It is often the case that what the government intends with a particular plan, the opposite intended effect ends up occurring. Ludwig von Mises explained this particular phenomenon using the example of the price of milk while addressing the University Club in New York back in 1950:
 
“The government believes that the price of a definite commodity, e.g., milk, is too high. It wants to make it possible for the poor to give their children more milk. Thus it resorts to a price ceiling and fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than that prevailing on the free market. The result is that the marginal producers of milk, those producing at the highest cost, now incur losses. As no individual farmer or businessman can go on producing at a loss, these marginal producers stop producing and selling milk on the market. They will use their cows and their skill for other more profitable purposes. They will, for example, produce butter, cheese or meat. There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more.”
 
In essence, what he explains is that the results of central planning by governments will often end up creating the opposite intended effect (provided they actually intended to improve the situation and not make things worse). This is what has recently happened in the State of Hawaii, which is seeking to fully transition to “renewable energy” by the year 2045 and replace their last coal power plant with The Kapolei Energy Storage Facility, which is basically an enormous battery.
 
The intent was to have this “green” battery, powered by wind, solar, etc., replace the output of the coal power plant (it’s a 185-megawatt storage facility compared to the 180-megawatt coal plant, so it generates more power, which is good) and make the state a little bit “greener.”
 
However, there are seemingly unintended issues and consequences coming as a result of the use of this battery. Namely, the issue of delays to renewable projects. This is a problem for two reasons:
 
First, as Pacific Business News reported back in March, the delays “will leave Oahu (the island where this is taking place) with a very tight fuel reserve margin, opening up the possibility of rolling blackouts in the event of failure.”
 
In essence, it could potentially lead to the same problems that Los Angeles had been facing some time ago, where they simply had no power at all.
 
Second, and the biggest problem for those who viewed the battery as an environmentally friendly alternative to coal, is that “If there is not enough solar, wind, or battery storage energy to replace the [coal] plant, [Hawaiian Electric Co.] would have to use oil instead to charge things like the upcoming 185-megawatt Kapolei Energy Storage Facility,” according to Pacific Business News.
 
Now, here’s the thing: Pacific Business News is being rather deceptive here. They phrase the issue as an “if” situation. The reality is, however, that there isn’t enough solar, wind, or battery storage to replace the coal plant with a renewable source of energy. Which brings us to the biggest dilemma for those who are ideologically invested in the success of this project: Hawaiian Electric Co. will have to use OIL to power the giant battery.
 
But wait, it gets worse for these people. Not only will they be substituting one fossil fuel source for another, they will be substituting one fossil fuel source for a MORE EXPENSIVE fossil fuel source. This led to Public Utilities Commission chair James Griffin to complain that Hawaiians would be “going from cigarettes to crack.”
 
“Oil prices don’t have to be much higher for this to look like the highest increase people will have experienced. And it’s not acceptable. We have to do better,” continued Griffin.
 
Returning to Mises, this whole ordeal is exemplary of the phenomenon I had talked about earlier. “The measure proves abortive from the very point of view of the government and the groups it was eager to favor. It brings about a state of affairs, which – again from the point of view of the government – is even less desirable than the previous state of affairs which it was designed to improve.”
 
Certainly, intending to replace fossil fuel with renewable energy and ending up not only using another fossil fuel source, but also one which is even more expensive than the source which they were trying to replace is absolutely less desirable not only for those in the government and environmentalist whackos, but everyone whom this affects. After all, if the government is going for a more expensive source of fuel, they have to do something to afford it and still operate normally. This, almost always, involves the raising of taxes on the population.
 
So this entire situation is a raw deal for the government which seemingly wanted to improve their renewable energy use, for those who originally approved of this transition because they believed it would be “better for the planet”, and for those who couldn’t care less if they were using fossil fuels or renewable energies to power things up but who will soon have to fork over more of their hard-earned cash to a government which has screwed them, intentionally or not.
 
What is perhaps the most unfortunate part of all of this is that many people will not learn the most important lessons to be learned out of this: central planning from the government is pretty much always a bad thing.
 
This has been shown to be the case in Germany (more than once), in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Russia (both now and when they were the Soviet Union and militarized the workplace to try to mitigate strikes in factories and “restore order” but it only led to more strikes, particularly in the areas most militarized), China, most countries in Latin America, and in many places in the U.S. And yet, this crucial lesson is not always learned by some people, even those who experience such central planning.
 
Even assuming the absolute best intentions by the government (and that requires a whole lot, knowing the evil nature of Man), it often only ends up getting in the way of the progress it seeks to create, even ending up creating regress as a result.
 
Like with the example provided by Mises of trying to control the price of milk for the sake of poor people, but only creating a shortage of milk in the process and making things worse for the poor, or like with the example of the current situation in Oahu, Hawaii, even under the best circumstance regarding the true intentions of the government, the government ends up making things worse, not better.
 
The words of Ronald Reagan ring very much true in this instance: “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
 
Proverbs 28:16
“A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.”

We all know Pope Francis is not a Christian, as his rhetoric in a manner of subjects demonstrates that he is more of a humanist who believes man to have power or have potential to wield power similar to God. Why else would he believe that mankind could, without the use of nuclear weapons, destroy the planet that God has created?
 
And he does not appear to be in any way repentant of this anti-Christian idiocy or the falsehoods which he spreads. In a recently released book, the pope recounts the story of the Great Flood during the time of Noah and claims that rising temperatures and melting glaciers might cause a second Great Flood.
 
Interestingly, Pope Francis is not ignorant of the significance of the biblical Great Flood. He writes: “The Bible says that the flood is the result of God’s wrath. It is a figure of God’s wrath, who according to the Bible has seen too many bad things and decides to obliterate humanity. The biblical flood, according to experts, is a mythical tale. The flood is a historical tale, archaeologists say, because they found traces of a flood in their excavations… A great flood, perhaps due to a rise in temperature and the melting of the glaciers, is what will happen now if we continue along the same path.”
 
“God’s wrath is directed against injustice, against Satan,” he continues. “It is directed against evil, not that which derives from human weakness, but evil of Satanic inspiration: the corruption generated by Satan… God unleashed his wrath, but he saw a righteous one, took him and saved him. The story of Noah demonstrates that God’s wrath is also salvific.”
 
There are some things which Pope Francis gets right here, but plenty that he does not.
 
What he gets right is in the citing of archaeologists in that the Great Flood is a historical event. We know this as the very Word of God tells us, let alone the empirical evidence that there is of it. What he also gets right is that God’s wrath is directed at injustice, against Satan. It is directed at evil. At the corruption that Satan brought in, though the actions of Adam and Eve also led to that corruption, as they distrusted and disobeyed God.
 
However, that he recognizes that the Great Flood came as a result of God’s wrath against the great sins and evils of 99.9% of the world’s population at the time is what confuses me about why he is conflating God’s wrath and the flood that He delivered with pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about “flooding” that has been predicted for decades now and which never came.
 
He KNOWS the reason for the Great Flood, so why would he claim there would be a second one? Is it that he believes the creation is as powerful as the creator? Perhaps, but I think it’s a different reason: he legitimately believes that not only does humanity have the ability to destroy the earth in this way (though at no point has there been any evidence that we are causing any sort of change in the climate) but that God considers those who are “killing” the planet to be aligned with Satan and those who are trying to “save” it, namely people like him, are on the side of God and will be saved from His wrath.
 
The God that Pope Francis believes in is not the God that exists. Such a god is one of Pope Francis’ own imagination. He is attributing characteristics to his god and turning him into some idol. God’s wrath does not go to those who are uncaring of the planet or who are on one side or the other on the environmental issues. His wrath is not delivered for the reasons of environmentalism. It is delivered for the reason of sin – the reason of evil. This is something even Pope Francis admits, but it goes to show how warped his mind is.
 
He actually believes that those who are not “saving” the planet are evil and will receive God’s wrath as a result of that evil.
 
Now, this warped mentality should not be particularly surprising, considering the guy is a socialist (and therefore, a supporter of an ideology which has killed hundreds of millions of people, so I wonder how he weighs on the scales of evil). Leftists have, for a long time, used God to push for their own agendas.
 
