a record 2020 Massachusetts cranberry crop.
The Washington Post article is titled, “How Climate Change Is Complicating a Thanksgiving Staple.” The subtitle is, “Heatwave, drought, lack of winter ice are taking a toll on a quintessential Massachusetts crop.”
In the article, the Post quotes Bay Staters voicing their subjective feelings that climate change is making cranberry farming harder.
The article is littered with subheads like, “The fight to save a small fruit.” The article, however, presents no objective data to support the claims.
That struck us at Climate Realism as odd, considering objective cranberry data is available for Massachusetts and America as a whole.
Let’s take a look at objective cranberry facts:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agriculture Statistics Service estimates record Massachusetts cranberry production in 2020.
This directly contradicts the message of the Washington Post article, which likely explains why the Washington Post chose not to include any data in its article.
USDA also estimates strong cranberry production in Wisconsin this year. Wisconsin and Massachusetts are the two leading states for cranberry production.
Cranberry production in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and the rest of the United States has been so strong in recent years that, according to the Wisconsin State Farmer news site, “Facing a continued glut of cranberries and depressed prices, in 2017 the cranberry industry asked federal officials in 2017 to take unusual steps aimed at reducing production.”
“The industry’s U.S. Cranberry Marketing Committee asked the USDA to cap the amount of cranberries grown in 2018 at 75% of the normal crop. The committee also has asked the USDA to have cranberry companies withhold 15% of the 2017 crop from the marketplace,” the State Farmer reported.
The chart below, published by National Geographic, documents and illustrates the consistent, long-term growth in cranberry production. The chart ends with the year 2018, but that trend will continue with the estimated 2020 record crop production.
Ultimately, yesterday’s Washington Post article is merely the latest example of a nefarious strategy executed by climate activists and their corporate media allies.
Their dishonest tactic is to identify an upcoming holiday or something that people really love, and then claim that global warming is destroying it, whether or not there is any evidence, truth, or basis for the alarmist claim.
Fortunately for the sake of truth, we at Climate Realism will continue to present the truth and hold the Climate Establishment responsible for its lies.
Image by PublicDomainImages from Pixabay
Read more at Climate Realism
Problem is that the article was published and the weak minded zombies swallowed it hook line and sinker
I can see how a cranberry farmer benefits from this. Spreading concern over future unavailability (however exaggerated that may be) encourages purchasing now.
I had a similar feeling about a tourism company that runs tours to Antarctica talking about climate change threats. It creates a sense of urgency and encourages potential customers to act immediately, while they still can.
That’s one of the downsides to capitalism. If there’s money to be made from exaggeration, one should expect more of it.
The Washington Compost like the New York Slime’s prints Fake News and Front Page Lies in its liberal rag both of these phonie News Outlets prints Fake News
Wa Po and media have the same strategy — if you don’t have any actual bad news on global warming, just make it up. The population is so ignorant they won’t know the difference. And if someone points out that your article is bunk with data, then just lie about it then attack them and accuse them of being science deniers. That playbook has worked pretty well so far in this hoax.
How come there is such a discrepancy between the Wa Po and the FDA?