Category Archives: Eco Liberty News

Danish doctor warns: Vegan food may lead to mental retardation

voiceofeurope.com
7 December 2018
EMMA R.

Chief physician Allan M. Lund at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen warns that vegan food can have severe consequences, such as epilepsy and ultimately developmental disorders.

In Denmark, there is now a debate about the suitability of an increasing number of families giving their children only vegan food. Critics are opposed to scrapping all animal products in small children’s diet.

The problem is that poor food, which for example requires the addition of vitamin B12, can have serious consequences for children. And as a result several children on a vegan diet have been treated at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

“Such a diet may involve developing different brain symptoms. With muscle weakness, poor contact and epilepsy. And in the long term mental retardation”, says chief physician Allan M. Lund to TV4.

According to Lund, one should not completely remove meat, eggs and dairy products from small children’s diet without first consulting with a dietician.

In addition to developmental disorders, it can also cause nutritional deficiencies.

Eco Lbierty Conclusion: One of the reason written the article.10 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD REJECT THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND ITS IDEOLOGY Because the Animal rights movement agenda is not only just about total animal liberation but remove our connection to animals. PETA and the animal rights movement want pet ownership banned; according article written by Wesley J Smith ANIMAL RIGHTS WOULD BAN PETS. They want us banned owning any animals for any purpose; even as pets. PETA and the animal rights movement does not want us to eat meat and they’re using scare tactics like “eating meat is bad for the planet; bad for our health” In fact humans need to eat meat to get the require nutrients that our human bodies needs like Vitamin B12 and many other nutrients that you can’t get from plant base food. I have watch many ex-vegan video telling their stories; you find them on you tube which I remember you watching; because they tell their own stories why a long term vegan is not healthy for any humans. That why if there a agenda to force people on a vegan diet which there is; The New World Order Elites are push the animal rights agenda because they know that vegan diet is not on long term bases. Because the Elite do not want us be healthy; because a healthy human being is more aware what is going on. The elite wants us to sick and enslaved and they will still be eating meat. Good News that Ex-vegan are speaking out that Vegan diet on a long term bases is unhealthy for humans at any age.
For Eco Liberty point of view that “we encourage health; but the elite want us sick and enslave” We will continue to speak out against the Animal Rights and fake environmentalism propaganda. If are one the ex-vegans viewing this post I like to hear your story from you.

Advertisements

AMAZING science lesson from Adams: Environmentalists declare war on photosynthesis in stupefying effort to exterminate all recognizable life on planet Earth

naturalnews.com
7 December 2018
Mike Adams

(Natural News) We were all taught how photosynthesis works in high school… or at least you should have been taught how it works. Photosynthesis is arguably the single most important metabolic process on the planet, and it is from this process that nearly all complex life is sustainted.

Photosynthesis is a process by which plants produce metabolic energy. Using this energy combined with elemental materials pulled from air and soil, they build tree trunks, food crops, leaves, pollen, seeds, stems and everything you’ve come to associate with living plants. Even alga use photosynthesis to grow and divide, which is why microalgae such as spirulina require sunlight to flourish.

Photosynthesis is the foundation of most food webs on the planet. Any rational scientist would agree that if photosynthesis were halted, nearly all recognizable life on planet Earth would be exterminated. This is inarguable.

Photosynthesis has three inputs:

1) Sunlight – a source of light energy

2) Carbon dioxide – an essential source of carbon, used by plants to build almost everything that plants need

3) Water – used by plants to maintain structure, circulate metabolic nutrients, etc.

Why do these three inputs matter so much? Because environmentalists have declared WAR on two out of those three: Sunlight and carbon dioxide

Environmentalists are at war with photosynthesis and all plant life on planet Earth

It seems impossible, but environmentalists are at war with two out of the three primary inputs required to sustain photosynthesis. First, they’re at war with carbon, and you often hear them talk about the “war on carbon” or “carbon sequestration” — a way to bury carbon in the ground so that it’s removed from atmospheric air.