The Left during the 19th century pushed that God was in favor of slavery because slavery was prominent in the Bible. What they failed to recognize is that the kind of slavery the Bible largely refers to is indentured servitude. There is, of course, other kinds of slavery, as the Jews were slaves in Egypt for 400 years, but that was slavery done to God’s chosen people, not done by them. Jacob was a “slave” – servant – of Laban for a total of 14 years, servitude which was done in exchange for Rachel’s hand in marriage (and, of course, he ended up marrying Leah first after seven years of servitude before serving another seven for Rachel).
 
So the idea that God was on the side of the Democrats and the Left in the 19th century regarding forced slave labor which dehumanized an entire group of people is as erroneous as the idea that God is on the side of the Democrats and the Left in the 21st century regarding the climate of the planet, which He made to be DYNAMIC and ever-changing.
 
As I have said many times in articles of this nature, the things which the Left blames for climate change cannot be the cause for similar periods of warmth found at other points in time. Neither the Roman nor the Medieval Warming Periods can be explained to have occurred because too many people were driving cars, too many people were flying planes, too many people were using their air conditioners, or that too many people were capitalist (and this one is particularly asinine as communist China is a top polluter in the world).
 
We have observed the dynamism of the planet's climate which God created. To claim that mankind is responsible for the same kind of climate that the planet has seen across millennia is unfound, but to claim that God is wrathful against those who acknowledge this truth about our planet is downright heretical.
 
God is not a puppet for Pope Francis to use as he pleases, claiming that this thing and that thing is wrong and that those who do it will face God’s wrath. Granted, he’s a Catholic, so it’s not surprising that such behavior is present, as the Catholic Church has long made up sins that are nowhere to be found in the Bible (looking at you, Seven Deadly Sins, though to an extent, as it is sinful to be lustful). But just because the Catholic Church has pretty much always done this doesn’t mean that the Pope is right in doing it himself.
 
It is not a sin to be against the liars and deceivers who scar children for life with untruthful claims about the state of the planet and our involvement in it. It is not a sin to be against those who would seek to take advantage of the woes and fears they create in people to take their possessions and give everything to the government, which they treat as God. It is not a sin to be against those who would kill an innocent child, in and out of the womb, because of an “overpopulation” problem that doesn’t exist or because such fools believe that more people will lead to the planet being in a worse condition.
 
You know what are sins? Killing people, stealing from people, lying to people for your own personal gain, and attributing to man the things that come from God. And Pope Francis better be careful with that last one, as it borders on being the unpardonable sin. I don’t think he’s committed that particular sin here, but he is dangerously close to it, in my opinion.
 
Mankind cannot do what God can do. It cannot cause a second Great Flood. Even with lesser floods, mankind cannot cause entire cities to flood through the methods that Francis and other Leftists believe it can.
 
For decades, they claimed coastal cities like Miami and Los Angeles would be inundated and uninhabitable. This is a prediction the Left has made since NEARLY 100 YEARS AGO. As I pointed out in a rather old article now, a Missouri newspaper had an article titled: “Melting Glaciers Would Flood Earth’s Big Cities.” That article was written in 1932, 89 years ago. And still, these Leftists are giving the same “warnings.”
 
Along with that, not one of their predictions over the last century regarding climate change has come true, from acid rains to global cooling in the 70’s to global warming in decades after to melting glaciers to great floods to droughts to super powerful and frequent hurricanes. Not ONE of those things ever came about like these “experts” predicted. They continue to lie to people and those most pushing these warnings tend to enrich themselves from the fear that they spread.
 
How, exactly, is God on their side? How, exactly, are such people spared from the wrath of God?
 
Liars, killers and deceivers. That’s what these people are and that’s what Pope Francis sides with, no matter what rationalizations or justifications appealing to the character of God (that he places in Him himself) he makes regarding this issue.
 
Pope Francis better repent of these sins which he continuously commits.
 
Romans 1:18
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”

I am no stranger to citing my own work in the past, but this is the first time that I base an entire article around an article that I have written previously. The reason for this is simple and you will see soon enough.
 
The article in question is the following: “Climate Change Will Be Unstoppable In 3 Years, According To MSM.”
 
In that article, I pointed out how a UK Independent article talked about what a prescient need it was for countries to adhere to the goals of the Paris climate accord and how we just have to make “significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or face the prospect of dangerous global warming.”
 
The article cites “experts” who claimed that “’entire ecosystems’ were already beginning to collapse, summer sea ice was disappearing in the Arctic and coral reefs were dying from the heat.”
 
I don’t expect anyone reading this to remember that I literally wrote that verbatim in the first article, and even back then, I knew what a load of crap this all was.
 
First, of course, was the fact that “entire ecosystems” were “already beginning to collapse” which is nonsense.
 
Then, there was the “summer sea ice disappearing in the Arctic” which has been proven false since then. In another article, which is far more recent, I mentioned that the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) confirmed, back in November of 2018, that “glaciers have largely maintained their area since 2012.” And while glaciers are a bit different from summer sea ice, glaciers at least make up some part of sea ice and there has been no proof that they are melting at worrying rates (certainly not at the rates the Left claims).
 
Finally, there’s the “coral reefs dying from the heat” part, which I did not cover in the original article. However, that one is overhyped baloney as well. Corals do, indeed, die amidst heat waves because their hard outer skeleton causes them to basically be cooked alive. However, as with other creatures, corals are capable of adapting for survival. And back in late 2019, scientists found corals which were previously thought to have died off completely as a result of heat stress.
 
According to Breitbart: “A quarter of the coral cover of Spain’s Columbretes Islands was lost to a particularly extreme heat wave in 2003… But the researchers found that in 38 percent of the impacted colonies, the polyps (miniscule creatures which make up the corals) had devised a survival strategy: shrinking their dimensions, partly abandoning their original skeleton, and gradually, over a period of several years, growing back and starting a new skeleton. They were then able to gradually re-colonize dead areas through budding.”
 
So the idea that the only way for coral reefs to be saved is by significantly reducing greenhouse emissions (that is, your emissions, not that of the ruling class) is erroneous. God created His creatures to be able to adapt to different situations. He guides even the ones which have no brains and function entirely through “instinct”, if you will.
 
Like with the regrowing fauna and flora in Chernobyl, God created nature to be adaptable (micro-evolution is a concept far more believable and observable than nonsense like species-to-species evolution). Likewise, God created corals to be able to survive and adapt even things which normally would kill them off. It takes time, sure, but the reefs are regrowing and it certainly has nothing to do with the greenhouse gas emissions of any or all countries.
 
At any rate, let’s get to the meat and potatoes of this article.
 
I think you already know roughly why I’m bringing up this old article of mine. That UK Independent article predicted that we had three years to reverse course or we would begin to see some catastrophic and dire effects of global warming. Essentially, that we had three years (thankfully, AOC found another nine years for us to live, probably using Dominion machines) to deal with “man-made climate change” or we would die.
 
Well, it’s been three and a half years since that prediction and we are not, at any capacity, under threat of catastrophic global warming. We’re still in winter and the temperature outside my house is around the mid-40° F; Miami, Los Angeles and other sea-side cities are not inundated; the ice caps are not melting; the polar bears are fine; the coral reefs, as in the case of Spain’s, are regrowing to one extent or another; and, perhaps most flabbergasting of all for these morons to hear, entire ecosystems are not collapsing.
 
Not a single one of the things that these grifters have predicted has come to pass. And now, we can add another thing to it.
 
In June of 2017, far-Left “experts” predicted that we only had three years to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions worldwide else we would be at a “point of no return” regarding global warming. Fast-forward three and a half years and you have articles like “World is not adapting swiftly enough for climate crisis impacts: UN.” Well, seeing as we only had three years left to live three years ago, I hardly think there’s much point in adapting to it now, is there?
 
