Today’s Republican ‘conservative’ ‘law and order’ crime blotter. You people need some basic civics and decency training. What did your parents teach you exactly?
WASHINGTON — The FBI raided the home of a Michigan gubernatorial candidate who was at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, NBC News has confirmed. The FBI arrived at Ryan Kelley's home in Allendale, Michigan, on Thursday morning. NBC News received a tip about the raid, which was confirmed by a law enforcement official. The Detroit News reported that Kelley has been arrested.
The FBI has turned into the Democrat's KGB and you're bragging about it like it's a good thing...
Since you are all law and order, do you think Merrick Garland and the DOJ should have been arresting these violent people trying to illegally intimidate the Supreme Court justices before the messed up guy tried to kill Kavanaugh and his family?
They want Kavanaugh dead so they can replace him. Any Democrat who says this isn't their fervent wish is lying.
After a justice is killed by a left wing nut the left will then be outraged when Republicans won't vote for the leftist POS they nominate to replace him/her.
Most crops are not grown in a greenhouse. They are grown in a field.
Again, extra CO2 sometimes helps, but only to a point. There is a lot more to growing nutritious plants than just CO2.
Rising temperature makes some new land available for farming. But it takes away other land.
The new land is likely to have the wrong soil, rain, and sun profile for the crop you can no longer grow on the old land.
Plus, rising temperatures cause more extreme weather conditions and drought. This is overall really bad for total crop yields.
The "point" at which CO2 stops helping won't be reached in anyone alive's lifetime.
It has been thoroughly debunked that rising temperatures increase extreme weather conditions.
The point at which CO2 stops helping depends on the crop and the growing conditions. Most of the time, extra CO2 doesn't help.
You need to read up on how adding CO2 diminishes nutritional value. If you can figure out how to get nutritional yield to go up instead of down then you might have a point.
The "point" at which CO2 stops helping won't be reached in anyone alive's lifetime.
It has been thoroughly debunked that rising temperatures increase extreme weather conditions.
The point at which CO2 stops helping depends on the crop and the growing conditions. Most of the time, extra CO2 doesn't help.
You need to read up on how adding CO2 diminishes nutritional value. If you can figure out how to get nutritional yield to go up instead of down then you might have a point.
I have. The CO2 levels required to diminish nutritional value by any significant amount don't exist on earth. All of these studies use CO2 levels from 500 to 700ppm or more.
Using bad computer models to push a narrative isn't science. It's activism.
The point at which CO2 stops helping depends on the crop and the growing conditions. Most of the time, extra CO2 doesn't help.
You need to read up on how adding CO2 diminishes nutritional value. If you can figure out how to get nutritional yield to go up instead of down then you might have a point.
I have. The CO2 levels required to diminish nutritional value by any significant amount don't exist on earth. All of these studies use CO2 levels from 500 to 700ppm or more.
Using bad computer models to push a narrative isn't science. It's activism.
To the immature adult in the room: You know who beat Rodney King so why would you use him to illustrate your point. I see you run your mouth shouting all day long. Funny that I can't directly respond to your posts. If I could I would tell you what most of us want to. Shut up !!!
I have. The CO2 levels required to diminish nutritional value by any significant amount don't exist on earth. All of these studies use CO2 levels from 500 to 700ppm or more.
Using bad computer models to push a narrative isn't science. It's activism.
So now you know more than the scientists. Got it.
The scientists themselves admit the computer models are garbage.
You don't need to be a scientist to understand that a simulation which assumes CO2 is 700 ppm isn't relevant to the planet we live on at any time we'll be alive.
The point at which CO2 stops helping depends on the crop and the growing conditions. Most of the time, extra CO2 doesn't help.
You need to read up on how adding CO2 diminishes nutritional value. If you can figure out how to get nutritional yield to go up instead of down then you might have a point.
I have. The CO2 levels required to diminish nutritional value by any significant amount don't exist on earth. All of these studies use CO2 levels from 500 to 700ppm or more.
Using bad computer models to push a narrative isn't science. It's activism.
In other words, you admit I'm right about the science but you question the science.
I have. The CO2 levels required to diminish nutritional value by any significant amount don't exist on earth. All of these studies use CO2 levels from 500 to 700ppm or more.
Using bad computer models to push a narrative isn't science. It's activism.
In other words, you admit I'm right about the science but you question the science.
I'll take their word over yours.
Hypothetical science which has nothing to do with the world we actually live in...
They raise CO2 levels in greenhouses up 1100ppm to maximize yield.
The CO2 increase we've seen thus far has been a boon to crop yields.
The CO2 increase needed to reduce nutrition significantly is more than a century away if it ever comes at all.
