No, Climate Change is Not Adding Home Runs

Rise and fall of home runs in major and minor leagues compared. No climate change in minor league parks! Source: Roger Pielke Jr.

by Steve Haner

Maybe if a claim is repeated more than once, it won’t sound so absurd?  Perhaps that is why the Richmond Times-Dispatch felt it necessary to print two stories today about the recent ludicrous claim that “climate change” is making it easier to hit a home run.

“Since 2010, more than 500 dingers can be linked to warmer than average conditions because of climate change, according to a new study,” is the summary in a photo cutline illustrating one of the stories, a Washington Post reprint on page C-2.   The paper’s full-time climate alarmism correspondent Sean Sublette also discusses the “study” in his column on his daily weather and climate crisis page.

Perhaps neither had seen that the Post’s original story quickly drew a response so strong as to constitute disproof, from another climate scientist, this one not a member of the climate crisis priesthood.  The Unbeliever dared to compare the Major League Baseball home run statistics at the heart of the “study” with similar home run statistics from AAA baseball, the NCAA’s Division 1 baseball teams, and even the Japanese professional leagues.

The home run patterns there are different.  It seems climate change is only happening in MLB stadiums.  What a relief!

The University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke, Jr. packaged his response on Twitter, and it was then shared by The Wall Street Journal.  Very much worth a read.  You won’t find any of the rebuttal data in that failed rag of a Richmond newspaper.

Believe it or not, those two silly science stories were not the worst example of climate alarmist reporting in today’s RTD.  Right on the front page, on another follow up story about the Hopewell chemical plant’s regulatory problems, was the following subhead, at least in the print edition:

“City vows to address climate concerns following report.”

This was the first time an effort has been made to link the problem of chemical leaks to “climate change.”  The chemical leaks don’t involve greenhouse gases, and don’t involve amounts that would have any impact whatsoever on GHG levels. If they are happening, they are real pollution by manufactured chemicals. The newspaper’s agenda is clear, an effort to link real pollution from dangerous chemicals that could end life to the imagined pollution from natural gases that sustain life.

This is constant with this newspaper. Other recent examples are very easy to find.  To the recent archives:

Sublette’s climate crisis page on Friday, April 7 featured a wire story about offshore oil drilling with advocates complaining about the high risk of pollution from well remains.  But this was on the climate crisis page, so the real point is that oil drilling must stop because, well…climate change!

The next day, Saturday, April 8, the climate crisis page headline was “Methane big part of ‘alarming’ rise in planet-warming gasses,” illustrated with a photo not just of a landfill, but a burning landfill.  (Hello, if you burn methane what enters the atmosphere is no longer methane; it breaks down.  But real science gets in the way so never mind that.)

Sunday, April 9, we move from the climate page to “Week in Virginia” for this one paragraph story:

Norfolk is the East Coast city most threatened by sea level rise, according to a study by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at William and Mary. The Sea Level Report Card shows the city has a rise rate of .212 inches per year….

Since it was just one paragraph, perhaps we forgive the editor for failing to remember that Hampton Roads is sinking, and the subsidence has a far greater impact on relative sea level than any rise in the tide.  VIMS is reporting relative sea level rise of 5.4 millimeters per year, which is higher than the actual measurements from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of 4.75 mm per year.

And the NOAA figures do show other East Coast gauges (including in Virginia) with higher relative sea level rises, but perhaps those are not “cities.”  The goal was a scary headline, after all.

There was a climate crisis page in the Easter Sunday edition, of course, but its story was a good news story about how a Gulf Coast shipbuilder is building a ship to service offshore wind facilities.  They did have to nod at the altar at least once in the story, though: “Globally, countries are building out wind power and solar in a shift away from the coal, oil and methane gas burning that cause climate change.”

Finally there was yesterday, Monday, April 10, and a climate crisis page story about the expanding use of coal in countries not seeking to drive their populations into energy and economic poverty.  Give the editors credit for printing the kind of news that the climate priesthood wants to suppress, because 30 years of screaming against coal has not stopped its expansion outside of the U.S., and even Europe ran back to it once Russia cut off its gas.

So go to the baseball game and enjoy all the extra home runs.  The priests tell us we’ll be flooded out, broiling in Sahara-like heat and forced to eat grasshoppers soon. A ball game sounds like a nice distraction.

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


24 responses to “No, Climate Change is Not Adding Home Runs”

  1. Major league ballparks have much larger carbon footprints than minor league and college parks.

    That could explain the discrepancies between MLB and AAA, and still allow us to blame climate change for the increase in MLB home runs.