Three and a half years after they claimed we only had three years to deal with emissions and they are still pulling some of the same bullcrap from before. This is not at all surprising, of course. Back in 2006, Al Gore made a similar prediction that we only had 10 years to deal with climate change. The expiration date for that was nearly five years ago, but they keep going back to the “Doomsday Clock” well.
 
The UK Independent article claimed that, since the 1880s, the temperature of the world has risen by one degree Celsius, supposedly because of human activity and greenhouse gas emissions. Thing is that none of the things that the Left typically blames for climate change – cars, planes, A/Cs, etc. – were widely available back in the 1880s. If the change began from that point forth, something had to have caused it and it can’t have been the typical things which produce emissions.
 
Further, over the three and a half years since that article, I have repeatedly covered the fact that the world has seen numerous periods of temperature changes, from increase to decrease, at different points in time. The world’s temperatures were seen rising during the Roman Warming Period, the Medieval Warming Period, and most recently, the Modern Warming Period. And, again, the Left cannot blame the typical things that they blame for the warming periods which took place before those things were invented.
 
It is simply a demonstrable lie that humanity has any sort of say in the temperature of the world. This is as true today as it was three and a half years ago or any period before then as well as any period from this point on. The only reason the Left peddles this crap is because it’s one of the best ways for them to try and convince people to give up their rights and freedoms. Well, at least until the Chinese coronavirus came along. We have far more willingly given up our freedoms in a year than we had over the last few decades since the Left has been peddling this unscientific nonsense. And it didn’t even take a full year to accomplish that. We gave up our freedoms pretty much the second we were asked to, under the belief that we would remain safe as a result.
 
Ben Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We gave up that essential liberty for safety from a virus which is only temporarily bad. What does that say about us?
 
At any rate, mark that prediction as yet another one which, expectedly, did not come to fruition. Three and a half years after we only had three years to deal with climate change and we are perfectly fine.
 
Matthew 7:15
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

I have talked plenty of times in the past about the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, and this article will be close in nature to articles in which I have talked about that. You see, there are two new research studies which suggest that the ancient climate was either just as warm or even warmer than this current period.
 
Like I said, since I have talked about this kind of thing before, this should not be news to you. However, it’s worth talking about this because the research adds a bit of a new element to this conversation which I had not brought in previous articles.
 
According to Science Under Attack, one of these studies “demonstrates that the period known as the Roman Warming was the warmest in the last 2,000 years. The other study provides evidence that it was just as warm up to 6,000 years ago. Both studies reinforce the occurrence of an even warmer period immediately following the end of the last ice age 11,000 years ago, known as the Holocene Thermal Maximum.”
 
Given what the studies found, it’s natural to recognize the fact that the things that the Left blames for man-made climate change cannot possibly be blamed for those warm periods.
 
The Roman Empire did not have vehicles with which they could travel. The Roman soldiers didn’t use trucks or planes or helicopters to invade and conquer neighboring lands in their expansion of the empire. The Roman civilians didn’t drive cars to go to the store.
 
There were no air conditioners, no trains, their ships were not coal-powered, and their economic system was not capitalistic (and that is perhaps the most ludicrous thing that the Left could blame for “man-made” climate change, though it’s also not surprising at all that they would blame the economic system which prevents them from obtaining all the power they want).
 
The Romans weren’t drinking their sodas from plastic straws and then dumping them in the nearest sea or landfill.
 
Simply put, the Left absolutely cannot blame these things for this current warming period while also acknowledging the existence of previous warming periods. The Law of Causality demands that there be a cause to every effect. If the effect is global warming and the cause is man-made things like coal-powered vehicles, air conditioners, plastic use and an entire economic system, then a similar cause must be the case for the effect of global warming from thousands of years ago. But since these are only modern inventions of the past century or so, they cannot be considered to be the cause for ancient warming periods. And this is assuming that those things are even the cause for this current warming period, which there is no evidence to suggest that they are.
 
But let’s get to the subject of each individual study.
 
The first study was conducted by Italian and Spanish researchers who “reconstructed sea surface temperatures in the Mediterranean Sea over the past 5,300 years,” according to Science Under Attack. Naturally, since temperature measurement using scientific thermometers began only as far back as the 18th century, researchers have to do a bit of an educated guess to measure temperatures from earlier periods by reconstructing those temperatures using sources such as tree rings, ice cores, fossils of plants, etc.
 
Science Under Attack notes that this “particular study utilized fossilized amoeba skeletons found in seabed sediments.”
 
Furthermore, the scientists focused specifically on the Sicily Channel of the Mediterranean Sea, and found that “ancient sea surface temperatures in the Sicily Channel ranged from 16.4 degrees Celsius (61.5 degrees Fahrenheit) to 22.7 degrees Celsius (72.9 degrees Fahrenheit) over the period from 3300 BCE to July 2014.”
 
That is an increase in temperature of 11.4° Fahrenheit and 6.3° Celsius. Now, with that alone, a liberal might shriek: “You see?!!!! The temperatures are getting hotter! We are killing the planet!”
 
The data does, indeed, show higher temperatures… over a period of nearly 6,000 years (specifically, 5,314 years), and in a particular range. The following chart shows you that the Roman Warming Period was when the Sicily Channel was at its warmest, with its current (as of July 2014) temperature being around 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit):

​Again, what this research does is show that the Sicily Channel used to be warmer back during the Roman Warming Period in comparison to both what it was in 3300 BC and July of 2014. It is currently colder than what it used to be roughly 2,000 years ago.
 
While the Sicily Channel is warmer today than it was back in 3300 BC, there were multiple periods in which it was considerably warmer in between then and 2014. Notably, it seems to be at the same temperature as it was during the early Bronze Age, and it was warmer during the Late Bronze Age, Homeric age, Greek age, considerably warmer during the Roman Warming Period, Late Antique Little Ice Age, and Medieval Warm Period.
 
So to assert that the surface temperature of the Sicily Channel has only gotten warmer since 3300 BC is erroneous. Yes, it’s warmer now than back then, but it is not as warm as it was in other periods across hundreds and thousands of years ago.
 
Then, there is the second study, which is a bit different from the other study. This is the one that adds a new element, like I mentioned. You see, this second study doesn’t look at surface data for seas or whatever else, and it doesn’t try to reconstruct previous temperatures through the same kind of research.
 
This second research study was conducted by archaeologists in Norway, “who discovered a treasure trove of arrows, arrowheads, clothing and other artifacts, unearthed by receding ice in a mountainous region of the country.”
 
The liberal might argue: “Receding ice? That’s clear evidence of global warming!” Yeah, but consider the following: those artifacts and weaponry couldn’t have been unearthed by ice if there had been ice when those things were left there.
 
Consider the death of a dinosaur. No one would bury dinosaurs six feet into the ground like we do with people. Yet, they are found buried beneath however many feet of earth. By the same token, things which no one buries can be unearthed because earth caused those things to be naturally buried. The same applies to things found in ice.
 
The writer at Science Under Attack even notes this point, saying: “Because the artifacts would have been deposited when no ice covered the ground, and are only being exposed now due to global warming, temperatures must have been at least as high as today during the many periods when the artifacts were cast aside.”
 
If it’s due to global warming that these things are being exposed, then they had to have been there at a time of similar warmth followed by a period of cold temperatures – enough to bury those things in ice.
 
What’s more, the dates of the artifacts are pretty interesting. The writer says: “The oldest arrows and artifacts date from around 4100 BCE, the youngest from approximately 1300 CE, at the end of the Medieval Warm Period.”
 
The artifacts found in that study range 5,400 years, again, showing multiple periods of warmth and cold. “That the artifacts come from several different periods separated by hundreds or thousands of years implies that the ice and snow in the region must have expanded and receded several times over the past 6,000 years.”
 
Science Under Attack further made the point that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago, so before the natural burials of those artifacts, saw global temperatures which were higher. “In upper latitudes, where the most reliable proxies are found, it was an estimated 2-3 degrees Celsius (3.6-5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than at present.” And the Greenland ice sheet “is thought to have been even larger at the peak of the Holocene Thermal Maximum than it is today, when Greenland temperatures are lower.”
 
