In today’s media, if you aren’t hearing about how President Trump did something that makes him a racist or is an “impeachable offense”, you’re hearing about how we are destroying our planet with all our fossil fuels and our capitalism and our very existence and we need to do something like electing Democrat after Democrat in order to stop it before the 666th Doomsday clock runs out. It’s tiring and it’s all b.s., but one might come to ask the simple question of how and when did this all begin?
 
This article, if it seems familiar to you, is similar in nature to a couple of other ones where I either talked about when the first climate change warning came about (as far as we know) and the other talking about how much more the Left can say that a particular climate conference or an election is our “last chance to save the planet”.
 
The first article talked about the first warning from someone in general (to refresh your memory, it was in 1864 that the first climate change warning came up, as far as we know) and the second mentioned a number of media articles that repeated the same phrase of “last chance” to save the planet or reverse course, etc. But this one specifically talks about how far back the media has reported on particular climate change talking points. Of course, given the title spoils the surprise, the media has been doing this since at least the 1930s (again, as far as we know).
 
ClimateDepot.com shared an article that showed various pieces from the media when they talked about something in relation to climate change, at any capacity.
 
The first and earliest example comes from a Jefferson City Post-Tribune paper published on May 2nd, 1932 in Jefferson City, Missouri. The article was titled: “Melting Glaciers Would Flood Earth’s Big Cities.”
 
Sound familiar to you? It’s one of the many talking points the Left often makes: “we are melting the arctic glaciers with our capitalist system and as a result, major cities throughout the world will be flooded.”
 
The article itself started with something we are all very familiar with: “Just raise the average temperature of the earth two or three degrees and you can bid goodbye to all the big cities on earth. Glaciers will melt and oceans will rise… New York, London, Paris, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Washington, Shanghai – all gone.”
 
Well, nearly 90 years later and the glaciers are NOT melting (quite the opposite, actually) and no big city on earth has suffered from such major flooding (apart from cities like Houston, which has flooded time and time again since even BEFORE it was founded in June of 1837, but not once as a result of “climate change”). But the funny thing is that you could just take the title and the content of that article, take out the date it was published, and it would read like a normal climate change article from the NYT.
 
But in any case, another article shown by Climate Depot was published in July 21st, 1932 in Brisbane, Australia for The Queenslander. The title of the article was: “A Warmer World.”
 
“Some great world change is taking place on the Antarctic Continent,” began the article. “Its glaciers are shrinking… it appears to be continuing its century-long process of shrinking; and that process may have been going on for centuries.”
 
One thing I would like to point out is the fact that, given the timeframe of these articles, the Left cannot effectively blame gas-powered vehicles for climate change. That Queenslander article and the Jefferson City Tribune article both mention melting glaciers, which the modern Left has often attributed to the use of gas-powered vehicles such as cars, planes and ships. But the earliest combustion-engine cars, though they were around since the late 19th century, were nowhere near as prominent back then as they are today. And yet, they can be blamed for melting glaciers?
 
But the funny thing is that, while one might be able to b.s. their way around saying that there is, indeed, a connection between combustion-engine vehicles and climate change, that argument doesn’t stand the test of time.
 
What do I mean by that? Well, if one were to research the beginning of the Modern Warm Period, they would find it started at around the same time that these articles began to pop up, in the late 1920s, early 1930s. But there have been two other Warm Periods (as far as we know; there were probably more) in the history of the planet: the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from approx. 950 A.D. to 1250 A.D., and the Roman Warm Period, which lasted from approx. 250 B.C. to 400 A.D.
 
Both are periods of particularly high climate warming and NEITHER OF WHICH CAN BE BLAMED ON CAPITALISM AS THAT SYSTEM HADN’T EXISTED AT THOSE TIMES!
 
No one can blame the combustion-engine or fossil fuels for the Roman or Medieval Warm Periods. No one can blame A/Cs or lightbulbs or all the other things Leftists claim cause climate change on Warm Periods that occurred WELL before these things ever existed.
 
What’s more, considering the patterns of these two Warm Periods, the Modern Warm Period should’ve been easily-predictable. Roughly a thousand years passed between the beginning of the Roman Warm Period and the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period. Add another thousand years, and you get to the Modern Warm Period. This tells us that our climate changes in cycles, seemingly every thousand years or so, and in a thousand years, we should see the beginning of another Warm Period.
 
The Warm Periods also seemingly last for around 300 to 600 years, so considering when the last one began, I’d say the Modern Warm Period will likely end somewhere between the 2200s or 2500s, give or take a few decades or even a couple of centuries.
 
Now, while one might then argue that the articles were therefore correct, let me remind you that the articles tried to scare people into thinking we were facing a climate apocalypse totally unprecedented and it would take quite the sacrifice to reverse it. The first article talked about major cities flooding as a result of melting glaciers. The second one was, to its credit, a tad more objective and mentioned that the melting glaciers had been an occurrence for centuries.
 
But then you get an article from The New York Times (because of course it was going to be the NYT) from 1969 that was titled: “Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs,” where the “expert” that was interviewed said that the “North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.” Fast-forward FIVE decades later, and the glaciers are still there and growing in size.
 
Despite the fact that the Earth’s climate is rather obviously cyclical, ignorant people will assert that we must be doing something tremendously dangerous for the climate and that we are uniquely responsible for it and we must raise everyone’s taxes sky high in order to combat this unprecedented emergency.
 
It’s all fake and phony down to the last detail. The climate changes, not because of what humanity does, but because it’s how God made the Earth. It’s not static; it’s dynamic. The fact that it can rain or be completely sunny ought to tell people that (and before you tell me “climate and weather aren’t the same thing”, why does the Left always say that a hurricane, a weather phenomenon, is a sign of climate change?).
 
The Left, since the 1930s, has asserted that the perfectly normal change in the climate is a dangerous thing and that we must fight against it to some capacity. Now, as far as the writers from the 1930s go, I can give them some benefit of the doubt considering their technology and therefore knowledge was not quite as good as ours at the time, but there definitely is no excuse for the modern Left.
 
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they run with the idea that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, specifically as a result of living a comfortable life with our cars and our A/Cs in our capitalist economic system and our Republican governmental system. It’s all b.s., as we well know.
 
There is nothing particularly strange about a changing climate, or even a warming period. It happens in cycles and it’s not caused by us.
 
Certainly, none of the proposals brought up by the Left would do anything to help.
 
Hebrews 11:3
“By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”
 
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.

We have, for a long time, discussed just what were Margaret Sanger’s intentions in funding pro-abortion organizations: the control and elimination of other races, who are deemed “inferior” and “weaker”. This has been Planned Parenthood’s, and Leftists’, objective, though they do not really tend to be open about this. In a recent climate change townhall, however, Bernie Sanders essentially admitted that that’s what he wants to do as President of the United States.
 
During the townhall, a woman whom CNN identified as a teacher (and this terrifies but doesn’t surprise me at the same time) said the following: “Human population growth has more than doubled in the last 50 years; the planet cannot sustain this growth. Empowering women, and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you (speaking to Sanders) be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?”
 
Okay, before we get to Sanders’ answer (no points for those who can guess it), allow me to address this horrible woman’s question. First, while the Earth’s population did double in the last 50 years, we have only seen a DECREASE in poverty and NEXT TO NO FAMINES outside of socialist hellholes like Soviet Russia.
 
We are not overpopulated in the least. As I said in an article from early January of this year, the overpopulation argument stems from the heavily-flawed Malthusian theorem, wherein the theorem suggests that populations increase exponentially while food grows arithmetically, which is far from the truth, even for Malthus’ own time.
 
Ignoring the fact that technology has made it so that a lot more food can be grown by a lot less people (farmers make up less than 2% of the U.S. employment numbers and can still grow enough food to send out not only to the rest of the country, but also other countries that buy our products), the theorem itself is based on pretty much nothing. More people means more food that can be grown.
 
