The Paris Climate Accord Is GENOCIDE Against Plants, Forests And All Life On Our Planet
By Mike Adams – Natural News
The primary goal of the Paris Climate Accord — the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide — is nothing less than genocide against all plant life across our planet.
That’s because all plants depend on CO2 for their very survival. It’s the “oxygen” for plants, and right now trees, grasses and food crops are starving for CO2 because it sits at nearly the lowest level it has ever been in the history of the Earth (barely above 400 ppm now, when it used to be over 7,000 ppm in the past).
Humans attempting to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere is equivalent to some evil, fictional “plant demon” attempting to eliminate oxygen from the atmosphere, causing the mass asphyxiation of the entire human race. Just as eliminating oxygen is genocide against humans, eliminating carbon dioxide is genocide against plants.
Much like everything else pushed by scientifically illiterate bureaucrats and globalists, climate change is a global narrative of the destruction of life. If the climate change terrorists achieve their goals, they will DESTROY the planetary food chain and plunge all life on Earth — including human life — into a mass die-off. Depopulation is the goal, you see. Eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere has always been about destroying human life in order to achieve the population reduction goals openly espoused by every liberal globalist from Bill Gates to Ted Turner.
You can’t SAVE the planet by MURDERING all plants
As I explain in my science video below, you can’t “save” the planet by murdering all plant life. The planet needs higher CO2 and more rainfall to support more reforestation, more food production and the transformation of deserts into food producing regions. Increased rainfall is caused by warmer global temperatures which increase ocean water evaporation and make the land masses of the planet “wetter.”
A wetter, greener planet with more plant life supports more biodiversity, animal sustainability and self-reliant food production in developing nations. A warmer, greener planet, in other words, solves most of the problems now plaguing humankind including food scarcity, desertification, and shortages of fresh water supplies.
No wonder the evil, destructive globalists don’t want the planet to be warmer with higher CO2 levels: They despise all life and they actively seek to depopulate the planet of humans. The insane, anti-life globalists want Earth to be colder, dryer and devoid of the very plants and ecosystems that support the production of food and medicine. (Why do they want more ice everywhere? Wouldn’t green ecosystems be better than frozen wastelands? Why do climate change alarmists hyperventilate when they hear that icebergs are melting?) They all want Earth to be a dead planet, in other words, as a means to commit mass genocide against all life.
Real conservationists and scientists like myself want to increase sustainable life on our planet, which is why we support a warmer, greener and more lush planet with increased rainfall, faster food production and higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you love nature, you will join us in supporting the molecule that Mother Nature needs to flourish: Carbon dioxide.
The Paris Climate Accord is a genocide treaty and a declaration of war against Mother Nature and planet Earth.
If You Oppose Carbon Dioxide, Then You Hate Rainforests, Ecosystems, Trees And All Life On Our Planet
By Isabelle Z – Natural News
We’d all like to think that experts who speak out about issues like the environment have a solid educational background to back up their stances, but it appears that some of the loudest voices in the climate change debate have failed basic biology.
When the public hears people like Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Al Gore, and Barack Obama going on about getting rid of carbon dioxide, it’s understandable that they might assume these individuals know what they are talking about and perhaps even start hating carbon dioxide themselves. However, anyone who took biology in high school can tell you that carbon dioxide is an essential component of life. How is it, then, that public figures like them can claim to love the Earth and all its trees and rainforests while espousing an action that would kill all of those things?
Were all of these carbon dioxide haters sick the day their science teacher covered photosynthesis? The truth is that without carbon dioxide, we wouldn’t have anything they claim they are trying to protect: Forests, wetlands, ecosystems, or even themselves. It’s hard to believe they are honestly suggesting that eliminating carbon dioxide would make the world a better place. This means they are either woefully misinformed or they’re lying about their goals, and the fact that some of them have claimed the earth is overpopulated might lead one to believe it’s the latter.
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, breaks down the importance of carbon dioxide nicely in his video on Health Ranger Science called Carbon Dioxide: The Miracle Molecule of Life. It’s well worth a watch regardless of where you stand on the debate.
The imagery of what some of the world’s biggest cities would actually look like without carbon dioxide drives the point home. You wouldn’t want to live in that version of Los Angeles, Toronto, or New York City, nor could you because there would be no carbon dioxide to sustain you or the food crops you need for nourishment. Getting rid of carbon dioxide certainly is one way to solve that pesky overpopulation problem!
Fact vs theory
Climate science is full of contradictions, and scientists are unable to agree on the matter. There are so many factors at play that it’s hard to pin current problems on any single factor. Even the administrator of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has gone on the record as saying that he doesn’t believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming, while the public stance of the EPA is the opposite. When it comes to climate change, lots of theories are circulating, and it’s a mistake to ascribe the ones espoused by the mainstream as being actual facts when the truth is that no one can say for certain. As Pruitt points out, it’s difficult to accurately measure the impact of human activity on the climate, which is why there is so much dissent.
Of course, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing, and carbon dioxide is indeed a toxic gas at high concentrations. No one wants to see levels spiral out of control, but eliminating it altogether would spell the end of life as we know it.