So it used to be that, during the Holocene Thermal Maximum some 6,000-10,000 years ago, the global temperatures were 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer than today. Remember what the supposed “goal” of the Paris Accord was regarding the increase of temperatures? 2°. Of course, they have no ability to dictate what the temperature will be now or in the future, but it’s worth pointing out that they are “trying” to “keep” temperatures from increasing by the same degree that it was during the Holocene Thermal Maximum –  a global climate period which long precedes even the kingdom of Israel.
 
At any rate, all of this only further goes to show how asinine and divorced from reality those whom espouse the idea that we are killing the planet are. The only way humanity can affect the state of the world to such a degree as to be cataclysmic is with the use of nuclear weapons. Take that away and humanity has no way in which it can kill the planet to such an extent.
 
Humanity can affect its local environment – that much is obvious. However, we cannot do what these imbeciles pretend we can do, and the effects that these people point to as “evidence” of our acts are effects that this planet has seen time and time again throughout the ages.
 
Not that this is any news to you, again, but it’s worth pointing out in precise terms how incorrect in their thinking the climate cultists are.
 
Psalm 101:7
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”

In a very recent article, I talked about how researchers in Denmark reported that wearing a mask, even ones as good as surgical ones, did not provide any statistically significant benefits over not wearing a mask whatsoever. Well, apart from being ineffective in protecting oneself from the Chinese coronavirus, San Francisco is seeing that the masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) that people wear is causing environmental damage to the Bay Area.
 
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “The Bay Area’s first rain of the season is washing away worries of wildfire and drought. But it’s also bringing a new concern: gobs of face masks flooding San Francisco Bay.”
 
“Early season storms typically sweep a slurry of debris from streets and sidewalks into rivers, creeks and bays. This year, the fall flush not only contains the usual gunk, waste experts say, but a whole lot of discarded PPE – or personal protective equipment, the detritus of the pandemic.”
 
“This influx of safety scraps into waterways is tough to quantify. However, the California Coastal Commission offered at least some idea of the volume: The agency said there was so much PPE during this year’s September volunteer coastal cleanup and inventory that it had to create a new category for masks and gloves. The items ranked between plastic cups and beverage lids on the list of the top 15 types of litter.”
 
David Lewis, executive director of the conservation group Save the Bay said: “There’s so much COVID trash. People might think it’s just a little trash and it’s unsightly, but it’s actually having an environmental impact.”
 
So, like I said, not only do masks not work as advertised, but at least in San Francisco, which has a long history of being a borderline literal “s**thole” because of all the feces and other waste in the streets, it is causing environmental damage.
 
Why push for the wearing of masks, then, if it’s causing environmental damage? We’ve been told that we “must make sacrifices” for our planet and we have to be comfortable living less comfortably for the sake of our planet, of which we only have one. So, then, shouldn’t people in San Francisco give up their masks in exchange for saving the planet?
 
Later in the article, the SF Chronicle writes: “Still, 131,000 pounds of garbage was collected during September. Cigarette butts, as usual, were the top trash item, followed by food wrappers. Newly categorized masks and gloves ranked No. 12.”
 
And that is very significant, that masks and PPE rank at number 12, because, according to Eben Schwartz, a marine debris program manager for the California Coastal Commission, “We’ve never had PPE rising anywhere near the top. And that’s remarkably high, considering we keep track of 50 items.”
 
So out of the 50 types of items that the CCC keeps track of, masks and PPE ranked at No. 12. That’s insane! It makes me question exactly what kind of poor job the residents of San Francisco are doing in disposing of their masks and other PPE equipment. But more than that, it makes me question what action San Francisco Democrats will take as a result of this.
 
Will they continue with the mask mandate crap in order to “fight the virus” or will they reverse course on it because it is causing damage to the environment (it can choke marine wildlife, according to the SF Chronicle) and they have “committed” to “fighting climate change”?
 
I think this is an easier question to answer than people think: they will go with whatever they have to to maintain the power that they have. Whatever is the more popular current topic is what they will go with, regardless of the evidence present. As a result, even despite this report and the very real harm the masks and PPE will cause to the local environment, there will be no pushing back against the masks.
 
Matter of fact, a dirtier planet means more donations and funding for their climate change orgs, so they would go against their own interests if they were to push back against the masks. They’ve never done a darn thing for the benefit of the planet, only for the benefit of their own wallets and political careers and power.
 
However, despite their expected actions here, it helps give me ammo against them. Aside from the evidence that there is no statistical advantage or benefit to wearing masks, as reported by the Danish study, we can now see that masks and PPE can be harmful for the environment. Do you think that will go over well with Democrat voters who are told this?
 
It doesn’t help that the tyrannical lockdowns and guidelines, instituted by Governor Newsom, are stifling the number of volunteers who help clean up the local environment.
 
According to the SF Chronicle: “The Coastal Commission’s well-known annual cleanup day became a monthlong affair this year because it was safer to organize smaller trash pickups over an extended period. Attendance dropped, too, from the usual 75,000 volunteers to 14,000.”
 
There are a vast number of reasons as to why lockdowns and guidelines are idiotic, but I can’t imagine it is good news for Democrat voters to hear that, apart from economic troubles which they could not give one wit about, there are also environmental troubles which come as a result of what the Democrat governor is instituting.
 
And while San Francisco is especially known for being absolutely filthy, I can’t imagine very many other places which have also instituted similar measures are much cleaner. It is possible that the Democrat governors are, through these draconian measures, harming their local environments and causing tremendous and long-term damage (as they would put it).
 
Again, I doubt they will push back against the mask usage because the Chinese coronavirus gives them a free trial of a dictatorship and because a dirtier planet will mean greater “urgency” to “fight climate change” and lead to more money funneling in, but it is ironic that this avenue they are going for runs against the supposed desires that they advertise.
 
Do not let them fool you: they don’t care about anything other than themselves. They don’t care about the environment. They don’t care about “women’s rights”. They don’t care about “people’s health and safety” from the Chinese coronavirus. This much is evident in every action they take and have thus far taken.
 
1 Corinthians 15:33
“Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals.’”

While there are plenty of things that I could talk about, such as how Jacob Blake’s shooting has only become more justifiable in light of recent evidence or how Kyle Rittenhouse’s case for self-defense becomes more and more clear (and the NYT, of all sources, is reporting this), something that has largely been forgotten in recent time is the nonsense that is climate change and the bogus warnings given by those who peddle the theory that we are killing our planet.
 
And while I have written about the nonsense of anthropogenic climate change and related topics throughout the past couple of months, one aspect of this subject I haven’t talked about in well over a year and a half is the nonsense of the “last chance to save the planet” the Left peddles occasionally to scare people into giving up their rights and liberties supposedly to “fight” climate change.
 
The Guardian recently published an article giving us a warning and a “last chance” to fight climate change.
 
“Thirty years ago we were warned. Now is our last chance to listen,” read their subhead.
 
“Thirty years ago this week, the population of Earth was given official notification that it faced a threat of unprecedented magnitude. Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, spewed into the atmosphere from factories and vehicles burning fossil fuels, were pinpointed, definitively, as triggers of future climate change. Melting ice caps, rising sea levels and increasing numbers of extreme weather events would be the norm for the 21st century unless action[s] were taken, warned the authors of the first assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
 
“… Three decades later, it is clear that we have recklessly ignored that warning…. The world could easily heat by 3C by the end of the century at this rate, warn scientists. The impact on the world will, by then, be catastrophic…”
 
Oh, no! We only have one last chance to save the Earth?! Quick, everyone, listen to these scientists who definitely do not have an agenda nor do they stand to lose anything by going against this political idea that pretty exclusively benefits the Left! Everyone, give up your cars, air travel, A/C units, and for good measure, give up your guns and civil liberties as well. We are fighting climate change, after all!
 
Yeah, that kind of warning doesn’t exactly lead people to be afraid if it is repeated ad nauseam for decades on end. I literally wrote an article back in December 2018 titled: “How Much Longer Can The Left Say ‘It’s Our Last Chance To Save The Earth’?”
 