What’s better, having one person growing as much food as he can, or having 100 people grow as much food as they can? If populations increase exponentially, so does food (and we’re only talking vegetables here, not even farm animals).
 
So the idea that we are overpopulated is entirely erroneous. What’s worse, however, is the insistence that we must be able to “control” (in other words, eliminate) populations so as to not run out of food. This is what this teacher (and I can’t believe she is one, but again, also not entirely surprised) is asking for and this is what Bernie Sanders answered:
 
“The answer’s ‘yes’. Women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions. And the Mexico City agreement – which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control – to me is totally absurd. So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, it’s something I very strongly support.”
 
Now, I have a lot to say about this. First, I find funny how he just feels the need to pander as much as possible. “Women… have the right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions.” Who exactly gives them that right? It’s nowhere in the Constitution, and it’s most definitely not in the Bible. Someone doesn’t have the right to something just because you say they do (and no, I’m not forgetting about the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade).
 
Second, notice the emphasis on controlling poor people’s populations. HE is the one saying women in poor countries don’t “necessarily want to have large numbers of babies”. How exactly does he know that? But what’s more, why specifically target poor people? Well, to be fair, that one is very much a rhetorical question. Planned Parenthood targets minority neighborhoods, those who are statistically more likely to be poor, regarding where they set up locations and are already controlling their populations. Since 1973, nearly 20 million black babies have been killed in the U.S. That’s a little less than half of the current black population in America (at least according to the 2010 census). Planned Parenthood is already systemically controlling the black population of America and now, these Leftists are demanding that we use OUR TAXPAYER MONEY to fund EUGENICS around the world, particularly in poor countries?
 
Finally, I would simply like to point out a particular word that Bernie used here. Let me write what he said once again: “women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies…” Notice that last word there? This guy fully recognizes that the kind of people he intends to target are babies. When the shooting in Odessa, Texas happened earlier this past week, the Left had been trying to point out how a 17-month-old baby had been injured in the shooting. Tragic as that is, let’s not beat around the bush: they do not care about that baby. 17 months earlier, they would argue that it didn’t have the right to life and that it wasn’t even human. So when is a baby a baby? These people don’t answer that because they have no answer. There are those who argue in favor of killing the baby even AFTER it is born, such as current Virginia Governor Ralph “Coonman” Northam.
 
These people realize very much that what they are killing are human babies. Argue as they might against it, they know these are babies for a FACT. And yet, they argue that it’s “women’s rights” or “women’s liberation” or even that it’s “necessary to fight climate change” to kill babies.
 
My friends, these are not sane people. These are not good people. These people are pagans, sacrificing children to appease a god of their own creation: mother nature. And they think it’s perfectly reasonable to do all this, not because it actually is reasonable, but because they have no heart – no soul – to tell them right from wrong.
 
They support this because they see it as right in their own eyes and not because they believe it is right in God’s eyes (and it definitely isn’t).
 
Killing children isn’t going to “solve” climate change any more than banning meat or gas-powered cars or whatever communist plan these people shared in that townhall because WE DO NOT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE AND CANNOT AFFECT IT SIGNIFICANTLY! Everything these people say is going to happen is utter bullcrap. Wanna know why? BECAUSE THEY’VE BEEN SAYING THIS SAME CRAP FOR DECADES AND NOTHING OF THE SORT HAS HAPPENED!
 
The glaciers aren’t melting, there isn’t a hole in the ozone layer, coastal cities aren’t going to get flooded, massive droughts and famines aren’t happening and we are not CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE! In fact, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. hasn’t even seen any warming since 2005. And yet, Obama has gone on record pretty much year after year saying how that particular year was the “hottest year to date” as though he had the data of THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE PLANET to back up that claim.
 
Nothing the Democrats have suggested will do a darn thing to affect climate change because we can’t do anything to it. The funny thing, though, is that even if we did have the power to do that, Democrats’ plans wouldn’t do anything anyway. AOC’s former chief of staff said that the GND wasn’t about climate change but about changing the economic system of the U.S. Makes sense, considering it costs $93 TRILLION according to some estimates and it would bankrupt us almost immediately, all-the-while giving the government all the power in the world.
 
