This is not the first time I decide to focus on the sort of damage climate alarmism causes the general public and I, unfortunately, doubt it’ll be the last. But climate alarmism from the Left, what with all their doomsday predictions and “credible” sources backing up their falsities with fake science, leads people to be so concerned over things that are not happening (extreme weather events and other b.s. the Left spews like a faucet) that they end up literally setting themselves on fire to prove some sort of point (and end up dying as a result) or they end up going on things such as birth strikes to protest “inaction” on climate change.
 
Blythe Pepino, a British woman, founded a climate change activism group surrounding the idea of not having biological children out of fear of “droughts, famine, flooding and extreme heat of the world they will have to live in.”
 
Her group, BirthStrike, amassed over 450 other people vowing to also not have children due to climate change, 80% of which are women, according to Pepino. “For me, personally, it’s about me being able to put my time and resources into activism at the moment,” Pepino told CTV’s Your Morning this past Monday.
 
“I’m lucky enough to have a certain amount of power in this world. I’m white and privileged and I don’t have any children. I don’t have any dependents. And really, this next few years is really, really important in terms of trying to put pressure on our governments to make the big changes that we need for our survival.”
 
What we see here is a victim of the Left’s brainwashing at its fullest. She believes her skin color makes her “privileged” (which is really a sort of back-handed insult to people who are not white, when you think about it, as if minorities can’t possibly be privileged in life either). She also believes that climate change is a human-caused phenomenon and something that definitely wasn’t happening before things like ACs, cars, etc., despite the mountains of evidence to the opposite, namely MULTIPLE ICE AGES AND PERIODS OF WARMTH!
 
That’s not to say I don’t think this woman is sincere about what she believes. I fully believe she believes every word she says and that’s the sad part. She believes she is knowledgeable when she is ignorant. It really reminds me of an excerpt from Plato’s Apology, when Socrates was told by the Oracle of Delphi, Pythia, that Socrates was “the wisest man alive”. In the Apology, Plato writes: “For my part, as I went away, I reasoned with regard to myself: ‘I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I am likely to be a little bit wiser than he in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know.’” This is also known as the Socratic Paradox.
 
But my point here is to say that the woman is like the Oracle Socrates was talking about: she thinks she knows, but truly knows nothing. Bear in mind that this is not meant to insult her but to point out how much damage the Left causes people: they are made to not know any better, as they are taught precisely the wrong things.
 
School children are taught that we are killing our planet and we have a certain amount of years left before we all die, a doomsday clock that is reset every few years to keep the hoax alive. If you remember, Al Gore said back in 2006 that the world would be destroyed by climate change in 10 years, prompting Rush Limbaugh to set up a doomsday clock on his website counting down those 10 years until the clock strikes zero. And, of course, nothing happened when the clock ticked all the way down. And now, we have AOC and the U.N.’s IPCC saying we have 11 or 12 years until the world ends due to climate change, and for whatever reason, people like Pepino totally believe them.
 
And as a result of these b.s. doomsday warnings, people come to such life-altering fear that they take it upon themselves to NOT HAVE CHILDREN AS A RESULT OF THIS! Now, to their credit, Pepino’s group is not so whacko as to demand things like China’s old “one-child” policy in order to curve rising population densities. The BirthStrike site says: “BirthStrike stands in compassionate solidarity with all parents, celebrates their choice and doesn’t seek to judge anyone intending to bear children. BirthStrike disagrees with prioritizing population control over system change in regards to tackling the environmental crisis, disagrees with any enforced population control measures and recognizes the colonial violence of such measures having been proposed in the past and present.”
 
So I do have to give them credit for that, but unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who view enforcement of such policies (which would include horrible things like forced abortion) as a means of “solving” climate change and would totally support enforcing such inhumane policies (despite the numerous studies that suggest population control wouldn’t even do anything to climate change). And considering how dire the Left makes this “environmental crisis” sound, people might believe taking desperate measures will be in any way helpful.
 
But the truth is that there are no extreme weather events that can be attributed to being caused by climate change, and any idea of a city flooding because of melting ice caps (something that isn’t even happening) is someone simply not knowing jack about science. Both are things I have already discussed and shown to be true, backed up by science, facts, logic and other sources. All it takes to not buy into the idea we are killing our planet is doing a little bit of research and using your brain a little bit.
 
In any case, while Pepino and everyone else certainly have the right to not have children for whatever reason, and while it is appreciated that they don’t try and force other people to not have children themselves, it is a sad sight to see these people be so cajoled by the anti-scientific research of the Left that their entire lives are altered so significantly.
 
Of course, God is ultimately in control and He decides people’s fate here. If He ordains that Pepino have children, there really isn’t anything that is going to stop Him. If He has chosen her to be part of the elect and eventually become an open Christian, then there is nothing she can do about it. God is the one in control here and He will decide the way people’s lives will go. All we can do on our part is simply pray that He give her wisdom not only to seek the truth about climate change and the evils of the Left but to also find the Truth of Scripture.
 
Proverbs 19:21
“Many are the plans in the mind of man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

A little over a week ago, I wrote an article talking about how there was no link between extreme weather phenomenon and man-made climate change. Well, today, let’s talk about another ridiculous claim that the Left often makes: climate change leads to rising sea levels and will mean coastal cities will be flooded in a certain amount of time unless we employ more and more socialistic policies to “turn this around”.
 
When you put it that way, it’s hard to deny how much it looks like a scam… because that’s precisely what it is. And yet, many people buy into the idea that we are killing our planet through our cars and our air conditioners and our capitalism (somehow, despite China being one of the most egregious polluters in the world) and that in a certain amount of decades, places like Los Angeles, New York City, Miami, etc. will be uninhabitable for humans and land animals because they will be flooded.
 
This sort of cycle continues, as we still hear about this idiocy despite the fact that people have made predictions for today that are exactly like that and have failed to come true, such as Dr. James Hansen predicting back in the late 1980s that New York City’s West Side Highway would be under water within 20 years. Not quite sure why he chose to be so specific, but whatever the reason may be, he was obviously very wrong as it has been about 30 years since the late 1980s and no such thing has happened.
 
However, a recent study has shown that “trends in recent rates of shoreline change along the U.S. Atlantic Coast reflect an especially puzzling increase in accretion, not erosion,” according to Armstrong and Lazarus (2019) in a newly-published paper.
 
Notice the sort of language these guys are using. They are totally baffled at the idea that shorelines are actually expanding, because they are under the belief that sea levels are rising, which would naturally lead people to believe that shorelines would have to be decreasing. The authors try to attribute this “enigmatic pattern” to “beach nourishment” or infrastructure development to explain how this is happening even though sea levels are supposed to be rising.
 
As Climate Depot notes, “From 1830 to 1956, shorelines eroded at the rapid rate of -55 cm per year on average. Since 1960, the U.S. Atlantic coast has been expanding (accretion) at a rate of +5 cm per year.”
 
The real reason for this happening is not “beach nourishment” but rather because any scientist who is not paid off to spew Leftist garbage knows that geophysical processes are the reason for such sea-level variations throughout the entire world, not idiotic beliefs like glaciers melting causing there to be more water in the ocean.
 
Which really brings us to the main point this article is meant to tackle: the idea that melting ice caps (which are actually doing the opposite of melting) would cause sea levels to rise and coastal areas to get flooded. Anyone who has passed 6th grade science ought to know that ice is water in a different form and that melting of ice does not cause there to be more water out of nowhere.
 
For example, fill a glass with ice and then fill it with water just before it begins to overflow. Leave that glass of water with ice alone until the ice melts (or put it in the microwave if you’re impatient) and see the results. According to the Left, the glass will overflow because the ice will melt. However, what we notice is something entirely different: the glass is still just as full as it was before, there was no overflow, but now there’s just no ice. That is because ICE IS WATER TOO! It’s just in a different physical state, but it will still take up the exact same amount of space. Whatever space the ice cube was filling before is replaced with the water that the cube was composed of. There is no displacement of water, so there is no overflowing of the glass.
 
