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?