Guardian Pushes Alarmist Claim That Climate Change Threatens Coffee Production as Yields Soar

There is no animal or plant in the natural world that cannot be used to promote climate Armageddon and its collectivist Net Zero political solution. On Sunday, the WWF, also known as the World Wildlife Fund, started running a series of Wild Isles co-produced propaganda films narrated by Sir David Attenborough on the BBC. These include finely-crafted messages of improbable extinctions culled from computer models.

From the absurd to the ridiculous, we had National Margarita Day recently hijacked by CNN running a story about the ‘climate crisis’ affecting tequila production – a story easily debunked by the news that since 1995, tequila production had increased six-fold, and in four years it had doubled. Now the increasingly unhinged Guardian is giving us its ‘Net Zero, or else the coffee gets it’ story.

According to the newspaper, new research suggests that climate conditions that reduce coffee yields have become more frequent over the past four decades, with rising temperatures from “global heating” likely to lead to ongoing systemic shocks to coffee production globally.

Note the use of the phrase “climate conditions” for what in effect is weather, and the suggestion that it reduces coffee yields. These climate conditions are said to have become more frequent over the last four decades. But one can only read the Guardian for so long. Let us look at actual coffee yields over the last four decades.

Far from declining due to all this weather, yields have show dramatic improvement since at least 1960. Over this period, particularly between 1980-98, temperatures have risen, but there is no sign of “ongoing systemic shocks” to coffee production globally.

Global coffee yields have been a great agricultural success story, along with actual bean production. Like yields, tonnes produced have soared in the last 40 years.

The key Guardian get-out phrase of course is “new research suggests”. The Guardian story was taken from an academic study led by Dr. Doug Richardson, published in PLOS Climate. He told the newspaper that a shift from cool and wet to hot and dry conditions “we’re pretty confident is a result of climate change”.

In fact if the Richardson paper is read, a more nuanced view on coffee and weather over the last 40 years is discovered.

Our results suggest that ENSO [El Niño Southern Oscillation] is the primary mode in explaining annual compound event variability, both globally and regionally. El Niño-like sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean are associated with decreased precipitation and increased temperatures in most coffee regions, and with spatially compounding warm and dry events. This relationship is reversed for La Niña-like signatures.

As it happens, the last 40 years saw three very powerful El Niños occurring in 1982, 1998 and 2016. These pushed temperatures up around the planet, a natural weather oscillation that had nothing to do with any human-caused increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The current eight-year pause in the satellite temperature record is partly explained by three recent La Niña events.

The vast majority of the world’s coffee is grown with just two species – Arabica and Robusta. Arabica is more sensitive to growing conditions, and requires temperatures around 18-22°C. In the tropics, these are more common in higher elevations. Robusta is less highly prized, has a wider geographical spread and grows between 22°C and 28°C. Richardson claims that human-caused climate change is “expected” to alter the geographical suitability for growing coffee. The area of land suitable for coffee cultivation “may” be reduced by up to 50%.

This is unlikely. For a start, it assumes temperatures will rise significantly, but with global warming running out of steam over the last two decades, this seems unlikely. This is particularly so in the tropics. Historical records show that during periods of global warming, the tropics warm less and temperatures are more stable. In addition, coffee is a versatile crop, and selective breeding has produced varieties that can adapt to lowland conditions with temperatures outside normal growing ranges. If climate should change in any significant way, new coffee farming could switch to more propitious areas.

But where is the fun in explaining all that when Net Zero propagandising is afoot. MIT Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen is fond of noting that the current climate narrative is absurd, but trillions of dollars paid to many, including “grant-dependent” academics, says it is not absurd. This money pays for a constant drip, drip, nudge, nudge wave of climate scaremongering eagerly promoted by controlling elites seeking to take away personal and economic freedoms under cover of saving the planet.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago

OK OK OK, so if we find out, in years to come, that we’re not actually destroying the planet, that will be good, but we will have made so many huge strides in energy efficiencies in the process, so it’s all good! Yeah!