Environmentalists have even declared carbon dioxide to be a “pollutant” even when it is the single most important molecule for supporting photosynthesis and nearly all plant life across the planet. Only a complete moron would declare war on the molecule of life that sustains trees, forests, plants, food crops, grasses, algae and seaweed, yet that’s exactly what environmentalists have done.

Their goal is the complete elimination of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere — an outcome that would exterminate all recognizable life on Earth. All in the name of being “green,” of course, since virtue signaling is more important than actually supporting living organisms these days.

If you’re not a chemist, you might be wondering, “So where’s the carbon in that?” Chemists laugh at the question because every intersection of black lines indicates a carbon atom. Carbon atoms are so common in organic chemistry that chemists don’t even note them because every diagram would be littered with the symbol for carbon.

As the molecular diagram shows, vitamin C is made of just three elements Carbon (C), Hydrogen (H) and Oxygen (O). Nothing else. The black lines are not elements; they merely indicate chemical bonds. Double lines indicate double bonds, and the stair-step lines indicate the 3D orientation of the elements.

Plants use the same three elements to build millions of different molecules, including medicinal nutrients and antibacterial phytochemicals

Did you notice that these same three elements are also found in photosynthesis? CO2 provides the Carbon. H2O provides the Hydrogen. Sunlight provides the energy. Vitamin C is synthesized by plants using carbon dioxide, hydrogen and metabolic energy for synthesis.

Any environmentalist who hates carbon dioxide must also hate vitamin C, herbal medicines, essential oils, nutrients, plant pigments and omega-3 oils… because they’re all made out of carbon. If you are at war with carbon, you are at war with life itself.

Many people who are into saving the planet are also into healthy, plant-based oils such as omega-3s or DHA. What an interesting coincidence, since DHA — Docosahexaenoic acid — is also made out of just three elements. Care to guess what they are?

Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen. (C22H32O2)

DHA is synthesized by various species of algae, and they use Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen to make DHA, a powerful brain-boosting nutrient that boosts the neurological development of babies.

Environmentalists must think DHA is bad, since it’s made out of carbon.

In fact, millions of useful molecules are made out of carbon. Many of them are synthesized by plants using nothing but carbon (from CO2), hydrogen (from water) and oxygen (from water or CO2).

Environmentalists who are at war with carbon are at war with LIFE

Just about every molecule you value — and nearly every molecule you’re made of — is made out of carbon. If you are at war with carbon, you are at war with LIFE on planet Earth. If you want to eliminate carbon dioxide, you are working to exterminate life. Yet probably 90% of college students today believe that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” and they would politically support any effort to eliminate it, even if doing so resulted in global ecological collapse and the extinction of humanity.

Astonishingly, environmentalists have been so deeply brainwashed and deliberately mis-educated that they actually think carbon is bad. They must also hate themselves, since 96% of the human body is made of just four elements: Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen. Roughly 18% of your body is carbon, by molecular weight. If you hate carbon, you hate yourself.

Maybe that’s why environmentalists are so full of hatred and ignorance: They are made of the very element they’ve declared war against. If you’ve ever wondered why Leftists are so angry all the time, it’s because they’re made of the very element they hate: Carbon.

Hydrocarbons release fresh carbon into the atmosphere where plants can use it to create valuable molecules that support life

Burning fossil fuels, by the way, means combusting hydrocarbons to release energy. One of the byproducts of burning fossil fuels is the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, providing fresh CO2 that plants are starving to harvest from the air. CO2 levels in the atmosphere right now are at near-emergency low levels of barely above 400 ppm. Forests, food crops and indigenous plants across the globe would flourish at double or triple the current level of CO2. If we had, for example, 1200 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be greener and more lush.

Yet for some reason, environmentalists hate the thought of plants having more nutrients. They want the Earth to be “green,” they say, by eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere, taking away the single most important nutrient for photosynthesis and plant metabolism.

