CO2 levels dangerously low for our planet; optimum levels of 800 – 1200 ppm would unleash reforestation, greening and food crop production

Natural News
13 August 2018
Isabelle Z.

(Natural News) Which planet sounds like a better place to live: One that is full of plants and trees and teeming with wildlife and biodiversity with plenty of food to go around, or a cold and barren one with a starving and dying-off population? If you’re like most people, you would choose the first option without hesitation. If you’re Carl Zimmer of the New York Times, however, it’s that second scenario that is inexplicably more appealing.

He wrote that “rising CO2 levels are making the world greener, but that’s nothing to celebrate.” It’s not? Reforestation, greening and food crop production are nothing to celebrate? Unfortunately, there is a lot of ignorance floating around about the topic of carbon and what it does to and in the environment. Climate change alarmists have been pushing the narrative that carbon is bad for the planet for so long that it’s frighteningly easy for the mainstream media to get away with expressing such ludicrous views. People read stories like Zimmer’s and simply nod in agreement because they think it’s what those who care about the planet should believe – never mind the fact that basic science tells us otherwise.

Respected ecologist Patrick Moore was quick to call out the article, calling the widely-read paper quote “a bad joke.” He believes the world is currently deficient in carbon dioxide compared to geological epochs in the past. He explained why he considers 800 to 1200 ppm of carbon dioxide to be the optimal level, pointing out that planting crops that are grown in greenhouses that have carbon dioxide pumped into them are ridiculously effective. Why would anyone use a greenhouse in the first place if carbon dioxide was actually bad?

He tweeted: “Try to tell a greenhouse grower that the effect of higher CO2 is “small.” They will laugh you out of the room with their 25-80% gain in yield.”

Even environmental journalist Andrew Revkin, who concedes that he has a lot of questions about carbon dioxide, said that Zimmer’s choice of the word “terrible” is without merit.

CO2 levels need to be higher, not lower

Plants simply can’t survive without carbon dioxide, and it’s already at dangerously low levels. If today’s levels were doubled, our planet would be lusher, with rain forests flourishing and deserts growing forests. This would lead to a more abundant food supply, better self-sufficiency and thriving life, as Mike Adams discusses in the must-see video “Carbon Dioxide: The Miracle Molecule of Life.”

Carbon dioxide is essential for life, and plants use it not only for breathing but to synthesize medicinal molecules like vitamin C, curcumin, and cannabidiol. It is not the enemy that it has been made out to be by those who don’t know any better.

Here is what would really happen if we didn’t have carbon dioxide on our planet: Plants would die, our food web would essentially collapse, and humans would become extinct. Those who are fighting the war against carbon are either completely clueless, blinded by greed because they stand to profit on some sort of global warming “solution,” or they simply want everyone to die.

Sources for this article include:

DailyCaller.com

NaturalNews.com

YouTube declares war on natural medicine, begins banning channels that promote botanical healing that might hurt the profits of Big Pharma

Natural News
14 August 2018
Ethan Huff

(Natural News) The censorship brigade over at YouTube is at it again, this time with a mass purge of all channels and content that dare to suggest that natural botanicals might contribute to human wellness and healing.

As our own Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, recently reported, YouTube has officially shut down the Natural News YouTube channel over a 43-second video that discussed the scientific properties of cannabidiol, or CBD, which is one of several dozen cannabinoid compounds found naturally in the cannabis plant.

The video contained a series of imagery of cannabis plants growing in a field along with text explaining how a woman was cured of terminal cancer using its oil. The video is positive, uplifting, and compassionate – which is apparently grounds for a ban over at YouTube.

After the video was scrubbed from the YouTube platform, Adams received a notice about its removal that claimed it was “inappropriate content.” In the first line of the “Video content restrictions” portion of the notice, YouTube explained that it:

“… doesn’t allow content that encourages or promotes violent or dangerous acts that have an inherent risk of serious physical harm of death.”

How does sharing the heartwarming story of a 52-year-old woman with terminal cancer achieving a healing breakthrough with a natural botanical contribute to violence and death, you might be asking yourself? Your guess is as good as ours. However, the next line in the notice offers some hints as to YouTube’s perverted philosophy of what constitutes inappropriate content:

“For example,” the notice adds, “it’s not okay to post videos showing drug abuse, underage drinking and smoking, or bomb making.”

CensorshipTube? That’s what YouTube has become

In other words, YouTube has apparently bought into some kind of deranged “Reefer Madness” idea about the cannabis plant, which it seems has been likened to “drug abuse” to the content police over at YouTube.

It’s a shocking position for YouTube to take, not only because cannabis is an herb that has nothing to do with “drugs” – a word that has no actual meaning, by the way – but also because CBD oil is completely legal in all 50 states, so long as it’s derived from the “hemp” cousin of cannabis.

