“Climate change will increase under-nutrition through increased food insecurity from extreme weather events, droughts, and shifts in agriculture. Climate change also affects the prices of basic food commodities, especially fruits and vegetables, potentially increasing consumption of processed foods.”
“Under-nutrition in early life increases the risk of adult obesity."
A study says obesity and climate change have common drivers and mitigating actions
Why India may be at risk of obesity: Undernutrition and obesity are two forms of malnutrition. Severe food insecurity is associated with lower obesity prevalence, but mild to moderate food insecurity is, paradoxically, associated with higher obesity prevalence among vulnerable populations living on marginal-quality diets and ultra-processed food products. “Undernutrition in early life increases the risk of adult obesity,” says Dr Shifalika Goenka of the Delhi-based Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI).
A Silly Analysis (This is about as valid as the everything is caused by climate change arguments): "All 8 [Presidential] administrations who oversaw a cooling trend were Republican. There has never been a Democrat president who oversaw a cooling global temperature. Also, the top 6 warming presidencies were all Democrats."
Media and scientists hyping temperature changes year-to-year so small as to be within the margin of error.
Book Excerpt - The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change:
Retired MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has ridiculed “hottest year” claims. “The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree. When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record, what are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said.
“If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree.” Lindzen pointed out, “We’re talking about less than a tenth of degree with an uncertainty of about a quarter of a degree. Moreover, such small fluctuations—even if real—don’t change the fact that the trend for the past 20 years has been much less than models have predicted.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s now infamous talking points on the Green New Deal are the most unintentionally honest explanation of the neo-socialism now gripping the Democratic Party. --Marc Thiessen, Fox News, 16 February 2019
Somehow the Democrats managed to create a shiny, magical rainbow-colored unicorn and immediately impale themselves on it. How bad is the debut of the Green New Deal looking a week later? “Dead on arrival” makes it sound better than it is. It’s more like Zima meets Green Lantern times Bill Simmons’s HBO show. --Kyle Smith, National Review, 14 February 2019
The unemployment rate when FDR took the oath in 1933 was 25 percent. It never fell below 14 percent through the 1930s. In June 1938, despite huge Democratic majorities in Congress, FDR was presiding over a nation where unemployment was back up to 19 percent. World War II and the conscription of 16 million young men gave us “full employment.” And the war’s end and demobilization saw the return of real prosperity in 1946, after FDR was dead.
Yet this Green New Deal is nothing if not ambitious. To cope with climate change, the GND calls for a 10-year plan to meet “100 percent of the power demand of the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”
MARC MORANO (CLIMATEDEPOT.COM): It's been called the most expensive treaty in world history with a price tag of upwards of $100 trillion, a global cost of $1 to $2 trillion annually, and, again, you mentioned this two degree thing, and I actually point out this was -- the authors of this two degrees target actually admit it was, quote, pulled from thin air, the scientists in the United Nations admit this. So -- and then even The Washington Post has acknowledged that, even if you're afraid of global warning, the U.N. Paris Agreement would basically do nothing, has no impact on the climate. This is medieval witchcraft to think that we can all come together with some treaty, make a bunch of pledges, and have a temperature a hundred years that's different.
So GND is clearly one of the most expensive technology/fuel approaches to implementing decarbonization. Germany has already tried it by more gradually reducing the use of coal and nuclear fuels. and it appears to be a major disaster with sky-high electricity prices and increasingly unreliable energy availability. Why should we repeat their disastrous approach, but in an even more extreme manner?