Models Say Climate Change Has Already Whacked Grain Yields


Climate change and the end of corn?

A new study published in Science inputs global grain yields since 1980 and temperature increases into a model and finds that climate change has already reduced yields below what they would otherwise be. From the abstract:

Efforts to anticipate how climate change will affect future food availability can benefit from understanding the impacts of changes to date. Here, we show that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends for 1980–2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8% and 5.5%, respectively, compared to a counterfactual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, CO2 fertilization, and other factors.

With regard to the new Science study, the New York Times reports:

Wheat, rice, corn and soybeans account for the majority of calories consumed by the human race, either directly or as meat from animals raised on grains. Because demand for these grains is inflexible and rising, the losses from climate change probably accounted for price increases of about 6 percent in the four major commodities, the study's authors found.

At today's grain prices, that calculation implies that climate change is costing consumers, food companies and livestock producers about $60 billion a year.

"We aren't talking about the sky falling," Dr. Lobell said. "But we are talking about billions of dollars of losses. Every little bit of production is valuable when we're trying to feed the world."

If the price estimate is correct, it makes climate change a small contributor to a large trend. The prices of many foodstuffs have doubled or tripled in recent years as a result of a host of factors, including rapidly rising food demand in Asia, government mandates to use crops for biofuel production and extreme weather that may or may not be linked to climate change.

Ah, the vexations of models. But let's assume that the results are correct. Can farmers adapt to man-made climate change over the next century? A recent fascinating study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on the expansion of wheat growing areas in North America gives us reasons to think so. That study reports:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that by 2100 annual mean temperatures in North America will increase by 2 to 3 °C at midlatitude coastal regions and by "up to more than" 5 °C at more northern latitudes. In the main grain-growing areas, the IPCC forecasts temperatures will rise 3 to 4 °C (1). A more recent MIT study suggests far greater changes will occur (2). There are a wide range of estimates of how climate changes will impact agricultural production (37). Numerous researchers have speculated about how farmers might change cultivars, cropping patterns, and farming methods to mitigate some of the costs of abrupt climatic changes (8). Researchers at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) anticipate that North American wheat farmers may extend the margin of wheat production roughly 1,000 km north into northern Canada and Alaska, whereas heat and drought will make cultivation untenable in many areas of the southern Great Plains (9). To provide perspective on these and other predictions, this paper asks how farmers responded to past climatic challenges.

The spread of wheat cultivation across North America required that farmers repeatedly adapt to unfamiliar and hostile climatic conditions. The variations in climatic conditions that settlers encountered rivaled the magnitude of the predicted changes at given locations over the next century. We quantify the extent of the geographic variations and decipher how wheat growers learned to produce in new environments. Because of the paucity of Mexican data before 1929, most of our analysis of "North America" refers to Canada and the United States. Inclusion of Mexico in the later part of the 20th century highlights the role of the Green Revolution in pushing production into hotter and drier zones.

Between 1839 and 2009, wheat output increased 26-fold in the United States and more than 270-fold in Canada. In 1839, the geographic center (mean) of North American wheat production was located in eastern Ohio. Cultivation was concentrated in Ohio and New York; relatively little wheat was grown as far west as Illinois. In 2007 the center of production had moved 1,800 km west, into west-central South Dakota . Almost all this movement occurred when plant sciences were in their infancy.

Modern plant sciences can create new cultivars much more rapidly. For example, biotech companies are just now releasing new drought tolerant varieties of corn that can boost yields by 5 to 15 percent in water limited growing areas. And please remember, farmers don't just sit there and take whatever nature deals out, they adapt.

Finally, what has been happening to global grain production? Taking USDA figures [downloadable] compiled by the Environmental Policy Institute, headed by perennial doomsayer, Lester Brown, one finds that global grain production rose from 1,429 million tons in 1980 to 2,179 million tons in 2010, an increase of 50 percent. World population rose from 4.5 billion to 6.8 billion, also about 50 percent. Putting the Science study's modeled 3.8 percent and 5.5 percent production declines over the past 30 years in context, global grain production has seen as much as a 10 percent increase from one year to the next, and a four percent decrease from one year to the next since 1980. 

