quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

Well, the irony was him telling someone else he's FOS for implying that mankind has anything to do with environmental change, then providing proof of mankind's impact on the environment to 'win the argument.'

Playing that "no you didn't!" "yes I did!" or whatever kid's game argumentation. You know, like when four yr. olds are saying the same thing but still find a way to argue about it.

If he could just get to the stage of pronouncing three syllable words properly, he might have a game.

Reducing every multi-syllable word to just two syllables is his idea of not just ingenuity, but actually . . . 'enlightenment'.

PS

Or, "litemint," as he would say it.

Sort of the point of that cartoon (the mulching aside): Groo is legendarily stupid, but believes himself to a fiendish and insightful disputant with clearheaded insights.

Still not used to getting your ass handed to you, everyone else does better get used to it.

Found those missing 475,000 stiffs at Dresden yet?

found any gassed jews yet? the missing 6 million?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Protein absolutely comes from the sun.
All matter is ultimately derived from energy.
Look up photosynthesis, in this case.
From that, plants provide the amino acids whence all 'complete protein' is derived.
If you know the least bit about basic physics and chemistry and biology and how all that works, sunlight is ultimately responsible for all our food/clothing/shelter.
There is no such thing as life to begin with if not for sunlight. Those bacteria and flat worms living deep in the sea with no idea what sunlight exists live on matter and biologica as began with the energy from sunlight.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Protein absolutely comes from the sun.
All matter is ultimately derived from energy.
Look up photosynthesis, in this case.
From that, plants provide the amino acids whence all 'complete protein' is derived.
If you know the least bit about basic physics and chemistry and biology and how all that works, sunlight is ultimately responsible for all our food/clothing/shelter.
There is no such thing as life to begin with if not for sunlight. Those bacteria and flat worms living deep in the sea with no idea what sunlight exists live on matter and biologica as began with the energy from sunlight.

Does the sun shoot down nitrogen, too? I don't know what physics, chemistry, biology, or what-the-fuck-ever you studied, but it's truly flawed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
He most definitely DID miss the point. The article mentions nothing about uptake from the soil.
Rather than my paraphrasing:
Rising CO2 revs up photosynthesis, the process that helps plants transform sunlight to food. This makes plants grow, but it also leads to them pack in more carbohydrates like glucose at the expense of other nutrients that we depend on, like protein, iron and zinc.
It's NOT a question of getting anything from the soil. (Hence the missed point)

Where does the protein, iron and zinc come from? (Hint: it's not in the air or sunlight)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The OP amounts to minutia, worst case, a few percent, meaning you eat one extra spoonful of wheat,

quote:

Myers said simply eating more staple foods to meet zinc and iron requirements was not realistic when food production already must double by 2050 to meet the demand of rising populations. Some of the varieties used in the research performed better than others, raising the prospect of breeding strains that are less vulnerable to rising CO2. But the researchers noted: "Such breeding programmes will not be a panacea for many reasons including the affordability of improved seeds and the numerous criteria used by farmers in making planting decisions that include taste, tradition, marketability, growing requirements and yield."

Myers acknowledged that rising CO2 can improve crop yields on some circumstances, but said: "There may be a little positive effect, but the people who work in this area would not want to hang their hat on that in the face of the many other negative effects of climate change, including heatwaves droughts and floods."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Oh? Thats what he 'said'?
Well I said it was realistic, so there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
In other words the OP is typical dealing with a 1/2 deck climate fear mongering

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Oh? Thats what he 'said'?
Well I said it was realistic, so there.

I guess mass starvation isn't a major concern.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
In other words the OP is typical dealing with a 1/2 deck climate fear mongering

Even if they can somehow completely overhaul agriculture in the most vulnerable regions, there is still a wide consensus on how floods and droughts affect crop growth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Oh? Thats what he 'said'?
Well I said it was realistic, so there.

I guess mass starvation isn't a major concern.

thats not what happens

Iron deficiency causes fatigue weakness and pale skin and zinc deficiency causes poor neurological function

but it does explain your problem

mass starvation, what an idgit drama queen ffs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
In other words the OP is typical dealing with a 1/2 deck climate fear mongering

Even if they can somehow completely overhaul agriculture in the most vulnerable regions, there is still a wide consensus on how floods and droughts affect crop growth.

clearly you are incapable of comprehending what you should have read above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
In other words the OP is typical dealing with a 1/2 deck climate fear mongering

Even if they can somehow completely overhaul agriculture in the most vulnerable regions, there is still a wide consensus on how floods and droughts affect crop growth.

clearly you are incapable of comprehending what you should have read above.