The burning of fossil fuels releases nutrients into the air that plants need to survive. Instead of keeping all the carbon trapped underground, fossil fuel “consumption” actually frees carbon to be used by plants in support of a greener, more lush, more biodiverse ecosystem across the planet.

When carbon is trapped in fossil fuels under ground, that carbon is isolated from the plants that need it. When fossil fuels are burned, that carbon is finally released into the air so that plants can use it to synthesize the molecules we all use and enjoy, from vitamin C to anti-cancer compounds such as sulforaphane, found in broccoli. Yes, it’s made of carbon: (C6H11NOS2)

Sulforaphane is a lifesaving anti-cancer nutrient that’s synthesized by cruciferous vegetables which pull carbon dioxide out of the air in order to build sulforaphane molecules. If you hate carbon, you hate sulforaphane and millions of other plant-based molecules that are made out of carbon.

A war on carbon is a war on plants, nutrition, herbs, natural medicine, superfoods and life itself. Only a complete moron, a raging lunatic or a brainwashed idiot could be convinced to think that carbon is bad for the planet. Yet that describes about 90% of the “scientific establishment,” now consisting of complete anti-science idiots who have forgotten how photosynthesis works and why it’s the basis of ecology for the entire planet.

If you really want to “green” the planet, keep consuming clean sources of hydrocarbons such as natural gas, because they release trapped carbon into the atmosphere where plants can finally use it. Even burning gasoline in your vehicle actually releases CO2 that plants can use. Far from destroying the world, fossil fuels are actually the very source of carbon that can help “green” the world. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the very basis of life on our planet: Photosynthesis.

And if you support the elimination of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, you support the extermination of all complex life on planet Earth.

If environmentalists succeed in eliminating carbon, they will exterminate life on Earth

Notably, if environmentalists ever succeed in eliminating carbon from the atmosphere, they will almost instantly exterminate all recognizable life on Earth.

Is this their goal? Is the environmental movement some kind of suicide cult? Or, better yet, are they actually pushing an insidious agenda of terraforming planet Earth to make it uninhabitable by humans?

Or are they just stupid and suicidal? Personally, I wouldn’t necessarily mind all the environmentalists going off to their own planet somewhere and exterminating themselves with their suicidal intentions, but the problem we have is that they are trying to murder the planet where the rest of us live. That cannot be allowed. The life-killing lunatics must be stopped. They are ecological murderers… botanical eugenicists. They want to destroy all plant life on Earth in the name of “saving the planet,” and they don’t seem to mind the fact that human civilization cannot possibly survive their insane agendas rooted in either mass delusion or murderous intent. They’re either trying to kill all life on the planet, in other words, or they’re so incredibly stupid that they’ve been talked into supporting mass murder in the name of environmentalism.

Either way, they are death cult lunatics, and if we hope to survive their dangerous, planet-killing schemes like “carbon sequestration” or “global dimming” (see below), we must rip these lunatics from power, take their hands off the controls and put them all in straight jackets where they belong.

Simply put, there is no future for the human race if the current breed of lunatic environmentalists are allowed to run their “death cult” programs that would shut down photosynthesis and exterminate all recognizable life on our planet. Thank God carbon dioxide is produced by every living mammal on the planet — including you — meaning that you can help save the planet by taking a jog and simply exhaling.

In the spirit of that simple, inescapable truth, I propose a new bumper sticker: Piss off a liberal. Just BREATHE.

The war on sunlight and the new scheme of “global dimming”

Waging war on carbon isn’t the end of the lunacy of whacko environmentalists. They also think there’s something wrong with sunlight, another key input for photosynthesis. They’ve launched a program of “global dimming” that seeks to literally pollute the atmosphere by dispersing millions of tons of smog (sulfur dioxide) into the atmosphere, running 4,000 flights a year over the next 15 years, all in the name of “geoengineering” the atmosphere. (These are the same lunatics who said “chemtrails” were a conspiracy theory; now they’ve re-named it “Stratospheric Aerosol Injection” and claim it will save the world.)

In essence, they are terraforming the Earth and making it uninhabitable by humans. Are they completely insane, or are they prepping the planet for colonization by something that isn’t human? (Coming soon: Terraforming.news)

See full coverage of that crucial issue at this story on Natural News called “Terraforming has begun: Global dimming is a plot to exterminate humanity.

More CO2 – More Photosynthesis – More Greening

sunshine hours

Someone decided to study plants that have grown for generations near high CO2 springs.

Normally these studies look at FACE experiments and then criticize those experiments because they are only single generation.

Guess what they found.?

In a new meta-analysis, Saban et al. took a different approach and assessed all of the data collected for plant response to high CO2 concentration from plants grown for multiple generations over many decades in naturally high CO2 springs. Such springs are found across the world – with 23 highlighted here- and many have been the focus of studies on the physiological responses of plants to rising CO2, similar to those undertaken in FACE experiment. Comparing these two approaches, plants subjected to higher CO2against plant lineages that have had time to acclimate, has never been done before.

High CO2 springs harbour a vast array of plant types…

View original post 103 more words

VEGANS WANT TO BAN PHRASE “BRINGING HOME THE BACON”

infowars.com
3 December 2018
Ben Warren

Classic saying considered “oppressive, promotes abuse”

Vegans and other activists are slamming use of phrases like “bringing home the bacon” and “your goose is cooked.”

Traditional “meat-based” metaphors are now considered a throwback of a “societal power” that oppressed “disadvantaged groups,” according to a researcher at Swansea University.

“…Meat is more than just a form of sustenance, it is the very king of all foods,” said the researcher. “It’s a source of societal power.”

She justified the war on the phrases by stating that historically, meat was meant for the upper classes while the poor had to eat mostly a vegetarian diet.

“As a result, the consumption of meat was associated with dominant power structures in society, its absence from the plate indicating disadvantaged groups, such as women and the poor,” the researcher continued. “To control the supply of meat was to control the people.”

Additionally, the researcher claimed today’s meat consumption is linked to popular issues like climate change and environmental degradation.

“In today’s reality, meat is repeatedly the subject of much socially and politically charged discussion, including about how the demand for meat is contributing to climate change and environmental degradation,” said the researcher. “…The growth of vegetarianism and veganism threatens to dethrone meat from its position at the top of the food hierarchy.

That “dethroning” prediction is a reference to a survey that noted a “significant spike” of people were converting to veganism.

Correspondingly, PETA has been waging its own campaign against idioms that “perpetuate violence toward animals” and “normalize abuse.”

“While these phrases may seem harmless, they carry meaning and can send mixed signals to students about the relationship between humans and animals and can normalize abuse,” said PETA on its promotional site.

PETA’s notable reshaping of classic idioms includes: “feed two birds with one scone,” “take the flower by the thorns,” and “bringing home the bagels.”

Earlier this year, Infowars reported that PETA called on people to stop drinking milk because the beverage “has long been a symbol used by white supremacists.”

How to Setup a Worm Farm From Nuts and Bolts

How to make a worm farm and produce fertiliser from food scraps. The worm farm also makes compost for your garden. A simple way to improve your garden for free. The worm castings can be added to you garden which improves the soils water holding capacty. You can use the worm juice by diluting it with water. i.e. 1 part worm juice 9 parts water.

Lab-Grown Meat Products Quietly Approved By FDA and USDA

returntonow.net
30 November 2018
Sarah Burrows

Meat could soon be raised in Petri dishes instead of on farms. In a meeting missed by the media earlier this month, the FDA and USDA discussed what to call it.

Soon, we won’t need animals to eat “meat,” or at least not much of them… just their stem cells.