NEXT: Eat Your Veggies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But let’s assume that the results are correct.


    Isn’t this a bit like assuming that 40% of all plankton had been killed due to global warming? Which we all know now is a complete bunk.

    I am seeing why you rolled over from being a cliamte change skeptic to a climate change warmist so easily.

    “Lets assume”


    Note: I am pretty sure Science is the same toilet paper worthy magazine that made “the Plankton is all dead” claim.

    1. I am seeing why you rolled over from being a cliamte change skeptic to a climate change warmist so easily.

      He made the rational choice between joining the cult of AGW or sacrificing his career.

      1. joshINHB: Yeah, it’s been a real boost to my career.

        1. but what if you want to put an article on slate, huffpo, or motherjones? You’re covered.

      2. Yeah cuz Reason is going to fire Ron for being a climate skeptic.

        What planet do you live on?

    2. “Lets assume”


      Rhetoric is hard.

    3. Without commenting on the particular paper, as someone in the sciences, ‘Science’ is a widely respected, peer-reviewed journal, and is not the least bit “toilet paper worthy.” Can the papers they publish be wrong? Of course, but that doesn’t mean the articles aren’t vetted to a high degree.

      1. ‘Science’ was a widely respected, peer-reviewed journal

        Corrected for accuracy.

        Live by the sword die by the sword.

        Of course, but that doesn’t mean the articles aren’t vetted to a high degree.

        yes the articles that submitted that disagree with their politics are vetted to a high degree.

        Articles that agree with their politics are passed through with a hand shake and a thumbs up.

        The plankton article was a complete joke and a targeted agenda driven hack job. A 12 years old could have done a better job reviewing it.

      2. A cult idea vetted by cultists, however, is no safety net against stupid shit getting through said vetting.

    4. “But let’s assume that the results are correct.”

      Maybe he wanted to assume the results were correct because it lead to what he considered an interesting discussion about a free society’s capacity for non-coercive problem solving, whereas if you assume it’s bullshit, there really isn’t anything more to say.

  2. Ethanol subsidies have had no effect on any of this?

    1. Or the fact that America’s biggest cash crop is now weed?

  3. Is that $60B at subsidized prices, or $60B at unsubsidized market prices?

    1. It is $60 billion at prices they pulled straight out of their ass.

  4. with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends for 1980?2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability.

    Funny how the one country with no statistically significant warming for the past 100 years is the same country that has the best temperature records.

    Weird how that works.

    also weird how satellite measurements show there there to be no statistically significant warming globally for the past 30 years yet the shoddy ground based measurements out side the US do show a trend.

    I guess they are brilliant climate scientists who magically know that the least robust data is telling us the truth and the most robust data is giving a false signal.

    1. The job of client scientists is to prove that the activity the politicians who fund their research want to tax and regulate is causing climate change.


      1. *climate* not client


        1. It works both ways.

          1. good point

  5. jc: First of all, you will not find that I reported anything about the initial plankton report. I, too, was skeptical and waited for the scientific process to evaluate the results.

    Second, in this case, I am trying to engage in a thought experiment by accepting their worst results. Will the world come to an end then? I then report other scientific results that suggest the world will not come to an end, at least with regard to future crop production.

    1. You know who else engaged in thought experiments?

      1. Stanley Milgram?

      2. Oh, I know this one!

        Some German guy, right?

        What’s his name, Eizenstadt? No, no. Einstein! Albert Einstein! Amirite?

        1. Sigmund Freud?

          Oh wait, he was Austrian.

          1. Yes, he spoke Austrian, not German.

          2. The sole purpose of the Austrian intelligence service is to cloud the international public’s understanding of what is Austrian and what is German.

    2. So let me get this straight Ron. Science (a dubious name for that particular publication) prints a study that falls sqarely within the margin of error and doesn’t stand up to the slightest statistical analysis and is based off of computer models. This is supposed to represent actual scienftific debate?

      Not picking on your reporting of it just the whole damn thing in general. And seriosuly, if the whole AGW thing wants to be taken seriously after that mess at East Anglia then they should focus on porper scientific method. I boggles the mind that this kind of shit gets published but the whole nutrition debate about coronary heart disease is “taboo”, wtf?

