Divergence: the website of the last link which you gave actually supports the claim that food production is increasing beyond the population increase over the last 40+ years. ie, it says the opposite to what you claim when averaged over decades.

From the graph on "http://www.tradingeconomics.com/world/food-production-index-1999-2001--100-wb-data.html " we see that in 1970 total food production was about 50 units* and in 2010 it was about 120. This gives and increase of about 2.4 times, ie: 240% . Now, looking at the Wikipedia article on world population "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population" we get the 1970 population of 3.7 billion and 2010 population of 7.0 billion, which gives an increase of about 1.9 fold, ie: 190%.

As you see, from these sources, we can say that the food production of the last four decades has out-stripped population production.

*ND: they normalized the units to make the food production of 2000 equal to 100 units

hmm, whoops. I've just realised that the post I made about this article last Thursday has a sentence that says the opposite to which I wanted to say. Not that this matters much since it was so long ago and the thread has moved on.

But just to be clear, when I said:

"There is no global conspiracy to not use coal nor to investigate/allow other sources. It is just that coal is the cheapest.",

that should really have been-

"There is no global conspiracy to use coal and not to investigate/allow other sources. It is just that coal is the cheapest."

thinkabit, new coal is about at cost parity with solar PV, although existing coal is still cheaper for the most part. As existing coal plants reach the end of their lives and renewables continue to decline in price, the equation will shift ever further to favour renewables.

That's without even considering the environmental and health (particulates, photochemical smog, aromatic hydrocarbons, CO, NOx, etc) costs of coal-fired generation and in fact fossil fuel power sources of all kinds and leaving aside any discussion of CO2.

In other words, I agree with you.

Coal works at night-time but, ah yes, we'll have batteries!

Policies that raise the cost of energy will not succeed. They are not politically sustainable.
These two posts explain why carbon pricing is highly unlikely to succeed. Similar arguments apply for other policies that would raise the cost of energy.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/
The red line here shows that the costs would exceed the benefits for all this century: http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2014/10/Lang-3.jpg

Renewable energy is very high cost so it cannot achieve much.

Those who are concerned about GHG emissions, should be advocating to remove the the irrational and unjustifiable impediments that are making nuclear power too expensive for most countries.

Here’s an example of the sorts of policies that have raised the cost of nuclear by perhaps a factor 8 over what it would be if regulatory ratcheting had not raised the costs so much over the past 50 years or so.
http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=140c559a3b34d23ff7c6b48b9&id=51eb8cea80&e=a3b55276e6

This explains how regulatory ratcheting had increased the cost of nuclear by a factor of four up to 1990: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

Slide 10 here http://www.slideshare.net/SteveAplin/ecerp-matrix-presentation shows that the countries with the most nuclear power have the lowest CO2 emissions intensity of electricity (France is <10% of Australia's) and those with the most renewables many times higher (Germany is 6 times higher then France). Slide 10 also shows that the countries with the most nuclear have the lowest cost of electricity and those with the most renewables the highest. German's electricity is about twice the price of France's.

Those advocating for renewables and against nuclear are delaying progress to reduce global GHG emissions.

In case anyone wants to mention safety, nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

Of all the pieces of rubbish that climate change deniers come up with, the claim that the globe has not warmed for last 18 years wins the BS award of the century. In the next few posts I intend to show why this claim is so outrageous, but first lets look at the surface temperature data.

The three most reliable sources of surface temperature data are as below, but the all have a problem with poor coverage in the polar regions, as this is the part of the globe which is known to be warming fastest, this introduces a cooling bias to the data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Extrapolates temperatures for polar regions but assumes the poles warm at the same rate as the rest of the earth.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/#gtemp
Temperature data for polar regions were not available has simply been been omitted.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html
Again some temperature data for polar regions has been omitted.

Nevertheless all of the data sets indicate warming has continued over the last 18 years (up to the present 2015 not 2011), but in any event we do not have to rely on surface temperature data, to show the globe has continued to warm over the last 18 years. We only have to observe that global ice is melting at an accelerating rate, the sea level is continuing to accelerate, the ocean is warming, and records for high temperatures are running well ahead of records for cold.