I think the best way to achieve communication in these situations is for you to just tell me what you think it means so I can respond to that.
If I respond to what is actually there, we probably won't be on the same page.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
He most definitely DID miss the point. The article mentions nothing about uptake from the soil.
Rather than my paraphrasing:
Rising CO2 revs up photosynthesis, the process that helps plants transform sunlight to food. This makes plants grow, but it also leads to them pack in more carbohydrates like glucose at the expense of other nutrients that we depend on, like protein, iron and zinc.
It's NOT a question of getting anything from the soil. (Hence the missed point)

Where does the protein, iron and zinc come from? (Hint: it's not in the air or sunlight)

Read the article. It talks about the process of photosynthesis. (Which utilizes CO2 (in the air) and sunlight).
Hint: It is precisely in the air and sunlight.
To quote once again:
Rising CO2 revs up photosynthesis, the process that helps plants transform sunlight to food. This makes plants grow, but it also leads to them pack in more carbohydrates like glucose at the expense of other nutrients that we depend on, like protein, iron and zinc.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The OP amounts to minutia, worst case, a few percent, meaning you eat one extra spoonful of wheat,

No.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/07/climate-change-food-crops-nutrition

quote:

Myers said simply eating more staple foods to meet zinc and iron requirements was not realistic when food production already must double by 2050 to meet the demand of rising populations. Some of the varieties used in the research performed better than others, raising the prospect of breeding strains that are less vulnerable to rising CO2. But the researchers noted: "Such breeding programmes will not be a panacea for many reasons including the affordability of improved seeds and the numerous criteria used by farmers in making planting decisions that include taste, tradition, marketability, growing requirements and yield."
Myers acknowledged that rising CO2 can improve crop yields on some circumstances, but said: "There may be a little positive effect, but the people who work in this area would not want to hang their hat on that in the face of the many other negative effects of climate change, including heatwaves droughts and floods."

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Oh? Thats what he 'said'?
Well I said it was realistic, so there.

I guess mass starvation isn't a major concern.

thats not what happens

Iron deficiency causes fatigue weakness and pale skin and zinc deficiency causes poor neurological function

but it does explain your problem

mass starvation, what an idgit drama queen ffs

If the plants are not as nutritious, you will have to grow more of them... and of course in the future there will be more people but also less available water.
So the demand will be higher and the crops will be more expensive, which means people will not be able to afford them.

Maybe you can just drink vitamin slurpees all day but in the third world it isn't so easy.

And seriously... WTF happened to you.
You used to be a generic manic conspiracy nut and now you're like Bosco with more insanity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Oh? Thats what he 'said'?
Well I said it was realistic, so there.

I guess mass starvation isn't a major concern.

thats not what happens

Iron deficiency causes fatigue weakness and pale skin and zinc deficiency causes poor neurological function

but it does explain your problem

mass starvation, what an idgit drama queen ffs

If the plants are not as nutritious, you will have to grow more of them... and of course in the future there will be more people but also less available water.
So the demand will be higher and the crops will be more expensive, which means people will not be able to afford them.

Maybe you can just drink vitamin slurpees all day but in the third world it isn't so easy.

And seriously... WTF happened to you.
You used to be a generic manic conspiracy nut and now you're like Bosco with more insanity.

it means you are eating something that has more sugar content and 'slightly' less (couple percent) minerals/vitamins, which does not cause starvation but 'may' cause a deficiency in minerals/vitamins 'if thats the only thing you eat in your diet'. Only need about a 75 IQ to figure that out. You can be stuffed and still be nutrient deficient, you dont starve, no hunger pains. That is why you are supposed to eat a balanced diet not just one source of food.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



Bingo!
Yahtze!

You got it, plants dont get their nutrients from air, every farmer on the planet knows you have to either replenish the soil or rotate crops in a manner that self replenishes.

Thats why Phds get a Phd so they can show us how fucking stupid they are with their half asses analysis in support of the latest Zio Jiz.

Bingo!
Yahtze!

You TOTALLY misunderstand the issue.

Where plants get their nutrients from is COMPLETELY irrelevant. The theory is: The increased photosynthesis, due to increased CO2, leads to more carbohydrates (e.g. glucose), and less nutrients that benefit humans.

You are COMPLETELY misunderstanding, confusing, and conflating nutrients that plants need for THEIR health with nutrients which plants produce which benefit OUR health.

See excerpt below:
But as the zooplankton experiment showed, greater volume and better quality might not go hand-in-hand. In fact, they might be inversely linked. As best scientists can tell, this is what happens: Rising CO2 revs up photosynthesis, the process that helps plants transform sunlight to food. This makes plants grow, but it also leads to them pack in more carbohydrates like glucose at the expense of other nutrients that we depend on, like protein, iron and zinc.