The Left keeps returning to this well, and at some point, the jig has to be up, right?
 
For example, the United Nations gave us 10 years to save the world. “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed…”
 
Well, clearly, we must listen to these scientific experts and global leaders at the U.N.! ENTIRE NATIONS ARE AT STAKE! Sound the alarm, everyone! We only have ten years to save the world!
 
Get ready, my fellow Americans, for if we do not reverse course, the world will end by the year 2000!
 
Wait, what?
 
Yeah, the U.N. gave this apocalyptic warning in 1989, claiming “coastal flooding” and “crop failures” would lead to “eco-refugees” if we don’t cease using fossil fuels by the turn of the millennium.
 
And while the Left claims that there are climate refugees in this day and age, that couldn’t be further from the truth. There are radical Islamic terrorists claiming to be refugees (Ilhan Omar basically being one of them) and there are illegal immigrants claiming to be refugees, but none of the warnings the Left has given over the past CENTURY have come to fruition.
 
Remember George Perkins Marsh? The guy basically heralded as the grandfather of American ecology? Remember how he gave a warning that the planet was “fast becoming an unfit home for its ‘noblest inhabitant,’” and that if mankind didn’t change the way it lived, that the planet would be reduced “to such a condition of impoverished productiveness, of shattered surface, of climatic excess, as to threaten the depravation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species”?
 
Need I remind all of us that he gave this apocalyptic warning in 1864, roughly one year before Lincoln would be assassinated?
 
This is a warning given to us 156 years ago now. Suffice to say, we are further from depravation and barbarism and extinction today than we were back then (well, not counting the barbaric riots going on, at least).
 
We have far more food today than we did during the Civil War. There are far more people today than there were during the Civil War. And while we, as a country, are nearly as divided politically today as we were during the Civil War, we are still not quite to that level yet. By the end of the war, an estimated 700,000 people died or were killed, which was roughly 2% of the U.S. population at the time. To put that number into perspective, if we were at war today and 2% of our population died, that would equal roughly 6,000,000 casualties. Thankfully, we are nowhere near quite close to that, I don’t believe, even with the animosity that exists today.
 
So the warning that if mankind didn’t change its ways or there would be savagery, depravity (of food and resources) and possibly extinction pretty obviously did not come to fruition and we are in a far better state today than back then.
 
Worth mentioning, by the way, that Marsh gave this warning before the invention of the automobile, A/C units and the other things that the Left usually blames for climate change, and still, Marsh felt as though there was sufficient anthropogenic climate change at the time for it to be noticeable and worrisome.
 
What we have to remember is that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, but the climate is dynamic and changing and the planet has gone through periods of warmth and cold. That, however, does not signify mankind having anything to do with it, and certainly, having the ability to put at stop to it (which would actually be pretty dangerous, all things considered).
 
That the Left would continue pushing for the idea that we have a set time period to “do something” about climate change is not at all surprising to me, knowing that their only objective is to use fear to control the masses and to obtain as much power as possible, but it is still extremely asinine in the context of how the climate actually works.
 
Not that I expect them to know how it actually works, at any rate. I’ve pointed this out in the past, but not one single prediction the Left has made regarding climate change has ever come true. Not once have we seen climate-related flooding, droughts, excessive ice, lack of ice, or any of the other multiple and ridiculous assertions made by the Left.
 
This is because they are propagandists, not climate scientists or experts or anything of the sort. They only claim we have one “last chance” not because it’s true but because fear is a tool used to control people and the Left are notorious fearmongers.
 
Still, I do enjoy it every time they issue yet another “last chance” warning. If only it weren’t driving little children to literally have nightmares about something that will never happen. For THAT, the Left is utterly unforgivable (among many other reasons).
 
Isaiah 48:22
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”

Plenty has been going on this past week. Perhaps the biggest story, of course, is the ongoing DNC, featuring liars, cheaters, deceivers, rapists, a young socialist who hilariously endorsed the guy who was not made the nominee that same night, and, of course, the Democrat nominee and Joe Biden’s husband: Joe Biden.
 
However, a story that has not really been reported on a whole lot, largely because it completely craps all over the Green New Deal and heavily exposes its many flaws, is the story of the California blackouts happening as a result of the state’s insistence on using “renewable energy” to power itself up but with those sources failing to meet the demand of Californian residents.
 
Over the last week, California had been experiencing a series of blackouts that make the state look like Venezuela, likely because socialists run both places, as a result of renewable energy sources failing to meet demand. Officials said that the blackouts came due to the “unexpected loss of a 470-megawatt power plant Saturday evening, as well as the loss of nearly 1,000 megawatts of wind power.”
 
The state’s overreliance on wind and solar has led to these blackouts, because there is little wind currently blowing and solar panels have a hard time collecting power from the sun when there are clouds in the sky or when it’s nighttime.
 
According to Breitbart: “On Friday, Newsom said, the state had fallen about 1,000 megawatts short; on Saturday, it fell 450 megawatts short. Sunday saw only ‘modest or minor’ interruptions. But on Monday, he said, the state would be 4,400 megawatts short of ‘where we believe we needed to be.’”
 
It doesn’t help California’s residents either that they are currently experiencing a massive heat wave, record-breaking temperatures, and wildfires in their forests.
 
Now, even despite this, Newsom still insists on continuing the “transition” to “100% renewable” energy, clearly not having learned the lesson that these other energy sources cannot, as currently constructed, meet the demand of the entire state. If they could, we wouldn’t even be talking about blackouts NOW.
 
Still, he did admit that “we cannot sacrifice reliability as we move forward in this transition” and that they need to be “more sober” about renewable energy, which is extremely rare for any Leftist to do.
 
I don’t imagine the Left would be all too happy to hear this (provided anyone does hear it, considering this story exposes the flaws of green energy as being insufficient and leading to a series of blackouts and no proponent of these communist policies would dare share a story which would expose these things).
 
The reason I say this is because any semblance of a thought that green energy is in any way flawed or with drawbacks must be shut down. Michael Moore was lambasted for releasing a film which EXPOSED the inefficiencies of “green” energy, being extremely dependent on the very fossil-fuels they claim to be trying to replace.
 
I’ve already written a little about this movie, more specifically, in a rebuke by another Leftist environmentalist wacko who was among the people who lambasted Moore for the movie, so there is not much point in me going too far into it. But the point remains that even MICHAEL MOORE, who was, for a long time, a Leftist sweetheart who was always reliable for attacking and “exposing” Republicans with documentaries, was attacked for straying from the hive mind surrounding green energy.
 
Moore was essentially tried as a traitor to the Left for that documentary, even as in that very movie, he still espoused the same Leftist beliefs about climate change he always did and ultimately argued in favor of population control to keep the amount of people who are “able” to “affect” the climate to a minimum.
 
So for Gavin Newsom to even slightly suggest that there are flaws the Left has overlooked in terms of the reliability of green energy, I can’t imagine many people would be too happy with him over this. Though, I have hardly heard anything about it, once again, because the entire story hurts the Leftist narrative surrounding green energy, so I doubt Newsom will experience much falling out with other Leftists over this admission.
 
Not that he’s wrong, of course. There definitely are PLENTY of flaws regarding so-called green energy, not only in terms of economic price but also in terms of practicality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for green energy to produce the amount of energy required to power up the entire state of California. And California is among the best-suited to try this sort of green energy tactic anyway!
 
They have a lot of natural advantages for using renewable energy. They get plenty of sun and nice weather, they get good wind flow, which is why they even have those wind farms in the first place, they are next to the biggest ocean in the world to try hydro and the state is very rich in natural resources.
 
California has all the advantages it could possibly need to try using so-called green energy sources, but the fact remains that the technology is not available for these sources to completely replace fossil fuels. Not only can they not produce the same output of energy as fossil fuels, but as Michael Moore’s documentary pointed out, they REQUIRE fossil fuels to even be used at all.
 