    3. I am trying to engage in a thought experiment by accepting their worst results.

      In case you haven’t noticed i prefer the “KILL KILL KILL” approach when it comes to discrediting bogus scientific claims.

      Anthony Watts covered this same material in a piece here:…..-it-first/

      He goes for the throat from the get go.

      1. This Anthony Watts?

        He may go for the throat, but he doesn’t appear to go for science.

        1. No not that strawman.

          I am talking about this Anthony Watts:

          Muller: I realized that Watts was doing something that was of importance. The issues he raised needed to be addressed. It made me seriously wonder whether the reported global warming may be biased by poor station quality. Watts is a hero for what he’s done. So is [prominent skeptic blogger] Steve McIntyre.


  6. By all means then, let’s continue to rub ethanol on our buttholes.

    1. Why would you stop? It’s so dreamy.

  7. and finds that climate change has already reduced yields below what they would otherwise be.

    Global warming solves the obesity crisis.

    1. winner!

      +2 Charlie Sheens

  8. Did they correct for inputs? That is, say, land under cultivation, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and the like?

    Because farmers don’t just plant the same stuff the same way every year. They make, in fact, market-based decisions, and will plant more of a crop that is bringing in a good price, and even invest more in that crop via fertilizer and pesticide.

    There are a lot if variables that impact crop yields. I’d love to know if they did a decent job of isolating temperature.

    1. Did they correct for inputs? That is, say, land under cultivation, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and the like?

      Do you really have to ask? 🙂

      1. Before asking, maybe you should try finding a copy of the article.…..e_5_11.pdf

  9. Bar Refaeli says climate change is affecting crop yields?

    I’m sold!

      1. But UnderSchmuck said you’re a Rhoemite! This doesn’t make sense!

        1. What Underzog doesn’t know could fill the vast and empty reaches of all of outer space.

  10. RCD: They do try to make those adjustments. However, I did mention the vexations of models.

    1. “I did mention the vexations of models.”

      Split ends, static cling and broken nails?

      1. Nipple-slips.

      2. “Look, yes, I have banged hundreds of broads, internationally, but know this: I wrap my rascal TWO times ’cause I like it to be joyless and without sensation, as a way of punishing supermodels.”

        1. I’m coming after you.

      3. I’m merely suggesting that the next time he blogs about climate models the esteemed Mr. Bailey use a comely lass in the accompanying photo. Reason already runs plenty of pictures of grass.

        1. “Ass, grass or cash… Ron don’t blog for free.”

          1. “Super Models Say Climate Change Has Already Whacked Groin Yields”

    2. Like, I know the Earth is getting hotter. I went outside once and there was this big bright light in the sky and it was all hot and stuff. If more people just wore sunglasses it would make the world less hotter.

  11. I’d like to slap the people who are predicting crop-failure induced famine as a result of global warming upside the head with Norman Borlaug’s Nobel Peace Prize medal.

  12. Speaking of things the models included or not – do they include the ‘Mugabe Effect’? Unless somehow kleptocratic disasterous African Dictators are now being blamed on Global Warming Climate Change. . .

  13. I wonder whether they are not partially responsible for the drop, because of the Greens never ending crusade against genetically modified plants. There is almost no increase in the surface that is used for agriculture and yet the output rises. This alone should end the climate change discussion on grain yields…

    1. “This alone should end the climate change discussion on grain yields…”
      The worst part about this statement is that I know you actually believe it.

      I’m not saying i agree with the publication since I haven’t read it in full, but man your “proof” is awful

  14. LOL – why don’t we just nominate Gary Johnson or Ron Paul. When they win the presidential election – yeah, right – maybe they can grow pot where the wheat and soy beans once grew.

    I am for Herman Cain! He answers questions in a direct, simple manner. He understands how to solve problems – by DEFINING the problem, determining ways to solve it, seeking experts, and then FIXING it. And he is the only true outsider. He is a common person, and will go far I think. The people that I watched this debate with felt the same way as most other groups did – Herman Cain WON!!! Herman Cain 2012!

    1. Herm,

      Are you gonna be posting shit like this on every thread between now and the primaries?

