Category Archives: Truth about CO2 and Global Warming

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.

Advertisements

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.”

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.”

Brainwashed Kids are suing the US Government for not taking on Climate Change

Eco Liberty
November 2018
Matthew Miller

Since Donald Trump was elected back in 2016; he exit out the Paris Climate agreement. 2 Year later the kids want to Sue the Trump Administration for not Taking on Climate Change and not going long with the scam. For my point of view: For those kid; you been brainwashed to believe that Global warming is an issue and as human being we are blamed for it. And all the Climate Change alarmism is being taught in school indoctrinating children to believe that human are blame for climate change like:

  • Carbon Dioxide is a pollination
  • Ice is melting
  • Polar bear population is declining
  • Cow farts causing an increase of greenhouse gases
  • Wind turbines and solar are good sources of energy
  • Carbon Tax will save the planet

The real facts are

  • Carbon Dioxide is plant food (Between 1,000 to 1,500 ppm is an optimal CO2 level for plants growth. The raising CO2 level is greening the planet. But not enough CO2 (200 ppm or less) plants will not grow but too much CO2 (above 2,000 ppm) is toxic

  • Ice melts in the summer and grow in the winter. Back in 2014 Antarctica have the record high level of ice with surface area of  20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles). Back in 2009 in the Copenhagen Climate Al Gore claims Arctic will be ice free by 2014 or 2016 according to this video

 

But Al Gore you’re way off because it’s now 2018 and the polar ice in arctic is there.The Arctic Ice is getting thick this image prove that is the case from Polar Portal

Arctic Ice volume 25 August 2008

Arctic Ice volume 25 August 2018

Those two image prove that arctic is getting thicker. Arctic will still have ice in the next decade with the up coming solar minimum which will be call the Eddy Minimum

  • Polar bear population is booming and thriving. Population is estimated to around 22,000 to 30,000 which will around 4 to 6 fold since the 1950s despite fears about global warming’s impact on polar bears even spurred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to say that the bear was “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. If polar bear is thriving why is still declared “threatened”?
  • Methane is excuse that Climate alarmist like to use push their agenda to deindustrialize the agriculture industry and to tax meat and then bring forth meat  prohibition as well other animal products in the name of sustainability and saving the planet. Without the Greenhouse effect on earth will be much colder
  • Wind and solar are not reliable source of energy on a large sale because you need wind for wind turbines to work; you need sun for solar panels to work; Wind don’t always blow and sun don’t always shine. They’re also expensive as well. Wind turbine is harming the bird population that why Wind Turbine is call “bird killers”. Humans and animals living near the Wind Turbine could having some negative health effect on them.
  • Carbon Tax will bring forth deindustrialization, create jobs losses, undermine the economy, make Electricity and Gasoline more expensive, make everyday life a living hell.

All I can say that: I been there; I used to believe that global warming was issue in my late teens and my early 20s and I end have a Malthusianist mindset by thinking that depopulation was necessary to combat Climate Change. Believing in Climate alarmism may you into a anti-human mindset. Oh boy that the road I never want go back on because that a mindset a psychopath would have. The climate alarmist also they want climate skeptics arrested and throw in prison and those who even disagree with them; this is dangerous; the elite know that climate alarmism ideology is felling apart and they want to being as much people with them.

My Conclusion:  

To the Climate Alarmist you can raise up above the fear you taught to believe. I don’t have all the answers; I know that many Climate Alarmist will continue in their falsehood what Elites have indoctrinated them with. I try do make it easier as I can your to understand the information. Even that don’t believe every word I post in the article I best to do your own research. That why I got several link that you chick and decide for yourself.

Source:

 

Global Warming issue is use an excuse to push more taxes on Gasoline

A $240 PER GALLON GAS TAX TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING? NEW UN REPORT SUGGESTS CARBON PRICING

Dailycaller
10 October 2018
Michael Bastasch

  • A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed to fight global warming.
  • The U.N. says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton in the year 2100.
  • If you think that’s unlikely to ever happen, you’re probably right.

A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The IPCC’s report is meant to galvanize political support for doubling down on the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit scheduled for December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), the stretch goal of the Paris accord.

However, the costs of meeting that goal are high based on the IPCC’s own figures. (RELATED: Here’s What The Media Won’t Tell You About The U.N.’s New Climate Report)

In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) , the IPCC says carbon taxes would need to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton in 2030, $245 to $13,000 per ton in 2050, $420 to $17,000 per ton in 2070 and $690 to $27,000 per ton in 2100.

To meet the goals of the Paris accord, which seeks to limit future warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would have range between $10 and $200 in 2030 and $160 and $2,125 in 2100.

That’s equivalent to a gas tax as high as $1.70 per gallon in 2030 to nearly $19 per gallon at the end of the century. That’s less onerous than limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), but still no walk in the park.

California and many European countries have policies to price carbon dioxide emissions and mandate green energy, including cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes. But carbon prices under those systems are nowhere near where the IPCC says they need to be.

The IPCC said the “price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued.” However, the group’s report tacitly acknowledges the unlikelihood that governments will enact astronomical taxes on energy.

“While the price of carbon is central to prompt mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 [degree Celsius](2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)-consistent pathways, a complementary mix of stringent policies is required,” reads the IPCC’s report.

In the U.S., Republican lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposed to carbon taxes in July. Democrats called for a price on carbon dioxide in their 2016 party platform, but they haven’t made much effort on that front since the failure of cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.

Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida introduced carbon tax legislation shortly after all but five of his GOP colleagues in the House voted to oppose such a bill. Curbelo’s bill would tax carbon dioxide at $23 a ton — nowhere near what the IPCC calls for.

However, the IPCC suggested a lower carbon tax could be used in conjunction with command and control policies, like regulations and bans on coal plants, could achieve “generate a 1.5˚C (2.7°F) pathway for the U.S. electric sector.”

But that point only serves to undermine Curbelo’s bill, which would put a moratorium on some environmental regulations and possibly eliminate some if emissions goals are reached.

The IPCC noted the “literature indicates that the pricing of emissions is relevant but needs to be complemented with other policies to drive the required changes in line with 1.5°C (2.7°F)-consistent cost-effective pathways.”

My Conclusion: Thing is that why UN, IPCC and the other global elites want Global warming or Climate Change to be a problem. Because they want more money and power; they know: that Global Warming or Climate Change is never an issues but it a natural occurring event that occurs everyday, that carbon dioxide is plant food, That solar minimum is on it’s way and earth will cooler within decades to come.
With the IPCC thinking the earth will be 1.5°C (2.7°F) warmer by either 2040 or 2050 is not going to case because we would be in a new solar minimum at that time. Once IPCC is caught for misleading and keeping people in the dark and soon one day IPCC will have to explain themselves why they’re deliberately deceiving people to either make money and gain power. The reason why they keep scare people will the global warming the climate change nonsense because they think they can get away with it and achieved their agenda.
We need to call those people who pushing climate change by scaring us into accepting their agenda; out or we may face another dark age. The Climate Change scare has nothing to do about saving the planet nor protecting the environment.

Study: Geoengineering, other technologies won’t solve climate woes

Watts Up With What
11 October 2018
Anthony Watts

Solutions such as geoengineering will not make enough of a difference.

By Steinar Brandslet

The countries of the world still need to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to reach the Paris Agreement’s climate targets. Relying on tree planting and alternative technological

“We can’t rely on geoengineering to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” says Helene Muri, a researcher from NTNU’s Industrial Ecology Programme. She was also one of the lead authors of a recent article in Nature Communications that looked at different climate geoengineering projects in the context of limiting global warming.

The average temperature on Earth is rising. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recommended limiting this warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, and better yet to less than 1.5 degrees. These targets were set in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was ratified by nearly all nations.

Various geoengineering options are among the solutions being considered. They involve intervening directly in the Earth’s climate system to prevent temperatures from rising as much as would otherwise happen due to the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Geoengineering comprises reducing atmospheric CO2 levels, or reducing the effect of the Sun.

Untested, uncertain, and risky

Can we remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere with the help of technology or capture more COby planting millions of trees? Can we reflect more of the Sun’s radiation by injecting particles into the atmosphere?

“Several techniques could help to limit climate change. But they’re still untested, uncertain and risky technologies that present a lot of ethical and practical feasibility problems,” say Muri and her colleagues.

In short, we just don’t know enough about these technologies and the consequences of putting them to use, the researchers say.

Stumbling blocks

Tree planting sparks major political problems, for example. A lot of forest land has been cut to grow food, which limits how much of acreage can be reforested. Recent research also raises the question as to whether or not additional forest land can predictably lower temperatures. Data simulations from NTNU and Giessen University show that temperatures may increase, at least locally.

Another mitigation proposal is the use of biochar, which is charcoal that can be ploughed into the ground to store carbon that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere as CO2. Here the question is whether it is really conceivable to carry this out on a large enough scale to make a difference. The researchers’ consensus? Hardly.

How about adding nutrients to the sea to spur phytoplankton blooms that could sequester carbon? This proposal involves fertilizing iron-poor regions of the ocean. However, the potential side effects could be huge, disrupting local nutrient cycles and perhaps even increasing the production of N2O, another greenhouse gas.

We simply don’t know enough yet. Some potential solutions might even do more harm than good. The authors of the article encourage more discussion and learning.

NETs and airy plans

So what about “negative emissions technologies”, often abbreviated as NETs? NETs involve removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, specifically CO2. Some of these proposed techniques could work well on a global scale. But some of them are expensive and are still in their infancy in terms of technology.

Prototypes for direct carbon capture from the air already exist. This technology shows great potential, but would require a lot of energy and significant infrastructure if done at scale. Cost estimates range from $20 to more than $1000 per tonne of captured CO2. If you consider that the countries of the world emitted more than 40 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2017, it quickly becomes clear that financing this approach would be prohibitively expensive.

Adding particles to the air would require regular refills and probably planes or drones dedicated to the task. The concept might be feasible, but the side-effects are unclear.

And so it goes on for one potentially grand proposal after another. In sum, these ideas are simply too little, too late – or too expensive.

“None of the proposed techniques can realistically be implemented on a global scale in the next few decades. In other words, we can’t rely on these technologies to make any significant contribution to holding the average temperature increase under the 2 degree C limit, much less the 1.5 degree limit, says lead author Mark Lawrence, Director of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam.

No substitutes for cutting emissions

Emissions reductions could still salvage the Paris Agreement’s 2 degree C goal. But the challenge in meeting this goal is that the Earth’s increasing population, which has also seen a steady increase in the standard of living, will have to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases that are being emitted into the atmosphere compared to today.

Most of the IPCC scenarios include some form of geoengineering, typically afforestation and bioenergy, coupled with carbon capture and storage, especially if the goal is to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees by the end of this century.

The researchers behind the study warn against relying on solutions other than clear-cut emissions reductions. Otherwise, there is a danger that technological solutions may be seen as substitutes for cutting emissions, which they are not.


The paper:

Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Mark G. Lawrence, Stefan Schäfer, Helene Muri, Vivian Scott, Andreas Oschlies, Naomi E. Vaughan, Olivier Boucher, Hauke Schmidt, Jim Haywood & Jürgen Scheffran. Nature Communications volume 9, Article number: 3734 (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05938-3

Raucous Calgary rally rails against carbon tax

MSN
6 October 2018
Lauren Krugel

CALGARY – A raucous crowd of more than 1,500 crammed into a Calgary convention centre Friday night to hear Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Jason Kenney, leader of Alberta’s Opposition United Conservative Party, rail against the federal carbon tax.

“It’s really, my friends the worst tax ever, a tax we can’t afford, a job-killing tax that hikes up the price of services and goods and drives up the price of heating your homes,” Ford told the anti carbon-tax rally.

The crowd frequently rose to its feet waving signs that said “Renew The Alberta Advantage” and “Scrap The Carbon Tax.” Many jeered when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s name was mentioned.

So many people showed up that some had to listen from the hallway so as not to run afoul of fire codes.

Ford made no secret of who he will root for in Alberta’s provincial election next spring.

“Let’s elect a new United Conservative government in Alberta,” he said. “A new day has dawned in Ontario and a new day will dawn in Alberta.”

Kenney has said the repeal of Alberta’s $30-a-tonne carbon tax will top his agenda if his party wins the election.

“There is no compassion in telling seniors on modest fixed incomes that they can’t have an active life just so you can feel virtuous by imposing this carbon tax on Albertans,” he said.

“It isn’t progressive and it’s not compassionate.”

Kenney said the “multibillion-dollar job killing carbon tax” was not in the NDP’s 2015 election platform.

“It is not just the biggest tax hike in Alberta history. It is the biggest lie in Alberta history,” he said.

“Why are we engaged in this act of economic masochism when it will not make one whit of difference for the environment?”

Heavy equipment operator Steve Spackman came to Calgary from Okotoks, just south of the city, for the rally because he’s fed up.

“We’d probably hire more people at work I bet you, if they didn’t have that carbon tax every month coming in for gas,” he said.

Alberta’s NDP government introduced the provincial levy before Ottawa required it. With the Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion in limbo, Premier Rachel Notley is now refusing to raise it in line with federal requirements.

Ottawa passed legislation last spring to give it authority to impose a carbon price on any province without its own beginning Jan. 1, 2019. It is starting at a minimum of $20 per tonne, rising $10 per year until 2022.

Ontario’s new Progressive Conservative government scrapped that province’s cap-and-trade system in July and launched a challenge of the federal carbon plan.

Provincial resistance to Ottawa’s carbon policy has been ramping up.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Ford met in Saskatoon on Thursday, where the two conservative leaders said they will continue to fight the tax together. To that end, Moe announced Saskatchewan will file for intervener status in Ontario’s court challenge.

Ontario had already pledged to support Saskatchewan’s court challenge when the premiers met in New Brunswick in July. Moe’s government has asked Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal to rule on whether the federal plan is constitutional.

Ford and Moe gained another ally Wednesday when Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister announced his province will not go ahead with a $25-a-tonne levy that was to come into effect in December.

“We’ll all be at the premier’s table defending common sense and Canadian taxpayers to fight against Trudeau’s carbon tax,” Ford said Friday.

Trudeau said earlier in the day that Canadians gave his government a mandate in the last election to implement a national carbon price and that is exactly what it is going to do.

“Pollution should not be free anywhere across this country,” he said at an event in Windsor, Ont.

Alberta Education Minister David Eggen said earlier Friday that Albertans should be disturbed by Ford and Kenney working together.

“Certainly we know how to solve our issues in Alberta and we don’t need someone form Ontario coming and telling us what to do,” he said.

“Our climate action plan is very effective up to now in creating jobs, helping to diversify the economy and quite frankly is helping to reduce pollution as well.”

 

Global Wheat Shortage / Hungersteine / Vegan Death Cult

From the appearance of “hunger stones” in the extreme drought conditions, to mainstream admission of the global wheat shortage, the signs of Peak Food are everywhere as the changes in our climate accelerate. Missouri regulates what you can call “meat.”‘ London’s first insect farm has opened. And the vegan death cult evidences itself to be equally venomous as the climate change cult. Christian breaks it down.

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

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: