Category Archives: Truth about CO2 and Global Warming

EcoLiberty Vlog West Coast Regional Council Reject Government

On this Eco Liberty Vlog Matthew address the reason why the West Coast Regional Council Reject Government Climate Bill. Why Climate Change is nothing to be worry about. Will other Regional Council around New Zealand follow WCRC example and why government Zero Carbon Bill.……

For Eco Liberty Point of view: We understand that there are environmental issue on this planet and Climate Change and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not that list. But there a climatic event coming in near future is call the Solar Minimum and the mini Ice age. Also on Bitchute:…


A green MP has called on Parliament to impose a tax on meat to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce climate change.
5 January 2019
Laura O’Callaghan

A GREEN MP has called on Parliament to impose a tax on meat to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce climate change.

Tax on Meat MP Caroline Lucas said taxing meat would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gasses (Image: GETTY)

Caroline Lucas told delegates at the Oxford Farming Conference an overhaul of Britain’s agri-industrial food system is needed because it is in “crisis” and is favouring consolidation at the expense of human health, ecology and the livelihoods of farmers. In a speech entitled ‘A radical new vision for British agriculture’ delivered on Friday, Ms Lucas set out her vision for farming which included greater attention to animal welfare, fewer pesticides, a reduction in food waste, and adopting a diet with less meat and dairy products. Half of all farmed animal emissions come from beef and lamb, according to research by scientists Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek.

Critics have hit back at Ms Lucas saying taxing meat will hit poor communities (Image: Getty)

Ms Lucas referred to MP Claire Perry, who said if the Cabinet ate less beef to set an example it would lead to the introduction of a “nanny state”. 

Ms Lucas said: “At the risk of incurring the wrath of the energy secretary in particular who said recently that encouraging people to eat less meat would be ‘the worst sort of nanny state ever’, I’d add that we need serious consideration of measures like a meat tax, particularly for beef.

“I accept that British sheep farming is one of the least intensive forms of livestock farming so perhaps a banded system according to production would help, offset for more sustainable meat producers through increased revenue from targeted agri-environment schemes.”

But NFU vice president Stuart Roberts hit back at her demands, tweeting: “We all share the ambition to address climate change but taxing isn’t the way. 

Green MP Caroline Lucas said a complete overhaul of the agri-industrial system is needed (Image: Getty stock image)

“There’s great potential for market based drivers and future agriculture policy to underpin our positive direction of travel without looking at regressive tax solution. Let’s see market-based solutions.”

Earlier in the week, Minettte Batters, president of the National Farmers’ Union called for zero farming emissions by 2040. 

Ms Lucas said she felt “encouraged” to hear her comments and hopes she can count on the NFU to support her amendment to the Agriculture Bill to achieve it. 

During a speech at the conference this week, Ms Batters said: “Our aim must be ambitious: to get our industry to net zero across all greenhouse gas inventories by 2040 or before.”

Livestock account for five per cent’s of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions (Image: Getty)

But critics argue that poor people will be hit hardest by a meat tax and say it will not bring greenhouse gas emissions down to safe levels. 

Nick Allen, head of the British Meat Processors Association, said: “We have one of the best grass growing climate in the world. So we have the ability to turn good grass into good meat better than anyone else. 

“I don’t believe it would achieve the desired result.”

Ms Lucas tweeted: “We need huge reduction in meat-eating to avoid climate breakdown. Better manure management and selection of feed can reduce farming emissions – but need to consider potential of #Meattax too.”

One person tweeted back: “So a regressive #Meattax is the answer? Let’s make meat a luxury item for the well-off, no @CarolineLucas. Don’t blame ordinary people for climate change, lecturing them about what they eat.”

Livestock accounts for five per cent of Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Eco Liberty Conclusion:
Yes there is a war on meat eater in the UK in the name of stop climate change bringing forth Agenda 21, Making people eat one of the most unhealthiest diet in the world which is call the Vegan diet. And I do the fact to backup why the Vegan diet is one of the most unhealthiest diet in the world. On sv3rige Youtube channel he interview ex-vegan to allow them to share their story and why going on the vegan diet long-term is a very unhealthy idea. Here one the most recent ex-vegan video on sv3rige channel

I have watch a lot of sv3rige ex-vegan interviews. Why meat is important food the human body many have been brainwash that the Vegan most healthiest and the peaceful diet on earth and in fact it’s the polar opposite. Why the media and government pushing one of most unhealthiest diet on earth and saying that it healthy in fact it’s not. That type movement to push Veganism and bring forth meat prohibition is going to kill a lot people. That we need to expose that animal rights movement, climate movement and any other movements that push veganism, meat and dairy prohibition, Carbon Dioxide Reduction (which is plant food), Geo engineering the climate to stop climate change; and human extinction. They’re there to destroy the environment and life on Earth. Those movement are fund by the elites to brainwash people to push their agenda.

For Eco Liberty we’re there to inform people so we can help human to survive and process to the next level.

A Polarized World to Better Control the Population as Food Scarcity Begins

Eco Liberty conclusion: The real reason why I watch and post video on Eco Liberty relating the solar minimum because Adapt 2030 always post video to share very important information about the oncoming the solar minimum and why it will affect the global economy majority and will have great chance of a major food shortage on a global scale. That I often post videos from Adapt 2030 so you people can be informed about the oncoming solar minimum; because the Mainstream media will not cover it and to keep you in the dark by pushing that Man-made global warming garbage; telling you that Carbon Dioxide (plant food) as pollutant that is causing runway global warming which is not the case; Carbon Dioxide is plant food; plants will die without Carbon Dioxide. People; please give this video a thumbs up on You Tube if you haven’t subscribed to Adapt 2030 please Subscribe to that channel; to give David DuByne the praise and courage for the hard work he puts in to give you the very important information that Mainstream media will not cover.

Economists Love Carbon Taxes. Lots of Regular Folks Don’t.
19 December 2018
Ronald Bailey

Oil company ConocoPhillips just pledged to spend $2 millionpromoting the carbon tax and dividend plan devised by the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) organized by former Republican Secretaries of State James Baker III and George Shultz. ConocoPhillips is among the CLC’s founding member oil companies, alongside ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell.

The goal of the CLC’s carbon tax and dividend plan is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels by increasing fossil fuel prices over time. Under the CLC’s carbon tax and dividend plan an initial tax per ton of carbon dioxide would be set at oil and gas wellheads and coal mineheads.

As the tax escalates at a steady predictable rate over the years, higher electricity and transport prices are supposed to encourage increased conservation, greater fuel efficiency, and the development and deployment of no-carbon energy sources. Once the CLC’s carbon tax plan is adopted, all other regulations and subsidies aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, e.g., automobile fuel efficiency and renewable portfolio standards, are supposed to be permanently repealed.

Finally, the linchpin of CLC’s plan is that all of the proceeds from the carbon tax would be divided equally among U.S. citizens and returned as an annual lump-sum directly to them. The CLC argues that “conferring financial benefits in the here and now would fundamentally alter the cost-benefit time horizon of climate mitigation, re-casting a carbon fee as a popular and even populist solution.”

The CLC cites a 2018 study that finds that 70 percent of American households would receive more in dividend payments than they would pay in increased energy prices. Taxpayers in the bottom income quintile would average a net tax cut of 4.4 percent of pretax income while those in the middle quintile would receive a net tax cut of 0.3 percent of pretax income.

While the concept of revenue neutral carbon taxes for addressing the problem of man-made climate change is belovedby most economists, the idea that they are “a popular and even populist solution” may be a bit premature.

The recent Yellow Vest protests in France were sparked by just a 12 cent increase in transport fuel taxes aimed at reducing that country’s carbon dioxide emissions. (For the record, a gallon of gas already costs $5.54 in France.) The New York Times suggested that this outburst might have been avoided if the taxes had been specifically devoted to “subsidies to encourage people to use less-polluting forms of energy, and expanding transit networks.”

Consider also what happened to carbon tax proposals in Washington state during the past couple of elections. In 2016, a revenue neutral carbon tax referendum failed when environmental activists opposed it on the grounds that the tax revenues should not be returned to voters, but instead be devoted to a panoply of green energy and public transit projects.

In 2018, Washington state voters rejected a carbon tax referendum crafted by environmental activists that would have created a kitty of new tax money available for politically favored groups to shower on their pet projects.

Australia adopted a carbon tax in 2012 that was repealed under popular pressure two years later.

Canada, meanwhile, has adopted a carbon tax scheme imposing a price of $20 per ton that applies to just four provinces (the others have set rates on carbon emissions that are already high enough to meet the new federal standards). Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised that 90 percent of the revenues collected will be rebated back to the residents of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick.

Despite the rebate pledge, Yellow Vest protests against the new Canadian carbon tax broke out this past weekend in some cities, including Edmonton, Toronto, Winnipeg, Okanagan, Moncton, Calgary, Saskatoon, and Halifax.

A 2018 World Bank report identifies 51 carbon pricing initiatives as having already been implemented or as scheduled for implementation. These consist of 25 emissions trading systems, mostly located in subnational jurisdictions, and 26 carbon taxes primarily implemented on a national level.

While carbon taxes make sense to economists worried about climate change, raising the price of staples like transport fuel, heat, and electricity remains a steep political hill to climb.

For folks who are worried about climate change, a more politically popular approach might be to incentivize a vigorous technology research and development program that aims at making low carbon energy cheaper than fossil fuels. In the meantime, encouraging economic growth will help to create the wealth needed to adopt low carbon technologies and adapt to whatever harms may emerge from man-made global warming.

Extinction Level Event Begins Spring 2019 as Harvard Public Geoengineering Goes Live

Geoengineering tests are being public announced by Harvard University, the Solar Geoengineering Research Program is now public. So much for the conspiracy, Firsts spray trials will begin in early 2019 with calcium carbonate injected into cloud layers using a tethered balloon to begin with, moving to a fleet of aircraft at full roll out. The plan is to mimic a Pinatubo eruption level event to cool the planet by 0.6C within 15 months, termed rapid cooling. This will occur the same time the planet begins to cool as the Grand Solar Minimum intensifies, so it appears Harvard is trying to give itself success in the aerosol spraying program to cool the planet, but in actuality its the Sun in its 400 year cycle. The program will be indefinite due to “termination shock” and full reversal to global warming conditions if they stop. Global taxes to follow, new Geoengineering Taxes, no longer CO2 tax, they switched the narrative.

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling
31 May 2012
Peter Ferrara

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming.  That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago.  I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy.

The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations.  See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online.

What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data.  In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate.  With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists really do have any response.

The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC.  You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered.  If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently.

Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past).  It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s.  The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age.  Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage.  The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.

Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen.  The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010.  Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer.  He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010.  He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did not think significant.

Well, the results are in, and the winner is….Don Easterbrook.  Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland conference, with a presentation entitled “Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?”  Watch that online and you will see how scientists are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it.  All I ever see from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they can’t defend their views in public debate.

Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC was wrong by well over a degree, and the gap was widening.  That’s a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future.  Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the historical record a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase.  Such a doubling would take most of this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically.  You can see Hayden’s presentation online as well.

Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so.  Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years.  He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend.

But that is not all.  We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity.  That is associated in the earth’s history with even lower, colder temperatures.  The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, which saw temperature readings decline by 2 degrees in a 20 year period, and the noted Year Without A Summer in 1816 (which may have had other contributing short term causes).

Even worse was the period known as the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715, which saw only about 50 sunspots during one 30 year period within the cycle, compared to a typical 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots during such periods in modern times.  The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, which the earth suffered from about 1350 to 1850.  The Maunder Minimum saw sharply reduced agricultural output, and widespread human suffering, disease and premature death.

Such impacts of the sun on the earth’s climate were discussed at the conference by astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Nir J. Shaviv, of the Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Sebastian Luning, co-author with leading German environmentalist Fritz Vahrenholt of The Cold Sun.

Easterbrook suggests that the outstanding question is only how cold this present cold cycle will get.  Will it be modest like the cooling from the late 1940s to late 1970s?  Or will the paucity of sunspots drive us all the way down to the Dalton Minimum, or even the Maunder Minimum?  He says it is impossible to know now.  But based on experience, he will probably know before the UN and its politicized IPCC.

Eco Liberty Conclusion Although the article was written by Peter Ferrara 6 years ago but I was choose cover today; because the up coming solar minimum will prove his point.

Harvard Scientists Begin Experiment To Block Out The Sun
5 December 2018
Trevor Nace

A group of Harvard scientists plans to tackle climate change through geoengineering by blocking out the sun. The concept of artificially reflecting sunlight has been around for decades, yet this will be the first real attempt at controlling Earth’s temperature through solar engineering.

The project, called Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment(SCoPEx), will spend $3 million to test their models by launching a steerable balloon in the southwest US 20 kilometers into the stratosphere. Once the balloon is in place, it will release small particles of calcium carbonate. Plans are in place to begin the launch as early as the spring of 2019.

The basis around this experiment is from studying the effects of large volcanic eruptions on the planet’s temperature. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted spectacularly, releasing 20 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The sulfur dioxide created a blanket around Earth’s stratosphere, cooling the entire planet by 0.5 °C for around a year and a half.

Engineering A Solution To Climate Change

As scientists, governmental agencies around the world, and environmental groups grow increasingly worried of our collective ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb climate change, the idea of geoengineering a solution has become more accepted. The ultimate goal is to reduce the warming on Earth. This can be done by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, sucking CO2 from the atmosphere, or limiting the sunlight that reaches Earth’s surface.

The first two methods are actively discussed and implemented to various degrees. The recent commitment of G20 members (with the United States as the sole rejector) to the Paris Agreement will act to solve the source of the problem by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sucking CO2 from the atmosphere and locking it away in Earth’s crust, called CO2 sequestration, has been implemented and deployed. For instance, Royal Dutch Shell has built large carbon sequestration facilities with the Canadian and Australian governments.

The third method, blocking out sunlight has been controversial in the scientific community for decades. The controversy lies in the inability to fully understand the consequences of partially blocking out sunlight. A reduction in global temperature is well understood and expected, however, there remain questions around this method’s impact on precipitation patterns, the ozone, and crop yields globally.

This is precisely why the Harvard research team intends to spray tiny chalk (calcium carbonate) particles into the stratosphere in a controlled experiment. Computer models can only go so far in predicting the impacts this geoengineering technique, it is time for a real world test. With funding in part by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, the Harvard team will begin to answer the remaining questions as early as the spring of 2019.

While the potential negative effects are not fully characterized, the ability to control Earth’s temperature by spraying small particles into the stratosphere is an attractive solution largely due to its cost. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report estimated that the continual release of particles into the stratosphere could offset 1.5 °C of warming for $1 billion to $10 billion per year.

When comparing these costs with the global reduction in fossil fuel use or carbon sequestration, the method becomes very attractive. Thus, scientists, government agencies and independent funders of this technology must balance the inexpensive and effectiveness of this method with the potential risks to global crops, weather conditions, and drought. Ultimately, the only way to fully characterize the risks is to conduct real-world experiments, just as the Harvard team is embarking upon.

I am a geologist passionate about sharing Earth’s intricacies with you. I received my PhD from Duke University where I studied the geology and climate of the Amazon. I am the founder of Science Trends, a leading source of science news and analysis on everything from climate.

Eco Liberty Conclusion: Sucking Carbon Dioxide (CO2) out of atmosphere will harm all plant life on earth because plants need Carbon Dioxide for photosynthesis to work. Four important element for plants to Sunlight, Water, Carbon Dioxide and the key elements like Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K) and other essential nutrients that help plant growth. When Carbon Dioxide (CO2) atmospheric concentration drop to 150 ppm or below; plants growth shutdown and begin to die. When Carbon Dioxide (CO2) atmospheric concentration stay at 150 ppm or below long enough this could begin forth a major extinction on earth. CO2 is life we should be rejoicing by having CO2 atmospheric concentration surpassing the 400 ppm because plants are loving the extra CO2.

That we should never consent the geoengineering program in earth atmosphere because with the sulfur dioxide (SO2) being sprayed in the atmosphere in order to stop Climate Change is just madness. We already having a lot volcanoes erupting in 2018 according Volcano Discovery website which slow all active volcanoes including the Manam which is erupting and is inject more sulfur dioxide(SO2)into the atmosphere. I don’t why those mad scientist want to engineer the atmosphere? The Sun is going into minimum phase which mean the earth is going to be cooler in the coming years this proves that the driver of climate change is the Sun; Not CO2, Not humans, Not me, Not you.

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

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.