      1. Note to self: Blacklist Herminator 2012.

        1. Done!

        2. that’s racist.jpg

  15. Of course climate change exists. That’s why we have people that try to predict how it changes in the short term. They have a segment on the nightly news, and even their own channel. The problem is some people think they can apply the data to mean something over a greater distance of time. A weatherman isn’t very good at predicting climate change 10 days from now. People who think climate data can predict what will happen next year or next decade will be proven wrong more often that right. Way to many variables that can change any given day.

    I think too many people are trying to use data to justify their grants. If the only tool is a hammer then everything starts to look like a nail comes to mind. The term fools also come to mind.

    1. Unless they predict that climate will change. Then they will be right more often than not. The most accurate psychics are the ones that give the most ambiguous answers.

      1. lol, right.

        But then they wouldn’t have much to talk about and couldn’t fill a five minute time slot at a convention.

    2. “climate change 10 days from now”
      Also known as weather.

  16. Looks to me like they’ve just created another bullshit GIGO computer model, only this one has the added benefit of being unfalsifiable.

  17. Warmth and CO2 are terrible for agriculture. Just ask any farmer.

    1. Quit breathin’ on mah plants!

      Where’s my subsidy check?

  18. Check out WUWT’s report on this paper. They include graphs of corn yields and temps over that last 30 years. Yield drops when temp is low.

    WUWT is not peer reviewed, but manages to demonstrate an opposing case after a few hours of research.…..-it-first/

    1. Now I realize that I’m not the greatest phd in the world, but I do spend a lot of times reading, making, and analyzing graphs and could see right away that these two don’t add up.
      Look at the data from 2005-2010, look at the temperature, and look at the yeild. Notice anything that refutes their statement? Generally the cooler the temp in those years the higher the yield.
      There could be other circumstances working in that such as large natural disaster/drought/ or something else that affected the yield numbers, but actually line them up and you’ll see that recently the higher temperature hasn’t resulted int eh best yields.

      That’s why they aren’t peer reviewed, usually your data has to support the claims you make, maybe they should have tried to “hide the decline”

  19. Computer Projections? If you looked at the growth of the Hot Tub industry in 1980 and projected it out into the future, by now the entire mass of the universe would consist entirely of Hot Tubs.

    1. It actually has.

      Around ’85 there was such a great mass of hot-tubbery that the universe imploded into a colossal black jacuzzi. Remember Milli Vanilli? Shoulderpads for women? Acid wash? All cross currents in the over-aerated timeline. And it hasn’t gotten any better–ever notice how waves of nostalgia start forming–but seem stuck at 1973? As if we can’t get past hot-tub proliferation times. Or how those nostalgia waves spiral inward until we pretend at nostalgia for an hour ago?. Serious time eddies. It’s as if all the nozzles have been pointed in a single direction.

      And we’re running out of chlorine!

  20. Dumb question: Is the reduced yield offset by the additional harvests in grain-heavy places like Canada, or not? An Alberta farmer that I met had nine multi-harvest seasons in a row before 2010, when the temperature there receded to average for the summer, which was rare before. I would think the additional harvest that would swamp any effect of reduced yield.

  21. REPENT

    The End is Nigh.

    1. The Bill is Nye.

      1. Well, at least there won’t be a shortage of bow ties for the big event.

  22. The headline says “Models say climate change has already whacked grain yields”- but do actresses and singers also agree?

  23. exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability

    Before you going using standard deviations in your analysis, you have to establish that the system you’re analyzing has mechanisms and feedbacks that make it necessarily conform to a normal distribution. Has that been established?

    1. Read the article to find out before you try pointing out flaws in the methods.

      I understand most people hate having to actually be knowledgeable and well versed in a subject before trying to point out its potential shortcomings or dismiss it as witchcraft.

    2. Read the article to find out before you try pointing out flaws in the methods.

      I understand most people hate having to actually be knowledgeable and well versed in a subject before trying to point out its potential shortcomings or dismiss it as witchcraft.

  24. Taking USDA figures [downloadable] compiled by the Environmental Policy Institute, headed by perennial doomsayer, Lester Brown, one finds that global grain production rose from 1,429 million tons in 1980 to 2,179 million tons in 2010, an increase of 50 percent.

    This is the part that pisses me off.