Solar panels require the mining of quartz and coal and fusing them together. This process requires the use of fossil fuels. Wind turbines have to be constructed with tools that require the use of fossil fuels. The two also require the mining of rare earth metals, again, a process which requires fossil fuels. Even ethanol requires fossil-fuel-based agricultural systems to produce corn, which fuels ethanol.
 
This is without even mentioning that wind and solar power plants take up a lot of arable land and often require terraforming, which also requires machinery which uses fossil fuels.
 
Green energy cannot output the same amount of power as fossil fuel can, and it requires fossil fuels to even be constructed and functional. There is ZERO logical reason to use solar, wind or whatever else in the stead of fossil fuels. The ONLY environmentally-friendly alternative to fossil fuels which can produce a good amount of power is nuclear, but the Left sees it as just as evil as coal and gas.
 
For Gavin Newsom to admit that there are shortcomings to green energy sources is quite surprising, all things considered. Even when faced with blackouts, I wouldn’t put it past Leftists to pretend nothing is wrong, or at least, ignore the actual reason for the blackouts. I mean, he’s even routinely blamed the California wildfires on CLIMATE CHANGE despite the many other actual reasons such wildfires start, such as lightning striking a tree and catching it on fire, or the heatwaves drying the leaves, making them easily-flammable, etc.
 
For him to make this admission is honestly surprising, though, again, as few people are talking about it, I doubt he would be tried as a heretic by the cult of climate change for saying what he said.
 
Still, to try and continue the transition to “100% renewable”, which is an outright myth as renewable energy requires fossil fuels to be created and operated, will only lead California to face more blackouts and power problems.
 
I just hope the people of California come to the realization, at some point or another, that Leftist policies lead not to prosperity but struggle, and will begin voting these communists out of office forever.
 
Exodus 14:14
“The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be silent.”

In the world of battling the outright insane religious beliefs of the climate doomsday cult, it is rare to see one who believes in climate change (at least, anthropogenic climate change, presumably) admit their wrongdoings and the dangerous nature of the climate alarmist movement that has traumatized young generations into believing the world will not even be around by the time they reach adulthood and that it is the fault of their parents and grandparents (and capitalism, because of course) that they are in such a situation. Usually, we just meet wacko after wacko pushing ever-more insane crap that has no basis in reality.
 
However, we do sometimes see actual climate scientists pushing back against the insane agenda of the climate doomsday cult (and suffer the consequences as a result). But even rarer than that is to see someone who used to participate in the very same climate alarmism and scare tactics recognize the error of their ways and attempt to not only atone but even apologize for it.
 
Which brings us to Michael Shellenberger, who wrote the following on environmentalprogress.org: “On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare.”
 
He begins by writing: “On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.”
 
It must have taken a lot for the guy to come to grips with just how wrong the entire doomsday cult of climate change is and to come forward and apologize for having been a part of it. He further explains that he, himself, has been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30, has worked with the UN’s IPCC, serving as an Expert Reviewer of their Assessment Report. He even succeeded in convincing the Obama administration to invest in renewables.
 
He is, by no means, a “climate denier” (and that term has roots in “Holocaust denier” to delegitimize any opponents to the climate cult). He even explained that at 17, he lived in Nicaragua “to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution.” The guy is very much a Leftist, but at the very least, he is honest enough and sane enough to recognize the damage the Leftist climate cult has created.
 
Which is why he shares the following factoids:
 

• “Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’”
• “The Amazon is not ‘the lungs of the world’”
• “Climate change is not making natural disasters worse”
• “Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003”
• “The amount of land we use for meat – humankind’s biggest use of land – has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska”
• “The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California”
• “Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s”
• “Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor”
• “We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter”
• “Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change”
• “Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildfire than fossil fuels”
• And “preventing future pandemics requires more not less ‘industrial’ agriculture”

 
So the guy is very much a liberal, and yet, he is willing to go against the cult by sharing these facts that directly contradict the cult’s narrative and rhetoric. Surely, there must be a reason, particularly for doing it now as opposed to any other time.
 
Well, as he explains, it wasn’t until last year that he began to be openly against the climate scare. Not because he believed it until last year, or because he was fully on board with the idea, but because of a couple of factors. For one, he says that he felt “embarrassed” about doing so, seeing as he, himself, was an alarmist for most of his life. As he explains, “for years, I referred to climate change as an ‘existential’ threat to human civilization, and called it a ‘crisis.’”
 
But that was only part of the reason for his avoidance of outspoken dissent. For the most part, he explains that he “was scared.” “I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.”
 
“Gay Pride” month just ended, and I can’t help but make a noticeable connection between what Shellenberger said and what people on the Left often say about gay people: that it’s hard to come out to friends and family out of fear of rejection and consequences. That it’s hard to be gay or lesbian or whatever at work because of “persecution” or even for the potential of being fired just for that reason alone. However, the truth is that, in this day and age, it takes no courage at all to come out as gay or whatever else. Coming out as a conservative, a Christian, a Trump supporter, or even just as sane enough to not believe the climate cult’s agenda takes considerably more courage because THAT has more consequences in this day and age.
 
When you are a climate scientist and you offer a dissenting opinion towards the climate cult agenda, people will bash you into next week and there will outright be calls for your termination at your job. I have no doubt that Shellenberger truly was afraid of the consequences of doing what he’s doing and have no doubt that he already has, to one extent or another, suffer said consequences. I don’t know if he has suffered in terms of his job (and he wrote a book debunking the climate alarmists, which I will get to in a moment), but I have no doubt that, if nothing else, he has lost people he once considered “friends” for offering such dissent.
 
After all, being part of such a radical movement and then being outspokenly against it will brand you a traitor to the cause and leave you with few honest friends.
 
But what finally got Shellenberger to swallow said fear and come out against the insanity of the cult was a number of things. For one, there is what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said regarding what will happen in a 12 years if we “don’t do something” about climate change. Though that’s not the ONLY thing that got Shellenberger to act, of course. As he explains, “last year, things spiraled out of control.” AOC’s doomsday “prophecy” and a high-profile environmental group from Britain declaring “Climate Change Kills Children” (didn’t know Planned Parenthood changed their name to “Climate Change”) were among the many reasons Shellenberger decided to be outspoken.
 
But perhaps what were the biggest reasons were a poll that said that “half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct,” and another poll that said “in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.”
 
The fact that the climate cult is TRAUMATIZING children with crap that is absolutely not true is what got Shellenberger to write his book: “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.”
 
The Left is outright abusing children, filling their minds with pessimistic outlooks of a grim world that they will inherit supposedly because of their parents and grandparents and because of the economic system of capitalism. These jackals are scaring children half to death just to obtain political power.
 
The fact that Shellenberger has a daughter himself was also a part of it, as she has had to tackle the topic of climate change, and even though Shellenberger has taught her well with regards to the topic, her friends are still misinformed and she would likely be the only dissenting opinion in her group of friends were she to try and correct them, which would undoubtedly cause her to suffer the consequences of such dissent.
 
So, Shellenberger decided to write a book and was kind enough to share some highlights from it for our understanding.
 
For example, he writes that:

• “Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress.”
• “The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food particularly meat, on less land.”

 
As you can see, he is still used to using Leftist terminology like “saving the environment” as opposed to simply saying “protecting” it, as that would be a bit more accurate, I’d say.
 

• “The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium.”

 
As I have stated in the past, if the Left truly cared about moving away from fossil fuels while also truly helping the environment, they would advocate for nuclear power, since that would accomplish both, but alas they are adamantly against it for a number of reasons ranging from “they are extremely stupid and misinformed” to “they don’t actually care about the environment, just the power they can obtain through abusing it as a narrative”.
 

• “100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%.”
• “We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities.”
• “Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%.”
• “Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did.”
• “’Free-range’ beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions.”
• “Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon.”
• And “the colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants.”

 
In the book, aside from these factoids, Shellenberger also explains the reasons as to why the climate cult operates as it does, and honestly, it’s not for reasons one would be shocked to hear: financial, political and ideological motivations. There is money in environmentalism for those interested and the political Leftists view it as a means to achieve global communism, a system in which they and only they get to profit and thrive, trying to replace God with government.
 
