Some time ago I noticed a submitted paper on Roger Pielke Sr’s research group publications webpage and I referred to it in a comment on this blog. The paper is a survey entitled ‘Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?’ by Brown, F., J. Annan, and R.A. Pielke Sr.
Months passed until on 22nd February 2008 Pielke Sr published the paper on his weblog, explaining the history of the paper’s rejection by EOS and Nature Precedings:
One of the readers of Climate Science (Fergus Brown), in response to the questions that have been raised by the weblog (and elsewhere) wanted to poll the climate community to ascertain their views on the IPCC WG1 report. The article that we completed on this subject, under his leadership, is given in its entirety later in this weblog. However, a brief history as to why we are publishing as a weblog and not in another venue is discussed below.
After the survey was completed last summer and the article written, it was submitted to the AGU publication EOS as a “Forum piece. The EOS description of a Forum is that it
”contains thought-provoking contributions expected to stimulate further discussion, within the newspaper or as part of Eos Online Discussions. Appropriate Forum topics include current or proposed science policy, discussion related to current research in our fields especially scientific controversies, the relationship of our science to society, or practices that affect our fields, science in general, or AGU as an organization. Commentary solely on the science reported in research journals is not appropriate.”
Our article certainly fits this description. However, after 4 months without a decision, our contribution was summarily rejected by Fred Spilhous without review. He said our article did not fit EOS policy. We disagreed, of course, based on the explicit EOS policy given above, but our follow request for an appeal was ignored.
We then submitted to Nature Precedings where their policy states
“Nature Precedings is a place for researchers to share pre-publication research, unpublished manuscripts, presentations, posters, white papers, technical papers, supplementary findings, and other scientific documents. Submissions are screened by our professional curation team for relevance and quality, but are not subjected to peer review. We welcome high-quality contributions from biology, medicine (except clinical trials), chemistry and the earth sciences.”
According to Pielke Sr:
Our article was quickly rejected without explanation.
From this experience, it is clear that the AGU EOS and Nature Precedings Editors are using their positions to suppress evidence that there is more diversity of views on climate, and the human role in altering climate, than is represented in the narrowly focused 2007 IPCC report.
Our article follows below. We invite colleagues who are expert in polling techniques to build on the polling questions that we pose in our contribution, and to provide the community and policymakers with the actual range of perspectives on climate science.
Excerpt:
In our poll, there were 140 responses out of the 1807 who were contacted by the first author. The authors participated along with poll specialist David Jepson (Bsc Hons) in writing the polling questions (see Table 1 for the questions), but had no knowledge of who participated in the polling. It is interesting to note, however, that among the respondents were a substantial number of senior scientists and leading figures in climate science, whose support and interest in the poll were much appreciated. It is important to recognize that we are not presenting the results as representing anything other than the views of those who responded as we have no way to assess the relationship of the responders with the total relevant population.
The results are quite informative. No scientists were willing to admit to the statement that global warming is a fabrication and that human activity is not having any significant effect on climate [0%]. In total, 18% responded that the IPCC AR4 WG1 Report probably overstates the role of CO2, or exaggerates the risks implied by focusing on CO2-dominated Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), to a greater or lesser degree. A further 17% expressed the opinion that the Report probably underestimates or seriously underestimates the consequences of anthropogenic CO2 -induced AGW and that the associated risks are more severe than is implied in the report. The remaining 65% expressed some degree of concurrence with the report’s science basis, of which the largest group [47% of all respondents] selected option 5.
The options were:
1. There is no warming; it is a fabrication based on inaccurate/inappropriate measurement. Human activity is not having any significant effect on Climate. The data on which such assumptions are made is so compromised as to be worthless. The physical science basis of AGW theory is founded on a false hypothesis.
2. Any recent warming is most likely natural. Human input of CO2 has very little to do with it. Solar, naturally varying water vapour and similar variables can explain most or all of the climate changes. Projections based on Global Climate Models are unreliable because these are based on too many assumptions and unreliable datasets.
3. There are changes in the atmosphere, including added CO2 from human activities, but significant climate effects are likely to be all within natural limits. The ’scares’ are exaggerations with a political motive. The undue emphasis on CO2 diverts attention away from other, important research on climate variability and change.
