Earlier this week, President Trump was in Davos, Switzerland, where he was set to give a speech in front of the World Economic Forum. The speech he gave is perhaps one of his best speeches of his administration that not only lambasts the climate cult’s ridiculous fearmongering apocalyptic predictions but also gives a positive message of hope for the future of the country, and any country that follows a similar path, as all good presidents do.
 
Of course, as many speeches go, it is far too long for me to write out the entire transcript of it and make the points that I wish to make, so let us highlight some important parts.
 
The President began his speech by noting how the U.S. is “boldly embracing American energy independence” in order to protect our security and our economy, and not allowing us to become dependent on imported energy from “hostile nations.” He pointed out how “while many European countries struggle with crippling energy costs, the American energy revolution is saving American families $2,500 every year in lowering electric bills and… prices at the pump.”
 
He also pointed out that, with this independence and with allowing for innovation, U.S. companies and researchers are leading the way and “we are on the threshold of virtually unlimited reserves of energy, including from traditional fuels, LNG, clean coal, next-generation nuclear power, and gas hydrate technologies.”
 
This, of course, goes against the climate cult’s narrative that there will be fuel shortages if we continue to depend on fossil fuels and that dependency on such fuels is “not sustainable”. With fracking, we are capable of producing far more energy than before without needing to worry about any sort of “shortage”. Of course, fracking is considered taboo to the climate cult not because it is not a good energy option, but because it IS a good energy option and it helps the fossil fuel industry and helps to continue generating energy without the need of the expensive and ineffective garbage the cult would force upon us.
 
As a result of these strategies, fuel is cheaper across the board and we are far from experiencing any sort of shortages. And at the same time, Trump noted that he is “proud to report the United States has among the cleanest air and drinking water on Earth… and we just came out with a report that, at this moment, it’s the cleanest it’s been in the last 40 years. We’re committed to conserving the majesty of God’s creation and the natural beauty of our world.”
 
This is not good news for the climate cult whatsoever. Their entire shtick is that we are killing the planet and making it dirtier and harder to live in, so we must turn over all of our rights and liberties to the government so that they can “solve” this “issue”. But reality is, as I have said time and time again, not what they make it out to be. Despite our usage of fossil fuels, we have clean water and air, which is far more than anyone could say about communist China. This is because we have the ability to use fossil fuels without compromising the environment around us.
 
But regardless, here is what I think is the best part of the speech:
 
“This is not a time for pessimism; this is a time for optimism. Fear and doubt is not a good thought process because this is a time for tremendous hope and joy and optimism and action. But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune-teller – and I have them and you have them, and we all have them, and they want to see us do badly, but we don’t let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the ‘70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives.”
 
“We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country, or eradicate our liberty. America will always be the proud, strong, and unyielding bastion of freedom. In America, we understand what the pessimists refuse to see: that a growing and vibrant market economy focused on the future lifts the human spirit and excites creativity strong enough to overcome any challenge – any challenge by far.”
 
The President is absolutely right about everything he said here. Despite how eternally pessimistic and angry and outraged the climate cult and the whole of the global Left is, this is a time for optimism, not pessimism. At least in the U.S., we are seeing one of the greatest economies this country has ever seen, with unemployment rates the lowest they’ve been in 50 years across all demographics, the stock markets often hitting new record highs, consumer confidence being at all-time highs, and being the furthest away from a recession as an economy can get. Wages are growing, particularly for lower classes, and people are making more money than before, while also saving more than before thanks to tax cuts.
 
All of the apocalyptic predictions we are hearing lately (the climate puppet recently said we only have 8 years now to fix climate change and Michael Moore also chimed in and said that we only have four years to fix it, probably having said this after eating Taco Bell) are not only scientifically unsound and unwarranted, but they serve the purpose of trying to scare people into giving up their rights. Even the climate puppet, who was also at this economic forum, said “I said I wanted you to panic” and does not feel that that is in any way wrong or dangerous because of the purpose: to drive fear into people’s hearts.
 
Of course, she failed, as have many others, but the point remains that they are fearmongers. It is only fitting, then, that Trump would point out their ridiculous past “prophecies” that have very obviously not come true because they were not going to come true.
 
They predicted starvation, mass overpopulation, acid rain, fuel shortages, increase in strength and frequency of storms and mass extinction. In September of last year, I wrote an article detailing *some* of over 40 different predictions these partisan hacks have made over the years with not a single one of them having come true. They have no credibility whatsoever, nor do they have the science backing them up.
 
Whenever you hear them saying “the ice caps are melting”, you eventually find that there is more ice today than when that prediction was made. Every prediction they have made has not panned out and eventually, people begin to catch on to the b.s., or at least, that’s the desired outcome (indoctrination in our schools does a good job of fooling kids into continuing to believe this nonsense).
 
