How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Ben D]

Sorry Iam...there is nothing new in what you have posted...Australia experiences continuous cycles of droughts and floods, check out the wheat production from 1960 6to 2014 and see the wild fluctuations in production....but note carefully the unambiguous trend upwards....so the next good season will see the production break new records....

And here is Wheat Production and Growth by Country to see who's who of wheat production....

And it's not the CO2 in the upper atmosphere, it's in the air at ground level where the fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both.

[Cosmic Cowbell]

Pope Francis’s edict on climate change will anger deniers and US churches

Pontiff hopes to inspire action at next year’s UN meeting in Paris in December after visits to Philippines and New York

“An economic system centred on the god of money needs to plunder nature to sustain the frenetic rhythm of consumption that is inherent to it.The system continues unchanged, since what dominates are the dynamics of an economy and a finance that are lacking in ethics. It is no longer man who commands, but money. Cash commands.

“The monopolising of lands, deforestation, the appropriation of water, inadequate agro-toxics are some of the evils that tear man from the land of his birth. Climate change, the loss of biodiversity and deforestation are already showing their devastating effects in the great cataclysms we witness,” ~ Francis

He has been called the “superman pope”, and it would be hard to deny that Pope Francis has had a good December. Cited by President Barack Obama as a key player in the thawing relations between the US and Cuba, the Argentinian pontiff followed that by lecturing his cardinals on the need to clean up Vatican politics. But can Francis achieve a feat that has so far eluded secular powers and inspire decisive action on climate change?

It looks as if he will give it a go. In 2015, the pope will issue a lengthy message on the subject to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, give an address to the UN general assembly and call a summit of the world’s main religions.

Following a visit in March to Tacloban, the Philippine city devastated in 2012 by typhoon Haiyan, the pope will publish a rare encyclical on climate change and human ecology. Urging all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds, the document will be sent to the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners.

However, Francis’s environmental radicalism is likely to attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in rightwing church circles, particularly in the US – where Catholic climate sceptics also include John Boehner, Republican leader of the House of Representatives and Rick Santorum, the former Republican presidential candidate.

Cardinal George Pell, a former archbishop of Sydney who has been placed in charge of the Vatican’s budget, is a climate change sceptic who has been criticised for claiming that global warming has ceased and that if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were doubled, then “plants would love it”.

Dan Misleh, director of the Catholic climate covenant, said: “There will always be 5-10% of people who will take offence. They are very vocal and have political clout. This encyclical will threaten some people and bring joy to others. The arguments are around economics and science rather than morality.

“A papal encyclical is rare. It is among the highest levels of a pope’s authority. It will be 50 to 60 pages long; it’s a big deal. But there is a contingent of Catholics here who say he should not be getting involved in political issues, that he is outside his expertise.”

Francis will also be opposed by the powerful US evangelical movement, said Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which has declared the US environmental movement to be “un-biblical” and a false religion.

“The pope should back off,” he said. “The Catholic church is correct on the ethical principles but has been misled on the science. It follows that the policies the Vatican is promoting are incorrect. Our position reflects the views of millions of evangelical Christians in the US.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/d ... -rightwing

[zangtang]

executive summary: a spokesman for an outfit called 'Cornwall alliance for the stewardship of creation' has said the Pope should 'back off'.....because the vatican has got its science wrong because it has been 'misled' -

and millions of evangelical American Christians say so.

as i was allegedly once heard to say...........WHERE'S MY AK47?

[Ben D]

So now the Vatican and most of the Christian Protestant Churches, World Bank, IMF, CIA, Pentagon, UN, 200 world governments that are parties to the Convention on Climate Change, most of the world's MSM, most Major Oil companies, most Multinational Corporations, most NGOs, etc, are in agreement the humans are the predominate cause of climate change.....and still this NWO is struggling to agree to a coherent strategy at the annual COP meetings to deal with it...why?

Main reason imho is that this is an exercise in politics, not science, and there is still skepticism at the vast people level who believe that climate change is a predominately natural process, and that since the world has never been at any one absolute temperature in its entire existence, it is always going up or down and never stays the same...who has the wisdom/arrogance to decide that the temperature of the planet must be made to stay at the pre-industrial early 20th century level as if this is the perfect temperature for the planet for all time? I say this is hubris on the part of the NWO and it is both wrong and impossible for this generation of mankind to try and regulate the planet at a temperature of their choosing.....