4. There is warming and the human addition of CO2 causes some of it, but the science is too uncertain to be confident about current attributions of the precise role of CO2 with respect to other climate forcings. The IPCC WG1 overestimates the role of CO2 relative to other forcings, including a diverse variety of human climate forcings.
5. The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. At least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence.
6. The IPCC WG1 is compromised by political intervention; I agree with those scientists who say that the IPCC WG1 is underestimating the problem. Action to reduce human emissions of CO2 in order to mitigate against serious consequences is more urgent than the report suggests. This should be done irrespective of other climate and environmental considerations.
7. The IPCC WG1 seriously understates the human influence on climate. I agree with those scientists who say that major mitigation responses are needed immediately to prevent catastrophic serious warming and other impacts projected to result from human emissions of CO2. We are seriously damaging the Earth’s climate, and will continue to face devastating consequences for many years.
Co-author James Annan gives his view on his own blog with a post entitled ‘Too crap to publish or too hot to handle?’
Lead author Fergus Brown gives his views here and here.
Thanks to Luke for suggesting this subject as a blog post.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
No wonder the paper was rejected.
The main problem is that each individual “question” actually contains a number of different questions. As a result, saying “yes” to one of them amounts to “yes” for who-knows-what.
Even so, there was a sharp bias in favor a catastrophic AGW. This could have been explained by a question not asked:
8): Do you, personally, receive profit or income from “the debate” over anthropogenic global warming, or otherwise face diminished career prospects if that “debate” were resolved tomorrow?
Scientists rely on research funding for paying their mortgage, their wife, their mistress, college education for the kids, a couple nice cars, groceries, electricity/heating/cooling, and a host of other things.
Threatening them with the notion that their field of research is bunk/resolved, and with the prospect of driving a taxi cab instead, they’ll say what it takes.
So, actually, the whole thing is bunk.
Recommendations for a *real* survey:
a) One question at a time.
b) Reveal financial interests in continued catastrophic AGW research.
Simple, eh? Even Luke can understand this.
You’re only bolshing as it mentioned my name. Paul had been following it too and I simply reminded him.
If fear about funding is such an issue how can there be 400+ contrarians in institutions as Morano has informed us rocking the boat. Now a whole conference of them in New York. Boy they’ll all be sacked soon.
And what was that – a “couple” of nice cars. College education for kids. Obviously you’re referring to the crooks you hang around with.
Somehow I don’t think top flight climate scientists go through 9 years of training and foregone incomes to become rich. And somehow Schiller I think that sort of resolve probably means that somehow they might survive in the real world. Probably crunching derivatives for some dude in Wall Street.
So how about getting off the good ol’ boy mantra for once since Shillsbo.
Or alternatively given that won’t happen
“Have you worked as a shill for a tobacco company before”
“Do you vote Republican”
“Have you ever worked for or donated to a right wing, democracy-subverting think tank”
“Spell astroturf”
“Have you received any personal funds from oil companies to make stuff up”
As usual Schiller – you haven’t read it. Results are interesting for either side. And it was anonymous in data reporting. Read the fine print.
Luke,
Contrarians in the hire of the ISPCC can remain contrarians as long as they’re assured their colleagues will continue to capitalize on the AGW farce.
But now, you’ve *really* crossed the line.
“College education for kids. Obviously you’re referring to the crooks you hang around with.”
My children are not crooks. Hurling epithets is common among global-warmers, who find that epithets are the only arguments they are able to muster/bluster.
But hurling imprecations at children in order to “get” their father is beneath contempt.
Your approach isn’t argumentation, it’s contemptible filth.
So is rubbishing the motivations of scientists you don’t even know. Scam bag. Get the point Schiller! Hope it burned.
As usual with you guys – love to hand it back but big glass jaw and feigned distress when you get it back. Weak as piss.
And as for “hurling imprecations at children” – what a pathetic attempt at a rebuttal. I never said anything about your kids so there you go – typical denialist fabricating and bending words. Do bung it on mate.
right back atcha, mite!
All your talk of who’s paying whom, well, it’s come back home to you.
All your talk of Exxon paying ‘skeptical scientists’ (as if there were another breed) makes the point.