    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      More cars, more beer, more emitted methane and CO2 (burp)….:)

  2. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    “Dingers?” If I’d tried that word during my Summer of Sports Writing, 1972, my editor Harry Marsh would have hounded me for days….

    An admission. I’m ticked with the RTD for refusing to run a short LTE I wrote a few weeks back. It was in response to another letter from a former regular here at the Rebellion. I know they saw the letter because the editor challenged me on the statistics, which were pretty basic recitations of capacity factors for wind, solar, etc. He demanded proof and I guess rejected the citations I sent him. The bias is really getting outrageous. Time to just pound back.

  3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar

    I remember when journalism was a profession and reporters didn’t have a personal agenda with every article. But then, many of the best journalists didn’t have a college degree.

  4. There was a climate crises page in the Easter Sunday edition, of course, but its story was a good news story about how a Gulf Coast shipbuilder is building a ship to service offshore wind facilities.

    But is the off-shore-wind-facility maintenance vessel wind powered…

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I didn’t see masts in the photo, no….But there are RIGHTEOUS emissions you understand….Today’s RTD also has a defense of burning biomass with a claim that is good for the environment. If you believe that, the baseball claim is easy to swallow. It is hard not to slip into total contempt.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Clearly they purchased carbon credits for that vessel, see if you can afford the credits your emissions don’t count.

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I didn’t see masts in the photo, no….But there are RIGHTEOUS emissions you understand….Today’s RTD also has a defense of burning biomass with a claim that is good for the environment. If you believe that, the baseball claim is easy to swallow. It is hard not to slip into total contempt.

      1. If burning biomass is good for the environment then we need to stop switching our power production to expensive off-shore wind facilities and solar farms, and just convert our old coal burning power plants to burn silage and wood scraps.

        There, see? Together we have solved the most critical environmental issue of our times.

        On a more serious related note, imagine what the winter sky above Henrico County would look like if every house and every office building was heated by burning biomass (eg. wood).

        1. Randy Huffman Avatar
          Randy Huffman

          I have a very efficient woodstove which I use when the temperature drops to mid to low 30’s and below. Keeps the house very warm, and it re-burns the gases. That said, there still is smoke coming out. But I feel its better than letting wood rot in the back of the house (which also releases Co2), I have plenty of sources from dead branches and trees.

          Most my neighbors wont get a wood burning fireplace or stove, instead, they build houses with propane (I have one of those too, but don’t use it nearly as much)……

  5. if there was any question about eco-wackos being wacko — well this study proves it — science has spoken.

  6. Dr. Havel nos Spine' Avatar
    Dr. Havel nos Spine’

    It must be all these biomass plants heating things up. What is up with all the hoopla over 4 utility owned Virginia biomass plants with a combined capacity of 200 MW? Somebody needs to hit the ball out of the park.

  7. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Big leaguers know where the power comes from. Baby Ruth and Reggie Bars. For the first time in 40 years you can get a Reggie Bar.

    1. That’s just about the best news I ‘ve heard this month…

  8. DJRippert Avatar

    In 1876, there were 40 home rums hit during the entire year. By 1892 there were more than 10 times as many. In 1876 there were 8 teams. In 1892 there were 12. A 50% increase in teams but a 1,000% increase in home runs.

    That was some serious global warming going on during those 16 years.

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar

      Climate science is not science anymore. It’s religion. Instead of a Supreme Being intervening in human existence, climate change intervenes in human existence and causes everything.

      Meanwhile, other branches of science continue to challenge old theories. For example, some researchers claim that low levels of serotonin doesn’t cause depression. There’s a new claim that older people losing weight is dangerous to their health. But climate change causes everything and that is not subject to debate. It is impossible to believe that human activity affects climate unless one believes climate change controls all. It’s religion.

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      The dead ball era had a hard rubber core in the ball. The ball parks were like the grand canyon. You could scuff and spit on the ball too. 1921 is the big change. Lighter core ball, smaller parks, changed out balls to limit scuffing/spitting, and Babe Ruth gave up pitching and started hitting.

  9. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Hello, if you burn methane what enters the atmosphere is no longer methane, it breaks down.”

    So your suggestion to the problem of methane emissions from landfills is simply to set the landfills in fire… 🤷‍♂️

    1. No, the suggestion would be that the reporter choose an alarming photo that actually has some bearing on the alarming pollutant he/she is alarmingly reporting on.

    2. how_it_works Avatar

      No need to set the whole landfill on fire, they just burn the methane gas in a flare. It’s also common in sewage treatment plants as well.

  10. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    Comb the data hard enough and you can an almost infinite number of correlations. But causation is a different matter.
    What ever the issue, climate change is the cause and taking us back to poverty through well meaning subsidies is the answer!

Leave a Reply