After it improves yields. And this guy calls everybody else stupid.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Recycling The Same News Every Century
- Arctic Sea Ice Declining Faster Than Expected
- Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- Global Warming Emergency In The UK
- Mainstream Media Analysis Of DOGE
- Angry And Protesting
- Bad Weather Caused By Racism
- “what the science shows”
- Causes Of Earthquakes
- Precision Taxation
- On the Cover Of The Rolling Stone
- Demise Of The Great Barrier Reef
- Net Zero In China
- Make America Healthy Again
- Nobel Prophecy Update
- Grok Defending Climategate
- It Is Big Oil’s Fault
- Creative Marketing
- No Emergency Or Injunction
- The Perfect Car
- “usually the case”
- Same Old Democrats
- Record Arctic Ice Growth
- Climate Change, Income Inequality And Racism
- The New Kind Of Green
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- Bob G on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- arn on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- william on Arctic Sea Ice Declining Faster Than Expected
- conrad ziefle on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- conrad ziefle on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- william on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- gordon vigurs on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- Tel on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- Bob G on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
“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)