But as bad as trying to ban meat might be, to me, an even worse idea is to suggest we start killing people, particularly poor people, to combat climate change. And if you think abortion is as far as they would go, think again. The teacher brought up the question on the basis that THERE ARE ALREADY TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. Abortion would only be the first step, followed by genocide.
 
This is the sort of thing that has led to people like Hitler to commit massive atrocities like the Holocaust. Only, instead of suggesting to kill all Jews and all non-Aryan people, they are suggesting killing minorities and poor people. First, those who have some sort of disability (as is the case in Europe, where they abort babies who are diagnosed with Down Syndrome), then some sort of illness (illnesses as defined by the state) and then on to poor people and other “undesirables”.
 
Of course, the only people that get to not be killed are the rich, white liberals who think themselves gods. These people are demons in the flesh and they’re just getting started laying out the policies of Satan.
 
Shame on that teacher, shame on the audience who clapped after Bernie gave his answer, shame on Bernie Sanders, shame on the Democrats who agree with him (wouldn’t be surprised if that’s all of them), and shame on anyone who tries to argue that we, Christians and conservatives, are the evil and intolerant ones.
 
James 1:21
“Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.”
 
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.

Eco-fascists love pointing the finger at anyone and everyone who could be deemed as bearing blame for any harm caused to the environment, and with the Amazon fires damaging the rain forest, they jumped at the story very quickly. But, as with many other stories, they jumped at it WAY too quickly.
 
Celebrities like Madonna, Cristiano Ronaldo and Leonardo DiCaprio, as well as foreign leaders like Emmanuel Macron have all peddled fake news regarding the Amazon fires. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted: “The Amazon rain forest – the lungs which produce 20% of our planet’s oxygen – is on fire.” Ronaldo peddled the same claim, saying it produces 20% of the world’s oxygen and DiCaprio (and Macron) both shared a photo of blazing fires destroying the Amazon… that’s 20 years old. CNN and the NYT also used the same term of “lungs of the world”, but denied that the cause was climate change (not that that matters to the eco-fascists).
 
So what is the truth? First, like the NYT said, this wasn’t caused by climate change. “Natural fires in the Amazon are rare, and the majority of these fires were set by farmers preparing Amazon-adjacent farmland for the next year’s crops and pasture. Much of the land that is burning was not old-growth rain forest, but land that had already been cleared of trees and set for agricultural use.” In other words, farmers are doing this to control pests, weeds and to encourage growth in pastures.
 
Second, the Amazon is not the “lungs” of the world. I came across conflicting information regarding the “20%” figure, with some sources saying it doesn’t produce 20% while others say it does. However, regardless of however much it produces, it also respirates it anyway. According to Amazon forest expert Dan Nepstad, “the Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it’s a wash.” Basically, it uses as much oxygen as it produces in a closed system, so to claim it’s “the lungs of the world” is a lie. In fact, Nepstad went on to say: “The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen, but so do soy farms and [cattle] pastures.”
 
Third, while the media and foreign politicians are wagging their fingers at Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro (who is a right-winger), they are blatantly ignoring the fact that there is also a wildfire raging in socialist Bolivia. Bolivian President Evo Morales has been very open about telling farmers that “it’s fine to set [fires] to gather charcoal to sell for fuel or clear the land of brush for planting.” The only real reason Bolsonaro is being attacked here is because he is a right-winger president. There have been a lot of fires in the Amazon over the years, yet this is the first time we’re hearing people attacking the Brazilian president for it.
 
Finally, while people are claiming that the Amazon fires are a “record high”, NASA declared that the fires are only “close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years.” There is nothing adamantly special about this year’s Amazon forest fires apart from the fact that Jair Bolsonaro is now President of Brazil and has been attacked by the media for not subscribing to their cult of doom and gloom surrounding climate change.
 