How then, if the ice caps were to melt, would the world get flooded when all the melting of the ice does is change the physical state of the ice from a solid to a liquid?
 
What’s more, has any of these Leftists ever heard of the water cycle? You know, the cycle where water evaporates, goes into the atmosphere, precipitates as rain or snow (depending on the temperature), goes down into sewers, rivers, etc., makes its way back to the ocean and begins the cycle anew? Well, if the ice caps were melting, that means some of the ice would be turned into a gas too, go into the atmosphere and go through the process we just described, so there technically would be a little bit less water than when it was in its ice form anyway.
 
But returning to my main point, it is ridiculous to suggest that the ice caps melting (which isn’t even happening, for God’s sake) would in turn lead to coastal cities to get flooded. That’s not how any of this works.
 
If you don’t believe me, just ask Christopher Piecuch, Peter Huybers and literally six other scientists saying: “the majority of large-scale spatial variation in long-term rates of relative sea-level rise on the US East Coast is due to geological processes that will persist at similar rates for centuries.”
 
Climate change does not lead to rising sea levels. Trends in sea levels, whichever way they may go, have more to do with geological processes than climate change.
 
And if the study by the seemingly baffled scientists is in any way accurate, then we can clearly see this to be the case. Now, if you were to ask me exactly how it’s happening, then I have no clue. I’m not a geologist by any means. But I do understand enough about the world to know that it’s completely asinine to say that melting ice caps and glaciers, etc. would lead to massive cities getting flooded. Science itself denies that this is at all possible, never mind that shorelines around the world have been in a trend of growth for a number of decades.
 
Between 1985 and 2015, satellite observations showed that coasts all over the world have gained roughly 13,000 km2 more land area than it had lost to the ocean, according to scientists back in 2016. So all over the world, coasts have only gained land, not lost to the ocean.
 
Now just watch as the Left will spin that as “we are warming the planet up so much, we are drying up the oceans”. I wouldn’t put it past them to start claiming such a thing.
 
Psalm 36:3
“The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One argument the Left often makes is that any particular hurricane or tornado (or any extreme weather event at all) that occurs is directly linked to climate change and we need to stop it otherwise we will all die. One such example was a tornado that hit some Southern states and devastated homes and lives, which people like AOC say it’s climate change’s fault (and by proxy, Republicans’ fault because we “deny that the climate is changing” when what we deny is that WE are the cause of it).
 
Apocalyptic stuff to be certain, but not backed by science at all.
 
And as a matter of fact, this much has been (or should have been) known for years now.
 
You see, Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist working for the University of Colorado and used to perform “world-leading research on climate change and extreme weather,” according to the Financial Post. Key word there being “used to”, as he has, since 2015, quit the field he was studying for reasons we will soon get to.
 
Roger Pielke Jr. was one of 31 other leading climate scientists who gathered in Hohenkammer, Germany to study research they had gathered relating to climate change and climate-related damages like extreme weather events. This is where the Hohenkammer Consensus Statement came from, as it was named after the German town. Keep in mind that this was in the year 2006.
 
The scientists ultimately concluded that any trend of rising “climate damages” were primarily due to increased population densities and economic activity in the path of storms and that it was, at this time, not possible to determine what portion of those damages can be attributed to greenhouse gases, which is something they don’t expect to change in the near future at least.
 
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report in 2007 which only sort of agreed with the findings of the Hohenkammer Consensus, but also included an unpublished study, going so far as to even highlight it in their Summary for Policymakers, according to the Financial Post, which suggested a link between greenhouse gases and storm-related damages. But interestingly enough, the author of the study (who was also the one who put the study into the IPCC report) later went on to admit his claim was incorrect, “and when the study was finally published, denied the connection,” according to the Financial Post.
 
So the IPCC looked at the Hohenkammer Consensus, took interest in the parts about the population and economic activity, ignored that they were the main culprits of storm-related damages and included an unpublished study that suggested there was a link between climate change and storm-related damages, something the Hohenkammer Consensus vehemently denies, and even highlighted that unpublished study so that policymakers, the people that actually can make any legislative changes, got to see that unpublished study specifically? Yeah, that totally doesn’t sound like the IPCC is in any way corrupt and biased.
 
For the record, that’s not to say that I am surprised by this at all. I merely am pointing this out because the argument Leftists often make about climatologists that don’t agree we’re killing our planet is that those climatologists are “paid off” by, say, big oil companies or some other such nonsense. Based on what we just read, we can see that the IPCC, while maybe is not necessarily being paid off (though they most likely are), is most definitely corrupt in some manner and wishes to highlight a particular narrative, even if the report they received and used for their own reporting completely disagrees.
 
But in any case, what is also interesting is that the IPCC in 2012 released another report called the “Special Report on Extreme Weather” which actually agreed with the Hohenkammer Consensus about population growth and economic changes being what can mostly be attributed to extreme weather events and that there is no statistical connection between climate change and extreme weather. So, for once, the IPCC did not act according to its rather corrupt nature. Kudos to them, I guess.
 
Regardless, returning to Pielke, because his story is not quite done here, he actually went before Congress to relay the information found in the IPCC (which the government tends to rely on and heavily trust). However, Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren, “accused [Pielke] of misleading Congress and launched a lengthy but ill-informed attack on Pielke, which prompted congressional Democrats to open an investigation into Pielke’s sources of funding (which quickly fizzled amid benign conclusions). Meanwhile heavily funded left-wing groups succeeded in getting him fired from a popular internet news platform. In 2015 Pielke quit the climate field.”
 
What we have read here is the story of a climate scientist who, with science and a source the government trusts an awful lot, challenged (and pretty much disproved) the idea that climate change causes things like hurricanes and other extreme weather events.

But that is not simply an idea that people have, it’s an outright narrative the Left will often use. “Oh, this state was barraged by a hurricane? That has never happened before this past century! Clearly we are killing our planet with our capitalism!” is what ill-informed nincompoops like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and virtually every other Democrat will spread so that they can cause people to fear something that is not actually happening (at least because of us) and lead people to vote for politicians who will claim to be Captain Planet and the Planeteers (a show which is really a by-product of this whole b.s.) and pass legislation that is supposed to combat climate change like it’s our generation’s World War II but does nothing but bankrupt people and the entire nation.
 
And the Financial Post says something that really makes a lot of sense: “The continual claim of such a link is misinformation employed for political and rhetorical purposes. Powerful people get away with it because so few people know what the numbers show. Many scientists who know better remain silent. And the few who push back against the propaganda, such as Roger Pielke Jr., find themselves on the receiving end of abuse and career-threatening attacks, even though they have all the science in their corner. Something has gotten scary and extreme, but it isn’t the weather.”
 
That’s precisely right. People who continue to perpetuate the now-debunked claim only spread misinformation and are either politicians themselves, who often benefit from such misinformation with donation money and votes, or people who are equally as misinformed and simply believe this is the case just because other people say that is the case.
 
If these politicians had been around when Copernicus disproved Geocentricity, people would still go around thinking that the Earth is the center of the universe. And this is precisely why I say that the Left only does a disservice to science. Not only do they claim that genetics don’t determine someone’s gender and not only do they claim that a human fetus is not actually human, they claim that we are killing our planet and that climate change is the reason for hurricanes and tornadoes and wildfires and whatever else happens.
 
But none of that is rooted in science whatsoever. Simple biology tells us what determines someone’s gender: chromosomes. A male will have XY chromosomes and a female will have XX chromosomes. There’s no third option here.
 
A human fetus is, of course, human. It’s not a bird, is it? And matter of fact, there are far more laws protecting things like turtle eggs, which are basically the same thing as fetuses for turtles, but people insist that it’s okay to kill humans inside the womb? No one can credibly claim that a fetus is not human. If not human, then what is it? A car? A phone? An entirely different species?
 
And climate change is not caused by people, as there have been extreme changes in the Earth’s climate LONG before people were around, certainly enough to supposedly be able to affect anything. And as far as the particular topic of extreme weather goes, as we have seen from multiple sources, there is no link between climate change and extreme weather phenomenon.
 
Not one of the hurricanes that have occurred has been a result of climate change. Not one tornado, not one wildfire, etc. Matter of fact, the last 50 years have been awfully quiet when it comes to hurricanes and we have only seen a DECREASE in hurricane flooding since 1965. As far as tornadoes go, 2012 to 2017 was below average, according to the Financial Post. And cold snaps and heatwaves are both also down, suggesting a more balanced climate rather than a volatile one.
 
Not that any of this will matter whatsoever. To politicians, any narrative they can spread that will make people fear the boogeyman and leads them to support said politicians will be pushed more and more aggressively. And the actual scientists who know this is a load of crap will either try and fight back against it, risking their very careers because powerful people disagree with scientific findings and want science to say whatever politicians want it to say, completely poisoning the very soul of science, while others will see what is happening to other scientists who speak and will simply choose to comply; get on board with the politicians for some extra money (be it in funding or something else) or will simply keep their mouths shut, not agreeing but not disagreeing either out of fear of the actual threat to the planet: the Left.
 
But the thing about the truth is that it is always revealed eventually. Lies can only be maintained for so long. I believe and certainly hope that the idea that we are causing the climate to warm up or cool down (or both, somehow) will be more directly challenged in mainstream society and that fake scientists like Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson eventually admit they were just shilling for the Left. Doubt that last part will happen, though.
 
Luke 8:17
“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Ever since Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Venezuela) first revealed that she believed the world would end in just 12 years due to climate change, she has been on the receiving end of merciless mockery. Considering just how idiotic such a rhetoric is, and considering it’s already been used time after time by moronic Leftists decrying that climate change was going to kill us (a practice dating back to the 60s… the 1860s, that is), I’d say the mockery is rather justified.
 
But I think AOC had enough of the mockery and has decided to backtrack on that apocalyptic claim altogether. On Sunday, she tweeted: “This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and ‘fact check’ it. Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal. But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows.”
 
I absolutely love this tweet right here. Despite the fact that she first delivered this warning back in January to a crowd who applauded, not laughed, and the context surrounding it was very serious, she is trying to call it “dry humor” mixed with “sarcasm”.
 
That’s like saying something seriously messed up and then backtracking by saying “it was just a joke”. It’s a really funny copout.
 
Just FYI, AOC delivered that warning alongside the idea that climate change was “our World War II”, insisting that we fight climate change like we would a world war. That, too, received some mockery, but not as much as the doomsday warning.
 
She said: “I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change. And your biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are [we] going to pay for it? – and like this is the war, this is our World War II.”
 
Now, had she said it was just a joke (or even just an exaggeration) soon after the mockery ensued, that would’ve been fine and understandable. Granted, charging that the world was going to end in 12 years is a little different from exaggerating about how much time something else would take to occur, but it would’ve been a little bit better. Her problem, however, is the fact that she doubled-down time after time with that specific number of years.
 
Just last month, she created a video (which was also mocked) charging that the world would end in just 12 years due to climate change. She even captioned the video (which was shared on Twitter) with: “Climate change is here + we’ve got a deadline: 12 years left to cut emissions in half…”
 
The video itself shares that same deadline of specifically twelve years to act on climate change.
 
Last month, she held an Instagram live-stream where one of her viewers mocked her doomsday clock, which triggered the lunatic socialist and replied: “We have twelve years left to cut emissions by at least 50 percent if not more. For everyone who wants to make a joke about that, you may laugh but your grandkids will not, so understand that the internet documents everything.”
 
A little ironic considering she is now claiming she was joking about that, and she’s certainly right: the internet does document everything, especially the words of a moron like her.
 
But what is perhaps the funniest thing about this entire situation is the fact that those who applauded her for her doomsday warning back in January and continued to applaud it as it was relentlessly mocked very clearly took it literally. They honestly were brought to the belief that the world would end in only twelve years. After all, it prompted a bunch of children to try to scold Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-China) about climate change and the deadline of 12 years.
 
So the people that she mostly insults here are not Republicans or conservatives who took her literally (because she was being literal up until now, I suppose), but rather, her own constituents, who were convinced the world would end by the 2030s if we didn’t implement the Red… erm, I mean, Green New Deal, totally uprooting our entire economic system over the heavily misguided belief that we are killing our own planet due to our capitalism (honestly, I don’t understand how one comes to believe such a dumb rhetoric).
 
It’s her own constituents, some of which were in that January MLK forum in New York City, that came to believe her and apparently have the intellect of a sea sponge (which I think is insulting to SpongeBob SquarePants considering even he understands the value of employment and considering he has something many socialist Millennials don’t: his own house). They are the ones who took the doomsday warning very literally and very seriously (as she intended), so are they the ones who have the intellectual capabilities of an aquatic sponge? AOC seems to think so.
 
And that’s the beautiful irony of this entire situation. While pretty much everyone took her warning literally, only those who actually believe we are killing our planet took it seriously. And they are the ones who are actually targeted, if inadvertently, by AOC’s insult.
 
Those of us who understand ACTUAL science understand that the climate, while changing, is not even close to being heavily affected by humans. Matter of fact, according to a recent study, the Tropical Atlantic was 7.5° C WARMER 10 to 15 thousand years ago, when CO2 levels hovered around 220 ppm (roughly half of what they are now).
 
“Evidence from the tropical Atlantic indicates today’s regional temperatures (15.5°C) are 7.5°C colder than peak temperatures (23°C) between 15,000 to 10,000 years ago, when CO2 hovered around 220 ppm.”
 
What’s funny is that in simply looking up what “ppm” means, I came across multiple articles talking about how CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been, hitting 415 ppm, and talking about how bad that is. As we just demonstrated, CO2 levels mean absolutely nothing to the overall climate of the planet, but these people are convinced (by people like AOC) that we are killing our planet with CO2 and if CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been, that is a terrible thing.
 
The Left are the ones who promulgate the belief that we are killing our planet, as evidenced by the literal climate hysteria the Left seems to cycle through themselves. So it stands to reason that those who lean more towards the Left will take AOC’s climate doomsday warning of 12 years, max, to be quite literal, serious and alarming. The whole POINT of such a doomsday clock is to get people scared and riled up about climate change so that they would vote into office those who would pass and apply socialist policies like the Green New Deal which would effectively kill the United States economy almost immediately and legitimately ruin millions of people’s very way of life if they even come to survive at all.
 
Food shortages would be very, very common with the outlawing of fossil fuels as farming equipment largely, if not exclusively, rely on fossil fuels. The Green New Deal would effectively kill the country, not just economically, but very literally for millions of people, but you’re not supposed to know that. “It’s all to fight climate change”, is what they say. And considering how much of an emphasis climate change is for these people to go so far as to compare it with a WORLD WAR, you’re supposed to back up any “solution” offered by the Left even if it literally kills people (and considering the Left’s efforts to dehumanize people and some college professors’ insistence that the planet would be far better off without humans living in it, I’d say their efforts to devalue human life are well on their way for this sort of action to take place and be viewed as something acceptable).
 
Although we’ll have to see where things go from here now that AOC has backtracked with her doomsday warning. I’d say that “twelve years before we die” rhetoric was much of the driving force behind the GND. Ironically, she might flip-flop once again in the near future to say we only have a certain amount of time before we all die, once again leading people to be scared enough to pass the cyanide pill of a legislation that is the GND.
 
