Cilmate Change causes the skinny fat epidemic

p. sure it has more to do w/ sugar consumption and sedentary lifestyle

Are you seriously suggesting getting protein from plants? Protein in plants isn't even complete to begin with.
If people are having plant issues, its probably due to most people consuming a diet that is often in excess of fifty to sixty percent plants...

>same poster

Same poster rly

Attached: Screenshot_20190712-115536_Chrome.jpg (703x637, 195K)

Tell me if im being stuoid but you said he talks avout Co2 being bad, but doesn't talk about how humans have caused these issues? You also say Co2 (modification) was created by Al gore, who you also is a multi generational oil barren, why would he push an anti oil agenda, unless to increase oil prices?

You talk about the fact of the UN being controlled by Rockefeller, but then you dismiss the "conspiracy" of deliberately reducing food nutrition.

can I raise strong plants if I tie tiny weights into their leaves, the pressure my force them to produce thiccer leaves and more protein

To clarify, "Global warming" as an economic scam was perpetuated by Al-Gore. Maurice Strong created the institutional apparatus that would create this pseudo scientific fraud which came out early in the IPCC.

Rockefeller family was the origin of said fraud to expand their power and control over energy markets, via forced "carbon taxation", "carbon quotas", carbon trading markets which presently in Europe is a massive pit of corruption. In terms of energy pricing it has increased substantially in countries which implemented it, ie Germany, Canada, Spain, etc. It also created economic depressions in kind in those countries...

There's also a "technocracy" component to "carbon credits", that being there are murmurs of giving everyone "carbon communism", via default allocated "pollution/carbon credits" so that people with a "low footprint" can effectively sell and trade these on an open market. Its essentially welfare, or UBI(universal basic income) with extra steps. Its one of the possible outcomes they're trying to push for, especially as it would radically increase governmental power over people.

>"conspiracy" of deliberately reducing food nutrition

To reiterate, its more of an issue of economic incentivization. Consumers cannot discern nutritional values when they go to buy plant foods. What consumers want is something that looks appealing and is large, which is what is catered too, and why nutrition doesn't need to be addressed. The other issue underpinning is the corporate side does not want to field liabilities with having to waste money on methodologies that would increase cost of production. There are ways to increase existing nutritional levels in plant foods, but alas, it all comes down to cost.

In terms of conspiracies of food production, there's certainly there in the market, but not in the way most people would think...

>pic related, Maurice Strong's cousin Anne Louise Strong, lived two years with Chairman Mao

Attached: anna-louise-strong1959.jpg (532x381, 50K)

The rise in atmospheric CO2 is undeniable whether you belive in Climate change or not

>To clarify, "Global warming" as an economic scam was perpetuated by Al-Gore
Didn't need to read past that. White papers by Exxon scientists in the late 70's speculated that this would happen and modeled it damn close to how it actually occurred.

>The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace "could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it." War was a part of the economy. Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War served the vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended "credible substitutes" and paying a "blood price" to emulate the economic functions of war. Prospective government-devised alternatives to war included reports of alien life-forms, the reintroduction of a "euphemized form" of slavery "consistent with modern technology and political processes", and - one deemed particularly promising in gaining the attention of the malleable masses - the threat of "gross pollution of the environment".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Report_from_Iron_Mountain#Contents

"Climate change" is a hoax to promote antinatalism, death, veganism, and impede economical development of third world countries, the "scienc" behind it is incredibly shitty and many real scientists have spoken against it

youtube.com/watch?v=NLP4jPvd1PM

>The Report from Iron Mountain is a book published in 1967 (during the Johnson Administration) by Dial Press which puts itself forth as the report of a government panel... details the analyses of a government panel which concludes that war, or a credible substitute for war, is necessary if governments are to maintain power. The book was a New York Times bestseller and has been translated into fifteen languages. Controversy still swirls over whether the book was a satiric hoax about think-tank logic and writing style or the product of a secret government panel. The document is a favorite among conspiracy theorists, who reject the statement made in 1972 by satirist Leonard Lewin that the book was a spoof and that he was its author.

Absolutely amazing. Your world view is based on a creative writing exercise. Have fun with that.

>Absolutely amazing. Your world view is based on a creative writing exercise. Have fun with that.
Very nice goyim
*rubs hands*

Based and Tedpilled

ahahahahah imagine hahahah thinking hahahahah that hahah climate hahah change ahahahha was ................. REAL AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHA

Attached: 1548330546012.jpg (2544x4000, 906K)

you sure don't feel it in your mom's basement

>(a)rise in atmospheric CO2 is undeniable whether you belive in Climate change or not
>(b)Exxon scientists in the late 70's speculated

(a) did they bother to tell you that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is just a guess? A hypothetical, which last I checked was under 0.03% encompassing all green house gases. Of that grand total of 0.03%, humans are again, best guess, contribute maybe 1% of that 0.03% total. There's a great deal of issues ascribing human made global climate impacts, because natural variability is well in excess of human activity, such that its currently impossible to ascertain human effects on climate. The technical term for this anomaly of natural variability is called "negative feedbacks", and or "climate insensitivity" to human activity.

(b) So you're telling me they also created a modernized climate model, with past weather inputs that precipitously becomes inaccurate just a few years out? Or as with current models are incapable of accurately forecasting past weather events, and fail even more miserably trying to predict future unknown weather, temperature events?

Greenhouse effect is real, but we have the atmosphere to thank for it. Second issue which most of these scammers fail at is putting the Sun at the core of their models. Sun is essentially the driver, and another massive variable for inputs into the Earth energy, climate system. The Sun goes through itself a ten year cycle with a high and low cycle, called the Maunder Minimum. Of course this is an additional variable that's poorly understood amongst numerous human inputs into these defective, non-representative climate, temperature models.

The idea you can call this science is a grand joke. Especially to the degree they misrepresent it under the guise of a "consensus". One Al-Gore made possible in the US government by firing numerous scientists, including the former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy Physicist Dr. Will Happer.

Attached: 33092210_10215298629086290_1597150070816374784_n.jpg (567x504, 54K)

I and my family have been living near the sea for generations and the sea level has not risen for 1mm, the weather had always some minor anomalies, but the general the temperature has risen only a little bit BUT THAT IS BECAUSE WE ARE IN AN INTERGLACIAL PERIOD YOU UNEDUCATED SWINE! it will get hotter and then, we will again enter an ice age, that is the cycle of our fallen planet

>fuck scientific evidence, I have anecdotal evidence and muh feelings
so this... is the power... of Jow Forums...

>The idea you can call this science is a grand joke.
You just used a work of fiction as a citation.

Also, your writing style is fucking taxing to read. You only need, like, one third of the words you're using to communicate your point.

>Proteins Eats Carbs
>Bigger Carbs to eat, Bigger Proteins be
>Proteins cheeper
>I eat moar Proteins

Attached: 8D450999-4142-4403-A5BE-FACAA39D42DF.png (198x255, 7K)

>Greenhouse effect is real, but we have the atmosphere to thank for it.
It is not, there isnt an ozone layer, there are only regions where you have a higher possibility of finding ozone

>You just used a work of fiction as a citation.
Dismissing accurate predicitons of the future jsut shows your single digit IQ

Attached: christopher-langan.jpg (339x382, 25K)

>Dismissing accurate predicitons of the future
Because a fiction piece can be viewed as a critique on modern society, we get to treat it as fact? If you read with any sorryy of regularity, you'd know that "constant war as a means of peace" is an old ass trope.

>jsut shows your single digit IQ
>I don't know how IQ works, or I'm bad at hyperbole. Neither helps my argument.

Look man, neither of us is gonna convince the other, so how about we both take the L instead of having a slap fight on the internet?

You are an actual schizo retard with no sources.

The guy does not know what CO2 is yet belives he knows the truth

>yes goy, let us tax you for breathing!
What was the progression btw? Wasn't it global cooling a few decades back, turned to global warming, and now the catch all - climate change. How's this for science - the majority of predictions made by scientists regarding the effects of climate change never came true. That's not sound science. Get back to me when the science isn't on par with witchcraft.

See

To add - climate gate showed the top "scientists" declaring that their research was weak. Literally discussed removing and selectively editing aspects to fit their agenda. Anytime this shit get federal funding and politicized, there's little reason to take the quackery seriously.

remember, whenever you're asking Jow Forums for advice the same retards who've vomited walls of text about the (((new world order))) making up (((climate science))) to herd the goyim are the ones answering

never trust Jow Forums on anything

CO2 deflects more incoming solar radiation than it would allow into the Earth System. This effect is estimated to be a 100 to 1, ergo more CO2, more cooling. We also see these effects naturally as well where volcanic mass ejections have a similar effect, create something called "local cooling".

Specific to this, the IPCC was hacked, climate emails exist in numerous internet caches you can still find. Basic summation of the findings of these emails

(a) IPCC manufactures climate data out of thin air
(b) IPCC maliciously commits fraud to push the UN globalist agenda
(c) IPCC researchers complained their "hockey stick" data looked too artificial and could be discerned as fraud by the general public

This is not surprising, especially as the IPCC has been nailed on several occasions for their data sets being out of sync with NASA

Yet an accurate long term climate model doesn't exist. These people can masturbate hypothetical mathematics, statistics all they want, but if it doesn't translate to the real world than there's a real problem. There's no functional empirical model for any of the shit they're saying. Its pretty obvious why that is.

I'm afraid its not sufficient to be punctual, things have to be repeated and spelled out because most people here are completely ignorant of what is actually found in literature.

Attached: 33125682_10215298393120391_3297928322276655104_o.jpg (1053x717, 133K)

Kill yourself r*ddit nigger piece of shit garbage cuntwad.

i recommend you tell Jow Forumsconspiracy about your groundbreaking findings instead of the fitness board on an anime forum

See
The "science" and ((science)) is not on the side of truth. Good science is not constantly predicting shit that never happens. That's called religion, witchcraft, etc. Science is not manipulating data to fit your narrative. That's politics. If you think climate change "science" is on par with the theory of relativity or gravity, you need to kill yourself. After all, that would improve the planet, according to your ilk.