But this is all just semantics at this point, and YouTube doesn’t really care about the details of what’s legal or isn’t legal – or even what’s moral and right, for that matter. YouTube allows all kinds of explicit content to stream across its platform every minute of every day. But a plant that heals? No way, Jose.

That’s because YouTube is completely in bed with Big Pharma, functioning as its ministry of propaganda to continue spreading lies about the “dangers” of “plants” that vested pharmaceutical interests want the world to believe are dangerous “drugs.”

There’s nothing even remotely dangerous about CBD oil, of course. It’s a highly effective cannabis extract that isn’t psychoactive but that’s been shown to provide incredible relief for a number of health conditions – and this seems to be precisely why Big Pharma has kicked things into overdrive when it comes to demonizing it.

Almost every subject under the sun is on YouTube, and that’s been the beauty of the platform since it was first created. But now that YouTube has decided to selectively censor content that the big boy lobbyists don’t like, it’s obvious that YouTube’s days are numbered.

Free-thinking people just aren’t going to stand for this kind of censorship, especially when some of the most evil content in the world continues to remain on YouTube – much of it completely monetized, it’s important to note.

That’s why Adams and Natural News have launched a new pro-liberty video site alternative to YouTube that isn’t riddled with censorship and double-standards.

Sources for this article include:

Before long, if you don’t agree with official climate change propaganda, you will be banned from YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter

Natural News
14 August 2018
Tracey Watson

(Natural News) Back in 2006, The Guardian published an article entitled, “A climate of censorship,” in which Brendan O’Neill warned that government officials in the U.K. were comparing climate change deniers to terrorists and arguing that both should be denied media air time. He warned that many such “deniers” were, in fact, scientists at respected British universities, and that no government official had the right to compare them to dangerous terrorists. He noted that there was an increasing push towards the censorship of free speech, including the right of such scientists and others to insist that man-made global warming does not exist.

O’Neill noted:

Increasingly, environmentalists are calling for the silencing of climate-change skeptics or deniers. The deniers’ words are so dangerous, we are told, that they must be censored for the good of humanity. Some have even claimed that in denying climate change, these individuals are committing a “crime against humanity” and should be put on trial.

I am not a scientist or an expert on climate change. But I am a free speech advocate. And this rising tide of intolerance and censoriousness in the debate about climate change should concern anyone who believes in free and open and rational debate.

A dozen years later, it is highly unlikely that The Guardian would even publish an opinion piece like O’Neill’s anymore. It has become commercially “dangerous” to suggest in any way, shape or form that man-made global warming might not be true – though these days you are more likely to encounter the term “climate change” than “global warming,” as temperatures have inconveniently refused to match up to the predicted highs of the so-called “experts.” In short, it would be financial suicide for any mainstream broadcaster or publication to give airtime to the evidence presented by anyone who denies global warming; their advertising dollars would simply disappear, and they would be mocked and decried as scientifically ignorant. (Related: Global warming debunked – NASA report verifies carbon dioxide cools atmosphere.)

YouTube censors any who dare to spread “climate misinformation”

BuzzFeed recently reported that the social media giant YouTube is now “fact-checking” any videos which dare to question climate change. The company has also taken the step of adding the following disclaimer to such videos:

Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.

Amazingly, this line is a direct quotation from a Wikipedia entry, as if Wikipedia can be referenced as an accurate source of scientific information!

Since March, YouTube has also been adding Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica entries next to “conspiracy theory” video clips, such as those claiming that the moon landing and Oklahoma City bombing never took place. By doing the same for climate change videos, they are directly censoring scientific information – in many cases presented by knowledgeable experts – and lumping it together in the public mind with completely unbelievable and historically unsound clips. (Related: The “global warming hoax – 30 years of failed predictions that never came true.)

There are respected scientists who insist global warming does not exist

What YouTube is doing would be acceptable if all the world’s most respected scientists were in agreement about the climate change theory. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, as was recently illustrated when the highly respected, retired German climatologist Dr. Werner Kirstein addressed the annual Anti-Censorship Conference.

In reference to global warming, Kirstein warned: “[T]he science has been seriously compromised by politics, power-hungry bureaucrats and politically motivated organizations, such as the WMO, IPCC and The World Bank. It all comes down to funding. It’s sad, but that’s how it works.” He added, “Climate science is totally politicized.”

So much for Wikipedia and its “Multiple lines of scientific evidence.”

Of course, YouTube’s actions mimic those of all the other social media platforms, all of which have been actively censoring the information they have access to. Pretty soon, censorship won’t be enough, and anyone who admits to skepticism regarding the mainstream global warming narrative will likely be denied access to these platforms.

Discover the uncensored real truth about climate change at Real.video.

Sources include: