After it improves yields. And this guy calls everybody else stupid.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Moving To Detroit To Escape Global Warming
- Visitech.ai – Data Made Simple – Weather History
- First Tracks In The Snow
- UK Green Energy Record
- UN Is Upset
- “Fascist Salute”
- Record Warmth Of January 1906
- Heat Trapping Difficulties
- Visitech – Data Made Simple – Antarctic Sea Ice
- Visitech – Data Made Simple
- California Governor Refused Firefighting Help
- Internet For Drowned Island
- A Toast To President Trump
- 97% Of Government Experts Agree
- Green Energy Progress
- Scientists Concerned
- New Data Tampering By NOAA
- Magical Thermometers
- Responsive Government In California
- Collapse Of The Antarctic Sea Ice Scam
- NPR : Cold And Snow Caused By Global Warming
- Snow Forecast In All 53 States
- 97% Consensus
- “Melting ice reveals millennia-old forest buried in the Rocky mountains”
- America Burning
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on UN Is Upset
- Bob G on “Fascist Salute”
- Disillusioned on First Tracks In The Snow
- Disillusioned on Heat Trapping Difficulties
- Brian G Valentine on Visitech.ai – Data Made Simple – Weather History
- Disillusioned on Heat Trapping Difficulties
- Brian G Valentine on First Tracks In The Snow
- dm on First Tracks In The Snow
- arn on UK Green Energy Record
- dm on UK Green Energy Record
“Wheat has been a staple for at least 7000 years. But it may be on its way out.
Yet if we are to feed 9 billion people by 2050, we need to increase food production by 70%.”
Yes, that would be terrifying, if our record of increasing production hadn’t bettered that already. Do these imbeciles believe people are still out with their sickles? Do they honestly believe mankind won’t progress in the next 40 years? Wheat production is a great example of achievement and progress! Twits!
Here’s an idea! why don’t we shift money from climate science research into wheat stem research? Really don’t we need more scientists capable of PRODUCING solutions rather than spending money on activist scientists who exist only to promote their unproven theories? Seems to me there is a huge imbalance between practical science and theoretical science when it comes to climate. Spend the money on adaptation. We already know that climate change occurs regardless of CO2 levels so the smart thing to do is spend money on science that will actually help mankind to survive the climate change.
Here’s a great example for my earlier post where a practical scientist PRODUCES a solution. Give money to the engineers and scientists that are useful not the scientists that are just running around screaming “the glaciers are melting! The glacires are melting! Give me more research grant noney!”
http://www.climateprep.org/2010/09/21/artificial-glaciers-in-the-himalayas-provide-water-to-desperate-farmers/
Someone should probably look out for the wheat production returning to the 2005 levels “Analysists” say is not possible (uncertainty? pah!) (o_O)