[Kryptid]

"Yes yes science is no place for logic proof and evidence. ”

That sounds like a straw-man of my argument. Of those three, the only one I said science doesn't have is proof. Future evidence always has the possibility of overturning present evidence, so one cannot saying that something is truly proven.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why we would expect another "Year without a Summer" if carbon dioxide levels returned to pre-industrial levels.

[Bored chemist]

The end of fossil fuels will certainly reduce crop yields and radically alter the whole business of farming and food distribution.

... unless they are replaced by some other form of energy supply.
Or, perhaps we exploit more energy efficient ways to trap nitrogen from the air.
Did you see what I said?

In any event the solution to the massive energetic cost of the H-B process is to grow more beans and less grain.

The "Haber Bosch" reference is an estimate by others who know far more than me about these things, of the importance of artificial fertilisers in human nutrition. The summary is that, globally, they increase food production by 33% over what can be achieved without them.

That might well be correct.
But what you said was

At a rough estimate, one third of your body weight is attributable to the Haber-Bosch process.

which is not the same thing, is it?

[alancalverd]

Almost the entire weight of a bottle of water is attributable to glass, without which the water would form a puddle, not a bottle. Water does not take the shape of Adonis all by itself, and when I last looked, I was not a puddle.

More beans might help, but humans do seem to need a lot of rice. Nettles are good at fixing nitrogen and far easier to grow than beans.