After it improves yields. And this guy calls everybody else stupid.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Earth On Fire
- Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- NPR Climate Experts
- Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- “Siberia might stay livable”
- Deep Thinking From The Atlantic
- Making Up Fake Numbers At CBS News
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- “experts warn”
- End Of Snow Update
- CBS News Defines Free Speech
- “Experts Warn”
- Consensus Science With Remarkable Precision
- Is New York About To Drown?
- “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped”
- Disappearing New York
- New York To Drown Soon
- “halt steadily increasing climate extremism”
- “LARGE PART OF NORTHERN CALIF ABLAZE”
- Climate Trends In The Congo
- “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Understanding The US Government
- Cooling Australia’s Past
- Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
Recent Comments
- Greg in NZ on Earth On Fire
- arn on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- William on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- William on Earth On Fire
- arn on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- Mike on NPR Climate Experts
- Mike on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- mwhite on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- Bob G on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
“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)