…so say many of my acquaintances…

10navigator
10navigator
3 years ago

I’d agree, were your supposition true: “many huge strides in energy efficiency–“. At what cost? Battery powered cars, renewable power generation subsidised through the roof, not to mention the blighting of the landscape. Much of the “efficiencies” are at best chimeric, plus I’m stalled off with being lied to and lectured.

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago
Reply to  10navigator

Talk to my acquaintances 👍

10navigator
10navigator
3 years ago

Man up or change ’em.

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago
Reply to  10navigator

I do, man, I do 🤠

Having years ago given up caring a damn about what people think about me helps a lot.

Benthic
Benthic
3 years ago

The trouble is all the real ecological problems we have are swept under the carpet in favour of the hallowed CO2 removal.

Dinger64
3 years ago

I wonder if the ever increasing army of near slave labour in the Congo would agree with your acquaintances?

Occams Pangolin Pie
3 years ago
Reply to  Dinger64

It’s slave labour

Dinger64
3 years ago

True, I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt just in case any are paid a miniscule amount for this life threatening dangerous existence

Lockdown Sceptic
3 years ago

I’m glad that they are only acquaintances and not friends

Roy Everett
3 years ago

I’m sure that, for a suitable “insult”, the Poo-Bahs at the Climate Research Unit and Imperial College could come up with a spreadsheet which models coffee production and climate. If the model has enough von Neuman elephant parameters it can be made to make any prediction that its funders want. For example, how many global coffee plant deaths have been prevented by injecting the ground with windmills? Can the tobacco mosaic virus acquire gain of function and be re-purposed to confer immunity to climate change on coffee plants?

Occams Pangolin Pie
3 years ago

Ghislaine of Maxwell House, by Royal Appointment. Purveyor of Children to Nobody. Apparently.

That’s a news story that journalists have zero interest in.

Funny old world.

varmint
3 years ago

Everything we hear about climate change is a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency for which no evidence exists. I got together with a few old friends recently. OfCourse as usual we have to put the world to rights in a good bit of banter. ——I mentioned that my sister had said one time “Why would they say there is global warming if there isn’t any”? One of my mates said, “Yes that’s exactly what I would say”. ———————I said to him, “But that is because you must be unaware of the politics involved in global warming”. —–This is the main problem with issues like this that are highly politicised. The issue often isn’t the issue. Climate has been hijacked for political purposes and most of the general public don’t realise that. They think it is all about “science”. They think the science is all as clear as day and that humans are warming the climate and dangerous changes will occur. What they do not realise is that these kind of things are all based not on “science” at all but on computer modelling, but computer modelling is NOT SCIENCE, and most people would be surprised to… Read more »

Occams Pangolin Pie
3 years ago
Reply to  varmint

Climate is another big umbrella under which globalists can huddle and plot. Defence umbrella has holes in it, and the Health umbrella is at risk of blowing away.

jburns75
jburns75
3 years ago
Reply to  varmint

From the point of view of anyone trying to get a view of the motives behind the climate crisis narrative, the varied, complex and often interdependent set of incentives driving it has always been a disorienting hall of mirrors. Over two decades ago, in frustration at being able to pin these down, and aided by more than a grain of truth, sceptics were led by the nose into viewing it more conveniently as a left vs right issue. Alarmists leapt on the advantage this presented, using the alignment between conservatism and libertarianism to politically charge and polarize the debate – the implication being “if you question us, you are by default on the right side of politics and the wrong side of history”. This drove a wedge between scepticism and centre-left leaning academia in particular, but also other liberal / metropolitan / centre-left leaning groups like the mainstream media and ‘third way’ politicians. The next step was to cast this gun-toting, oil loving bloc of libertarian right yahoos as a bunch of anti-science backwoods hicks and bunch anyone with sceptical views in with them. To anyone in academia, questioning the narrative and the mountain of junk science on which it… Read more »

varmint
3 years ago
Reply to  jburns75

Here is the 20 pence version of what you just said from Mark Twain—-“Ah yes Science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact”———-Mr Twain had it spot on. The wholesale returns of conjecture are what the whole climate change dogma is based on (ie models) and those daring to question them, despite the fact they have all been totally wrong so far are to be name called. ———Name calling is the main tool in the eco socialists toolbox. Without that they would have to explain what they are talking about instead of just saying “All scientists agree and therefore so should you”.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  varmint

Have a look at Agenda 2030 because while you are on the right lines there is a lot more research required.

