The Paris Climate Accord is GENOCIDE against plants, forests and all life on our planet

Great perspective.....

The Paris Climate Accord is GENOCIDE against plants, forests and all life on our planet

Thursday, June 01, 2017 by:  

Image: The Paris Climate Accord is GENOCIDE against plants, forests and all life on our planet

(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 humankindincluding 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.

Views: 64

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Seems like a perfectly good way to drive the climate change folks crazy.  What provisions in the Paris accords support a minimum level of carbon dioxide to sustain plant life and what is that level?

I know, right? They are hugging those trees, but looking to suffocate them this bs!  It's global wealth distribution. 

We all know Congress has exclusive authority to legislate, but there's been drastic change.

In particular, Congress allows a powerful agency like EPA to bring about "administrative law", often called "guidelines", "policy", "regulation", and etc. etc. etc.

The EPA "administrative law" has full force/effect of any other Federal law, even though no  elected official ever voted for it.  It's doubtful the average Congressional member can even comprehend the now vast amount of such nonsense.

So with regards to the Paris Climate Accord, here's what I think John Kerry was (is) up to. 

The U.S. voluntarily joins the Accord, then proceeds to direct the EPA to establish administrative law as will achieve certain stated objectives, which is really just sinister effort to politicize all energy use, no matter what the form.

If such bureaucratic nonsense (EPA) is allowed, it leads directly to a Democratic party which can essentially control everything Americans do---because all energy is controlled.

By way of comparison, the same sinister effort has been made with the Clean Air/Clean water act.  There is virtually no human activity which does not involve one or the other.  If government can control air/water, it can control all human activity.

As if Clean Air/Clean Water is not enough, now Kerry and others are trying to gain total control of energy use---once again tightening the noose (controlling human activity).

However, President Trump has now thrown a wrench in the works---he's withdrawn from the Accord, and has put a very good man in charge of EPA (Pruitt). 

It's about impossible to prove whether long term climate change is, or is not, fact.  However, if it is fact, we must note the following.

We live in a time wherein the polar regions are "leaned in" towards the sun, to the maximum extent possible.  It's the first time in 12500 years, and there's simply no historical records to indicate what happened the last time.  We can say that precessional motion now causes solar radiation to concentrate on a smaller land surface, which melts ice, and brings about some related effects.  This maximum condition will last for about the next 2000 years.

Exactly what those effects are, and how they relate to world weather, is essentially beyond our ability to say.  The point here is that, contrary to the Paris Climate Accord, there may very well be cause for world climate change which has absolutely nothing to do with energy use.  IF precessional motion causes (or is causing) climate change, man did not create the problem, nor can anything be done to prevent.

We all need a good EPA, but what we have is bureaucracy out of control.  We must be mindful that if some is good, more is not necessarily better.  Congress needs to change EPA back to its original mission---correcting local problems which have a known solution.  Allowing the EPA to control what is claimed to be a problem, on a national basis, whether there is known solution or not, is wrong, and should not continue.

In conclusion, regarding exactly what law shall prevail, let us consider what the architect of our Constitution has to say:

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow."  (James Madison, Architect of the Constitution, Federalist # 62, 1788)

If we allow obscure, un-elected bureaucrats to in effect legislate binding law, then the Founder's wisdom is forsaken, and peril will be the result.

Great addition, thanks, Kurtis!  from my simplistic viewpoint, hed we stayed in this, it would have cost American taxpayers trillions with no positive results. 

I saw his entire speech and it was GREAT! I loved how he explained everything and how this is a giant farce, intended on doing nothing but weakening the United States and having us pay billions and billions for absolutely nothing, while China, India and Russia can pollute at will for years. I actually was woohooing. He told them to take a hike. It was one giant WIN for this country. One we have been wanting ever since Obama signed this thing and did not send it to the Senate for ratification. The left is melting down and I LOVE it!

    Trump pulls US from Paris accord (full speech)

Thanks, Robin!  I missed it, and viewing it now!

EXCELLENT TRUMP: 5 Reasons Trump Is Right To Pull Out Of The Paris Accord

On Thursday, President Trump made the first major move of his administration since the appointment of Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court: he withdrew from the Paris Accord, a non-treaty entered into by President Obama that committed the United States to serious economic deprivation in order to accomplish nearly nothing in terms of climate change. It’s true that Trump laid all that out in a well-written, fact-laden speech. The Left predictably went nuts — they’ve been lighting up buildings green (wasting energy) and quitting his economic council (who cares) and tweeting incessantly about the end of the world all day.

But Trump is right.

Here are five reasons why.

1. The Accord Was A Treaty, And President Obama Refused To Treat It Like One. President Obama joined the Paris Accord shortly before leaving office, but never sent the agreement to the Senate for ratification. There was good reason for that: it wouldn’t have been ratified. Instead, Obama simply assumed that America would now be bound by requirements to tamp down carbon emissions in serious ways. In his statement ripping Trump for pulling out of the agreement, for example, Obama stated, “the world came together in Paris around the first-ever global agreement to set the world on a low-carbon course and protect the world we leave to our children.” But none of that was true. Which meant that the accord was essentially symbolic, but would create a bevy of headlines about America abandoning global leadership every time we didn’t meet an arbitrary line not approved by the American people.