While 2019 has been the most active year for fires in the Amazon since 2010, what the media doesn’t mention is that “about ½ the years BEFORE 2019 are higher, and about ½ are lower,” according to Climate Depot. In other words, the 2019 fire is nothing particularly special throughout the last decade and is mostly a nothingburger being made into something more than what it is by eco-fascists who claim a particularly hot day is a sign of “climate change”.
 
And even then, the “hot days” aren’t particularly special either. According to the U.S. Climate Reference Network, there hasn’t been any warming in the U.S. dating back to 2005. What’s more, 2019 has been, on average, cooler than 2005.
 
The eco-fascist movement requires people to have really short, selective memory. They pretend that particularly hot days in the middle of SUMMER is somehow not right and an inherent threat to our planet and our very own lives. Ignore the data that shows us there’s nothing particularly special about any particular day or any particular record-high, you’re feeling hot, you’re feeling uncomfortable and it’s all capitalism’s fault.
 
The eco-fascist movement requires lazy people to do as little research as possible and just accept what is being told to them from the fake news media and little kids who think they know everything about the climate throwing the biggest temper tantrums since Trump became President. It requires as much disinformation as possible, which is why we see mentally-challenged celebrities like Madonna and DiCaprio showing pictures of an Amazon forest fire FROM 20 YEARS AGO.
 
As I’m sure you’ve noticed, I’m calling these people “eco-fascists”. The reason being that it’s entirely accurate. Calling them “environmentalists” doesn’t sound proper enough. These people are every bit as fascistic as Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, etc. They use the argument of climate change in order to gain more and more power for themselves.
 
It’s why AOC’s former chief of staff noted that the GND wasn’t really about fighting climate change but about changing the entire economy of the United States. In other words, changing the U.S. from a capitalist-based economy to a socialist-based one.
 
The issue of climate change can cover pretty much every single issue. From abortion to religion to gun violence to poverty to immigration, climate change can be infused into every single argument, which is why Democrats say illegals are “environmental refugees”.
 
These people are the very definition of an eco-fascist, and as such, I believe they deserve to be called that way. We all know they love to use the word “fascist” against Trump and anyone who disagrees with them. Let’s see how they like it when the word is used against them.
 
Deuteronomy 28:7
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.”
 
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.

Don’t you just love it when Leftists just hand you candy like this? As you may know, I found AOC’s doomsday clock of 12 years to be completely laughable, given the fact that it is yet another doomsday clock for something that isn’t happening (man-made climate change) and is close enough to our time to get people scared about it to take action but far enough away to be able to make adjustments and even to ignore it completely once the timer runs out, like Al Gore did in 2016 when his 10-year doomsday clock ran out and virtually no one talked about it.
 
But sometimes, Leftists give us jewels like this: Prince Charles, as well as other British climate “scientists” have all asserted that we only have 18 months to “save the planet”.
 
Matt McGrath, BBC News environment correspondent, told the BBC that “Now, it seems, there is a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical.” McGrath also cited the UN’s IPCC model, which in 2018, said that carbon dioxide emissions would have to drop 45% by the year 2030 in order to prevent global temperatures from rising 1.5 °C.
 
Of course, as I have established in a previous article covering man-made climate change (of which there are a lot, but this one talks specifically about this), the only place where CO2 raises global temperatures is in the IPCC models. This is because there has been a historical record where temperature has increased BEFORE CO2 levels did. For example, the Tropical Atlantic used to be around 7.5 °C warmer around 10 to 15 thousand years ago, when CO2 levels were around 220 ppm, which was roughly half the level they currently are.
 
So there is no correlation between CO2 levels and warming temperatures. Not that these agenda-driven hacks will admit to it publicly. The IPCC, despite its many flaws and errors, is considered to be virtually sacred amongst climatologists. To defy it would be risking your career and reputation, despite how wrong it often-times is regarding climate change. So people like McGrath and other climate “scientists” will go along with it, perpetuating the ridiculous and irrational lies it tells and passes them off as truths, while getting certain power-hungry politicians to take advantage of it and assert some sort of “need” for “action” against climate change which would do nothing to actually combat climate change (for a number of reasons apart from literal incapability) and will only serve to enslave entire populations (even AOC’s chief of staff admitted that the GND wasn’t about climate change but about changing the economy of the U.S. from capitalist to socialist).
 