But as it stands, I will laugh merrily at the fact that AOC was largely calling her own constituents idiots more so than conservatives, even if she did not mean to.
 
Romans 1:22
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

This is something anyone with a functioning brain can figure out, but it is always good to have a study backing up such thoughts. Common sense and logic dictate that the Green New Deal, even if it worked as advertised, would do nothing to combat climate change considering it would only apply to the U.S. and there are other countries that pollute even more than we do.
 
But a study from the American Enterprise Institute looked into this sort of thing and found the same results: the GND, even if it worked exactly as advertised, doing everything it did financially effectively, would do next to nothing to combat climate change.
 
The study, written by Benjamin Zycher, begins by saying that the GND’s central goal is to implement policies that would “reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero, or to ‘net zero’, by 2050 in some formulations,” and that the way it would go about it is by “reducing sharply the economic value of some substantial part of the US resource base and the energy-producing and energy-consuming capital stock,” which the proposal claims would “increase the size of the economy in real terms, increase employment, improve environmental quality, and improve distributional equity.”
 
To Zycher, that is a “’broken windows’ argument: The destruction of resources increases aggregate wealth. It is not to be taken seriously.”
 
Zycher then notes that “the future temperature impacts of the zero-emissions objective would be barely distinguishable from zero: 0.173° by 2100, under the maximum Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change parameter… Under the assumption consistent with the findings reported in the recent peer-reviewed literature, the effect would be 0.083° by 2100, a policy impact not measurable against normal variation in temperatures.”
 
In other words, the impact of the GND on climate change would be pretty much unnoticeable even in 80 years. And considering we only have 12 years to live, according to the brilliant AOC, I’d say that’s not a good thing.
 
But Zycher does not simply end there. He also recognizes what the GND’s TRUE purpose is. It is not about fighting climate change, despite what the people supporting it will claim. It’s such a ridiculous and not-at-all well-thought-out proposal that one glance is all anyone needs to tell this wouldn’t work.
 
Replacing every single building in the country? Eliminating cow farts? Those two things alone are pretty darn impossible to pull off, let alone all the other junk in it.
 
No, its true purpose is to fundamentally change the United States into the definition of a socialist country: a country where the government owns the means of production. As Zycher puts it, the GND’s “real goal is wealth redistribution to favored political interests under the GND social-policy agenda and a dramatic increase in government control of resource allocation more generally.”
 
It is policy meant to give all the power to those in government while utterly decimating everyone else. Especially considering the GND’s electricity mandate, which would cost tax payers around $490.5 billion a year, and that’s a CONSERVATIVE estimate, or $3,845 per household. According to Zycher, this “impact would vary considerably across the states if the GND were financed through electricity rates rather than the federal budget. Under such a ratepayer finance assumption, the lowest household cost of $222 per year would be observed in Vermont. The highest would be observed in Wyoming: $17,103 per household per year.”
 
And just like that, Wyoming would lose pretty much all of its population. And considering they only have about 577,000 people in that entire state (I was honestly stunned at that number. There are more people in the city of Portland, Oregon than in all of Wyoming?), I’d say that state is particularly screwed by the GND.
 
But do you want to know what the cherry on top of all of that is? Not only would people be utterly financially screwed with an added tax to pay for this GND on top of everything else they need to pay, but this mandate alone would actually HARM the environment more than it would help it.
 
“Because of the need for conventional backup generation to avoid blackouts in a ‘100 percent renewable system’ and because those backup units would have to be cycled up and down depending on wind and sunlight conditions, one ironic effect would be GHG emissions from natural gas-fired backup generation 22 percent higher than those resulting in 2017 from all natural gas-fired power generation. And those backup emissions would be over 35 percent of the emissions from all power generation in 2017.”
 
In other words, because wind and solar are so unreliable when it comes to the energy they produce, the backup generators would actually heavily increase greenhouse emissions (you know, that naughty word?). It would actually be WORSE for the environment to switch to wind and/or solar, not to mention they also do not produce anywhere near the same amount of energy that fossil fuel does, so blackouts would be frequent almost regardless of conditions (depending on where you live).
 
So the GND literally cannot even TRY to work as advertised, that is, it cannot do anything favorable to fight climate change, as the electricity mandate alone would work against that goal, even if we could actually somehow afford it, which we definitely cannot.
 
The GND should be considered a complete and total joke, top to bottom, but there are some really stupid people out there who think this is a good idea. Well, once their homes stop having working electricity (and God knows the U.S. can’t literally replace all of its buildings even within a century), their supermarkets are emptied because the farming equipment we currently have would be outlawed so food production would severely decline, and you overall have massive famines and riots, then maybe people will stop thinking the GND is so great.
 
Seriously, the GND is national suicide. It would almost immediately destroy the country in every aspect. And all to perhaps help decrease global temperatures by virtually zero in 80 years.
 
What a great plan.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Shifting our focus away from more serious matters and looking towards something of entertainment and comedy, we can find a short video of an adorable 8-year-old girl who bears a striking resemblance to the female lunatic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, even going as far as to tie her hair in a knot, put on glasses and don some red lipstick.
 
The video, filmed by her father, who says that many in their family noted the resemblance the girl and the Congresswoman have, shows the girl talking about climate change and socialism in a hilarious video that greatly mocks the lunatic and at least relatively showcases the girl’s superior intelligence (at least in the fact she was more than happy to give a very good mocking of AOC).
 
The video begins with the girl saying: “Like, I’m Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aka AOC, and like, I wanna talk about climate change…”, expertly mocking the fact that AOC talks like a teenage girl.
 
Continuing: “… because, like, there’s no doubt cow farts are making the climate change. Like, in July, the climate was 96 degrees and in February, the climate was 36 degrees. OMG, like that is a huge change in the climate in only…” she then proceeds to count using her fingers “four months! Like, at this rate, the world is gonna end in exactly 12 years, and, like, I’m only 29 years old now so the world will be over when I’m only…” again counts on her hand, “37 years old!” Obviously, the math is wrong, but that makes it all the funnier.
 
The girl mocks the type of climate alarmism cycle the media and the Left undergoes every six months. When it’s winter, they claim that it’s global cooling and it’s really cold because of climate change. When it’s summer, they claim it’s global warming and it’s really hot because of climate change. This is the same cycle we go through every single time we have summer and winter and it only highlights how unbelievably stupid these people are.
 
And not ignorant, but plain stupid. Ignorance would be not knowing that the Earth’s rotation around the Sun and on its own axis isn’t perfect, so we both get closer and farther away from the Sun and our planet moves between having the northern hemisphere receive more sunlight and having the southern hemisphere receive more sunlight. These are things that are taught (even if I didn’t explain them all that well) in elementary school. Even if I didn’t explain this very well, you know and can picture what I am talking about.
 
It’s hilarious that this little girl points out how unbelievably ridiculous it is for people to believe climate change has to do with the fact that it’s cold in the winter and hot in the summer. And for those who want to give the Left some leeway, yes, the Left largely talks about record highs and lows, not simply that it’s hot during summer and cold during winter, but considering there were far more record highs and lows a century ago than there are now, they ought to know just how little the climate is actually changing, at least in terms of drastic weather and temperature changes.
 
The girl then goes on to talk about socialism: “Like, I also wanna talk about socialism because socialism is so amazing! Like, socialism is actually short for ‘social media’. Did you know that? Like, I use social media, so I’m a socialist, and, like, three of the most successful countries in the world are socialist too. Venezuela, Facebook and Twitter are all very successful socialist countries. I have a lot of friends who moved to America from Facebook.”
 
Sadly, that is where the video ends, but it was brilliant through and through. I particularly loved the part where she mentions three successful countries that are socialist being Venezuela, Facebook and Twitter.
 
