Claim: We'll survive Climate Change – if we cede More Power to the UN

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
As part of green-central-planning the UN wants to (in their own words) ban private property and create “Human Habitat Settlement Zones” http://wp.me/p3Bc8A-Iw

The political climate science is the historic shortest settled science EVER!!!

Quote by Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

However well meaning, the UN has hardly impressed with its performance in other areas of international stress – particularly war, hunger, clean water, pollution, refugees etc. Seems naive to believe they would do any better with food shortages.
A far better long term solution is a reduction in the number of mouths to feed. It is clear that non-confrontational, non-violent, and acceptable policies to achieve this are preferred over the unpleasant alternatives. We are sleepwalking into the latter!

From ‘Forbes’ { http://www.forbes.com/sites/cargill/2016/02/15/food-security-in-a-time-of-climate-change/#52f7b5b25313 },
“Climate change won’t break the global food system all by itself by 2030, but in a world of population growth, rapid urbanization, and political instability in places, we do need to secure the system against climate shocks, the organizers argued.”
-reported by Tom Vandyck [who] is a communications specialist at Cargill, dealing mainly with food ingredient and sustainability issues. Formerly, he was a reporter whose work was published in outlets around the world.

An open free market is the reason based optimization of the ‘system’. Central ‘systems’ is a euphemism for ‘planned economies’; see 20th century for proof that they are the worst idea in the history of mankind.
John

But for the fact that we know they mean phony climate change when they say climate change, the article actually makes some sense, in that they talk about mitigation. Of course, the carbon tax sentence ruined it all.

The conclusion was in before the exercise began.

Why does all discussion, on a world government, not include the word democracy? Are we all incapable of the concept of a democratic world government? Is the U.N. the only possible world government we can imagine, with the modern mind? GK

Whenever one hears ‘food security’ it raises red flags, its usually a mask for stealing and self interested control. Food grows just fine without governments trying to steal the production for themselves.

These people act as if “1984” was an instruction manual.
“Freedom is slavery.” -Orwell

“We’ll survive Climate Change – if we cede More Power to the UN”
Ummm – NO.
And we’ll survive it anyway – just as we have for the eons of changing climates before us.
Greedy, power-hungry IDIOTS.

As someone working in alternative agriculture, I can assure you that we HAVE answers to ensure longterm production increases and more stability in our food systems. We are ignored though and there is some rather interesting work going off on the side anyway. For instance I know growers in various parts of africa using tree based systems to provide reliable quality food, that over time become more and more fertile in places considered non arable, even without irrigation involved. Not all such models work in the first world where labor is expensive but robots might one day change that but they do very well in the third world. My own work here in the high desert SW shows I can grow a range of crops here including treecrops that could replace the grain we feed animals currently (large portion of grain goes to animals) all while producing much much more meat then current cattle production here. I use goats not cattle but the amount of meat is easily an order of magnitude higher, ore actually but hard for me to say for sure at this point because I am only doing a small area currently I dont have the land to scale up yet.
The most obvious potential here although there are many is to use such models to improve the arid regions we currently grow half the worlds meat on. They would become more and more fertile and hold more water over time while producing more then currently while providing treecrops as well. We could readily free up the farmlands growing grain for livestock now with treecrops, use more of them as fillers in our own food or eat directly and many other potentials.
My real point here is when or if the world stops ignoring some of those at the edges of food production advancement we have answers already for sharp increases for decades to come. We have many international groups all supposedly seeking out such answers, for instance bill gates spending mountains of cash across africa for this goal. Yet somehow literally missed groups ALREADY doing it in AFFORDABLE ways simply by a change in mindset with mostly onsite and VERY sustainable inputs. yet it is ignored even though youd have to try to ignore it if you study food production and africa to any extent. This tells me that an entire field is so closed minded it cannot see many of the answers and more then adequate ones already exist and are being implemented in a few places. Extreme cognitive dissonance. OR they do not want answers, they want control.
Considering some of the other things I know about having happened the answer appears to be control. Hard to imagine, but little else makes sense.