View Single Post
Old 02-20-2019, 10:53 AM   #5034 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
aerohead's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 15,560
Thanks: 23,686
Thanked 7,041 Times in 4,515 Posts

Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
So then you launch into your own whataboutisms?

Why would we expect a continual 50% poorer crop production? People aren't stupid; we grow what the climate allows us to grow. That might mean crops that are no longer able to be efficiently grown in one location will move to another location.

Tell me, what year should we expect even 1% lower crop yields? Let's start with that before we proclaim a 50% reduction. That 50% number is very convenient too. Does the science really say 50% loss rather than 32%, or 44%? Very interesting that we are ruining things to exactly get 50% loss.

Should we also expect no progress with GMOs, too?
If we're going to limit the discussion to climate change,then we ought to represent global-scale quanta,rather than regional data.
Western Europe and USA agricultural output would in no way represent the global food supply.
I'm not saying that you're cherry-picking,but it's an incomplete data set.
There are other food security issues some of us have already shared, and I'm given to presume that none of it matters,and what's the point of busting our balls to research data and present it, when it appears to just pass without consideration.You --ss on our gifts without a thank you or a --ck you,and ignore it as if it doesn't exist.
'Cast not your pearls before swine.' Jesus
Photobucket album:
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (02-20-2019), RedDevil (02-20-2019)