Iedereen, behalve Tuna, begrijpt inmiddels dat er een sinistere agenda achter 'klimaatverandering' zit. Wat te denken van
veiligheidsdiensten die onderzoek naar 'klimaatverandering' fiancieren? Het idee is om een klimaatwapen te creeren:
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...es-fund-climate-research-weather-weapon-claim
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-scientists-international-authority-climate-geoengineering.html
Nee hoor, hier zit helemaaaaaaaaaaaaal geen duistere agenda achter. In de allernieuwste Wise Traditions (kwartaalblad van de WAPF) schrijft recensent Tim Boyd het volgende:
One of the most popular accusations is that cows increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that will overheat the planet and it will melt, or something. There are many things wrong with that theory. How much CO2 is generated depends on how beef is produced. If the beef is produced by proper grass-based farming, carbon dioxide is released, but it is also sequestered in possibly greater amounts in the soil. If beef is produced by feeding soy to the cows in large commercial operations, that is much worse. A lot of soy is produced by tearing down rainforests, planting and harvesting soy, then shipping it all over the world, all of which generates a lot of carbon dioxide.
I don’t think this point was made in the book, but if you want to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, you might want to be careful what you wish for. Without it, life on this planet ends. We need carbon dioxide. Members of the pop-environmentalist religion may vent much angst in my general direction for saying this, but, when the term “global warming” was displaced by the very ambiguous “climate change,” that kind of gave away the scam that we’re all going to melt.
Nicolette Hahn Niman has no doubt that climate change is happening and neither do I. It’s been happening as long as there has been a climate. What specific changes constitute a crisis and why is not clear to me. We are doing many bad things to our environment, but I find the evidence for a CO2-based crisis deeply and profoundly underwhelming. To be clear, Hahn Niman never says that the goal is elimination of all CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://www.westonaprice.org/book-reviews/defending-beef-by-nicolette-hahn-niman/
Dit is tevens ook een antwoord op de kritiek die ik soms krijg op de vermenging van info over voeding en politiek op dit forum. Zeg jij me maar eens waar de scheidslijn is. Waar eindigt voeding en begint politiek en andersom? De WAPF zelf benoemt de zaken wel, dus misschien is het tijd voor het Nederlandse taalgebied om eens die verstikkende zelfcensuur achter zich te laten...
Mike