The IPCC has paid far more into catastrophic AGW than Exxon ever has. Check your numbers, mite!
You’re rather swift to deny your quotes, which are now on record, read the above–quotes less than a day old.
My children are not crooks. My reaction is not “feigned distress.” I am truly distressed at your unfounded accusations regarding my children.
As to your remarks, such as “Scam bag,” “Weak as piss,” “Hope it burned,” well, maybe you could develop a computer model for this.
Schiller, the conspiracy theory is so silly.
You do know that oil companies actually use climate models to predict where oil is, right? So perhaps Exxon has paid more money into climate research than the IPCC…
Much more money in oil exploration than in research, it’s hilarious that people think research is the path to riches.
Jeez you’re a dour bugger Schillsy. Attempt at humour mate. Just some inverse logic to remind you of alternative points of perspective. I have not attacked your kids. I am not saying your kids are crooks. Period. (But you’re not distressed – I can see you grinning from here).
Erratum: “Scum bag”
Anyway – good diversion Shillsy – the point from the report is that 30% were not happy with the IPCC report. 15% reckoned it was worse and 15% said it was not as bad.
And the further point is could both sides decide on a survey that would fairly explore the issues (although I reckon the report is pretty good myself from the range of questions).
Luke,
Finally you’ve come back from the typical ad hominems to look at data and how to interpret them.
(I will be generous in overlooking your failure to quantify the “scum bag, “weak as piss” and “hope it burned” variables, or how you might model their interactions.)
What I will not overlook is your failure to respond to my accusation that this was a poorly-designed study.
Let us look at option (1). The option is to agree to all of the following:
(a) There is no warming;
(b) warming is a fabrication based on inaccurate/inappropriate measurement;
(c) human activity is not having any significant effect on Climate;
(d) the data on which such assumptions are made is so compromised as to be worthless; and
(e) the physical science basis of AGW theory is founded on a false hypothesis.
You can easily see that question (1) is actually five questions — (a) through (e).
So, even though (c) and (d) are obviously true statements, nobody would agree to (1).
This messed-up methodology continues through the rest of the set.
Also, getting 140 responses out of the 1807 questioned is highly instructive. I personally would never respond to such a ridiculously constructed questionnaire.
Furthermore, anyone making a living off of the $billions squandered on pointless research will shut up and keep on researching, just like
the 1,667 who didn’t participate.
Why rock the boat and risk unemployment when you’re just studying upper-atmosphere particulates?
These scientists know Exxon won’t hire them if the AGW ‘debate’ is settled. Meanwhile, global warmers are keeping up the payroll.
“it’s hilarious that people think research is the path to riches.”
If you can’t get riches, the next best thing is upper middle class financial security. And a nice stream of research grants will supply that. In cases like Hansen and Mann, it has also supplied them with international fame. In cases like Al Gore, it could lead to billions for his carbon trading company. It already gives him 100,000 per speech. If you are on the professorial pubish or perish tract, you are much more likely to get garbage like the hockey stick into publications like Nature and Science if you go along with the supposed “consensus veiw”. In fact, for those scientists who have findings that would dispute the AGW, they try very hard to insert a disclaimer that it doesn’t dispute AGW. For example, Lowell Scott’s paper that shows that deep sea temperatures rose 1300 years before any CO2 levels increased is definitely a threat to the AGW orthodoxy. And yet he felt compelled to say that it wasn’t.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php
Linah Ababneh’s tree ring study absolutely trashes the hockey team’s primary proxy. Yet she is affraid to say anything about how her work obviously effects so many of the temperature reconstructions that the IPCC depends upon. Unfortunately there are far more people motivated to do unethical science on the AGW side than on the skeptic site. You now have hordes of supposed researcher producing phony models that feed the alarmist machine. And of course they will receive their grants to produce more of the same.
