Rice yields falling under global warming

Global warming is cutting rice yields in many parts of Asia, according to research, with more declines to come.

Yields have fallen by 10-20% over the last 25 years in some locations.

The group of mainly US-based scientists studied records from 227 farms in six important rice-producing countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, India and China.

This is the latest in a line of studies to suggest that climate change will make it harder to feed the world's growing population by cutting yields.

Climate Change is such an obvious phenomenon now, with so much evidence clearly showing that the climate is changing and that we will have to adapt accordingly, that you have to wonder why people still want to argue.

On the one hand it is all us, we are the ones changing the climate and we should do everything in our power to slow the process down giving us more time to develop solutions that will ensure that ourselves and/or as many species as possible don't become extinct as a direct result of our actions.

Or; if it isn't us and the climate change is instead a direct result of natural changes, ice age cycles, volcanic dust clouds, etc. then surely it makes even more sense for us to start making the necessary changes to our technologies and resource use to ensure that we don't exacerbate these changes with our own man-made causes. Ultimately giving us more time to develop solutions that will ensure that ourselves and/or as many species as possible don't become extinct as a result of our actions.

Sigh.

Read the Article

For I have sinned...

Allegations of involvement in covering up child abuse have dogged Pope Benedict VXI, and now senior figures in Scotland say there is a criminal case to answer under Scots law. Steven Raeburn investigates whether the Pope could face prosecution when he visits Scotland in September.

Your eyebrows may have been briefly raised during April by a series of press reports claiming that noted anti-theist and proponent of evolutionary theory Richard Dawkins was calling for the arrest of his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to Britain in September. The reports treated rather hilariously the genuine and serious contention that the incumbent Pontiff may actually have a case to answer arising from his claimed historic knowledge of ritualised paedophilia undertaken by priests under his authority.

After a few follow up comments the story has moved off the agenda and Dawkins -together with colleague Christopher Hitchens - has been largely silent on the subject since then. Both had in fact engaged solicitor Mark Stephens and human rights counsel Geoffrey Robertson QC to shore up their argument, and on the face of it there appears to be a compelling logic to the proposal, which considers factors including jurisdiction, civil and criminal liability, and the question of the Pope's immunity as head of state, a defence which they dismiss on the basis that the Vatican is not recognised as a state under international law.

However, with typical anglocentricity, the coverage totally omitted any reference to Pope Benedict's trip across the Hadrianic divide into our jurisdiction, which not only has a completely different criminal justice system and process, it also has its own priorities which have -post Operation Algebra and the Strachan & Rennie case- set new benchmarks and standards of evidence for securing convictions not only for sex offenders, but for those who assist in conspiring to cover them up. Dawkins, even if he was minded to, couldn't get near the Pope during the English leg of his trip, but the prospect of Strathclyde or Lothian and Borders Police slapping the handcuffs on the Pontiff just as soon as he has kissed the tarmac may yet be such a sufficiently real prospect that the visit may be cancelled. The Crown Office have not ruled out the possibility of a prosecution, and a recent papal excursion to Malta was marred by fresh allegations of his involvement in covering up for paedophile priests. The defining event of his tenure as Pontiff could see Benedict XVI escorted from the tarmac to a Reliance van and into the dock in Glasgow's High Court, and off to Barlinnie thereafter, which would make for quite a photograph.

Read the Article

Pope Alert

Hopefully not a sign of whats to come when Ratzinger arrives on British shores. ;)


Crude I know, but it made me giggle.

Hitchens on cancer diagnosis: 'Why not me?'

Anderson Cooper
I just flew down to Washington to talk with author Christopher Hitchens. He was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in June, and is currently undergoing chemotherapy.

Many people upon receiving a cancer diagnosis would ask "why me?" Hitchens's answer, is "why not me?"

Much of his hair has fallen out, but he seems strong as ever. We discussed whether his diagnosis has in any way altered his well-known opinion of religion and prayer.

Is it a turn off if you find out someone believes in god?

This morning I was reading my usual websites and catching up on a little news, after a weekend of running the City2Surf competition and drinking excessively afterwards, and I came across this little questions on one of my favourite sites and I thought I'd share it with you:

Recently I met a guy online who I liked. We got into a discussion about god and it became pretty obvious that he didn't believe in any kind of higher power. Soon after finding out I do, he stopped replying to my messages. Now I might be completely wrong about why he stopped messaging me, but it made me think: Is it really such a big of a turn off?