2. There Were Legal Implementation Problems With The Paris Accord. Donald McGahn, the White House counsel, spelled out that courts could theoretically use the Paris Accord to strike down Trump’s attempted rollback of carbon emissions regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. The Left claimed that this was empty talk — no enabling legislation regarding the Paris Accord had been signed, so it was symbolic. But these are the same people who now say the world will burn up because we’ve pulled out of the accord, and the same people who think the courts should ignore law in order to strike down executive orders they don’t like.

3. It Would Have Had No Impact. Obama himself says, “The private sector already chose a low-carbon future.” So if that was true, what’s the need for governmental cram-downs, exactly? Beyond that, Trump is correct that MIT has estimated that even if the Paris Accord were implemented with current commitments by the various countries, the global climate would be lowered by a grand total of 0.2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Meanwhile, we’d put crippling regulations on our economy. MIT and the Left insist that other steps would follow the Paris Accord — but there’s no evidence of that.

4. It Let Other Countries Free-Ride. Obama said in his petulant statement, “It was bold American ambition that encouraged dozens of other nations to set their sights higher as well.” This is absolute nonsense. One of the reasons to be skeptical of the Paris Accord is that it asked nations for non-binding commitments on climate change. Non-binding. As Oren Cass pointed out at Commentary:

China committed to begin reducing emissions by 2030, roughly when its economic development would have caused this to happen regardless. India made no emissions commitment, pledging only to make progress on efficiency—at half the rate it had progressed in recent years. Pakistan outdid the rest, submitting a single page that offered to “reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible.” This is a definition of the word “peak,” not a commitment. ... An April report by Transport Environment found only three European countries pursuing policies in line with their Paris commitments and one of those, Germany, has now seen two straight years of emissions increases. The Philippines has outright renounced its commitment. A study published by the American Geophysical Union warns that India’s planned coal-plant construction is incompatible with its own targets. All this behavior is socially acceptable amongst the climate crowd. Only Trump’s presumption that the agreement means something, and that countries should be forthright about their commitments, is beyond the pale.

5. It Put America Last. Obama and the Left have claimed for years that “green jobs” will be produced by government. There is no evidence of that happening. It’s a chimera. Van Jones, Obama’s “green jobs czar,” couldn’t point to any job creation for which he was responsible. We do know that additional regulations would cripple key industries in the United States without making up for them with these magical new “investments.” The private sector, as Obama recognizes, is already moving toward more efficient energy solutions. But this agreement wasn’t about forwarding that. It was about creating public pressure for the US government to intervene in its own economy, without requiring anything of those with whom we compete.

Good for Trump. The Paris Accord was a meaningless sham, designed mainly to shame the United States into harming its own economy for the vicarious pleasure of others.

All good points!  I had just read that and was about to post it!

George Carlin on Global Warming

He has a nice way of pointing out our belief in our self importance.

He sure does! He was pretty funny. 





Please view our mission, policy, and legal disclaimer to learn about us by visiting the main menu.  Thank you.




Let your voice be counted!








national debt

Founders' Corner

Latest Activity

Robin replied to Luis522's discussion France's Global Warming Gas Tax
"BELGIUM: UN MIGRATION PACT TO BRING IN 59 MILLION MUSLIMS. Protest against the UN migration pact…"
5 hours ago
Robin replied to Luis522's discussion France's Global Warming Gas Tax
"'Yellow Vest’ protests spread to London as demonstrators take over bridges and shut down…"
5 hours ago
Robin replied to Robin's discussion HUGE! U.S. Federal Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional
"I'm hopeful SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional"
5 hours ago
Jerome replied to Fundamental Refounding's discussion Congress Reaches a Deal Ending Taxpayer-Funded Sexual Harassment Settlements
"Ironic how quickly this deal was struck.  Literally hundreds of Congressmen and Senators have…"
14 hours ago
Jerome replied to Robin's discussion HUGE! U.S. Federal Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional
14 hours ago
Robin replied to Fundamental Refounding's discussion Congress Reaches a Deal Ending Taxpayer-Funded Sexual Harassment Settlements
"Great point by Diamond and Silk! @DiamondandSilk If a government official pays off an accuser of an…"
Robin replied to Doug Fox's discussion Intelligence Community White Hats
Fundamental Refounding liked Jodi180's discussion Rep. Jim Jordon Exposes Google CEO
Fundamental Refounding posted a discussion

Congress Reaches a Deal Ending Taxpayer-Funded Sexual Harassment Settlements

Now that this has ended at taxpayer expense, we deserve the names of everyone in congress that used…See More
kwicgov55 replied to Jodi180's discussion Something In Broward County Smells Like Obama
"You are very welcome Robin. God bless & Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. :-)"
kwicgov55 replied to Robin's discussion HUGE! U.S. Federal Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional
"Of course it will be repealed by the Scotus. The republicans had plenty of time to repeal…"
Robin replied to Robin's discussion HUGE! U.S. Federal Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional
"The White House has stated the ACA will remain in place until this is decided by the Supreme…"
Robin replied to Robin's discussion HUGE! U.S. Federal Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional
"The returns of the 46 largest middlemen in healthcare account for roughly 41% of the profits…"
Edie Boudreau shared Fundamental Refounding's discussion on Facebook
Edie Boudreau shared Fundamental Refounding's discussion on Facebook
Edie Boudreau shared Fundamental Refounding's discussion on Facebook


© 2018   Fundamental Refounding.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service