Far-right media outlet Rebel News not eligible for journalism tax credits

[cropgrower]

Follow the science Crop instead of wing nut social media and internet conspiracies!

so we shud all do what we are told by some of the biggest climate hypocrites on the planet ? strange its the same ones that got conned by convid fall for the climate scam also , said it many times they need to be told how to think , and then they somehow think they are superior when they parrot the propaganda to others

[fjlip]

"will become more frequent and intense".


So now you are an EXPERT CLIMATOLOGIST?

I can't resist slapping the C02 bullshyt fear mongering!

Answer WHY don't the 96.775% cause change but the 3.3% man made does???????????

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, our Saint Bernard dog falls for the look a squirrel trick every single time. In your case the squirrel is climate change. And you fall for it every time.

I actually asked you a question which you conveniently avoided answering.
Is grainews in right wing or a far right wing media? Based on the article I described.

I'm trying to make sure I only get my news from reliable approved sources. I need to know if grainews is still an approved source or if it is now far right media

[chuckChuck]

Follow the science A5, instead of wing nut social media and internet conspiracies!


[url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378429023000412[/url]

Effects of heat and drought on canola (Brassica napus L.) yield, oil, and protein: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Canola (Brassica napus ([url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/brassica-napus[/url]) L.) is a major oilseed crop ([url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/oilseed-crops[/url]) for edible and industrial uses. Climate change ([url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/climate-change[/url]), characterized by extreme heat and drought conditions, can affect canola seed yield and quality (protein and oil), restricting grower capacity to keep pace with growing demand. However, estimating the influence of future climate on such complex traits is challenging due to biophysical interactions and crop adaptations to abiotic stresses. Current scientific literature reports contrasting impacts on the effect of heat and drought for canola productivity, mainly linked to changes in magnitude and duration of the stress. To better understand how drought and heat affect canola seed yield and quality (mainly protein and oil), a meta-analysis was executed to compile a total of 39 papers (1794 observations). The aims of this research were to i) quantify the impact of different timing and duration of heat and drought stresses on canola seed yield, oil yield, and seed quality ([url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/seed-quality[/url]) (oil and protein concentration), and ii) study the effect of short-term stresses on seed quality ([url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/seed-quality[/url]), yield and its components (seed number and seed weight). This review study highlighted the magnitude and direction of overall and different stress impacts on canola; and some of the main limitations in the current scientific literature. Briefly, the main outcomes of this review highlighted that i) early heat stress(before end of flowering) had the largest impact on canola seed yield, as a short stress, ii) drought caused greatest yield impact when imposed for a long duration during flowering ([url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/anthesis[/url]) or a shorter duration during pod setting, and iii) short stresses had large impacts on seed oil ([url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/seed-oils[/url]) concentration mainly during pod setting. More studies with standard stress levels and detailed information of abiotic stresses on reproductive growth stages are needed. This meta-analysis provides critical information for crop management ([url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/crop-management[/url]), guiding development of cultivars linked to tolerance to abiotic stresses for breeding programs, and the future direction of canola adoption and production.

[shtferbrains]

This is from our neighbors to the south but probably not significantly different here.

Basically saying experts like big government as thats who pays them.

See anything to disagree with Chuck?
Do all experts think like you?

[cropgrower]

yes we shud all just follow the science LOL , how will our conola fare in the mini ice age thats coming cc ?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Follow the science A5, instead of wing nut social media and internet conspiracies!

Thank you for finally responding to my question.

For now on I will consider grainews to be a wing nut social media internet conspiracy, and not an approved media source.

The list of approved sources appears to be very limited.

As far as I can tell, the only criteria that they have to meet is to agree with Chuck's worldview.

[fjlip]

"Answer WHY don't the 96.775% of C02 cause change but the 3.3% man made does???????????"


CC

[AlbertaFarmer5]

"Answer WHY don't the 96.775% of C02 cause change but the 3.3% man made does???????????"


CC

Don't ask Chuck math questions. Judging by how angry he gets about anything relating to math, that is not one of his strong suits.

Which is exactly why I keep asking him questions involving math...

This holds true for all socialists and proponents of green energy/climate change. It is impossible to understand basic math and still support these.

[chuckChuck]

So more human caused CO2 at very low levels in the atmosphere is not an important greenhouse gas that is increasing and causing climate change? Is that the "math" you are talking about A5? LOL

Which scientists or their organizations are saying human caused climate because of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is not causing climate change?

Run and hide A5 and climate change deniers! Because you never answer this question!

CO2 has gone from about 280 ppm to over 420 ppm. 50% higher. Not the 3.3% that Flipper thinks!