Earlier this month, the FDA and USDA met to discuss how to regulate — and what to call —  “meat” grown in laboratories, rather than on farms.

“Clean meat,” “in vitro meat,” “artificial meat” and even “alt-meat” have all been suggested by industry leaders, anxious to brand their new product as a “humane” and “environmentally-friendly” alternative to factory farming.

But, the United States Cattlemen’s Association worries that the term “meat” will confuse consumers since these products will directly compete with traditional farm-raised meat.

The “real” meat industry prefers less-appetizing terms, like “cultured tissue.”

“Production of cell-cultured meat involves retrieving a live animal’s adult muscle stem cells and setting them in a nutrient-rich liquid,” the Washington Post reports.

The clusters of multiplying cells grow around a “scaffold,” which helps the tissue take on a desired shape — nuggets or patties, for example.

“The result is a product that looks and tastes like meat because it’s made from animal cells, rather than plant-based products.”

Until now, the FDA (F00d and Drug Administration) was expected to regulate the up-and-coming cell-cultured food products, but in a recent meeting with the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) the two agencies decided they would jointly monitor the technology.

In a Nov.16 press release, the agencies announced that the FDA would oversee “cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth and differentiation,” while the USDA will oversee the production and labeling of the poultry and livestock products.

The statement noted that the agencies have the statutory authority to approve lab-grown meat without the need for our elected representatives to to get involved.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/burgers-grown-in-a-lab-are-heading-to-your-plate-will-you-bite/2018/09/07/1d048720-b060-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.01f712f673af

Because cultured meat doesn’t require many animals to provide potentially vast amounts of “meat,” proponentsargue it would eliminate many of the environmental impacts and ethical issues associated with factory farming.

Some environmental groups and animal rights advocates support lab-grown meat because it would consume fewer natural resources, avoid slaughter and eliminate the use of growth hormones.

The American Meat Science Association worries that lab-grown protein is not as safe or nutritious as traditional meat.

Tyson and Cargill are the top two investors in lab-grown animal protein technology so far.

We’re likely still three or four years away from seeing cell-cultured products on shelves.

My Conclusion: Look like Lab grown meat will soon be available in your supermarket in USA. The FDA say “it’s fine, it’s safe” what they’re not telling you; that it may not contain any nutrition.
Matthew Miller as a blogger for I say “no” to fake meat that is lab grown; but say “yes” to real meat that is organic and from grass fed livestock.
People if you happen find a Lab Grown meat in your local supermarket; take a photo of it and sent it to my email so I can analyze it.
I know that animals in factory farm are horrify treated and they pump animals with growth hormones and pharmaceutical, therefore making the meat in the animal unhealthy for human consumption because they way the animals in treated the meat will be tough and harder for human body to digest. Meat from the animal raise on pasture and had a best life out there before slaughter as long the animal is killed humanely the meat is is soft and healthier; easy for the human body to digest.
That why I will only eat meat that is real comes form an animals that has been raised on pasture that killed humanly.

Molten Sulphur on an Airplane

sunshine hours

Snakes Molten Sulphur on an Airplane

They are planning for a massive geoengineering project to inject sulphur into the atmosphere to combat global warming.

I think they are insane.

A program to reduce Earth’s heat capture by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere from high-altitude aircraft is possible, inexpensive, and would be unlikely to remain secret.

“We developed the specifications for SAIL with direct input from several aerospace and engine companies. It’s equivalent in weight to a large narrow body passenger aircraft. But to sustain level flight at 20 kms, it needs roughly double the wing area of an equivalently sized airliner, and double the thrust, with four engines instead of two.

“At the same time, its fuselage would be stubby and narrow, sized to accommodate a heavy but dense mass of molten sulphur rather than the large volume of space and air required for passengers.”

The team estimated the total…

View original post 73 more words

Controversial spraying method aims to curb global warming

CBS News
23 November 2018
Jeff Berardelli

NEW YORK — A fleet of 100 planes making 4,000 worldwide missions per year could help save the world from climate change. Also, it may be relatively cheap. That’s the conclusion of a new peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters.