But regardless of that, I am glad that Shellenberger has realized the error of his ways and has recognized the dangers of the climate cult. I am glad that he formally chose to apologize for having been a part of it (apology certainly accepted) and more importantly, I am glad that he chose to speak out against the climate cult (even if he won’t necessarily call them that) and wrote a book debunking their lies.
 
What’s more, Shellenberger offers a good bit of hope for the future. Though he recognizes that the faulty ideology of Malthusianism, which has been repeatedly debunked for a couple of centuries now, even by yours truly, is “more powerful than ever” as a result of the Left’s indoctrination of children in school, there is reason “to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.”
 
He says this because the Chinese coronavirus pandemic has led to the WHO and even the IPCC to lose credibility. Remember, it was the WHO that was doing the bidding of the Chinese, telling people that there was no “human-to-human” transmission even though that was proven to have been a lie from the Chinese. No one has any reason to trust the WHO anymore, and by extension, the other “scientific” institutions under the UN (or even in general).
 
I would say more, but this article is already rather long and I must draw it to a close. In conclusion, I would simply like to say that Shellenberger is certainly forgiven and that I hope he will not get discouraged by the Left’s tactics of destruction that will definitely come for him soon enough.
 
I hope and pray that Shellenberger is successful in at least convincing a good amount of people of the reality that is separate from the cult’s depiction of it.
 
Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”

While I’ve already talked at length about the many Leftist talking points surrounding the global climate and have noted people who have debunked those talking points, allow me to get to another oft-used talking point, that being that “the sea levels are rising and our lifestyles, mainly because of capitalism, are to blame.”
 
That nonsense can very quickly be put to rest for much of the same reason that capitalism outright cannot be blamed for the changing of the climate: the fact that our world is dynamic.
 
Our climate is dynamic, so it is entirely natural for it to go through warm and cold periods. We’ve already established, time and time again, how there was the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and we are currently going through the Modern Warm Period.
 
By the same token of a dynamic ecosystem, our planet’s sea levels have seen various shifts, going up and going down. And according to several new research papers, sea levels in various places around the globe were considerably higher thousands of years ago as opposed to today.
 
Funny enough, the research papers talk about one of two periods in our planet’s lifetime: the Mid-Holocene period, which happened 2000-7000 years ago and the Last Interglacial (LIG) period which happened roughly 120,000 years ago. From that alone, we can discern the fact that, over large periods of time, sea levels throughout the world have gone up and have gone down simply because of their very nature and not because of man.
 
Let’s begin with the papers that focus on the Mid-Holocene period.
 
First, we have Lopez-Belzunce, et al., 2020, studying Mediterranean sea levels: “Regarding the stabilization of the RSL [relative sea level], our data show it to be 1.20 m above the present-day level at 3000 cal yr BP and 1 m higher at 2000 cal yr BP.”
 
What this study is saying is that Mediterranean sea levels were around 1-1.2 meters higher around 3000 calibrated years before present and 2000 calibrated years before present. In other words, the sea levels in the Mediterranean were higher 2-3000 years ago than they are today.
 
From Burley et al., 2020, studying in Polynesia: “At the time of first Lapita arrival at Nukuleka, sea levels were 1.2-1.4 m higher than present.”
 
From Lopes et al., 2020, studying in Brazil: “The late Pleistocene-middle Holocene post-glacial marine transgression (PMT) that started around 18 ka b2k in response to the melting of ice caps and glaciers, together with increased precipitation, would have led to another lake highstand… Sea-level curves obtained from several sites along the Brazilian coast show that a mean sea level (m.s.l.) equal to the present one was reached at ~7 ka b2k, and continued to rise until reaching up to +5 meters between 6 and 5 ka b2k… In the CPRS the PMT formed the Barrier IV, and the estimates based on geologic and fossil records indicate that it reached amplitude of about 2-3 meters above the present m.s.l…”
 
“The altitude of the terrace T3 above the fossils of Toxodon found in situ indicates this was cut by the Holocene sea-level highstand that reached a maximum altitude of 3 meters [above present] between 6 and 5.1 ka b2k. At that time Mirium Lake was invaded by the Atlantic Ocean through Taim and Sao Goncalo channel, becoming a large paleo-lagoon with conditions suitable for its occupation by marine organisms, including sharks, rays, teleost fishes and whales. The coastal waters were warmer than today, as indicated by the presence of fossils of the shark Carcharhinus leucas, common in tropical areas.”
 
Okay, while that was a lot of technical stuff, let’s go over them before moving on.
 
Both the Polynesian and Brazilian studies report that sea levels were higher thousands and thousands of years ago. The Lapita people were the Polynesians and Nukuleka is the oldest known Polynesian settlement. The Polynesians arrived on Nukuleka an estimated 2,838 years ago, so this is also within that range of 2-3000 years that the other study was discussing (which makes sense because the Mid-Holocene period was around this time as well, like I said earlier). Those Polynesians saw sea levels that were 1.2 to 1.4 meters higher than what we see today.
 
For Brazil, we are talking considerably farther back. The first thing it talks about is the post-glacial marine transgression (PMT), which began around 18,000 years ago (ka b2k means “thousands of years before AD 2000”. Don’t know why they don’t just say “18,000 years ago” instead of “18 ka b2k”).
 
Funny enough, it talks about that event having occurred as a result of what Al Gore and the Left blames humanity for: melting of ice caps and glaciers.
 
Weird, I didn’t know that humans 18,000 years ago traveled by plane, car, used air conditioners and employed structural capitalism, you know, the things the Left loves to blame even though it makes no sense for them to do so (at least if you are an objective person. We know precisely why they blame capitalism and our lifestyles).
 
In any case, the study then also talks about the main topic, that being sea levels. The mean sea level off the coast of Brazil seemed to be equal to what we have today around 7,000 years ago and was more than 5 meters higher between 5 and 6 thousand years ago, indicating receding sea levels as time went on (because that’s what they do). It also talks about another area which showed a sea level of about 2-3 meters higher than present at around the same time.
 
Another area of study seemingly showed that the sea level was 3 meters above the current levels roughly 5,100 to 6,000 years ago. And the final thing that the study mentions is the water temperatures, as indicated by the fact there was the fossil of a shark that can usually be found in tropical climates.
 
Moving on to other studies, while there are a few more that talk about the Mid-Holocene period, I believe the point has been made for that one.
 
From Muhs et al., 2020, studying in the Bahamas and Bermuda, talking about the Last Interglacial period of roughly 120,000 ago: “Corals with closed-system histories collected from patch reefs on NPI have ages of 128-118 ka and ooids/peloids from beach ridges have closed-system ages of 128-126 ka. Elevations of patch reefs indicate a LIG paleo-sea level of at least ~7m to ~9m above present. Beach ridge sediments indicate paleo-sea levels of ~5 m to ~14 m (assuming subsidence, ~7m to ~16m) above present during the LIG… Results of this study show that at the end of the LIG paleo-sea levels could have been as high as 11-13 m above present (at localities close to North American ice sheets) to as little as 5-8 m above present (at localities distant from North American ice sheets.”
 
This is important to note because 5 or 7 meters to 14 or 16 meters is A LOT of meters. At the low end, these scientists are saying that sea levels were a little over 16 FEET higher than today. At the high end, that goes up to as much as more than 52 feet.
 
Contrast that to the relatively minute doomsday warnings of a few centimeters and inches extra of sea level rise we get from the climate cult!
 
Reality has shown that sea levels can go higher than what the climate cultists say it currently is going, and despite all of that, regardless of how much they claim that sea levels are rising, we can clearly and plainly see that none of this is unprecedented.
 
Now, make no mistake, the sea levels being so many meters higher than they are today does bring with it awful results. Depending on where it happens, cities can, indeed be flooded this way. So it does present actual problems. However, the “solution” to these problems isn’t for people to abandon their use of air conditioners or cars or air travel or for the United States to turn towards socialism. All of those have a negligible-at-best, disastrous-at-worst result.
 