    Global grain production increased 50% over the time period being analyzed.

    To me, if grain production INCREASED over the time period in question, that means that global warming is not negatively impacting grain production.

    If my dick got 50% bigger in the last five years, you would have to talk pretty fast to convince me that global warming was making my dick smaller.

    But the envirowitchdoctors are right there anyway, saying, “Nuh Uh! Global grain production would have been EVEN HIGHER without global warming! ‘Cause we say so! That’s what this computer model we just made here says, even though we aren’t farmers and even though there’s a global free market for grain production that’s extremely responsive to demand! We just KNOW it would have been higher!”

    Come on, man.

    1. So by the same logic, if you’re a kid and you’re 4 feet tall when you’re 8 years old, both your parents are above average height, and you only grow to 5 feet tall total, you’re fine with it because at least you still grew?
      So as long as there’s growth thats all that matters, efficiency or maximization of results mean nothing to you? Interesting.

      1. That may be the most absurd analogy you could apply here.

        The average height of human beings is well documented and deviations from the average [like dwarfism] can be easily spotted.

        We have here a situation where there is NO WAY POSSIBLE for environmental scientists to declare that there is an “expected” world yield for grains.

        Before I would accept the study as valid, I would demand a direct evaluation of the quality of each additional acre of land brought into production between 1980 and 2011 [and how that compares to land cultivated before 1980] as well as a similar analysis of every acre of land withdrawn from production in the same time period. I would also demand a study of the capacities of each additional farmer to enter the industry worldwide [by name] during the time period in question, and detailed testing to compare that farmer’s skill and experience level to the average level prior to the time period. Then I would demand a comprehensive economic analysis of the impact on production of every change in price for every commodity over that 31 year period, down the level of the individual farmer. Then I would demand an analysis of the impact on production of every regulatory change including pesticide restrictions during the time period covered. Then I would demand an analysis of the impact of voluntary reductions in yield undertaken by farmers who chose to adopt low-yield production methods [“organic farming”].

        Then I would demand that the top soil erosion alarmists fight a gladiatorial match to the death with the global warming alarmists, to decide which theory was going to be allowed to take credit for, not a reduction in production, but a fantasy reduction in yield relative to a made-up theoretical “expected” figure somebody pulled out of his ass.

  25. Well, saying that yields are falling below what some model says they might have been doesn’t mean that actual yields are falling, and it certainly doesn’t mean that total production is falling, since it is actually rising as even a few seconds of googling would show.

    In short, “We’re producing a buttload of grain, and the amount is rapidly increasing, but compared to our fantasy computer model it is not increasing as fast as it would in Fake Computer World TM.”


    1. But let’s assume that the results are correct.

      Let’s not. Let’s look at rapidly rising grain production and assume that these fucking scientists are not only missing the forest for the trees, but are looking at fake trees.

      More plant food (aka “CO2”) in the air allows plants to grow faster.

      1. It’s this simple huh? there’s nothing else in the environment that effects the growth of plants?
        Well hopefully the whole world floods and the atmosphere completely dissipates because trees need water and sunlight to grow so those would def allow plants to grow faster too. at least algae and kelp?

    2. Why is it wrong to strive for maximum efficiency? Why is it wrong to point out issues effecting the efficiency of a process?
      seems closed minded and short sighted.

  26. An extremely stupid study on its face. Thousands of years of human history say higher temps and more CO2 are more favorable for crop growth, not less.

    It’s like they aren’t even pretending to do anything but confirm their biases anymore.

    1. Although this logic is flawed in many ways i’ll use a fun trick your side of the supposed argument likes to use:
      There couldn’t possibly be a saturation point, or a point of diminishing returns with temps and crop yield? Isn’t one of the great “skeptics” claims that we’ve already reached the point that that additional CO2 can’t alter the climate?
      so it can work for one thing but not others?

  27. BTW: If production is up 50% over the time period in question, the only way that could happen is if more marginal farmland was brought into production, or if dramatic improvements were made in the management of farmlands already in use.

    Either one of those changes would make it virtually impossible for an envirowitchdoctor to do this kind of study. You’d literally have to account for the delta to average yield for EVERY subpar acre of land added to the system and EVERY improvement in management, down to the level of the individual plot of land and individual farmer. You can’t convince me they’ve done that.