Apart from the fact that Facebook and Twitter are not actually countries (big shocker), I can’t help but think that she is right in as far as they are socialist. Ignoring the parts about power being centralized to one person or a small group of people because all businesses run that way, the companies are very socialist-leaning and employ censorship models that are very socialistic.
 
You can be put into Twitter or Facebook jail if you say something they don’t like or share something they disagree with. Exactly like the socialists and communists have done in the past and continue to do. I mean, remember when Jorge Ramos was detained by Venezuelan officials just because he dared show the evils that the Maduro regime was imposing on the Venezuelan people? Ramos is fairly close to Maduro in terms of political ideologies, but he showed him something he didn’t like and was treated like a criminal for it. How much worse off would a Venezuelan journalist have been in that situation? How much worse off would someone who is actually a capitalist have been?
 
And while Facebook and Twitter don’t physically put you in a jail to rot, they restrict your access and ability to exercise your first amendment rights to whomever you wish just because they disagree with what you are saying or sharing. Even if you are a feminist Leftist, if you dare criticize transgender women (men who claim to be women. Yes, it is sad that I understand the terminology and how it works) as not being actual women, you get put into Facebook or Twitter jail.
 
That’s socialism, or at least socialistic behavior.
 
Now, I don’t know if the girl had a script that was likely written by her parents, but there were parts that at least appeared like she was not reading from a script and was improvising. Like the part about telling people that socialism was short for “social media” sounded fairly improvised and something she thought up on the spot. Not to mention that even if it was all scripted, it’s clear to me that her parents are smart people, so there is good chance that the girl will turn out smart as well and recognize what she is saying here and find it funny too. Even if she doesn’t actually know what socialism is and was simply told by her parents to use that word in this context, she will know eventually and she at least has the potential to be smarter than the 29-year-old cartoon character of a Congresswoman.
 
According to the New York Post, the girl did not know who AOC was before she made the video, which is understandable considering I did not know or care about anyone of importance from the government when I was 8 apart from Argentina’s then-president Kirchner, and only then because my parents heavily disliked the guy and often talked about him. At that age, I did not care one wit about anything relating to the government or “adult” stuff and I only cared about cartoons, Power Rangers, my friends, and things kids care about. This also leads me to believe the kid does not, or at least did not, know about socialism, but again, her parents do know, so she has a good chance of being taught the right way and the right things about it and its horrors.
 
Still, the video is very funny and went viral on the internet, garnering over a million views. According to her step-father, the girl loves to act, so that might’ve been one of the reasons she went along with it.
 
Regardless, again, it shows that the girl at least has the potential to be quite smart in the future, even if she doesn’t know what socialism is. Again, at that age, I did not know either. I was not paying attention to the world around me and was simply told stories and things from my parents, such as Argentina going into default and the government stealing people’s money (including my family’s). It was at that moment that I started to not like the government so much, at least the Argentine government.
 
But one can only hope that this girl will not grow up to be the dunderhead she is portraying in this short video. Here’s hoping and praying she will be properly educated (not indoctrinated) and will recognize the evils of socialism and the Left.
 
Proverbs 22:6
“Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In a recent House Oversight Committee, socialist lunatic and less-popular-than-Trump-in-her-own-state Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel if inaction or even delayed action on climate change could cost American lives, which both said “yes” to, which AOC agreed with.
 
Ignoring the fact that this is basically like asking your mom if you really are a “handsome boy” (of course she's going to say you are. SHE'S YOUR MOM), what all of these people are saying is flatly untrue.
 
In my previous article about climate change, specifically man-made climate change, I talked about how our CO2 emissions are completely unnoticeable in our climate and taking everyone out of the planet would not make any difference whatsoever in how warm or cold the planet would get for a variety of reasons, chief among which is that God is the one in control of the planet, not us.
 
So from that alone, we can see the falsehoods of AOC’s, John Kerry’s and Chuck Hagel’s statement and assumptions. There is no such thing as man-made climate change. We have no control over it, so no resolution will do anything to “remedy” the false problem.
 
And certainly, not acting on it or “delaying” action on it is not going to cost lives whatsoever. Climate change has not killed anyone ever. People can die from being too cold or too hot, no doubt, but the long-term change of the climate is not responsible for any deaths. It’d be like claiming that water slowly kills people because we all drink it and eventually die. People certainly do die, eventually, but water or the changing climate is not the culprit (unless someone drowns, of course).
 
However, I know of something that will 100% cause American deaths if applied: the Green New Deal.
 
While I’ve already talked extensively about it, I felt it necessary to mention this considering AOC’s chosen words of climate change inaction or delay-of-action would cost American lives.
 
We already are fairly familiar with the concept that the GND would cost nearly $100 TRILLION on American taxpayers, but one little article from RealClear Politics and one table in that article really helps put that massive number into perspective.
 
The article I am talking about is titled: “Why the Green New Deal is Financially Lethal”. Now, that is as obvious a statement to make as if one where to write an article saying: “Why Michael Jordan is a Basketball Legend.” Of course MJ is a basketball legend and of course the Green New Deal is financially lethal. The only difference here is that there are really stupid people out there (namely children who choose to skip school to yell at old ladies that they need to implement the GND) who think the GND is the greatest thing since sliced bread and will bring nothing but good things like a saved planet, unicorns, free money for everyone and not ever having to worry about anything ever.
 
So the writer of the article mentions in great detail just why the GND would be so disastrous for Americans.
 
The article says that “the top 50% of all earners account for about $8 trillion - $9 trillion in Americans’ income and produce somewhere between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in tax receipts (excluding Social Security and Medicare taxes). The top 10% account for only half of this income but 70% of the taxes. The lower half contribute a mere 2.7% of income taxes.”
 
In other words, not even the richest of the rich have the money to pay for even 10% of the estimated cost of the Green New Deal, even if you were to literally take all of their money. Which, of course, means that everyone else will be forced to contribute, so the GND is not only a “tax on the rich”. It’s a tax on everyone, which means those already at the bottom will suffer the most.
 
The article also shows a table that I will detail to you. The table is split into three categories: the “goal” or the planned portion of the GND, the estimated cost of that plan and the estimated cost per household, all for the first ten years of the GND were it to be applied starting in 2020.
 
The table reads as follows:
 
Goal: Low-Carbon Electricity Grid; Estimated cost: $5.4 trillion; Estimated cost per household: $39,000.
 
In other words, each household will be forced to pay an extra $39,000. Now, I don’t think this is per year, but a total cost, but keep in mind that that’s just for ONE aspect of the Green New Deal. Let’s keep going, shall we?
 
Goal: Net Zero Emissions Transport System; Estimated cost: $1.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion; estimated cost per household: $9,000 to $20,000.
 
Goal: Guaranteed Jobs; Estimated cost: $6.8 trillion to $44.6 trillion; cost per household: $49,000 to $322,000.
 
Goal: Universal Health Care; Estimated cost: $36 trillion; cost per household: $260,000.
 
Goal: Guaranteed Green Housing; Estimated cost: $1.6 trillion to $4.2 trillion; cost per household: $4,000 to $12,000.
 
Goal: Food Security; Estimated cost: $1.5 billion; cost per household: $10.
 
I also want you to keep in mind that this table is just for the first roughly 10 years of the Green New Deal (and this table also doesn’t include things like eliminating air travel and implementing a train system in its place, etc.). All of these costs are for the first 10 years of the resolution. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I can make at least $361,000 every ten years (and that’s using the low estimate costs) to pay in taxes AND STILL PAY THINGS LIKE RENT, WATER, FOOD AND TAXES OUTSIDE OF THIS PROPOSAL!
 
