a greening of the globe over recent decades
That’s your mistake. You’re the one who doesn’t own anything. You take over and expropriate from others.
Talk about the specific meaning of the PPM if you are ready to answer for your words. If you are just a privileged descendant of colonizers
Doubling CO2 levels results in an 8% decline, on average, in the concentration of minerals.
According to growers data, 1500ppm is twice as fast as 400ppm, which is a result of the doubling of yield growth.
Once again, I ask you, if you can’t give us specific data from your “research”, Talk about the specific meaning of the PPM if you are ready to answer for your words.
Ah i understand you. You are one of supporters of depopulation, who believes that the planet is overpopulated and wants to destroy the least developed people.
Нет
Относится. Искусственный свет - это лабораторные условия, точные показатели. На солнечном свете невозможно получить точных данных, как минимум, из-за облачности.
You don’t care about the forests, you want to limit forest’s food for the glory of Rockfeller’s agenda as i understand your arguments.
Let’s just say that i have karmic access to any information
The way you like it, the data on feed crops.
If your example was using staple food crops it still would be irrelevant.
There are too many factors in the field. It is problem for repeatability.
i don’t understand
There are many reasons I can give for believing this and some of them will definitely be because of such an agenda but not because I support that agenda.
I didn’t make any errors in this thread yet and you didn’t point them out.
I believe the planet could sustain many more people . . . I don’t think that the planet needs to be depopulated.
Better let’s just say that’s your beliefs in Western copyright and financial value is bullshit.
you want to limit forest’s food for the glory of Rockfeller’s agenda as i understand your arguments.
I ask you about your sources. Your “scientific” sources
Given that you’re willing to justify your opinion, i’m willing to talk to you on an equal footing.
And i showed Rockfeller’s funding of this source
No, i do not forgot anything in this case.. . . But i am happy to fix my mistakes.
Apologies. Do you mean these links that you posted?Yes.And i showed Rockfeller’s funding of this source.
But i am happy to fix my mistakes.
You are not doing this for the sake of truth, but for the sake of self-indulgence, to justify your participation in neo-colonial propaganda.
I think it is not the only case where you tried to deceive me.
I do not trust you.
I've never known a person be as wrong so many times in one conversation as you just managed.
Why would I want to turn the conversation around?
I'm totally fine with it as it stands.
you’re going to have to live with all of this
But your only “scientific” argument funded by Rockefellers.
Look at where this reply “Given that you’re willing to justify your opinion, .” appears. It’s a response to a totally different comment which directly precedes it containing other links.You just made some of my statements “errors” without explaining what the errors were.
It is your personal projection. You try to attach your vision and methods to me.
please do not write me again if you’re not afraid that if you don’t say your last word, you’re going to have to live with all of this, so you’re desperate to turn this discussion around in your favor. But if yu’re afraid that if you don’t say your last word, you’re going to have to live with all of this, so you’re desperate to turn this discussion around in your favor - you will write something again here again and again.
I proved it with links of Rockefller’s funding your sources. There is the details:
It’s not about people. My post was not about people.
You put in an argument that you think is wrong
“Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions and growing bigger as a result, according to a new study of U.S. forests.Scientists tracked wood volume in 10 different tree groups from 1997 to 2017, finding that all except aspen-birch grew larger. Over that same period, carbon dioxide levels went from 363 parts per million to 405 parts per million, owing largely to the burning of fossil fuels. More abundant CO2 accelerates photosynthesis, causing plants to grow faster, a phenomenon known as “carbon fertilization.” The findings were published in the journal Nature Communications.”
Support Hubzilla