It’s the stuff of science fiction. Planes spraying tiny sulphate particulates into the lower stratosphere, around 60,000 feet up. The idea is to help shield the Earth from just enough sunlight to help keep temperatures low.

The researchers examined how practical and costly a hypothetical solar geoengineering project would be beginning 15 years from now. The aim would be to half the temperature increase caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

This method would mimic what large volcanoes do. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines. It was the second largest eruption of the 20th century, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

mount-pinatubo-philippines-volcanic-eruption.jpg

The second-largest volcanic eruption of this century, and by far the largest eruption to affect a densely populated area, occurred at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines on June 15, 1991.

USGS

In total, the eruption injected 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide aerosols into the stratosphere. USGS said the Earth’s lower atmosphere temperature dropped by approximately 1-degree Fahrenheit. The effect only lasted a couple of years because the sulfates eventually fell to Earth.

Although controversial, some think that trying to mimic the impacts of a volcano eruption is a viable way to control global warming. This proposed type of climate geoengineering is called stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). Theoretically if done at scale — and sustained — the impact can be large. The 1-degree temperature drop which accompanied Mount Pinatubo’s eruption is equal to about half of the human-caused warming Earth has experienced since the Industrial Revolution began.

geoengineering-methods-climate-central.png

In this handout photo from Climate Central, they say scientists are looking at a variety of technologies —  from snatching carbon dioxide out of the air like trees do, to launching giant mirrors into space — to artificially slow global warming.

 HANDOUT VIA CLIMATE CENTRAL

Dr. Gernot Wagner from Harvard University is an author of the paper. He said their study shows this type of geoengineering “… would be technically possible strictly from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive, at an average of around $2 to 2.5 billion per year over the first 15 years.”

But to reach that point, the study said an entirely new aircraft needs to be developed. Partly because missions would need to be conducted at nearly double the cruising altitude of commercial airplanes. The study’s co-authorWake Smithexplained, “No existing aircraft has the combination of altitude and payload capabilities required.”

So, the team investigated what it would cost to develop an aircraft they dub the SAI Lofter (SAIL). They say its fuselage would have a stubby design and the wing area — as well as the thrust — would need to be twice as large. In total, the team estimates the development cost for the airframe to be $2 billion and $350 million to modify existing engines.

In their hypothetical plan, the fleet would start with eight planes in the first year and rise to just under 100 within 15 years. In year one, there would be 4,000 missions, increasing to just over 60,000 per year by year 15. As you can see, this would need to be a sustained and escalating effort.

As one may imagine, a concept like this comes with a lot of controversy. Like treating a fever with aspirin, this type of engineering only treats the symptoms, it does not fix the root cause of the warming: Escalating levels of heat trapping greenhouse gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) expressed concerns that the possibility of seemingly quick and inexpensive fixes will distract the public and policymakers from addressing the underlying problems and developing adaptation strategies. And if for whatever reason the aerosol missions stopped, within a few years the temperatures would shoot up at breakneck pace. A pace that would likely be too fast for humanity to adjust.

The AMS official policy statement regarding this type of geoengineering begins with a warning, “Reflecting sunlight would likely reduce Earth’s average temperature but could also change global circulation patterns with potentially serious consequences such as changing storm tracks and precipitation patterns.”

In other words, the atmosphere is complex. Any band-aid fix is bound to have unintended consequences and possibly cause a new set of problems. The AMS goes on to say results of reflecting sunlight “would almost certainly not be the same for all nations and peoples, thus raising legal, ethical, diplomatic and national security concerns.” One region may become a desert, while others become flooded out.

And if we learn to control SAI to tailor a favorable result, there’s the concern it may be used for the disproportionate benefit of one nation over another. In a 2017 study in the publication Nature Communications, the authors warn their work “… reemphasizes the perils of unilateral geoengineering, which might prove attractive to individual actors due to a greater controllability of local climate responses, but with inherent additional risk elsewhere.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/embed/video/?v=7960da20fa4e6fab46b7c247969bf3c48bd85bec#zVdrc9u2Ev0rHH4WLL5FaqbTcWQ3jps6imXnqTsaEAQpxCTAAqBlNXP%2F%2B90lqfjRZpp777Spv5BaLnb3HBws1p%2FdW1Fw5c4%2Fu0WnqRVKuvMwCydu095d8vJF4c7d90F5Sc8%2FnMjTty3b2BfZ9ar8MHu9WibvNvLy%2BZk7ce22a3JJRQ3uW2tbM19P11OWG8l3JjiCF2EshGdHTDXr6bbL11Oxnur1NPD8dD31fXxbT6PM43mZ5CTK%2FZRElFNC06wkaRaXlMdZ6Ht8Pf2SbT1NIu8uTGBlVoZxwplXxJQlJeNlmXqZH85oXsQR9xPM4WcESyL8zmre8B2ndss1YbcV8Wd%2BMksSMsY7%2BtRWCEu1gknacIC1eLa6OJiWVHNpV3VXwQcMCR94K4wqwNOfuIZTg0y6vos%2Fqga8hw%2BaIdfb2uAjFxY4hyWxh38TtxXI98ubC2XO7i4v7EXP7b7F%2FLhm4nb6QHHPsGhpQQygoY2Q1dFI%2BEBywwtB4dHePWUZaEn8II1nWZZkAzEbhLc5HYh5OxCzWbx5vumJmUUbKPHbPY%2BasEuh2lLphgJyl7ZtLVivr%2FX0jjQtr64vX7r%2FniCszS3Vgkq7abdK8kfE%2BA9oOakX72Z6tX%2B2TL1HtDxZ%2Fx1J6gv4H8FbmtfcfhX9h9fx1flKeNbukj9GPwb4jvCHCv4L%2FDtRikeIZ9HDg8CS7O7KK73NcXd8j7lf9DuUhdrJWtHiL8OXxBuo7qhpo4fY%2BvaJCSLEE1aP0ASP0Cx%2FUZtVek75xry9RxNW3wdL8GdYHkpL2a8L8%2Bz56aJNf333ap9%2F5Vji6u%2BoSkj%2FzZIE3KbLDdMi58VCSds37s9ADd%2BhuN251R1%2F4KTdeUlrAyZhEg%2BglJpKthWGP%2FqA5dFHlihdao5hR2ufuW01N3A1yK6uJ8N%2BWGExrftM1LXzC%2FtZ5DmXjpLOVu2c8SJzxpvMEcYxWy3kDVDqgMVpayqf9IThat7tdo85Hzc%2FhzSkYTd9GqIkgTSH%2B5IcLkxhyJc0BCxkSLOe4m03XIr%2FTxwst%2Bu15ZdpHsZpRNIoj0kUeBQnAZ%2F4jHmBHwV5HM3ckaiC3zylaeIwRUrVyQK4UWXPSKWpMVopaxxWC1ADdxp1y%2FGGdsLYO1K6mjimVTfcscpBbTk0V511YE8doMuhGsaYmjugJecKAl6A7b3SN1xPnLV79u27Mlm7DpVFbyk722nIuKXWoTsqoDo075SuC4fel8q2VFbwAGUK2XFzdEDfatWoLUfSTp%2Bk%2F0NFgNzgbV%2FDWAZLIArtrFqCxZ3DyQaxMlyB0hfmVKL0i4P2RwKOO7tVGgfEj26cFTmfeT6hYQSz2yyISB7RkhTcoxHPipTHnvuvJ0sv%2Brnqo%2FsJZjUHThLVBa9r8cCvnz45LaOCzkoSB%2BWMRH6UEkpZRIogmwVl6SdpilPWuGTZ5Sd9i3KxcRDfJ0HoePE8jOdBeO92NZ4qJFLD9msjaA3brukeiWo4FAjEi8agClinc6eqVQ4%2BO6qxYT0INTQ8NjSLzWiF70zVNWfYYgaSvIR6iQezLQ9iEHPmx4SWfk4CPgsyloZlUZYI%2Fn7dgaHHu48%2BBbQOdkhdcHMDY6mLjeWE3yJ2eG9pdXDAU74Rljd4PuF5JrBvfXQtZ1uMhrbVkBK8e%2BtgHNdDU2qVNOIWRZUfhuB%2BdwI%2Fy9PMj8gsTgugmwckK%2FyAeMB%2ByVPqecOtgAsGOIf4neF6jE%2Blwgk6v1lBTgwbhiGoEFALUGf0heqV6jTjw8iNZxEH4hz6bQHCtdjb%2B5LGtrZBAJt7bvDnWMHo4SKPjYKO0G4F%2B5nvTS9Hlf%2FUyYGMCf5aAPWV0nvkVxYd3Fn7fnebtrNcL7UqBRNcsoOVyv1K%2FIYKqDh2HpRKxZ9r1bW9RycxAtBuOa1F1%2BAhazFK%2FaA2rBb%2FqZC4nfC1wBPbn%2FTrv6uTM9wWuCTrP82Ib%2BtpxRWXlZCc6z4aXO0W2yre8tQq00JCwQjlWhlVEyE%2FDZIjo7zJIG9w74o9saqge3J%2FiPuSUNP%2FkGp%2BLHPwLH54sTu%2B9ODfulfq5M31%2B%2BDV%2BSd%2FsayOV%2BcBMYvXr5KzSoXbxVn7onjJPiTq9O43f3GlfnrTrLz2eoQ0yvJvJFKYM1j9ZSDpB66lAtFBmPFQ8gZGIJiI%2FgM%3D