The average family income per year in the U.S. is around $56,000. Times ten, that’s $560,000, but that’s before tax. Those who make that much money per year are charged a 12% tax rate UNDER TRUMP’S TAX RATE WHICH THE LEFT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY JACK UP!
 
And that’s just income tax. With only that, people making the average for a household will be left with only $50,000 after income tax alone (roughly). So there is even less money to take from the pool to pay for any one of these items included in the Green New Deal, let alone all of it. My point here is that people simply can’t possibly afford paying the taxes from the Green New Deal AND afford to live even remotely comfortably.
 
And like I’ve said multiple times: socialism doesn’t create wealth, it destroys it. Those at the top are made poorer under socialism (unless they are in the government) and those who already were poor are made poorer still. Just look at Venezuela. They used to be one of, if not the richest nation in Latin America, but after years of socialism, the government is rationing ELECTRICITY!
 
And by the way, don’t think that just because we are not them that we can’t end up like them. Universal healthcare, which is supposed to be free, is notorious for having to ration its supplies. In Great Britain, for example, the elderly are forced to go blind because of rationing in their healthcare system. They can’t get surgeries to correct or even save their eyesight, so they go blind.
 
And in Venezuela, hospitals barely have the supplies to treat their patients, so you bet there’s a lot of rationing going around.
 
So those who really need healthcare, those at the bottom, are made to suffer the most. They are the most likely to get sick and/or hurt and are the most likely to need healthcare that is now made to serve the “greater good”, resulting in rationing and a lower standard of healthcare.
 
Proposals like the Green New Deal are truly what would bring about American deaths.
 
“But it’s supposed to help the environment,” I hear you say. Yeah, well, a whole lot of good that’s gonna do if we are the only ones stupid enough to do this. The GND, even if it could actually do what is advertised of it: save the planet, is still only an American proposal. The biggest carbon gas emitters in the world are India and China and you don’t see them give a single flying you-know-what about the environment. They are not going to implement something as stupid as the GND BECAUSE THEY DON’T NEED TO! India is already socialist enough. China is literally communist. They already have all the power they could want (of course, people always want more, but still).
 
The REAL point of the Green New Deal is to force America to make a hard turn towards socialism, where the government regulates everything (and I do mean everything, if California has considered text taxes and “drinking water” taxes). The REAL point of the GND is to fundamentally change America into an unrecognizable socialist monster, something it was never meant to be.
 
The REAL point of the GND is to give people like AOC as much control over you as they can get. As a result, not only are the people left without any freedom whatsoever, but they are left to never experience the benefits that were promised.
 
People are promised that the GND would “solve” climate change. It can’t for the reasons I stated in the beginning. People are promised that the GND would provide people with healthcare. Yeah, Venezuelan-style healthcare. People are promised that the GND would provide guaranteed jobs for everyone. It would literally terminate the vast majority of jobs today.
 
And it’s the same song and dance as it’s ever been. Lenin promised the people of Russia power. He gave himself all the power. All dictators promise people the world if they help them get into power. It always ends the same way: with the dictators living with all the power and the people left to be their worthless subjects.
 
Like the devil, the Left promises people the whole world, but it’s always one massive lie. Satan promised Eve she would be like God, knowing good and evil. But that came at the cost of her and Adam being kicked out of literal paradise. The Left promises safety from a fictitious man-made change in climate, but at the cost of individual freedom.
 
Adam and Eve did not even become like God by eating of the forbidden fruit. The first thing they did upon eating the fruit is acknowledge their nakedness – not their sin against God, but their shameful nakedness. What knowledge of good and evil did they receive, then? Certainly not one akin to God’s.
 
Likewise, the American people would not receive the advertised benefits of this proposal. All they would receive is being kicked out of capitalist paradise.
 
These are promises that are meant to ensnare people, but will never actually come to fruition. Only Satan benefited from tricking Eve and only the government benefits from socialism.
 
But certainly, both Satan and socialists are eventually punished by God.
 
The Green New Deal, with its high-cost plans, is the only thing that would actually cost Americans their lives. It is financial suicide that could lead to actual suicide for many. One can only hope nothing close to the Green New Deal is ever made into law, for that would mark the official end of the United States of America.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One of the arguments the Left often makes about climate change, more specifically, man-made climate change, is that there is a consensus in the scientific field around the idea that man is causing harm to the planet and we need to take care of that.
 
Unsurprisingly, much like any other argument the Left ever makes, that is full of lies. Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris, a climatologist and an Executive Director, respectively, at the International Climate Science Coalition in Ottowa, Canada, wrote a column on America Out Loud titled: “The Biggest Lie Ever Told – Man-made Global Warming”.
 
In this piece, they quickly establish some basic truths about our climate: it’s “well within the range of natural climate variability through Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history. In fact, it is within the range of the climate change of the last 10,000 years, a period known as the Holocene, 95% of which was warmer than today.”
 
They also establish the fact that CO2 does nothing to increase the global temperature, as there were substantial increases in the world’s temperature before CO2 became so known and used in things like airplanes, cars, etc. The only place where CO2 raises global temperatures is in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s models.
 
They also quote Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels on what he said about lying to people (as a minister of propaganda naturally would do): “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”
 
And one can’t help but to think of the countless times Leftists, be it elected Democrats or members of the media, have sought to silence those who would dare challenge the idea that man is causing global warming. I mean, Al Gore even suggested fairly recently to basically criminalize denying climate change hysteria. That tells you the sort of Nazi-like ideology that lives within the modern-day Left: the enemy of their reality is the truth, and those who speak the truth are, by extension, their enemies as well – enemies that cannot be allowed to speak the truth.
 
Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris also highlight a few of the lies perpetuated by a radical Left, which include: “It is warmer now than ever before; There is more severe weather now than before; CO2 levels are the highest ever; Arctic and Antarctic sea levels are the lowest ever; Extinction rates are the highest ever; Polar bear populations are in serious decline; Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate.”
 
They also mention the fact that Obama constantly perpetuated these lies, with the help of his EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
 
The biggest problem the Left faces in trying to sell this climate change hysteria is the fact that a state needs to constantly repeat the lie for people to believe it. Eight years of Obama helped the state lie to the people an awful lot, but elections are a thing in this country. Dictators have the advantage of either not having to run over and over or simply rigging elections to be constantly and eternally re-elected. However, the Electoral College affords Americans the opportunity to select their new President in a system that is, according to Obama, impossible to “hack” or “rig”.
 
We see this be the case considering that Trump is President and his EPA is not run by climate lunatics.
 
According to Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris: “The Trump Administration has proposed to establish a Presidential Commission on Climate Security, headed by former Princeton physicist Will Happer, to expose the climate lie by disclosing how the IPCC only examined human causes of climate change. They will show how natural climate change completely overwhelms any human effect. For example, human production of CO2 is less than the uncertainty in the measurement of the transfer of CO2 from two natural sources: the oceans, and the vegetation and land. In other words, if we removed all the people from the planet, a scientist left behind to measure the CO2 levels would not detect any difference.”
 
Which is really something to take into consideration in any climate change debate. HUMANS DO NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DESTROY THE PLANET WITHOUT NUKES! We simply do not output enough CO2 to make even a noticeable, much less significant, impact on the climate. Why else do you think we hear of stories of the Arctic or Antarctic seeing an increase in sheets of ice? Because whatever the Left claims we are doing to the climate is simply untrue.
 
We see this in the fact that they switched from saying “global warming” to simply calling it “climate change”, so as to cover the only two possible changes in the climate: warmth or cold. And somehow, people are alarmed by this? THIS IS HOW OUR PLANET WORKS! There are periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth and we are experiencing neither extreme. It makes as little sense to be worried about this as it would be to be worried about gravity.
 
This is NATURE. And guess what? Humanity has survived. Hot and cold, it’s survived.
 
