After it improves yields. And this guy calls everybody else stupid.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- New Video : Analyzing Oil And Gas
- Is Antarctica Melting?
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Timo, Not that one on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- william on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour


“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)