2015 hottest year ever, 15 of 16 hottest years since 2001...

[HappyJoy]

10% where? Let's talk about that.

You see where I said, "for instance"?

I absolutely see where you're saying nothing.

Cool, just like the study you linked.

No.

View attachment 60600

Darn it, yields only went from 60 bushels per acre in 1960 to 150 bushels per acre in 2010.
Obviously this "climate change" is going to cause us all to starve. Durr.

It's apparent the authors are blaming "climate change" for "extreme weather events," which are supposedly going to reduce crop production. Of course, we all know that no such connection has been demonstrated, so the whole thing is a colossal fraud.

Not it has, I provided a link to it.

 

[HappyJoy]

No.

View attachment 60600

Darn it, yields only went from 60 bushels per acre in 1960 to 150 bushels per acre in 2010.
Obviously this "climate change" is going to cause us all to starve. Durr.

I would hope we are a little better at farming now than we were 56 years ago. We have no choice, we have to be, more people and climate change (as reported in my link) is going to have a severe impact. Actually that chart is from the epa and the article it's a part of makes the case that climate change is a problem.

You can read about it here:
Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply | Climate Change | US EPA

If it's from the EPA, that's even more reason to assume it's bullshit. The EPA lies all the time and pays organizations like the American Lung Association to produce propaganda for it. A warmer climate is good for agriculture. That's what the historical record shows. AGW claims about agricultural production run counter to what 5000 years of experience have indicated.

Great, tell your buddy that's where he got his chart from. Can you back up anything you've said?

Ummm, I went back and got the chart you deleted. Hack.

Yeah, I started a post, decided to reply to someone else's post instead and my original post was still in there that contained the chart. After I posted I realized what I did and removed it, what difference does it make? It's still from the epa.

 

[bripat9643]

I absolutely see where you're saying nothing.

Cool, just like the study you linked.

No.

View attachment 60600

Darn it, yields only went from 60 bushels per acre in 1960 to 150 bushels per acre in 2010.
Obviously this "climate change" is going to cause us all to starve. Durr.

It's apparent the authors are blaming "climate change" for "extreme weather events," which are supposedly going to reduce crop production. Of course, we all know that no such connection has been demonstrated, so the whole thing is a colossal fraud.

Not it has, I provided a link to it.

Your chart proves that crop production has more than doubled in the last 60 years.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

You follow priests. Scumbags like Mann don't know what actual science is.

I'll give you a hint, the moment "consensus" is uttered, there is no basis in science.

"The leading authorities in the field have reached consensus that the sun revolves around the earth, and the those who claim otherwise are deniers."

We've seen you before, many times. You religious fanatics are the impediments to science.

 

[HappyJoy]

No.

View attachment 60600

Darn it, yields only went from 60 bushels per acre in 1960 to 150 bushels per acre in 2010.
Obviously this "climate change" is going to cause us all to starve. Durr.

I would hope we are a little better at farming now than we were 56 years ago. We have no choice, we have to be, more people and climate change (as reported in my link) is going to have a severe impact. Actually that chart is from the epa and the article it's a part of makes the case that climate change is a problem.

You can read about it here:
Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply | Climate Change | US EPA

If it's from the EPA, that's even more reason to assume it's bullshit. The EPA lies all the time and pays organizations like the American Lung Association to produce propaganda for it. A warmer climate is good for agriculture. That's what the historical record shows. AGW claims about agricultural production run counter to what 5000 years of experience have indicated.

Great, tell your buddy that's where he got his chart from. Can you back up anything you've said?

Ummm, I went back and got the chart you deleted. Hack.

Yep, already explained. Not sure what your point is.

 

[HappyJoy]

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

You follow priests. Scumbags like Mann don't know what actual science is.

I'll give you a hint, the moment "consensus" is uttered, there is no basis in science.

"The leading authorities in the field have reached consensus that the sun revolves around the earth, and the those who claim otherwise are deniers."

We've seen you before, many times. You religious fanatics are the impediments to science.