And by the way, I find it absolutely hilarious that the “scientific community” as the Left calls them claims that the planet has never been warmer. Well, if my high school science class memory serves me right, there was a period of time before there was any life on Earth when the planet was literally a massive ball of magma and lava and fire after it was first formed (by something I don’t quite remember what the science class said, but definitely did not credit God) and went through a period of cooling down after that.
 
So it is an outright lie to say the planet’s never been warmer because we would all be swimming in lava right now if that were the case.
 
In any case, Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris return to Goebbels’ concept that a lie can be maintained as long as the state shields the people from political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. They note that in 1998, the Kyoto Protocol was established, which was essentially the same exact thing as the Paris Climate Agreement. The Kyoto Protocol, despite being a supposed “answer” for climate change (and Kyoto Protocol supporter Tom Wigley estimated that even if all the reduction targets were met, the temperature would lower only by 0.05° by 2050, so a completely unnoticeable change) would’ve done something similar to what the Paris Climate Agreement would’ve done: cripple the U.S. economy to fight an invisible enemy.
 
The U.S. Senate looked into the Kyoto Protocol but the Byrd/Hagel Resolution (the only thing I can give honest props to Robert Byrd for) stated that America should not be a signatory to “any agreement based on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that would seriously damage the U.S. economy and didn’t include emissions reductions for developing countries that were similar to those imposed on the U.S.” That resolution passed unanimously, 95-0.
 
However, based on that, you can tell that Obama’s Democrat Party was considerably different. The Paris Climate Agreement was made to do exactly what the Kyoto Protocol was supposed to do: force the U.S. to comply to strict environmental regulations (which would cripple the economy) but other nations would not be forced to do much at all. And similarly to the Kyoto Protocol, someone estimated that even if all the requirements were met, the change would be entirely unnoticeable.
 
And as things stand today, the Stanford Energy Forum and the Asia Modelling Exercise estimate the Paris Climate Agreement to cost $1 – 2 trillion every YEAR.
 
But if you remember correctly, when Trump made the great choice of pulling the U.S. out of the deal, the Left cried as though it was the end of the world, with many actually claiming it would lead to the end of the world. No, it led to the end of the United States getting shafted by globalist organizations seeking to steal our money.
 
I can’t help but keep remembering that Goebbels quote and seeing the Left perfectly fitting the bill. They insist that “climate deniers” should not be given any platform to speak, essentially marking them as the enemy of the state, with some even actually wanting to criminalize and punish offering a different point of view.
 
Peter Buttigieg, the unholy hypocrite, said that to him, if people are faced with adversity, they are not free. In other words, he is not free if anyone were to offer a differing point of view from his own as he considers that to be adversity. And all of a sudden, that person is branded as an oppressor and someone who is taking away his freedom. That is the definition of irony right there: denying someone the freedom to speak while claiming he or she is denying someone else their freedom.
 
This is how a dictatorship starts. This is how an out of control government, led by a tyrant, starts. Insisting that someone will be free if they submit to slavery or servitude is a tale as old as time. A despot promising safety for the people in exchange for their freedom ultimately provides neither.
 
As Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
 
And what the Left is offering is “safety” from man-made climate change in exchange for liberty. Of course, they don’t broadcast it, but that is what they are ultimately offering. The Green New Deal was going to get rid of planes, farting cows and ALL BUILDINGS AND VEHICLES THAT ARE NOT UP TO THEIR GREEN STANDARDS! If that is not forcing the people to give up their liberty, I don’t know what is.
 
But as far as these two guys go, that article is pretty great. It shows that (even though I already knew this) there is not absolute, unanimous consensus in the scientific field about climate change. Not everyone is willing to lie to the people of the world that we are killing our planet. We are making no noticeable contribution to it, one way or the other, so no need to fret about it.
 
God is the one in control of the world’s climate. Not us. The idea that we could wrestle control away from Him is ludicrous at best and outright blasphemous at worst.
 
1 Chronicles 29:11
“Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Ever since the hoax that mankind has been destroying the earth with all our capitalism and our good livelihoods began, the Left has been trying to back up the farce with some evidence to prove their claims. And while they often TRY to cite evidence, all the evidence they show either is a prediction of what will happen in the next ten to fifty to one hundred years (with data made by men, of course) or the evidence points to actual weather patterns of hot and cold records, but do not tell the whole story surrounding them.

The latter is what AP reporter Seth Borenstein tried recently.
 
He wrote: “The AP looked at 424 weather stations throughout the Lower 48 states that had consistent temperature records since 1920 and counted how many times daily hot temperature records were tied or broken and how many daily cold records were set. In a stable climate, the numbers should be roughly equal. Since 1999, the ratio has been two warm records set or broken for every cold one. In 16 of the last 20 years, there have been more daily high-temperature records than low.”
 
Borenstein even cited some climate scientists: “The AP shared the data analysis with several climate and data scientists, who all said the conclusion was correct, consistent with scientific peer-reviewed literature and showed a clear sign of human-caused climate change. They pointed out that trends over decades are more robust than over single years.”
 
Finally, he concluded by saying: “The analysis stopped with data through 2018. However, the first two months of 2019 are showing twice as many cold records than hot ones.”
 
Gee, I wonder why, in the middle of winter, there appear to be more cold temperatures than hot ones.
 
Jokes aside, the climate scientists that Seth spoke with do not speak for ALL climate scientists.
 
Climatologist John Christy told The Daily Signal: “The occurrence of both record highs and record lows is declining. Record-low events are simply declining more rapidly than record highs. The drop in record lows is associated with development around the weather stations, which causes low temperatures to increase more than highs for a variety of reasons.”
 
He continued: “The AP… is spinning the story by only noting that record lows are fewer than highs now – but the real story is that in the U.S., both extremes are falling. This is consistent with the decline in number of days greater than 100 [degrees] Farenheit… The differential decline in record temps is inconsistent with [greenhouse gas] theory, which predicts an increase in record highs and higher TMax in general.”
 
According to the Daily Signal: “Most climate change activists cite the greenhouse gas theory – that man-made gases are causing changes to the Earth’s temperature. Christy noted that this theory predicts an increase in frequency of record-breaking temperatures. Yet the exact opposite is happening in the U.S. – the frequency of those temps is declining.”
 
Christy notes that the reason for this is likely “urbanization and natural variability.”
 
Christy says: “I’ve actually done this same analysis for the 682 [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] stations with at least 105 years of record since 1895. It is clear that the occurrence of both record high and record lows has declined since 1895, thanks to many records set from the 1920s to 1954.”
 
In other words, the greenhouse gas theory is wrong, plain and simple. It predicts that there will be more and more record-breaking temperatures, but the reality of the situation is that there has been a decent decline in the last 100 years.
 
Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. also weighed in on the AP’s findings: “Without assessing the role of increased urbanization and other land-use changes… changes in atmospheric aerosols overhead, microclimate around observing site, changes in heights of observations, and concurrent trends in surface air humidity, it is not robust to attribute any changes in extreme temperatures to just human-added atmospheric CO2.”
 
In English, he’s saying that there are a lot of variables included in the calculating of the changing climate to simply attribute an overall change to “HUMANS ARE KILLING THE PLANET” paranoia.
 
Now, this is far from the first time this Seth Borenstein fellow has tried to pass off bogus or context-less data as proof of man-made climate change. However, this goes to show just how little the Left actually has in their efforts to prove something that is not there.
 
Unfortunately, despite how honest-to-God ridiculous this climate change hysteria is, around 20% of Americans blame global warming for this past cold winter, according to Gallup. I’m not joking.
 
43% of Americans surveyed “said temperatures where they live were colder than normal, with 19 percent blaming global warming for colder weather,” reported the Daily Caller.
 
I don’t know how often I have to point out the obvious ridiculousness of blaming global WARMING for colder temperatures.
 