And we all know why it is that they make these apocalyptic predictions, even though none of them have any sort of chance of coming true. It’s as the President said and as I pointed out earlier: to obtain absolute power to dominate, transform and rule every aspect of our lives. They want to tell us what kind of lightbulb to use, not because it is good for us (many of the bulbs the Obama administration regulated onto us can be poisonous if broken) or for the environment, but because they want to be able to order us around – to have dominion over our lives as though they were God Himself.
 
Even the ones who do not believe in any sort of god believe in the power that God has and want it for themselves. This is the aim of the climate cult, but hopefully, reason will win out in the end and these people will be reformed, leaving behind the disastrous and destructive ideologies of the cult in favor of the Light of God.
 
Regardless of whether or not that will happen (I do believe some people within the climate cult can be saved), returning to Trump, as I said, this is perhaps one of his best speeches as president. Of course, he spoke far more than what I wrote about, but the rest of the speech basically was about recognizing the successes of the past as a result of people’s hopes and their ability to make progress without being impeded by a pesky government.
 
The message he wanted to give to the people of Davos was one of hope for the future. That so long as the human mind is free and entrepreneurs are not impeded in their desire to enrich themselves and improve people’s lives in however small or large manner, there will be hope for the future. Sure, there is far more hope to be found in the Lord than in Man, but as he was speaking in front of an economic forum, it makes sense that this sort of hope is what he would want to drive.
 
And he’s not wrong to do this either, as a free market economy is far more capable of granting people hope than a communist economy where few things are private.
 
Romans 15:13
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli. 

Politics has infected a lot of things, but perhaps the worst thing that it could have infected was the field of science, as science relies on empirical data and facts, but now has been reduced to nothing more than a sort of democracy, where the mob rules what is considered “science”. It is extremely difficult to have an honest scientific conversation about the climate without someone bringing up talking points from the climate cult that make zero sense to those who are not intellectually deficient.
 
However, speaking to the House Committee On Science, Space and Technology, a sincere climate scientist absolutely shredded the talking points of the climate cult, though without necessarily naming any names (though you and I both know the two people he likely was talking about).
 
Michael D. Shellenberger, President of Environmental Progress, got to speak in front of this House committee regarding the science of climate change. He began by explaining his background in the field:
 
“I am an energy analyst and environmentalist dedicated to the goals of universal prosperity, peace, and environmental protection. Between 2003 and 2009, I advocated for a large federal investment in renewables, many of which were made as part of the 2009 stimulus. And since 2013, I have advocated for the continued operation of nuclear plants around the world and thus helped prevent emissions from increasing the equivalent of adding 24 million cars to the road.”
 
“I also care about getting the facts and science right. I believe that scientists, journalists, and advocates have an obligation to represent climate science accurately, even if doing so reduces the saliency of our concerns.” For this, I predict the man will be labeled a “climate denier” despite the fact that he does believe in man-made climate change. The guy, unfortunately, does not quite understand the very reason as to why it is that some scientists, journalists and advocates do not represent climate science accurately. They don’t claim that Miami, Los Angeles or other cities around the world will be flooded in the next 10 to 20 years because they believe it to be true, but rather, so that people will be scared enough to the point where they will vote for the people who claim to have an answer to this “issue” in the form of hardcore communism.
 
But regardless, he continued: “No credible scientific body has claimed climate change threatens the collapse of civilization, much less the extinction of the human species. And yet, some activists, scientists, and journalists make such apocalyptic assertions, which I believe contribute to rising levels of anxiety, including among adolescents, and worsening political polarization.”
 
That part was particular great, because we all know what ridiculous climate cultish “warnings” he was referring to. AOC has advocated that we only have about 12 years to implement the socialist GND before the world ends, and the now-17-year-old climate puppet has famously declared that humanity was facing “mass extinction” as a result of climate change, both of which are nonsensical apocalypse warnings that are only meant to scare people to the point where they will willingly give up their rights and freedoms in exchange for “safety” from climate change.
 
But as it usually works out, those who give up freedom for safety gain nothing. Benjamin Franklin once famously said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” And he’s certainly right, but that’s not where it ends. Those who would give up their liberty for some safety deserve neither and will receive neither.
 
Just look at Venezuela. They were told to give up their weapons and that doing so would make the country safer, but the country is more dangerous today than it was back then and now, they have no liberty either.
 
Look, also, at China, or in specific, Hong Kong. I remember, back when the Hong Kong protests were still a major story, watching a video of a woman asking the Hong Kong protesters why they wanted freedom if they would lose their safety (not putting that in quotation marks because I don’t remember the exact wording of the question, but that was the general point: why give up safety in exchange for freedom?) What the woman fails to understand is that liberty GIVES THEM safety.
 