But perhaps the greatest reason to be skeptical of aerosol solar sunlight management is that it’s not a silver bullet. As carbon dioxide continues to increase, the oceans are becoming increasingly acidic. According to NOAA, ocean acidification can cascade through the ocean food chain, reducing the ability of shell fish and reef-building corals to produce their skeletons. Injecting aerosols into the stratosphere simply limits sunshine, it does not tackle the underlying carbon dioxide build up. The ocean would continue to acidify.

Despite the potential drawbacks, the AMS does recognize — even with aggressive mitigation — we can’t avoid some dangerous consequences of climate changealready baked into the system. Plus, the scale of human adaptation is limited. Therefore, they urge caution and continued research.

The AMS policy statement closes with: “Geoengineering will not substitute for either aggressive mitigation or proactive adaptation, but it could contribute to a comprehensive risk management strategy to slow climate change and alleviate some of its negative impacts. The potential to help society cope with climate change and the risks of adverse consequences imply a need for adequate research, appropriate regulation and transparent deliberation.”

More countries are saying “No” to the United Nations Migration Pact

Eco Liberty
29 November 2018
Matthew Miller

Many countries are not fooling for that United Nation Migration Pact. Because millions of people in Europe are Waking Up are no longer fooling that United Nation because they know its invasion. Countries like Poland, Hungary, Austria and any more are saying “No” to the United Nations Migration Pact because they know what it is and they’re not fooling for it.

The Migrant Caravan have arrived at the USA and Mexico border and are already trying to get through.

They’re not migrants, they’re invaders and Trump know that; that’s why there are troops at the border to protect it

Exposing China’s Digital Dystopian Dictatorship | Foreign Correspondent

Another video taking about the China Social Credit System. This one is from ABC Australia.

My Conclusion:
I thank the brave Chinese People who speak out against the Social Credit System that going create a nightmare society because the world need to know. I hope one day the many Chinese people will wake up and revolt against the tyrannical system and bring freedom to their nation.