  28. And, let’s be real: the biggest impact on grain available for food is not alleged global warming, but rather actual global warming alarmists’ policies.

    Burning corn in gas tanks (after first turning it into alcohol) results in less food to eat.

    1. This article isn’t about food production, it’s about total grain production. And few “global warming alarmists” would be in agreement that the US ethanol policy was a good one. Outside of those living in the Corn belt, and we all know those are incredibly socially liberal states.

  29. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that by 2100 annual mean temperatures in North America will increase by 2 to 3 ?C at midlatitude coastal regions and by “up to more than” 5 ?C at more northern latitudes.

    Because nothing is better for Canadian wheat farmers than colder weather and a shorter growing season. I’m sure you can hear those farmers in Alberta muttering around February, “Please, God, let the ground stay frozen a few extra months this year so I can grow more wheat.” =P

  30. climate fraud would be the correct title

  31. -The thousands of consensus scientists were silent when Obama never even mentioned the climate crisis in his Feb./2011 State of the Union Speech.
    -The thousands of consensus scientists were silent when American IPCC funding was pulled.
    -If the crisis were real, the thousands of scientists would have been marching in the streets after their warnings of crisis were ignored.
    -How is it that there were always countless thousands of consensus scientists out numbering protestors?
    -Thousands of consensus scientists also produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemical cocktails, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, cluster bombs, strip mining technology, Y2K, Y2Kyoto, deep sea drilling technology and now climate control.
    -It was the thousands of consensus scientists themselves that originally polluted the planet with their pesticides and cancer causing chemicals they created, thus making environmentalism necessary in the first place.
    -The effects were predicted by the thousands of consensus scientists to be “negligible to unstoppable warming”. So what’s not to agree with.
    -Former Climate Change believers are now the voting majority so CO2 mitigations of sacrifice and taxes will never happen.
    -A wave of other former climate change believers are now demanding that politicians and law makers have the leading scientists and especially the unconscionable leading news editors, subjected to criminal charges for knowingly sustaining the criminal exaggerations of the CO2 mistake.
    -REAL planet lovers are happy about avoiding a crisis.
    -REAL civilized people don’t threaten their kids with DEATH BY CO2, just to get them to turn the lights out more often.
    -How did melting ice on top of tropical fossils prove what caused it this time after eons of the powers of the cosmos doing it?
    -If after 25 years of the CO2 mistake, you still believe in this coming h e l l, at least act like it and get yourself a sign that says THE END IS NEAR and start marching.
    -Believers are the new deniers and history is watching this madness.
    -Climate Change belief was selfish, thoughtless and verging on psychotic and will be viewed as modern day witch burning another Iraq-like false war against a false enemy based on climate weapons of mass destruction.
    -25 years of this needless panic made Bush look like an angel.

  32. I appreciate your writing style and the way you present the information. I too sit at right about the same position on this debate as you do. I believe that humans do have an impact and that we need to do something to address what will likely be a long term problem, but don’t feel the effects will be anywhere near what the extremists and the alarmists think.
    I don’t propose to have the best solution to this problem, but I do admit that it is a problem (something I wouldn’t have done 5 years ago).

    Thanks for the presenting rational coherent pieces with out resorting to the extreme as both sides of the issue tend to do.

  33. Republican factory owners killed your family and friends in the catastrophic blizzards, floods, tornadoes, massive wildfires and other climate change that has been wiping out the bible-belt. This is the Climate Change that their factories created. This is the Climate Change that the Republicans lie about not existing. This is the Climate Change that they program their constituents to deny exists. This is the Climate Change that killed people, destroyed homes, further destroyed the economy that the Republican factories emissions caused so they could make profits by killing those people. Republicans deny Climate Change at all costs in order to keep their factories from having to pay to stop it. The Climate Change that is destroying massive sections of our country can no longer be hidden or denied. The issue of Climate Change is TOTALLY ONLY about Republican factories which cause Climate Change getting charged to put filters on their factories. In the face of a staggering volume of FACTS proving that Climate Change is here, Republicans train their sheep-like followers to deny it always and to never read any of the facts.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.