Remember, the protests began because the Chinese government wanted to pass an extradition bill that would allow them to take people from Hong Kong and arrest them and send them to mainland China if they “perceived” that person to be a threat to the State. What part of that gives the people of Hong Kong any sort of safety?
 
But regardless, bringing this long tangent to an end, the reason people like AOC and Greta Thunberg make such ridiculous claims is to get people to be scared enough to vote into power those who claim to have an answer to the problem they create. They don’t have a vested interest in the truth.
 
But Shellenberger does appear to be interested in the truth, at least, as much as he understands it. “My colleagues and I have carefully reviewed the science, interviewed the individuals who make such claims and written a series of articles debunking them.”
 
Again, it’s possible that some in the climate cult will brand Shellenberger a “climate denier” but they don’t have a real reason to. He does believe in climate change, particularly man-made climate change as he suggests in the following quote: “While climate change may make some natural disasters more frequent and extreme, the death toll from extreme events could and should continue to decline, as it did over the last century by over 90 percent, even as the global population quadrupled. Does that mean we shouldn’t worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures.”
 
The guy does believe in man-made climate change and believes policymakers have the ability to pass into law certain policies that will help to “fight back” against climate change. Of course, the guy is definitely wrong here. I’ve already discussed, at length, how there is no discernible link between climate change and extreme weather events, so the first sentence in that last quote is technically incorrect. As far as “unknown tipping points” rising “with higher temperatures” goes, this one can also be tackled by the fact we’re living in the Modern Warm Period and that there have been two other warming periods like this, at least as far as we know (and in all likelihood, there are many more), that occurred about a thousand years ago or so (known as the Medieval Warm Period) and one that occurred while the Roman Empire existed (known as the Roman Warm Period).
 
The sort of “higher temperatures” we experience today are nothing new, particularly for this planet, and the advancement of technology allows us to survive any sort of dynamic climate patterns, so it is unlikely that this planet will face a “tipping point” as Shellenberger and others worry about. Not that there is a link between hurricanes and climate change, but technology has allowed us to better survive hurricanes that occur. The places where we find the highest death tolls in this day and age are places that are fairly behind in technology and infrastructure (i.e. poor countries in the Caribbean).
 
So Shellenberger is perhaps unaware of the erroneous statements he made there, but if anything, they go to show that he’s not some random scientist that “was paid off by big oil”, as conspiracy theorists on the Left might try and argue.
 
This is why I say that he is a sincere scientist. He is not outright telling the truth on this matter, but it could very well be because he is simply ignorant to the truth. But at the very least, errors and all, he is sincere and honest enough not to take what many other scientists and, in particular, climate cultists are saying at face value and say “yeah, they’re right. We’re screwed unless we employ this long wish-list of socialist policies that will totally not be ineffective at combating climate change”.
 
Shellenberger then also went on to advocate in favor of nuclear energy, arguing that solar and wind  energy, while popular, are unreliable and make electricity expensive as a result of large land use and large material requirements, all for the fact that they cannot replace the energy output of fossil fuels.
 
Regardless, it is nice to see someone who tries their hardest to be objective on an issue that has been so politicized that it’s practically impossible to be, or be perceived as, entirely objective. Again, he isn’t right about everything, as I have said. But at least he’s honest enough not to join the mob and demand action be taken out of fear of complete global annihilation.
 
He believes climate change is a threat, but he doesn’t believe it will kill us all, particularly in the extremely short timespan that insane cultists have presented.
 
Proverbs 19:1
“Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

We are roughly a week into the new decade, but it appears that the phoniness and the b.s. of the last decade will carry over into this one (not that that’s at all an unexpected development). While I could talk at length about the fake news media’s literal mourning over the death of Soleimani to tell you how much these people suck, let’s look at a different story entirely: the Australian bushfires.
 
Much of the Australian country/continent is on fire, with millions upon millions of acres and animals being affected by this horrible tragedy. Without missing a beat, the Left has sought to make this entire story about climate change, despite the fact that the fires were set by arsonists. In fact, according to New South Wales Police Force, 24 people have been charged with deliberately starting bushfires and 183 total people currently face legal action in the state.
 
But while there is plenty to talk about regarding this and how it makes zero sense to blame climate change for this (it would make zero sense to blame climate change even if this wasn’t arson), I would like to focus particularly on a graphic that ABC News shared on Twitter, for which they got absolutely destroyed.
 
ABC News tweeted out the above picture. As you can see, it is a map of Australia superimposed onto the United States mainland to show people roughly how big the fires are. But of course, since this is a fake news organization we are talking about, this is far from the truth.
 