Then, of course, there is the issue of political motivation. The left sees AGW as a lever for implementing their agenda. A bigger UN. Direct taxes going to the UN. More international governance. Governments having larger tax bases for implementing more socialist programs – even after AGW disappears as an issue. For green parties (the old red parties under a new color) it is a direct path to power. Honest science is the last element of concern for the warmers. In fact, you will find that while most warmers are telling us about the catastrophic effects of AGW, they are actually hoping for more of the effects that they are warning us against. Their nightmare is the kind of cooling that we have had for the last few years. They will do anything to deny that it is happening, and that is why they want to create the illusion of an emergency that must be answered immediately. They want the power and the money before the whole thing is exposed for the fraud that it is.
“You do know that oil companies actually use climate models to predict where oil is, right?”
No, but sounds interesting. Got a link?
Tilo,
They use tree-rings and glacial ice to find money, and that’s pretty darned good. It’s not the same as finding oil, it’s just striking it rich a different way.
Reading tree-rings for climate change is just very passe’ and old-fashioned. The rings respond to CO2 as much as warmth, so you can get just about any result.
A method which is much more widely respected, and far more time-honored, and accurate, is reading tea leaves.
There are tea-leaf readers who can even predict the result of solar cycles and sun spots, and fluctuations in solar radiation!
Hey, dont knock tea leaf reading, its an interesting surrogate (much like commenting on blogs)
Luke knows what I am talking about, he likes his T
Come to think of it, under various guises Luke has been here for soo long he should be given a cup of T, lapsang soo chong perhaps? chapsang soo long? chaps smell too long? chaps laps smell too long? long smell lukes crotch?
smell like 3 day fish?
It wont be too long to pension day eh sunshine?
Tilo, you do understand that when a scientist gets a grant they don’t get to pocket the money. They have to acquit the grant to whomever gave it and demonstrate where they spent it. KNow anyone who gets grants? Know how much they’re getting? Any idea about what’s involved?
Here’s one predicting for coal:
http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/154/5/769
Here’s a book:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7P-3VV3JH8-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2bcecce41f04fbc78ecb68364d5dd7da
We started our new 5-year grant in January. It includes spending money for consumables and equipment, plus salaries for staff. In the 4th year of the grant, a site visit from the awarding body takes place to examine the grant proposal for the next 5 years, and ultimately say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’
Hey Rog are you in any of these pictures?
and did you go?
Nice song Luke, you hang around youtube for too long?
Luke and Mr T hold a conversation – left hand talking to the right hand.
Come to think of it Luke, its a crap song
“when ah finally git marself together..”
Bunch of smacked out druggies going around in circles.
Listen to something immortal
Bit up market for an early school leaver isn’t it. Got flash haven’t we? What’s Pat think.
BTW numb nuts I’m now fascinated – what’s with the Mr T thingo.
Yehudi Menuhin spoke warmly of his friend Mstislav Rostropovich, he was amazed at how he was able to hibernate thru the Russian winter. And David Oistrakh and Sviatoslav Richter, more truly great musicians.
Shiller,
The rings respond to CO2 as much as warmth, so you can get just about any result.
Tree ring growth is limited by the resource that is in the shortest supply. This can be sunshine and warmth. It can be nutrition. It can be moisure. In the case of the primary proxies that were used by Mann and the hockey team – bristlecone and foxtail pine, the primary limiting factor was moisture. The areas where these trees grow receive around 13 inches of moisture per year. They live at high altitudes and they depend on melting snow to get moisture much of the year. In warmer years the snow often disappears earlier, giving them less time with their most critical requirement. So if you look at a bristlecone tree ring series, it contains virtually no temperature information. One of the reasons that Mann et al refuse to update their tree ring series to the current year is because they know already that such an update would not reflect the current warming trend. And of course if it doesn’t reflect the current warming trend, then it also doesn’t reflect the MWP. Mann’s refusal to update his series is a clear example of fraudulent science. The blade effect that Mann got for his series was a result of trees going strip bark, and a little bit of help from CO2 feeding, and cherry picking the trees that gave most of that effect.
“Tilo, you do understand that when a scientist gets a grant they don’t get to pocket the money. ”
I understand that they get salaries and raises and an opportunity to study an area of interest. They get a chance to travel and do field work. Things they couldn’t do if they don’t get grants. The grants also give them the opportunity to publish papers and upgrade their own value in the job market. I don’t know why it is so important to you to pretend that grants have no value. Well – yes I do know.