Feel free to discredit the source I provided.

You could also help find a reputable organization that is not funded by oil, is not right wing or full of conspiracy nut cases who do not believe climate change is real and caused by human intervention. Who are they? Where are they?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 60600

Darn it, yields only went from 60 bushels per acre in 1960 to 150 bushels per acre in 2010.
Obviously this "climate change" is going to cause us all to starve. Durr.

I would hope we are a little better at farming now than we were 56 years ago. We have no choice, we have to be, more people and climate change (as reported in my link) is going to have a severe impact. Actually that chart is from the epa and the article it's a part of makes the case that climate change is a problem.

You can read about it here:
Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply | Climate Change | US EPA

If it's from the EPA, that's even more reason to assume it's bullshit. The EPA lies all the time and pays organizations like the American Lung Association to produce propaganda for it. A warmer climate is good for agriculture. That's what the historical record shows. AGW claims about agricultural production run counter to what 5000 years of experience have indicated.

Great, tell your buddy that's where he got his chart from. Can you back up anything you've said?

Ummm, I went back and got the chart you deleted. Hack.

Yeah, I started a post, decided to reply to someone else's post instead and my original post was still in there that contained the chart. After I posted I realized what I did and removed it, what difference does it make? It's still from the epa.

After I posted I realized what I did and removed it,

Yeah, I noticed you removed the chart that made your study look silly.

what difference does it make?

It shows you're dishonest.

It's still from the epa.

I know, the EPA admits that yields have soared, even with "climate change".

 

[Uncensored2008]

Feel free to discredit the source I provided.

You could also help find a reputable organization that is not funded by oil, is not right wing or full of conspiracy nut cases who do not believe climate change is real and caused by human intervention. Who are they? Where are they?

You find a source not funded by government grants to self-perpetuate the fraud first, cult boi.

Here's the thing, I don't debate religious fanatics. I found long ago that your type is unmoved by facts and evidence. You are founded in faith, not reality.

Any rational person knows that Michael Mann is a fraud, but you will defend him, he is a priest of your faith. You care not of reality, only your fucked up religion.

 

[HappyJoy]

I would hope we are a little better at farming now than we were 56 years ago. We have no choice, we have to be, more people and climate change (as reported in my link) is going to have a severe impact. Actually that chart is from the epa and the article it's a part of makes the case that climate change is a problem.

You can read about it here:
Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply | Climate Change | US EPA

If it's from the EPA, that's even more reason to assume it's bullshit. The EPA lies all the time and pays organizations like the American Lung Association to produce propaganda for it. A warmer climate is good for agriculture. That's what the historical record shows. AGW claims about agricultural production run counter to what 5000 years of experience have indicated.

Great, tell your buddy that's where he got his chart from. Can you back up anything you've said?

Ummm, I went back and got the chart you deleted. Hack.

Yeah, I started a post, decided to reply to someone else's post instead and my original post was still in there that contained the chart. After I posted I realized what I did and removed it, what difference does it make? It's still from the epa.

After I posted I realized what I did and removed it,

Yeah, I noticed you removed the chart that made your study look silly.

what difference does it make?

It shows you're dishonest.

It's still from the epa.

I know, the EPA admits that yields have soared, even with "climate change".

No, the chart from the epa demonstrates climate change has an impact on our crops according to the epa. Doesn't show any dishonesty on my part.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it's from the EPA, that's even more reason to assume it's bullshit. The EPA lies all the time and pays organizations like the American Lung Association to produce propaganda for it. A warmer climate is good for agriculture. That's what the historical record shows. AGW claims about agricultural production run counter to what 5000 years of experience have indicated.

Great, tell your buddy that's where he got his chart from. Can you back up anything you've said?

Ummm, I went back and got the chart you deleted. Hack.

Yeah, I started a post, decided to reply to someone else's post instead and my original post was still in there that contained the chart. After I posted I realized what I did and removed it, what difference does it make? It's still from the epa.