Mankind has always adapted and always will to climate change..... I find it ironic that so many people are scathing in their opinion of the present state of human governance on the planet....and yet hate the idea that climate change may mean great changes that could indeed mean that society as we know it will not survive, and push for the NWO implementation of climate change mitigation to maintain the status quo. I for one, if the climate changes are such that this present NWO does not survive, will not shed a tear....

[Sounder]

zangtang wrote...

and millions of evangelical American Christians say so.

Your position with respect to ‘American Christians’ is as much analogous as it is opposed. The object of your faith is different, but it is still belief in things you don’t understand. Your lack of respect toward their faith is understandable, as is their lack of respect toward your faith. It is not odd at all that both positions are driven by need for social acceptance accomplished through validating and being validated by common ‘beliefs’.

BenD wrote...

So now the Vatican and most of the Christian Protestant Churches, World Bank, IMF, CIA, Pentagon, UN, 200 world governments that are parties to the Convention on Climate Change, most of the world's MSM, most Major Oil companies, most Multinational Corporations, most NGOs, etc, are in agreement the humans are the predominate cause of climate change

Here we have the folk that most greatly benefit from the maintenance of the dominant narrative, all singing in unison about the great imperative of the day. It is more than simply intuition that tells a person that these folk are looking for a bigger payday than the war on drugs, war on terrorism, war on cancer, and the green revolution combined.

Fucking tax farmers, sure we are going to ‘save the world’ with more taxes. No worries that the folk writing the laws are paid by the largest multinationals on earth.

.....and still this NWO is struggling to agree to a coherent strategy at the annual COP meetings to deal with it...why?

Main reason imho is that this is an exercise in politics, not science, and there is still skepticism at the vast people level who believe that climate change is a predominately natural process, and that since the world has never been at any one absolute temperature in its entire existence, it is always going up or down and never stays the same...who has the wisdom/arrogance to decide that the temperature of the planet must be made to stay at the pre-industrial early 20th century level as if this is the perfect temperature for the planet for all time? I say this is hubris on the part of the NWO and it is both wrong and impossible for this generation of mankind to try and regulate the planet at a temperature of their choosing.....

True dat

Mankind has always adapted and always will to climate change..... I find it ironic that so many people are scathing in their opinion of the present state of human governance on the planet....and yet hate the idea that climate change may mean great changes that could indeed mean that society as we know it will not survive, and push for the NWO implementation of climate change mitigation to maintain the status quo. I for one, if the climate changes are such that this present NWO does not survive, will not shed a tear....

The irony is that folk that are scathing in their opinion of the present state of human governance on the planet are still looking for those same institutions to ‘save’ us.

It’s not really ironic though when one realizes that the very purpose of AGW is to maintain an illusion that our ‘guiding’ institutions care about general well being.

[minime]

It's not about yield. It's about quality of yield.

Hello?

[slimmouse]

It's not about yield. It's about quality of yield.

Hello?

Well I hear ya. Thanks for that observation Minime.

This question is part of the very reason I made my previous post

So whatsappenin, scientifically speaking IYHO?

Shoot the breeze dude. This is RI.

[minime]

GMO considerations aside--temporarily--what is superficially called yield is not an indication of nutritional value. In fact, yield is often contraindicative of nutritional value by weight. Speaking of increased yield without corresponding increased nutritional value (roughly speaking protein and vitamin v. carbohydrate content) is agspeak, resulting in increased profits for farmers (in the short term), but also nutritional deficits in both the short and the long-term for plants, animals and humans which ultimately feed on that yield.

Framing the conversation in those terms (yield by weight) is most often done by those [edit: more] interested in transcendence than involution.

[slimmouse]

Well, to be honest, Im all transcendentally involuted myself. But you probably knew that anyway.

GMO is poison.

Back on topic, meanwhile global warming is probably the same or ever so slightly different than it ever was.

Only now, your being taxed for it.

[slimmouse]

Well, to be honest, Im all transcendentally involuted myself. But you probably knew that anyway.

GMO is poison.

Back on topic, meanwhile global warming is probably the same or ever so slightly different than it ever was.

Only now, your being taxed for it.