I'd be interested to hear of anyones thoughts on the matter. For me personally I think I genuinely could not form a romantic relationship with someone who believed that God was looking out for them. I'm too opinionated and wouldn't be able to let the topic drop, for that is a flaw of mine.

However, there was probably a more reasonable response that I'll also share with you, but I'd love to know your opinion on the subject too.

No, believing in a higher power isn't a turn-off for me. However things like:

• Young-Earth creationism
• Denial of the scientific method as a self-correcting and objective way to ascertain the nature of Reality
• Inability to argue logically
• Inability to entertain a notion without agreeing to it
• Inability to question one's beliefs
• Inability to grant the possibility that one is wrong about the existence or nonexistence of God

Those things are turn-offs for me. I wobbled between being an atheist, a theist, and a deist all while dating a Christian girl. Only broke up because she had trouble not fucking another guy.
I know... I know. I thought that too.

So anyone else have any other thoughts?

Read the Article

From: BLACK SKEPTICS GROUP - What if?

Black atheist! Do these words mean anything? Certainly not if such a person does not exist.

Everyone knows that black people love Jesus. With tears in our eyes and a bittersweet joy in our hearts, we marvel at the wonder of the divine. With hands raised high we sway to our own celestial rhythm. With a look of transcendent torment upon our faces, we sing His praises. Don’t we love Jesus? Don’t we all love Jesus?

I’ve heard it said that black people have a “Jesus fixation”, a single minded focus on God. From our earliest days we are taught that there is a mysterious and powerful man in the heavens above- enthroned some place between time and space. Omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient- He is God-the-Father. The ethereal embodiment, if you will allow, of benevolence and love. We are taught by parents, grandparents and the preacher that “God is good!”

But, as the lesson of God’s goodness is taught with one breath, we are taught that God is awful with the next. He knows our thoughts, He knows our feelings, He knows what we will do next, and He knows our secrets and the hour of our deaths. This God is not to be trifled with. What fool would question Him- even in the quiet of one’s own mind?

Respecting the God that black Christians serve means not speaking doubt or even thinking it. How could there ever be such a thing as a black Atheist?

You serve the Lord with fear and trembling. You serve Him in perfect submission. You must love Him always. You must never think ill of Him. He is without fault. He is responsible for everything good in your life- not you. You are responsible for everything bad in your life- not Him. Praise the Lord when things go right; beg His forgiveness when they go wrong.

Now, how did we end up with this particular religious system? Well, that’s simple: Slavery. One of the original justifications for slavery was to bring the “heathen” African into contact with Christianity. The earliest enslaved Africans were converted by force before even leaving the slave castles of western Africa. They were now Christian by virtue of the slave trader’s power.

Read the Article

Vatican does compare child abuse with ordaining women

Apologists for the Vatican have recently claimed that the Catholic Church does not compare sexually abusing a child with attempting to ordain a woman, but that it merely included both crimes in the same document as a procedural matter.

However, this is not true. A Vatican official has explicitly described the crimes contained in this document as being “on the same level” of seriousness. They are the “Delicta Graviora”, the crimes which the Catholic Church considers the most serious of all, and which are reserved to the Holy See for judgment.

In 2007, the Vatican published a pamphlet on Paedophilia and the Priesthood, written by Monsignor Raffaello Martinelli, an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and member of the editorial commission of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This pamphlet explicitly states:

“The seriousness with which the Church evaluates and judges acts of pedophilia is shown by the fact that with a new law passed in 2001, the Holy See (and not the local bishops) decided to reserve the right to judge those crimes…

The fact that the Pope wanted to reserve to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — a dicastery of the Holy See — judgment of the acts of pedophilia committed by priests, shows that the Church considers those acts to be very serious, serious crimes on the same level of the other two serious crimes — reserved to the Holy See — that can be committed against two sacraments: the Eucharist and the holiness of confession.”

In 2010, with the updated document Normae de Gravioribus Delictis, the Vatican has now added the attempted ordination of women to this strange list of the most serious crimes of all.

And the direction of the comparison is not that they consider these theological crimes to be as serious as sexually abusing a child, but that they consider sexually abusing a child to be as serious as these theological crimes, to be judged by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which used to be the Congregation of the Inquisition.

For example, sexually abusing a child is listed not as a crime against the child, but as a crime against the Biblical commandment forbidding adultery. And attempting to ordain a woman attracts a more serious punishment than sexually abusing a child. This is the type of morality that results when people put theology ahead of reality.

Ethical issues should be evaluated on the basis of human rights, compassion, well-being and suffering, not on the basis of theological dictates from people who believe they are getting messages from the creator of the universe.

Read the Article