After I posted I realized what I did and removed it,

Yeah, I noticed you removed the chart that made your study look silly.

what difference does it make?

It shows you're dishonest.

It's still from the epa.

I know, the EPA admits that yields have soared, even with "climate change".

No, the chart from the epa demonstrates climate change has an impact on our crops according to the epa. Doesn't show any dishonesty on my part.

Yup, climate has always had an impact on crops. For as long as humans have planted crops.

How bad can it be with a 150% increase in yield between 1960 and 2010, eh?

 

[HappyJoy]

You find a source not funded by government grants to self-perpetuate the fraud first, cult boi.

The Insurance industry
Ford Motors
Google
Coca Cola
General Motors

To name a few.

 

[HappyJoy]

Great, tell your buddy that's where he got his chart from. Can you back up anything you've said?

Ummm, I went back and got the chart you deleted. Hack.

Yeah, I started a post, decided to reply to someone else's post instead and my original post was still in there that contained the chart. After I posted I realized what I did and removed it, what difference does it make? It's still from the epa.

After I posted I realized what I did and removed it,

Yeah, I noticed you removed the chart that made your study look silly.

what difference does it make?

It shows you're dishonest.

It's still from the epa.

I know, the EPA admits that yields have soared, even with "climate change".

No, the chart from the epa demonstrates climate change has an impact on our crops according to the epa. Doesn't show any dishonesty on my part.

Yup, climate has always had an impact on crops. For as long as humans have planted crops.

How bad can it be with a 150% increase in yield between 1960 and 2010, eh?

Apparently we are going to find out.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.

They don't accept science period.
Evolution
Old earth
The need to fund science research

None of this matters. Pretty soon they'll be telling us how we need to accept Jesus and demanding that we stop using science.

Sick people. Taliban like.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ummm, I went back and got the chart you deleted. Hack.

Yeah, I started a post, decided to reply to someone else's post instead and my original post was still in there that contained the chart. After I posted I realized what I did and removed it, what difference does it make? It's still from the epa.

After I posted I realized what I did and removed it,

Yeah, I noticed you removed the chart that made your study look silly.

what difference does it make?

It shows you're dishonest.

It's still from the epa.

I know, the EPA admits that yields have soared, even with "climate change".

No, the chart from the epa demonstrates climate change has an impact on our crops according to the epa. Doesn't show any dishonesty on my part.

Yup, climate has always had an impact on crops. For as long as humans have planted crops.

How bad can it be with a 150% increase in yield between 1960 and 2010, eh?

Apparently we are going to find out.

Yup, with increases like that, we're doomed. It's obvious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.

They don't accept science period.
Evolution
Old earth
The need to fund science research

None of this matters. Pretty soon they'll be telling us how we need to accept Jesus and demanding that we stop using science.

Sick people. Taliban like.

That's a awfully broad brush you're using, comrade.
I'm right.
I accept science, evolution, 4+ billion year old Earth as well as science research.

Let's talk about banning vaccines and GMOs, oh wait, that'd be the leftwing Taliban. LOL!

 

[bripat9643]

If it's from the EPA, that's even more reason to assume it's bullshit. The EPA lies all the time and pays organizations like the American Lung Association to produce propaganda for it. A warmer climate is good for agriculture. That's what the historical record shows. AGW claims about agricultural production run counter to what 5000 years of experience have indicated.

Great, tell your buddy that's where he got his chart from. Can you back up anything you've said?

Ummm, I went back and got the chart you deleted. Hack.

Yeah, I started a post, decided to reply to someone else's post instead and my original post was still in there that contained the chart. After I posted I realized what I did and removed it, what difference does it make? It's still from the epa.

After I posted I realized what I did and removed it,

Yeah, I noticed you removed the chart that made your study look silly.

what difference does it make?

It shows you're dishonest.

It's still from the epa.

I know, the EPA admits that yields have soared, even with "climate change".

No, the chart from the epa demonstrates climate change has an impact on our crops according to the epa. Doesn't show any dishonesty on my part.