But regardless of the insincerity of the IPCC, people like Prince Charles perpetuate the idea that we are killing out planet and we have a certain window of opportunity to do anything. As a result, he, alongside many others, will claim that we only have 18 months to do something about climate change. It’s an interesting long-con, all things considered. Prince Charles once claimed we only had around 96 months to “save the planet”. This was around July of 2009, so 10 years ago. In other words, that was 120 months ago and yet, here we are! Oh, but this time, we only have 18 months, according to this dishonest future king of England (sorry to all Brits in the audience). It’s obvious, then, that if it’s been 120 months since he sounded the alarm of only having 96 months to solve climate change (and if we haven’t done so, according to the Left), then surely he made brilliant adjustments to his brilliant calculations and we are all to agree on them, facts be damned!
 
Yeah, because that’s how science works: consensus over facts. The Earth used to be the center of the universe when there was consensus that that was the case and then it changed once the consensus was around the Sun being at the center (and then, of course, that it’s only at the center of the solar system, not the entire universe).
 
Give me a break. How dishonest can these people be?
 
As I’ve established time and time again, backed up by facts from ACTUAL CLIMATOLOGISTS WHO DON’T KOWTOW TO THE LEFT’S INSANE DEMANDS, there is no man-made climate change. There is no doomsday clock to actually watch out for. There is no period of time for us to be able to do something. We didn’t even CAUSE climate change in the first place, how can we possibly do anything to end it?!
 
And for those in the audience who will point out the current heatwaves in the U.S. and Europe, allow me to explain, in small words so that they might understand, what is currently happening: IT’S JULY! And I’ve made the recent scientific discovery that is certain to rock the entire scientific world: it gets hot during summer.
 
I KNOW, HOW CRAZY IS THAT?! But wait, it gets even crazier: it also gets colder during winter!
 
WHERE IS MY NOBEL PRIZE AND MY MILLION DOLLARS?! I SHOULD BE SHAKING HANDS WITH THE PRESIDENT!
 
In any case, getting back on track, in New York, recent data for the month of July shows us that, in Central Park, temperatures got as high as 95° F. Up there, but far from peculiar. The record high for Central Park is 106°. Want to know when it was set? 1936! And since 1870, that very temperature was either equaled or exceeded in at least 112 years. So in 112 of the last 149 years, these are the temperatures Central Park has recorded DURING SUMMER!
 
So the current heatwaves we are seeing are NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY! Not that Leftists will care. The fact that it can even get hot like this in the first place is proof enough to them that our capitalistic system is killing our entire planet (despite us not even being a top polluter) and we must enact socialistic policies in order to save our planet (while the politicians that enact this stuff laugh to themselves at how stupid some people can be to buy this crap).
 
Leftists will make ridiculous claims like “we only have 18 months to change this” when they already have, MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PAST, made similar assertions. The aforementioned Al Gore is one example of this. AOC is one of the most recent ones, of course. In 1989, the UN insisted that humanity had until the year 2000 to “save the planet”. They’ve issued “tipping-point” warnings ever since then.
 
And guess what? They have all been completely wrong about everything they said. Things like the polar ice caps melting, sea levels rising and causing flooding, and entire islands made of trash floating in the Pacific Ocean have all been b.s. Everything from those lies to how much time we have to “save the planet” has been bogus because there is nothing we are doing to the planet to cause it to warm up or cool down severely. Again, temperatures have been changing well before CO2 increased so much. There is nothing, collectively as humanity, that we can do to change these things and even THEY know that.
 
Again, even AOC’s chief of staff admitted the GND was about changing the economic system of the U.S., not fighting climate change. These people are in it to take power for themselves, not to make any meaningful and positive changes to our world.
 
So for Prince Charles and all these other “scientists” to make these assertions is to spit in the face of science. Shame on them.
 
Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”
 
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 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.