A Michigan State University researcher told the media that in 20 or 30 years, it may be too hot to grow fruit in Michigan.
The assertion was reported in the Michigan Herald Review article, “Farmers chase migrating crops in a warming climate,” which Google News is placing among its top search results today for “climate change.”
Don’t worry, Michigan, objective data show you will still be able to grow fruit in 20 years.
Phil Robertson, a researcher at Michigan State University’s Kellogg Biological Station, made the claim while objective data show fruit production is especially impressive in states much warmer than Michigan.
America’s southernmost state – Florida – produces the second-most amount of fruit in the nation. California, which is also much warmer than Michigan, ranks first. The two combined produce 70 percent of the nation’s fruit.
Even if we didn’t have such data readily available, it is simply preposterous and idiotic to say that global warming will make it too hot to grow fruit in Michigan in 20 years.
How do climate alarmists keep getting free passes from the media, much less having the media lecture us that these ridiculous claims are “settled science”?
For people with an open mind about claims of a climate crisis, ask which side and which scientific evidence is more credible – alarmists claiming it will be too hot to grow fruit in Michigan in 20 years or realists who get vilified for presenting objective data and common sense?
Read more at Climate Realism
Helen, obviously you’re not sponging off government grants. Surface temperature records were not collected with an eye toward today’s climate research. For example, airports were built outside of cities. Malton Airport became Pearson Airport and is now surrounded by urban sprawl. When I get a weather report / forecast, it is usually for an airport like London-Exeter, Mount Hope / Hamilton, etc.. They are no longer rural. If meteorological stations had been located on a grid, the warmists couldn’t make up excuses for messing with the historical data. You ask a poignant question, what part of temperature change is the result of human activities? That’s where brainwashing takes over. According to the warmist propaganda machine, all of it. It has become a fervent, widespread belief. Next is that we can change the climate positively. That is the biggest lie of all.
I have a PhD in Atmospheric Fluid Dynamics from McGill University. I am getting increasingly frustrated by the lack of any actual science that backs up this “problem”.
So please answer the following simple, basic, scientific question:
What, exactly, is being measured? And how accurate are those measurements, both now and over time? And how do you know what the contribution of human activity is to whatever you are measuring?
I’ll make it even easier for you. Since AGW believers frequently bring up surface temperature, let’s look at it. After all, it’s about the simplest thing involved, isn’t it?
So show me a map of the earth’s surface temperature, and a companion map of the margin of error.
Then do the same thing in (say) 1900.
If you prefer another atmospheric parameter than surface temperature, suggest it and provide reasons for your choice, and then answer the same questions.
Finally, tell me what part of the differences is due to human activity, how you know, and how accurately you know it.
I have posted this hundreds of times, and not one respondent even tries to answer these basic, fundamental questions.
I am now retired, but I just can’t help challenging this BS.
Isn’t it odd how these “researchers” use weasel words like “may” when making a claim? But I’m willing to be those residents of the state would be happy if winters were not as brutal if it were warmer.
Another crack-pot redsearcher trying to prove their a total loose nut while getting the M.S. Media to give them a big time attention
I think “Researcher” is defined as someone with a govt. grant, and too much time on his hands. But since Michigan is just across the border, I can soon go there for my bananas instead of Costa Rica.
I live in south western Ontario, 10 miles from Lake Erie. Growing up in the ’60’s, I can remember this area was nick – named the banana belt. Our local climate is warmer and quite different from the rest of Canada. A longer growing season is a plus. Orchards, tomatoes and tobacco thrive here. If it got just a bit warmer, we might be able to double-crop wheat and soybeans, like Ohio.
Don’t forget the great Lake Erie wines. But, I’m still hoping for the bananas and pineapples !