" was heard babbling semi-coherently:

Fran continued laughing at the presumptions of:

"lost past" was sniveling incoherently about:

Bolaleman cited:

Climate change could devastate US crop yields, published September 1, 2009

Climate change could result in severe shortages of two of America’s
most important grains, according to the authors of a new study
published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS).

The research was conducted by two economists, Dr Michael Roberts of
North Carolina State University and Dr Wolfram Schlenker at Columbia
University, who used a well-known climate change prediction model to
assess how much yields could decline by the end of the century. They
found that corn, soy and cotton yields could fall by 30 to 46 percent
in this time under the slowest warming scenarios – if greenhouse gas
emissions are cut to 50 percent of 1991 levels by 2050 – and by 63 to
82 percent if emissions continue at current levels.

If CO2 emissions are cut by 50% there will be NO CROPS.

So what you're saying is that if CO2 keeps rising (albeit at a slower
rate) the crops that are already growing will have so little CO2 to
work with that they won't be able to complete a Calvin Cycle.

Not content earlier with posting graphs that contradict your claims,
you are posting claims that are self-contradictory

You really are a moron, or perhaps someone trying to prove that filth
merchant propagandists are morons

Flannie -- you are too confused to debate!!

Leotard, you're falsely presuming that if CO2 emissions are
cut by 50% that somehow the concentrations of CO2 in the
troposphere will magically fall to less than 225 ppm..

--Speaking to your confusion, directly..

On Oct 18, 10:56*am, Baron_Mind wrote:
" was heard babbling semi-coherently:







Fran continued laughing at the presumptions of:

"lost past" was sniveling incoherently about:

Bolaleman cited:

Climate change could devastate US crop yields, published September 1, 2009

Climate change could result in severe shortages of two of America’s
most important grains, according to the authors of a new study
published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS).

The research was conducted by two economists, Dr Michael Roberts of
North Carolina State University and Dr Wolfram Schlenker at Columbia
University, who used a well-known climate change prediction model to
assess how much yields could decline by the end of the century. They
found that corn, soy and cotton yields could fall by 30 to 46 percent
in this time under the slowest warming scenarios – if greenhouse gas
emissions are cut to 50 percent of 1991 levels by 2050 – and by 63 to
82 percent if emissions continue at current levels.

If CO2 emissions are cut by 50% there will be NO CROPS.

So what you're saying is that if CO2 keeps rising (albeit at a slower
rate) the crops that are already growing will have so little CO2 to
work with that they won't be able to complete a Calvin Cycle.

Not content earlier with posting graphs that contradict your claims,
you are posting claims that are self-contradictory

You really are a moron, or perhaps someone trying to prove that filth
merchant propagandists are morons

Flannie -- you are too confused to debate!!

Leotard, you're falsely presuming that if CO2 emissions are
cut by 50% that somehow the concentrations of CO2 in the
troposphere will magically fall to less than 225 ppm..

--Speaking to your confusion, directly

It is amusing. It's the same as saying that if instead banking $100
per week I only bank $50 then my bank account will decline as a
consequence by 50%.

It's even more stupid than that of course because at various times in
Earth's history CO2 has been as low as 180ppmv without vegetation
ceasing, and not that humanity has any means to force levels down to
this point, or the will.

It's just a classic strawman using a combination composition fallacy/
slippery slope. That it started from an utterly spurious premise just
adds to the fun.

Fran