No you don’t sepo. You haven’t got a clue what really goes on in modern research programs. That is the most unbelieveably pig ignorant diatribe I’ve ever heard. Back to the banjo boy. Just keep making it up as you go along. A couple of threads back you were supporting funding for any idea.
Tilo is in la-la land about research grants. Yeah they get the chance to travel and do field work but it aint no holiday or 9 to 5 job. Many scientists juggle their research with teaching at universities and working for others, having very little time to study their area of interest. Perhaps he thinks working in advertising is a more noble career and deserving of a large pay packet?
Luke has brought in the big guns — massive intellect and so forth, and so on, and etc., and from his lofty intellectual perch, aerie, perspective, and acumen, has pontificated at Tilo:
“pig ignorant diatribe.”
That’s about as incisive as, well, actually, the remark says nothing at all. And, measured against the benchmark of invective common amongst drunks, it’s not remotely imaginative or clever.
Luke will be tempted to accuse me of consorting with drunken bums, because I have accurately compared his inherent crassness to such a low, and easily attainable measure.
Maybe he’ll insult Tilo’s kids next, or something similarly execrable.
“Tilo is in la-la land about research grants.”
Well you’ve convinced my. Apparently scientists are fighting to get them because they are so worthless and because they really don’t want them. My mistake.
I’m going to rule in favour of Tilo and Schiller. They are the most coherent and informative. Luke and company are out of order! Court is adjourned.
Cheers….tholdhogger
“… to suppress evidence …”
Maybe they just rejected it because your paper is no good.
This option probably shouldn’t have appeared as anyone who ticked the first box is by definition completely uneducated.
“1. …. The physical science basis of AGW theory is founded on a false hypothesis…..”
is a bit like saying there a pixies at the bottom of the garden. The physical hypothesis is perfectly correct – without GW (of the non-anthropogenic variety) the Earth would have the same average tempreture as the Moon – ie. below freezing. This is basic physics which been proven time and again over the last 100 years. Look up Arhennius on Wikipedia.
The hypothesis of CO2 being responsible for the earth being warmer than it should be is well and truly conclusively proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is not a false hypthesis. No knowledgable person in their right mind would select it.
What everybody is arguing about is the ‘anthropogenic’ bit (although I think it’s only a few kooks who are still pursuing this).
No questionnaire on any subject this badly designed would ever find a place in those two journals. They have quality to worry about you know.
You’re on drugs hogsbreath. Take some more.
Tilo – like – a duh – coz that’s how they get money to do things. It’s not like it’s their personal pocket money.
that’s how they get money to do things.
including paying their own salary.
Not really dumb bum.
I see Luke the recipients of grants don’t need to eat?
Interesting.
Jan, yes sometimes it includes their salary. Sometimes it doesn’t. The Grants my wife gets don’t include her salary as she is employed by the Government. However, if she doen’t get the grant she doesn’t have any work to do.
It’s not the path to riches, people do research because they like doing it. My wife (for example) could earn lots more working in the private sector (she’s an entomologist) in biosecurity for example, however she’d prefers doing research.
It is astoundingly silly to think that researchers get grants because that’s what is going to get them rich. If they wanted to be rich they’d choose a much easier path.
Mr T,
I know how it works and unless, your wife for example, has other gainful work to do which is entirely possible in the public service she’d be on the dole queue or supported by you, whichever costs the government the least.
“It’s not the path to riches,”
I don’t think anyone is trying to create the impression it is, however the intrinsic need to go on can often distort ones POV. Also when one sees how whistle blowers are treated by the community one can understand silence on the part of many who should and would otherwise speak up.
“It is astoundingly silly to think that researchers get grants because that’s what is going to get them rich.”
It is silly and your argument amounts to a strawman.
None of the $billions available in research grants to study “catastrophic global warming” will be paid to researchers who deny “catastrophic global warming.”
No research money, no research. No research, no papers.
You’ve perhaps seen the television commercial, “so simple, a cave man could do it.” Well, the logic of this situation is just as simple.
So simple, you could pay a global warmer to do it.
