Public Radio – Pushing The Limits Of Climate Stupid

In this PRI article, the author conflates CO2 with “global warming” – and wants to starve billions of people to save them from micronutrient deficiencies.

Global warming threatens nutrition levels in staple crops | Public Radio International

Our entire food production and distribution system is based on fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels, there would be no food available for most of the world’s people – causing mass starvation like China and India had fifty years ago when their carbon footprint was small.

For progressives, starving other people to death for the sake of personal climate virtue signaling – is the highest form of morality.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Public Radio – Pushing The Limits Of Climate Stupid

  1. Steve Case says:

    The notion that global warming will cause lower nutrition levels in our food is bullshit.

    • TimA says:

      These demonic idiots will stop at nothing…..

    • arn says:

      The warmer it gets the more moisture=more clouds=better global water supply=plants will grow more and faster=more nutrition.

      The more clouds=the more balanced the climate as cold and hot peaks are much closer= less storms,as the cool fronts are warmer and the hot fronts are colder and when they meet the resulting storms will be much weaker.
      (strong storms had been so common some 100 years ago that both times the mongoles tried to conquer japan within 8 years their ships were destroyed by heavenly winds(=kamikaze)

      The warmer it gets the more energy is inside the system=the
      more energy inside the system=the more plants will grow.
      (the real reason for greenhouses and their effects)
      The more co2 the more plants will grow.
      (another reason why greenhouses exist)

      Let’s hope it”ll get warmer.

    • Tom O says:

      I think he is right. The faster a plant grows to maturity, the less time its roots have to absorb minerals from the soil. That has always been my beef about vegetables that have been “bred” or genetically modified to reach fruit maturity faster. It isn’t even a point that can be argued. Warmer weather and more CO2 will have plants maturing faster, and they will have less minerals in the fruit since the Earth can only deliver them at the same rate it always has.

      What is ignored, of course, is that there will be more fruit/vegetables to eat. Eating more will give you the opportunity to get the minerals that are missing in a normal serving, along with the opportunity to increase your own weight at the same time. Even legacy plants will have less mineral content, but will be closer to the needs than GMO or plants bred for purposes other than nutritional value. That is just science and nature. Using that information to frighten rather than inform, however, is dead wrong.

      • David A says:

        There is a minor drop in some protein density, but more net protein and minerals due to the increase in bio mass.

        Few eat plants for protein anyway.

  2. Anto says:

    Without CO2, there would be no plants! CO2=plant food.

    Stoopid doesn’t even start to describe it.

    • arn says:

      You dare to call the global pollutant co2 plant food???
      I guess next time you will claim that snow is not a thing from the past and that the arctic is not ice free :)

  3. gator69 says:

    Their lack of understanding of the effects of CO2 on plants is staggering…

    Myers is not so sanguine about the so-called CO2 ‘fertilization effect’ some argue will make plants grow bigger and faster. There is data to suggest there is a small fertilization effect that can increase yields, Myers says, but this occurs only in the context of adequate irrigation. The unreliability of water supplies in many regions of the world renders this effect negligible at best.

    The world is facing a deeply concerning confluence of difficult conditions, Myers says: CO2 levels rising to 550 parts per million over the next 40 years; the world population increasing from seven to nine billion; and a warmer planet that is likely to have less arable land than it does now.

    Plants use water much more efficiently under higher CO2 concentrations, and plants grow much larger. Deserts are greening as a result of higher CO2 levels, ergo we will have more arable land, and not less.

    Their “findings” are a statistical trick whereby one takes a very small theoretical number, and multiplies it by a very large number, making a farce of the entire process.

    I would not trust any results that this “team” produces, they are idiots.

    • David A says:

      Indeed, the first assertion is knowingly wrong. CO2 makes plants more water efficient and heat tolerant. To call the fertilization benefit a suggestion and small is willfully disingenuous.

  4. Dr Modo says:

    The carbon dioxide problem would be solved if everyone who is concerned about it would just stop exhaling.

  5. Klaus Berger says:

    I just love your blog, Tony! Always spot on!

  6. Latitude says:

    This is such BS….and as usual they don’t qualify anything they are saying…

    A cup of rice has about 0.8 mg iron…..10% less would be about 0.7 mg
    …not enough to make a difference or even notice

    Same with zinc

    • Latitude says:

      Then go on to say 2 billion people suffer from deficiencies…..
      …and not qualify that it’s because they are starving from lack of food

      CO2 will give them more food………..

  7. Rob says:


    I can’t wait for the day when CO2 is blamed for everything. Got arthritis? Blame CO2.

  8. MikeW says:

    Calling socialist leftists “progressives” is an undue compliment. In fact, leftists are regressive. In particular, Global Warming of Doom leftists are reminiscent of medieval cultists and witch-hunters.

    • arn says:

      Anything commies/bolshewiks/progressives(or whatever name they hide behind) claim to be is the exact opposite of what they are.

      The communist in Russia called themselves Bolshewiks=the majority.
      They never had been the majority-they always had been the minoriy,that’s why they always needed tyranny to keep communism and traitors and sell outs (eg. stasi) inside the population to keep the fear level high.
      To overthrow Russia they stirred up minorities in russia against russians((just as they stir up today minorities(gays,blacks) against white people in the usa.
      (today they changed the stasi for indoctrinated lemmings and crooks,after they destroyed their families with drugs etc-
      that’s the reason why you see so many freaks at leftist protests)

      They always pretended to be from the people for the people while
      in fact all their theories were created by a very,very small group
      of intellectualised ,superprivileged people(Marx,Lenin,Stalin,Mao …)
      and that’s why they killed more people than anyone before in such a short timeframe.
      Communism has so little to do with common people that the russian revolution was sponsored by bankers from wall street & city of london.

      The communists of east germany called themselves GDR,German Democratic Republic-
      while the GDR was in fact a 100% fascist state(fascist by mussolinis definition= State&corporations working hand in hand)

      They pretend to end poverty and corruption and bring wealth and education
      while whereever they rule poverty increases and corruption standard
      and the reason why people in the usa have been systematically dumbed down,drugged and perverted is that
      educated,sane unperverted would never acceppt their system.

  9. Rah says:


    Has nothing to do with facts, no matter what the subject.

  10. Anonymous Comment says:

    greenhouses are good for growing plants
    greenhouse gases are bad for growing plants?

    Time for another linguistic change.

  11. Neckbeard93 says:

    Why do we still fund this garbage?

    Taxpayers on the hook for $20 million every year for NPR alone. God knows how much we’re forced to pay into PBS.

    • Misdirected anger says:

      When we look at the budget breakdown, we find that for 20 years (from 1993-2014) climate science/preparedness/technology cost ~$160 billion ( That comes out to $8 billion/year. Here’s a fun fact: did you know that EVERY YEAR, the interest we pay on our national debt is $240 billion? Sure makes the money we spend on NPR, PBS and climate change look like chump change! (

      While I’m happy to see people fired up about something, I’m not sure that railing against climate change and scientists is the best use of time. It’s a shame that you aren’t railing against politicians, banks and oil industries. These are the people and organizations that ruin our happiness, that are ensuring income inequality gets worse, that keep us in debt our whole lives. These are the groups that we should be angry at. NOT scientists. If anything, scientists have improved all our lives.

      All I can say is good thing the corporate tax is going from 35% to 20% and rich people won’t have to pay the estate tax! I’m sure all of us poor people will get much richer from the “trickle down” economics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *