Ok fine, so your position is your distinction is meaningless...
If you don't want to, I made my case and proved that I'm indeed writing.I don't need to make a counter argument.
Meh, I'm not gonna fall for your bait, if you actually want to know, follow the rabbit and look it for yourselfWhat is "Rulz" anyhow?
It sounds like it might be from, say, Eastern Europe?
If you don't want to, I made my case and proved that I'm indeed writing.
Meh, I'm not gonna fall for your bait, if you actually want to know, follow the rabbit and look it for yourself
I'll give you a clue, it's not important.And I suppose, "ok" is a title of some sort?
These are important matters.
600 million hectares sounds like a lot, but that's irrelevant. What matters is how many can that area feed and on what level of comsumption.What do you think of Africa's food production potential, Mr Rulz ok?
And further on that:
There you go LOL'ing again Bob. You'll have to do betterAnd you're way too predictable.
That's better, even though you still signed of with the lol. This time not in capital letters. I'll give you that.It doesn't surprise me that you cannot discern the component parts of an argument, given your fallacious diversions in this thread.
600 million hectares of "uncultivated, arable" land in Africa alone is quite a lot!
You are almost as bad as Greg, lol!
"...science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility."
I'm not a farmer and honestly, a year ago I didn't care too much about agriculture, except that it causes a lot of disturbance to the biosphere. Then it became clear to me, that I eat food produced at a farm everyday, and so does everybody else. We need the farmers to survive, and they should be as popular as the fire brigade, even though they experience a lot of bashing.'Human influence on drought started a century ago':
In truth this is a little innacurate, as 'traditional' slash and burn has been used by various peoples around the world going back atleast a few thousand years (most likely much longer in some places) and while, for example, it has become a vital 'natural' cycle in some places (like Australia) where the local flora needs those fires to prompt plant growth, in many other places it has had a bad effect on the quality of the land. On the mainland in PNG, in particular around the capital Port Morsby, it has pretty much created a 'dead' natural environment, or a very poor one for a tropical zone.
So while the data in the article is interesting and relevant, we perhaps need to look deeper and wider into all our pasts to discover just how long we have been affecting local environments.
The political issue is that they don't consider the future. Why lift a finger or spend any money that will benefit the opposition who are probably going to be in by the time it comes to fruition. That happened with the millennium dome successive governments stole credit/blamed their predecessors as it cycled from a success to a huge empty carpark. That's how bad they are on projects that last a decade things that would take generations are just beyond their collective ability to comprehend.The big issue is that the harsh reality is that this is an politically agnostic problem, where as our political structures have a past that is excluding them from providing the united front we need on AGW. That division is nicely shown by the hard push for fracking under the Conservatives (and the many ex/current conservative affiliated people involved directly in seeking the profits from fracking), and i'm super glad one party leader has decided to speak out directly on the issues that are going to determine if our civilizations are going to be working as intended over the next century. ALL people are involved in AGW, there are no places to hide for the coming storm we are all creating. Our political systems (and the financial systems that run them) are slowly awaking to that fact, Hopefully it won't be before it is in reality 'too late'.