“Climate” and all the crap accompanying the nonsense spouted is not “politics.”

Have a read of Technocracy News for a few weeks in order to bring yourself up to speed.

https://www.technocracy.news/

varmint
3 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Thanks. ———-I have read over 200 books on this issue and come to the conclusion that it is a not just a scientific issue, but a political, social and moral one as well. I ofcourse welcome new information from anyone, but if you think I am in anyway misinformed on this issue and somehow I need “brought up to speed” you are wrong. The politics I refer to is The UN Sustainable Development Agenda. Agenda 2030 and Agenda 21 before that. These are all political agendas about controlling the worlds wealth and resources with climate as the excuse. And I notice having just clicked on the link you sent me that one of the first articles I see talks about exactly that. The article is called “Scientist: Net Zero will Lead to the End of Modern Civilisation”.—————— I have been aware of this for quite sometime and am well “up to speed” on this stuff, as you might have noticed from previous comments I have made here on this site.

MTF
MTF
3 years ago

The Guardian is not alone in reporting concerns about coffee production and climate change. It appears to come up regularly in different channels (albeit reporting different research).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/coffee-will-be-extinct-by-2080-climate-change-could-spell-an-end/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10453349/Coffee-harder-grow-climate-change-takes-hold-study-warns.html

I have no idea how justified these concerns are but why pick on the Guardian for reporting a bit of research when similar stories appear the Telegraph?

Roy Everett
3 years ago
Reply to  MTF

I think that The Guardian’s reporting goes back further than that of The Telegraph.
Incidentally, I notice that The Guardian also claim that a latte has ten times the carbon footprint of a black tea, so in a sense they are saying that growing coffee causes climate change and this affects the poor farmers in Tanzania and Uganda. I wonder if they will report on the poor miners of Congo and elsewhere foraging for lithium to satisfy our thirst for electric cars.

john1T
3 years ago
Reply to  MTF

WEF/Gates know that if they get their net-zero propaganda machine to plant these stories in multiple news outlets at the same time then they will have more impact, and the less critically minded amongst us will be less likely to question them, even if they are quite clearly bullcrap.

TonyRS
TonyRS
3 years ago

The alarmists have been hunting around for a crop to become the agricultural equivalent of the polar bear. But once again it seems the numbers confound the alarmism.

One wonders how much of hard earned tax money was spent perpetuating this extension of the CO2 nonsense, while ignoring real environmental problems like pollution.

Occams Pangolin Pie
3 years ago
Reply to  TonyRS

You can’t sue CO2, just as you can’t sue a virus.

jburns75
jburns75
3 years ago

Thanks to soaring fertilizer, transport and refinement costs, thanks to soaring energy costs, thanks to the demonization of a beneficial trace gas critical for life, those agricultural production graphs will soon fall in line with catastrophic climate predictions.

With persecution of farmers from Hertfordshire to Holland to Haiti, you have to wonder if this isn’t the point. Most of us will know exactly what’s going on, but it won’t make a difference. Politicians have been conditioned to believe that any view outside that endorsed by the Guardian and BBC – no matter how rabidly absurd – is dangerous ‘far right’ populism.

Lockdown Sceptic
3 years ago

Climate change the treadmill of lies

Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane 

Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field 
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE

Covid-1984
Covid-1984
3 years ago

The Guardian?. Wow, I bet that frightened the hell out of its 7 readers 🙄

lojolondon
lojolondon
3 years ago

Funny thing is that coffee grows in warm climates. So perhaps the “warning” should be that coffee will become easier to grow at home and therefore cheaper?? (Total logic failure by the warmists.)

GMO
GMO
3 years ago

Some are becoming very rich from the ‘humanity-caused climate change’ industry.
It keeps a lot of people employed.

GMO
GMO
3 years ago

I wonder if the increase in coffee production/ha has anything to do with the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Plants take in CO2 and with more CO2 they can become more productive.