AND THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE TAXING YOU FOR THIS ARE RAPING YOUR FUCKING PLANET.

nice to blow off some steam now and again.

[minime]

Well, to be honest, Im all transcendentally involuted myself. But you probably knew that anyway.

I rarely attach names to posts, so I miss out on all the personality stuff. And, the few people I thought I knew ended up being someone else.

Even worse, I have no opinion about Global Warming. Worse than that, I imagine that the taxation itself is not necessarily a bad thing, nor what is done with the proceeds. I don't imagine any one person knows the final distribution of them.

I do prefer that we work harder to change ourselves than control an entire planet. The definition of hubris writ large.

[slimmouse]

Well, to be honest, Im all transcendentally involuted myself. But you probably knew that anyway.

I rarely attach names to posts, so I miss out on all the personality stuff. And, the few people I thought I knew ended up being someone else.

Even worse, I have no opinion about Global Warming. Worse than that, I imagine that the taxation itself is not necessarily a bad thing, nor what is done with the proceeds. I don't imagine any one person knows the final distribution of them.

I do prefer that we work harder to change ourselves than control an entire planet. The definition of hubris writ large.

And there-within lies enough contradiction to confirm our dual nature of existence.

The big illusion. Where some people believe they are bigger than others.

[Ben D]

Pope Francis’s edict on climate change will anger deniers and US churches

Pontiff hopes to inspire action at next year’s UN meeting in Paris in December after visits to Philippines and New York

Oh...and why would skeptics be angry? They've been saying all along that agw was a religious cult. The agw true believers have been persecuting the hated heathen deniers for yonks! So it makes so much sense that the agw cult status be foregone and now be recognized at last as a legitimate religion with God's representative on Earth as its leader....

[Ben D]

The irony is that folk that are scathing in their opinion of the present state of human governance on the planet are still looking for those same institutions to ‘save’ us.

Succinctly put... I wonder if they are suffering from some sort of Stockholm syndrome?

[Sounder]

Minime wrote…

Even worse, I have no opinion about Global Warming.

Hah, I wish I had no opinion, but the constant propaganda has taken care of that.

Worse than that, I imagine that the taxation itself is not necessarily a bad thing,

Taxes might be fine, but misapplied taxes is stealing.

nor what is done with the proceeds. I don't imagine any one person knows the final distribution of them.

Yes, by design, and you will not hear (much) about that distribution, and just like our other ‘wars’, the money is the objective, not the ‘war’.

So our brave climate fighter business deal setter uppers, certainly deserve immunity for any incidental otherwise criminal acts committed in the pursuit of doing gods work, right?

Well, maybe not but you or I have no say in it and the ra ra cheerleaders will be happy to skip over the implications, as it seems that passing along propaganda like some robot army is somehow more fulfilling.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12 ... osecution/

By George Russell
Published December 18, 2014

“We would definitely be opposed to any extension of immunity to the Fund,” said a senior aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who will chair the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works starting in January.

“What do they need protection from?” he asked. “In essence, they are doing business development projects. If you look at the way millions of people do transactions across national borders, they do it without immunity and very successfully.”

Apparently undeterred, fund officials told Fox News that they are now trying to hammer out “bilateral agreement templates” that could be laboriously negotiated with each country where it operates—a total that could eventually reach the great majority of the U.N.’s 193 members.

The Fund has already negotiated one agreement of immunity—with its new host country, South Korea, as a condition of moving its headquarters there last year.
If the GCF succeeds in its broader negotiations, not only billions but eventually trillions of dollars in climate funding activities could fall outside the scope of criminal and civilian legal actions, as well as outside examination, as the Fund, which currently holds $10 billion in funding and pledges, expands its ambitions.

The shield would cover all documentation as well as the words and actions of officials and consultants involved in the activity documentation—even after they move on to other jobs. As a tasty side-benefit, the “privileges” attached to such “privileges and immunities,” as they are known in diplomatic parlance, mean that employees get their salaries tax-free.

Sounder » Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:04 pm wrote:The irony is that folk that are scathing in their opinion of the present state of human governance on the planet are still looking for those same institutions to ‘save’ us.

Succinctly put... I wonder if they are suffering from some sort of Stockholm syndrome?

The dominant narrative is very convincing. The colonist in our minds.