December 5, 2020

Global Warming: Having it Both Ways

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Here we go again. Another “report” that places value (perceived) on “nature” and wants the world to set aside a minimum of 30% of its lands and waters for “conservation” to protect nature…because it is economically profitable. Really? Oh, I see. Let’s try that con job for awhile.

Oddly, and to anyone with half a brain, the idiotic double standards and hypocrisy take front and center. These mental midgets, heavily deceived, want to cut carbon dioxide because they believe it causes global warming. If these morons had their way, they would rid the world of carbon dioxide.

History and actual science proves that in times of increased carbon dioxide (a guess) that caused global warming, everything grew very well creating massive agricultural benefits, forest growth (habitat), food growth, for both man and animal, and poverty eased a bit. This was and is the best “protection” of nature.

Morons, claiming that protecting land and waters will accomplish more than global warming, are seeking to reduce global warming, thus removing the carbon dioxide levels necessary to actually protect and prosper our forests and fields. This is akin to urinating into a stiff breeze, I’d say.

The end result might just be the protection of more areas of wasteland incapable of growing even weeds.

What’s this locking up the land really all about? It that where they grow coronaviruses?

Share