But yet, the Left’s push to make everyone dependable morons is working well enough for them. I mean, they already have scared children half to death with talks about them not having a future all in an effort to steal away power and freedom from the American people.
 
I often say that it takes far more faith to believe in climate change than it does God. And since I talked about God and science yesterday, it makes sense to bring this up here: we see evidence of God’s existence EVERYWHERE. However, you can’t even come anywhere close to saying the same of climate change. All the evidence the Left protrudes, as I said earlier, is either a prediction of future temperatures (man-made data, in other words) and the noting of the fact that there are, indeed, record-highs and lows in temperatures, but ignoring completely the fact that such occurrences have been declining in the last century.
 
The matter of fact is this: as God is the one who created everything, including planet Earth, He is the one that is in control of what happens to it. If He decides that it will warm up heavily, it will warm up heavily. If He decides it will severely cool down, it will severely cool down.
 
For the fact that God is sovereign enough to verbally ordain light to exist and the entire universe to be created, I find it odd that so many think He is somehow unable to control the climate and that humanity has wrestled such control away from Him.
 
Genesis 1:1-3
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face if the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I always find amusing when one environmentalist wacko is attacked by another environmentalist wacko (although Patrick Moore, the man I am talking about here, seems to have strayed from the extremist environmentalism of Greenpeace for some time now, so I should call him an ex-environmentalist wacko).
 
And recently, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore once again shredded Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over her “Green New Deal” and, more specifically, her hypocrisy over using air travel, something she adamantly wants to eliminate according to her proposal.
 
I say he once again shredded AOC because he’s apparently destroyed her multiple times and this is the first time I’m hearing about it.
 
Before I get ahead of myself, let me tell you of the most recent attack from Moore to AOC. Ocasio-Cortez, according to the New York Post, adamantly uses air and car travel, both of which are supposed no-no’s for these wackos.
 
So Ocasio-Cortez, not believing she is a hypocrite because no hypocrite ever believes that’s what they are, mocked the NY Post article by tweeting: “I also fly & use A/C. Living in the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future. The Green New Deal is about putting a LOT of people to work in developing new technologies, building new infrastructure, and getting us to 100% renewable energy.”
 
I myself could destroy her argument, as I have with other hypocrites like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, but Patrick Moore does a pretty good job in my stead: “The ‘world as it is’ has the option of taking the subway rather than a taxi. Option of Amtrak rather than plane, option of opening windows rather than A/C. You’re just a garden-variety hypocrite like the others. And you have ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know.”
 
And like I said previously, this is not the first time he’s obliterated her arguments.
 
Back when AOC tweeted about her being in charge and the rest of us “just shouting from the cheap seats”, he really laid into her: “Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.”
 
That is a fantastic argument that I did not bring up in my article calling her out over this tweet (largely because that article focused on her corruption and belief she is everyone’s boss now instead of a public SERVANT, but still).
 
And indeed it is something that should be considered. Ban fossil fuel and the overwhelming majority of the world comes to a screeching halt. All fossil-fueled cars would be banned and all electric and hybrid cars would be made irrelevant because the vast majority of them require fossil fuels to charge them up from power grids.
 
As a result, most people are faced with a challenge in going to work, getting their kids to school (no school buses either), getting groceries, stores receiving groceries in the first place, farming equipment no longer being able to farm as much food, hospitals receiving new supplies, businesses failing to receive new inventory to sell… the entire structure of the modern world would come to a halt and forced to regress by CENTURIES, but with the added challenge of trying to feed nearly 8 billion people.
 
At least back when manual labor and primitive farming tools were more widely used, populations were far smaller. Part of the population booms we’ve had in recent time is due to the ability to afford to have such booms in terms of food production (and you should already know I don’t subscribe to the lunatic Malthusian theory).
 
But as Moore suggests, humanity wouldn’t stand for such a grinding halt in progress. It would try to replace the productivity of fossil fuels with something else, namely trees, causing mass deforestations as a NECESSITY.
 
You can’t ban fossil fuels without first having a good alternative that is JUST AS GOOD AND EFFICIENT as fossil fuels, and nothing comes remotely close right now.
 
But returning to Moore, he also attacked her for comparing climate change to World War II.
 
Responding to another user who also complained about AOC saying the world is going to end if we don’t do the Green New Deal (which sounds to me like the tell-tale signs of a huge scam, like a Nigerian prince promising you millions of dollars if you send them your social security number and other private information), Moore replied: “Isn’t AOC a bit young to talk about WW2? It was Hell & more than 60 million died. It’s her GND that would be worse than WW2. Imagine no fuel for cars, trucks, tractors, combines, harvesters, power-plants, ships, aircraft, etc. Transport of people & goods would grind to a halt.”
 
Moore also attacked the Paris Climate Accord, calling it a “total sham”, wherein countries like China, India and Russia, which comprise 40% of the global population and are some of the most egregious polluters of the climate (which is why I would argue the GND wouldn’t even make a dent in what it supposedly seeks to do, even if we could afford it and there were no economic repercussions at all). The U.S.’s carbon dioxide emissions back in 2017 sat at around 5 billion metric tons. Asia Pacific, which includes China, India, and a few other countries reached north of 16 billion metric tons and is “responsible for nearly 50% of global dioxide emissions,” according to Forbes.
 
China also contributes, by a massive margin, the most ocean pollution, with 8.80 million metric tons of plastic waste per YEAR according to a Statista graph that was generated in 2010 (most recent I could find, so it’s probably a bit different now, but no doubt with China still ahead. They have no qualms with pollution).
 
According to the graph, the second leading ocean polluter is Indonesia at 3.20 million metric tons a year. It also makes sense that the top 5 leading ocean polluters in the world are from the Asia Pacific region, with the Philippines, Vietnam and Sri Lanka, respectively, being the world leaders in this. By comparison, the U.S. isn’t even in the top 10, with just 0.30 million metric tons of ocean pollution (though I’m sure the wackos in California have saved us all by banning plastic straws, the heroes).
 
So the Green New Deal, even if it were actually possible to implement without causing a massive market and economic collapse the likes we’ve never seen before, wouldn’t actually accomplish anywhere close to what it supposedly wants to accomplish. It would hardly help the environment because the U.S. hardly harms it.
 
In any case, it is always good to see someone who used to be blind to reality seeing the light. Patrick Moore, who has a PhD in Ecology, co-founded Greenpeace and eventually walked away from it (even making a video about it for PragerU) knows that whatever climate change is occurring is 1) not caused by us and 2) cannot be fixed by us.
 
It is also always good to see someone the Left would greatly accredit (he does have a PhD in Ecology, after all) utterly destroying them and their arguments using facts and logic, as always tends to happen.
 
Not that they’ll learn a darn little thing from all of this. After all, the point of the climate change movement isn’t to actually “save” the planet (well, maybe not for AOC, who adamantly believes in the crap the Left has been selling for decades). The point is to amass as much power as possible for the Democrats under the guise of “fighting” something.
 
This much is clear in China, who are just as Leftist, if not more Leftist, than the American Left but couldn’t care one wit about climate change or their own CO2 emissions and ocean pollution. They already have the power they want and were not elected with the promise of doing something about climate change (not that the Left does much of that in America anyway, given that CO2 emissions were pretty high in America under Obama).
 
But again, it is always good to see people who were in the dark coming to the light. Regardless of topic, it is always good to see people recognizing the error of their ways and finding out the truth. Of course, I also hope that apart from the ecological truth, Moore has also found the Truth of the Gospel, but this is definitely a good start.
 
Not to mention that knowing the Truth of the Gospel can be key to knowing just how little power man has, especially in comparison to God. We have absolutely no power by comparison, so there is not much we can do to ourselves if God does not permit it.
 
Colossians 1:16
“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.