“The hypothesis of CO2 being responsible for the earth being warmer than it should be”
Exactly how warm should the earth be? It’s a shame that it came with a broken thermostat, don’t you think. Let’s pass a law on what the perfect temperature should be and then fine everyone that makes it go in the wrong direction. Oh hell, let’s just hang them for it. If we can just exterminate mankind then the earth will forever have the perfect temperature.
“No research money, no research. No research, no papers.”
No papers, no controversy – proving that AGW is real. LOL.
Jan, there are people on this blog trying to paint it like that (Tilo and Schiller for example) and it’s a common conspiracy theory. And a pretty dumb one.
“I don’t think anyone is trying to create the impression it is, however the intrinsic need to go on can often distort ones POV. Also when one sees how whistle blowers are treated by the community one can understand silence on the part of many who should and would otherwise speak up.
”
I don’t know what you mean by this? Are you implying there are scientists trying to speak out, but can’t, for fear of losing funding?
Jan, I am also wondering why you would write this:”I know how it works and unless, your wife for example, has other gainful work to do which is entirely possible in the public service she’d be on the dole queue or supported by you, whichever costs the government the least.”
You don’t really know much about the value of entomology do you?
XXIII International Congress of Entomology
“pest management: perennial crops
pest management: annual crops
pesticides, resistance and transgenics
forest entomology
urban, postharvest and stored product entomology
ecology
genetics and evolutionary biology
insect pathology
medical and veterinary entomology
reproduction and development
physiology and biochemistry
neurobiology and behaviour
social insects
systematics, phylogeny and zoogeography
conservation, biodiversity and climate change
invasive species
insect plant interactions”
http://www.csiro.au/events/ICE2008.html
Howzat?
Looks good Gavin!
My wifey does IPM, strangely not on the list. It’s Integrated Pest Management – a very lefty greeny envirofacist type of work, typically involving encouraging growers to spray less often (as it’s pointless doing it constantly – DDT users take heed), and use other methods in conjuction like “beneficals” – insect that eat the nasty ones.
Luckily she doesn’t do any modelling because we all know that’s BAD SCIENCE.
IPM must be related to Agronomy hey.
I tell this story of senior farmer on the edge of the sticks back home who suddenly went “organic” after years of growing / loosing crops for multinationals. He had a few areas of pasture left that used to support a small dairy herd so he returned to seed potato growing in a jiff on neglected older soils.
I won’t go into modern methods v open pollination etc but I can say we both knew the weathered handle of the flat hoe. A tiny patch generates plenty of swing and sweat between the pushed up rows of flowering spuds. Although the younger lads had moved on to driving trucks and other mechanical things the old fellow was back in the black after a small crop or two.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/the-farmers-who-put-the-flavour-back-into-the-spud/2008/02/29/1204226991281.html
http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/TTAR-5P7VJY?open
http://www.agrifood.info/review/1995/Dowling.html
In what croping region is wifey working?
Southwest WA. WOrking with Olives, lettuce, and citrus mostly. She does work with stone fruit sometimes too. So she’s dealing mostly with black scale, currant lettuce aphid and western flower thrips.
That’s a nice story. My wife is very critical of fruit growing methods generally. She has watched the fruit grow much bigger, and much less tastier. Huge strawberries that taste like water!
Have you read about the Higlanders in New Guinea? They have remarkable farming techniques, apparently farming the same ground for 50 000 (or more!) years!.
Mr T: Did you mean slash and burn agriculture, shifting plots round the bush and so on?
I guess it’s only applicable to gardens in high rainfall areas but we can get similar results from the domestic compost heap in this dry country. Also we can hop into the scrub round the home with a trusty Victor to accelerate our semi dry composting.
Unfortunately the idea of emptying the old incinerator, that rough looking 44 gal drum that used to be smoldering away out the back into the veggie garden has long gone thanks to plastics and other rubbish that regularly got into the trash mix.
I knew a young chap that lived at Mt Hagen for a while in order to learn about the local culture and practices. Apparently it was a tough place to organize long term.
BTW, what’s your interest in agriculture?
It was using casuarina trees surrounding their plots. They act to add nitrogen, and they did crop rotations and used companion crops. Can’t recall the details.
I don’t have much of an interest myself in agriculture, except to see that here in WA it’s been devastating to the natural environment.