What all of this tells us, however, is that it is not unforeseen for the sea to rise to incredible levels and it definitely cannot be blamed on man-kind, and therefore cannot be solved by mankind. The best we can do is hope to mitigate such damage were it to occur (and there is no real indication that it will, but it’s worth keeping in mind that it could, as it did happen in the past, albeit hundreds of thousands of years ago and such levels have never been seen since then).
 
Whatever magic beans the Left tries to sell people with regards to the environment and climate change, they are nothing but garbage. The people that peddle these nonsensical solutions are snake oil salesmen too gripped by the fear and terror of the Left’s narrative to see reason.
 
We can clearly see that all of the “terrible and awful things” happening to the climate are not a result of humanity, given the history of the planet. Here’s hoping more and more people come to the realization that humanity cannot be blamed for natural events.
 
Isaiah 45:12
“I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.”

It is rare for us to see blue-on-blue crime, so to speak, but boy is it a joy when we do. Recently, Michael Moore produced and released a movie attacking the environmentalist movement (without departing from the overall insane ideologies it espouses) as being ineffective in the way it attempts to “fight” climate change.
 
Without going too much into detail, the movie talks about the inefficiencies of current “green energy” alternatives to fossil fuel as being just as, if not more, environmentally unfriendly as fossil fuels. However, Michael Moore’s ultimate solution isn’t to abandon the ridiculous and actually insane movement or to undo the damages it has caused. Rather, it is to go down the route of eugenics and espousing heavy population control to mitigate the amount of people that can affect the environment.
 
This, even in the eyes of a wacko environmentalist, is asinine. Not only is it asinine, but racist, according to George Monbiot, who wrote an entire Twitter thread to explain his reasoning (and he also wrote about the movie in a UK Guardian article, which I will cover in a moment).
 
The Twitter thread is quite lengthy so bear with me.
 
“Prompted by the shocking falsehoods in Planet of the Humans, this thread asks why so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth. The conclusion will enrage some people, but I think it’s unavoidable. Let’s take this step by step,” began Monbiot.
 
“There’s no question that population growth exerts environmental pressure. It’s one of many issues about which we should be concerned. But the global impact is much smaller than a lot of people imagine.”
 
“Undoubtedly, rising human numbers can have important local effects: pressure on housing, green space, wildlife, water quality etc. And it’s essential that all women have full reproductive choice, full control over their own bodies and full access to family planning.”
 
Ah, yes, good to see the Leftist shilling out for Leftist women by loudly proclaiming a right that they definitely do not have: the right to kill their own children should they please. Even though the originator of American abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was the very eugenicist that Monbiot seemingly dislikes, as he makes note in one of the tweets in this thread. And we will get back to Sanger in just a moment.
 
“But I see population growth repeatedly blamed as THE MAIN CAUSE of climate breakdown and other global issues. This is flat wrong.”
 
“There’s something else to note. The great majority of the world’s population growth is happening in countries where most people are black or brown.”
 
“So why do so many people in the rich world (the great majority of whom, in my experience, are male, white and quite affluent) insist, often furiously, that the ‘real’ global issue, the ‘elephant in the room,’ is population growth?”
 
“The first part of the answer is deflection. Blaming other people for your own impacts is a familiar means of avoiding responsibility and shedding feelings of guilt. But why point to the birth rates of the poorest people? Why not to consumption by billionaires?”
 
“It’s clear to me that generalized deflection is an insufficient answer. This is a particular variety of deflection. What we see is white people pointing the finger at black and brown people, saying ‘It’s not us. It’s Them’.”
 
“In different ways, this has been happening for a long time. Throughout the colonial era and after, the rich nations portrayed themselves as the ‘civilized’, virtuous actors, while their colonial subjects were ‘inferior’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘degenerate.’”


“There was – and is – a long-standing moral panic about the reproduction rates of these ‘inferior’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘degenerate’ people. If something was not done, ‘They’ would overwhelm ‘Us’. The human species would decline as ‘inferior’ people took over.”
 
“It was this terror of being ‘outbred’, ‘outnumbered’, ‘diluted’ that inspired the eugenics movement. A similar set of claims persists to this day, and is popular among white supremacists. It’s called Replacement Theory.”
 
I agree! But then, why does Monbiot still adhere to the ridiculous beliefs of the pro-abortion movement? The movement was SPAWNED BY THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT AND IS NOTHING BUT EUGENICS ITSELF. According to an article on Arizona Capitol Times, quoting a 2011 CDC report on Abortion Surveillance, “black women make up 14% of the childbearing population. Yet, 36 percent of all abortions were obtained by black women. At a ratio of 474 abortions per 1,000 live births, black women have the highest ratio of any group in the country.”
 
And if you remember, I talked about how the NAACP has long stopped caring about black people because of their support for Planned Parenthood. In that article, I mentioned how abortion was the leading cause of death for black people, 1,800 black babies are aborted every day, 52% of all black pregnancies end in abortion, and that “79% of [PP’s] surgical abortion facilities [are] located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods.”
 
So why does this guy openly abhor the practice of eugenics, yet at the same time, claim to support “women’s rights” to practice such eugenics? The guy either is ignorant of the eugenics that is abortion or is a hypocrite.
 
But moving on, Monbiot reaches his conclusion:
 
“So what is the disturbing conclusion to this thread? The answer to my question – ‘why do so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth?’ – is… racism.”
 
“I’m not saying this to cause offense. I’m saying it because it appears to be the most likely and parsimonious explanation of a bizarre phenomenon: affluent people with enormous impacts pointing the finger at poor people with tiny impacts.”
 
“Nor am I claiming that most of those who over-emphasize population are intentional racists. I think it is possible to entertain subconscious racist beliefs without actively wishing to discriminate against people of color.”
 
In short, his reasoning behind the affluent white people’s desire to control population growth is racism, be it intentional or not. I agree, but let’s not get things twisted here. Only ONE side of the political spectrum espouses such beliefs. Only ONE side advocates for eugenics of abortion and population control. Only THE LEFT believes in controlling populations for “the environment” (though we know perfectly well it’s for control and power as part of their communist ideal).
 
The rich, white liberal is the one that wishes to control population sizes wherever it might see fit. It’s no surprise, then, that a rich (for the time), white liberal by the name of Margaret Sanger once wrote to her friend Clarence Gamble that “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”
 
THE LEFT has idealized means of controlling various populations, be it through slavery, economic welfare (like today), abortion (like today) or other population control measures. Which is why it’s so funny to read the following from Monbiot:
 
In his lambasting review of Moore’s film, Monbiot writes: “When wealthy people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this issue without the necessary caveats, they are saying, in effect, ‘it’s not Us consuming, it’s Them breeding.’ It’s not hard to see why the far-right loves this film.”
 
“Population is where you go when you haven’t thought your argument through. Population is where you go when you don’t have the guts to face the structural, systemic causes of our predicament: inequality, oligarch power, capitalism.”
 
As I said, it is THE LEFT that espouses the eugenic belief of population control, not the Right or the “far-right.” Wanna know why the “far-right” likes Moore’s film? Because it DESTROYS the environmentalist movement’s arguments towards “clean” energy that isn’t clean whatsoever. Moore, in that film, said what the RIGHT has been saying for DECADES. Moore’s solution, however, is not something any conservative would want and is something only a LEFTIST would agree with, even if not this particular Leftist in question.
 
Again, the LEFT has been espousing and practicing the belief of eugenics. To blame CAPITALISM for a NATURAL occurrence of climate change is asinine. Don’t forget, the guy was discussing things in terms of anthropogenic climate change being real and being a problem. It isn’t. It’s a hoax. Climate change happens because ours is a dynamic climate. But we do not affect the climate at any rate, let alone at the rate that the environmentalist wackos claim we do. Which is another reason as to why we ABHOR population control, because it’s an inefficient non-solution to a non-existent problem that only leads to death and desolation, no matter the population being targeted.
 
But regardless, I am always happy to see some blue-on-blue fighting. Wrong as I may believe both are to different extents, it’s good to see this happen whenever it does.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”