A warming world - the climate issue

No it didn't.

GMO crops, fertilizer, pesticides, all of them have an effect. But so does CO2, especially in dry farming because of its water-sparing effect.

 

Because the CO2 fertilization effect is very limited.

Crop yields all over the world went up because of GMO crops. Why do you think it was restricted to Canada?

 

Yes, it did. The greening stopped in the 1990s. That's what the evidence says. If you have any evidence saying otherwise -- hard evidence on global plant growth, and not just local anecdotes -- you should present it.

https://skepticalscience.com/ridley-murdoch-lomborg-greenwash-global-warming.html

 

Where is it limited ??

Canadians are enjoying longer growing seasons, more arable land, and higher yields from increasing CO2. What GMO breakthroughs do you claim is responsible for increasing yields ?? They must be doing incremental gene modifications on a yearly basis no ??

 

Greenhouse operators know you are wrong. Their willingness to spend money on CO2 enrichment proves you wrong. And CO2's water-sparing effect, which is crucial in arid areas (not greenhouses) is even more powerful.

 

False.

Nope. Only the cherry-picked and invalid evidence.

Even YOUR OWN SOURCE -- a ridiculously dishonest anti-fossil-fuel propaganda site, btw -- confirms it:

"Potter et al. 2012 examined the data and did find an increasing trend from 2000 to 2009,"

You are destroyed.

 

If "It's a conspiracy" is your usual answer to everything, it paints you as a deluded conspiracy cultist. It's your main answer to everything.

Even YOUR OWN SOURCE -- a ridiculously dishonest anti-fossil-fuel propaganda site, btw -- confirms it:

"Potter et al. 2012 examined the data and did find an increasing trend from 2000 to 2009,"[/QUOTE]

And the other study showed decreasing. So, dishonest cherrypicking on your part.

Next time, when another one of your precious cult myths is debunked -- as happens to all of your cult myths -- just tell me "Thank you for educating me." Don't keep digging deeper into the stupid hole.

 

So you're claiming that CO2 fertilization is infinite? Interesting.

If it's not infinite, it's limited. As is demonstrated by the earth no longer greening. Instead, it seems to be going the other way.

Don't ask me to explain your strawman. I never said GMO was the only factor in play. You made that up, so you can explain it.

 

What do you claim as the limiting atmospheric concentration of CO2 ??? It was ~ 370 ppm in the year 2000. Is that your claim ??? Why do actual greenhouses supplement at much higher concentrations ???

You said that yields were going up due to GMO technology, no ??? What other factors do you claim are contributing to the yield increases ???

 

And the other study showed decreasing. So, dishonest cherrypicking on your part.



Next time, when another one of your precious cult myths is debunked -- as happens to all of your cult myths -- just tell me "Thank you for educating me." Don't keep digging deeper into the stupid hole.[/QUOTE]

Alarmist lashing out. ^^^^

 

You are makin' $#!+ up again. It wasn't even my answer this time. Cherry picking invalid evidence is something people can do all on their own, no conspiracy needed. Look at Michael Mann's hockey stick.

Huh??? YOU are the one who claimed THAT SOURCE showed the greening trend had ended in the 1990s. So YOU are indisputably the one guilty not merely of cherry picking, but of misrepresenting the data. Pointing out that YOUR OWN SOURCE does not actually support your claim is not cherry-picking. It is refuting a false claim about what the source actually said. Give your head a shake.

?? Incredible. You have been proved not only wrong but disingenuous, yet you still self-righteously get on your high horse.

 

It's not that easy to just take billions off of people's hands. And even if you did I think you just helped create a new crop of billionaires.

Many of those big billionaires we're self made of this generation buffet, Gates ,Bezos Zuckerberg, etc.

edit: 12 of top 15 in usa are self made, the only exceptions are the 3 Walmart kids, who represent another self made.

And they are billionaires not trillionaires and Frankly one thing I've learned is that a billion isn't very much (apparently)

Is there significantly that much more old money that I don't really pay attention to? That's an honest question.

 

We need more (not less) self made billionaires creating wealth, jobs, and many millionaires in the process. Think of all the tax revenues.

 

Not necessarily. What the graphic shows is that greening ins "cyclic" ...

 

And then I proved it, and that's why you're triggered. It was one of your go-to cult myths. And I ruined it. Stupid liberal facts and data, it ruins everything.

 

There's no hard line, but decreasing returns seems to have set in way before that, and now the returns are insignificant. That's why the world isn't greening any more.

Because plants in greenhouses aren't limited by other nutrient scarcities.

Anyone would say that.

More and better chemicals, and treating farming more like a science.

 

And yet the earth is greening. Because it’s warmer and ther is mire CO2.

Plants in farmers fields are limited by nutrient scarcity ???

Agriculture has been a science for the last century.

 

"Self-made" billionaires typically don't create any significant wealth. They have just found legal ways to take the wealth that others create by exercising government-issued and -enforced privileges such as land titles, bank licenses, broadcast spectrum allocations, oil and mineral rights, and IP monopolies.

 

No, you did no such thing. You merely made a false claim about what YOUR OWN SOURCE clearly said.

<yawn> What a puerile thing to say. You are self-evidently the one who has been triggered.

It's a fact, as YOUR OWN SOURCE confirmed.

Nope. I just proved YOUR OWN SOURCE agreed with that "myth" Remember? So you only ruined your own credibility.

Like when YOUR OWN SOURCE said CO2 greening continued through the first decade of the 2000s, proving you objectively wrong...?

 

Some do. Bill Gates is using his wealth to improve education.

 

I'm sure the Gates Foundation is doing a lot of good. The point remains that if he didn't own privileges that legally entitled him to take that money, the people who earned it would have been able to keep it. Maybe Gates's specific privileges have not killed anyone, but privileges like his certainly do.

 

He started with nothing and developed products of value creating wealth which benefited himself, his partners, his employees, and his customers. The people who paid for his products benefited from them. He is now enjoying the privilege of giving away his fortune. That’s a beautiful thing.

 

No, his family was affluent. He could take the risk of starting his own company because he had a safety net. 90+% of us don't.

But not as much as they benefited him.

But paid far too much for them because they were legally prohibited from purchasing them in a free market.

It would have been, if he had not got his fortune unjustly, through government-issued and -enforced monopoly privilege:

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

 

The world has benefited far more from Microsoft than Gates has. We need more of these people - not less. Microsoft has no monopoly advantage. In fact efforts to "bust" the Microsoft "monopoly" has harmed consumers, not hurt them.

 

I doubt that.

But we don't need to over-reward them so obscenely by giving them toll booths on the publicly created information superhighway.

Don't be ridiculous. It holds tens of thousands of patent monopolies and uncounted millions of copyright monopolies.

It has been of net benefit.