How does a 150% increase in crop production demonstrate the climate change reduces crop production?

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, I started a post, decided to reply to someone else's post instead and my original post was still in there that contained the chart. After I posted I realized what I did and removed it, what difference does it make? It's still from the epa.

After I posted I realized what I did and removed it,

Yeah, I noticed you removed the chart that made your study look silly.

what difference does it make?

It shows you're dishonest.

It's still from the epa.

I know, the EPA admits that yields have soared, even with "climate change".

No, the chart from the epa demonstrates climate change has an impact on our crops according to the epa. Doesn't show any dishonesty on my part.

Yup, climate has always had an impact on crops. For as long as humans have planted crops.

How bad can it be with a 150% increase in yield between 1960 and 2010, eh?

Apparently we are going to find out.

Yup, with increases like that, we're doomed. It's obvious.

Nobody is making that prediction. and I mean NO ONE.

 

[HappyJoy]

What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.

They don't accept science period.
Evolution
Old earth
The need to fund science research

None of this matters. Pretty soon they'll be telling us how we need to accept Jesus and demanding that we stop using science.

Sick people. Taliban like.

That's a awfully broad brush you're using, comrade.
I'm right.
I accept science, evolution, 4+ billion year old Earth as well as science research.

Let's talk about banning vaccines and GMOs, oh wait, that'd be the leftwing Taliban. LOL!

There are people on the right and left who want to ban vaccines. As far as GMOs go, I think people are more interested in labels than banning. I for one don't have a problem with GMOs and vaccines should be mandated by the government when appropriate.

 

[HappyJoy]

Great, tell your buddy that's where he got his chart from. Can you back up anything you've said?

Ummm, I went back and got the chart you deleted. Hack.

Yeah, I started a post, decided to reply to someone else's post instead and my original post was still in there that contained the chart. After I posted I realized what I did and removed it, what difference does it make? It's still from the epa.

After I posted I realized what I did and removed it,

Yeah, I noticed you removed the chart that made your study look silly.

what difference does it make?

It shows you're dishonest.

It's still from the epa.

I know, the EPA admits that yields have soared, even with "climate change".

No, the chart from the epa demonstrates climate change has an impact on our crops according to the epa. Doesn't show any dishonesty on my part.

How does a 150% increase in crop production demonstrate the climate change reduces crop production?

You'd have to read the epa article, it discusses it in depth, link already provided.

Still waiting on a trusted source who disputes climate change from you silly fuckers and you can't provide one.

 

[westwall]

What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.

Farmers are having record year crop productions, which doesn't fit with your bull shit either.

Why wouldn't they? At least in the U.S. where we aren't feeling the affects of climate change quite as severely as other parts of the world. But, why wait?

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/66560/WP119_FINAL.pdf

According to the most recent IPCC report, changes in climates over the last 30 years
have already reduced global agricultural production in the range 1-5 % per decade
globally, with particularly negative effects for tropical cereal crops such as maize and
rice (Porter et al., 2014). In addition, there is now mounting evidence suggesting that
even at low (+2 ºC) levels of warming, agricultural productivity is likely to decline
across the globe, but particularly across tropical areas (Challinor et al., 2014). This
Working Paper provides an overview of projected climate change impacts on crop
production and suitability across Africa, using a combination of literature review,
models and new data analysis

I believe that's from 2013, we already know that crop productions are being threatened and have already been affected by climate change. But, you wouldn't bother to look into it anyway, so what is the point of having this debate with you when one of your boneheaded ideas is to bring the bible into it that you did in another post.

So, do you really believe that crap study? Just figuring the low estimate of 1% per decade says that we are now producing three percent less than we otherwise would be. When i look at the food production rates i see no slow down I see more food than ever. In fact there is so much food out there that we can afford to waste 1.3 BILLION tons of food every year. That's lost, or allowed to rot, or simply thrown down the drain to keep prices up.

There is ZERO real evidence to support that assertion.


Food Waste: The Facts