The map makes it look like the fire would cover roughly a third of our own country, with many states being shown to be mostly or completely on fire. This, of course, was meant to scare people into believing Australia is in serious trouble (not saying it isn’t, as massive fires are always trouble, but it’s not because of climate change and the fires are nowhere near that massive) and that action must be taken, particularly action against climate change, and particularly action regarding passing legislation that will take people’s rights and freedoms away because that somehow helps the planet.
 
All a bunch of b.s. that even the actual ARTICLE FROM ABC NEWS WHERE YOU FIND THAT GRAPHIC refutes. From ABC News: “The raging fires in Australia have burned over 12.35 million acres of land – with at least 24 people killed and more than 2,000 homes destroyed by the blazes, officials said. The size of the fires across the country are twice as large as the state of Maryland and bigger than several other states, including Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New Jersey.”
 
Now, I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure that “twice as large as the state of Maryland” does not equal to nearly the entire country or even a third of it, as the graphic shows. The square mileage of Australia is 2.97 million square miles, which is roughly 78% of the U.S. (3.79 square miles). Maryland is only 12,407 square miles, so the fire would have to be 24,814 square miles. Still huge, no doubt, but nowhere close to what ABC News would want us to believe. In fact, the size of the fire is roughly only 1% of the country. As I said, that is big, but not quite as big as the fire on ABC News’ pants right now.
 
Again, I’m not outright trying to downplay the situation in Australia and say that it’s practically not important or not a big deal, because it is. 24 people were arrested and charged with arson for this, and in total, 183 people face some sort of legal action in the state because of these fires. 53 people are facing legal action for failing to comply with the state’s fire ban and another 47 people have faced some legal action for discarding lit cigarettes or matches on the land.
 
But as one can clearly tell, this is not a matter of climate change in the least and it doesn’t help the Left’s cause to so causally and blatantly lie about the size of the fires (or at least, it shouldn’t, considering just READING the actual piece will contradict the fake graphic). In fact, these bushfires are not even particularly unique. Breitbart News has reported in the past: “The link between arsonists and the deadly fires that devastate Australia every summer is well known and documented, with the rate of deliberately lit fires escalating rapidly during the school holiday period.”
 
In other words, Australian bushfires are very common, particularly during the time when dumb, young people are out of school, which is why charges can vary “from cautions through to criminal charges” according to NSW police and intentionally setting fire to bushes can result in up to 21 years in prison. This happens practically every single year, with this one being noteworthy in how bad it is, and even then, this fire is overhyped. Worse fires have been recorded, with one having occurred in 1939, when 2 million hectares were burnt to ash in New Zealand. What’s more, it’s not even like these are the hottest temperatures that Australia has ever recorded. The summer of 1938-39 was hotter and the hottest temperature recorded in the country, according to an Australian scientist writing about this very topic.
 
Climate change cannot even begin to be blamed here, but you and I both know that the Left will absolutely try their hardest. If they can blame a black man killing or attacking Jews on white supremacy, they can blame this on climate change because that is how pathetic these people are.
 
But as far as ABC News goes, again, this doesn’t really surprise me in the least. Fearmongering is par for the course for these people when it comes to climate change. They have to convince their audience, and even themselves, that the entire world is literally on fire despite the very clear evidence against that, or they have no agenda to push.
 
Make this reason #4782 why the fake news media is not about journalism but about propagandism.
 
Proverbs 14:5
“A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Not too long ago, I wrote three distinct articles discussing 27 total points surrounding the very same subject of the climate cult being dishonest and having inaccuracies in what they choose to call “science” (divided into three parts, with 9 points per part), largely because of Climate Depot’s “Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’” that they had passed around in a climate summit that was held in Madrid on December 10th. Following that, I did not really expect to find myself ADDING ONTO those 27 points by unofficially putting in two of my own, but here we are.
 
Point #1: according to Climate Depot: “Climate Related Deaths Down 99.9% Since 1932”.
 
Of course, from the outset, a couple of things can be talked about. First of all, what does it mean when they say “climate related deaths”? Well, this is taking things from the Left’s own vocabulary. You see, the climate cult often cries about how hurricanes are “proof” of climate change, or how they are becoming bigger, deadlier and more dangerous, or how droughts are a sign of climate change, etc., etc. Basically, anything that is related to the weather or is generally a NATURAL disaster, the climate cult considers it to be a “climate related” disaster and anyone who dies as a result of said disaster(s) counts as a “climate related death”.
 
So when Climate Depot uses that term, this is the context in which they are speaking. They are NOT climate-related things, as there is no link between extreme weather and climate change, but for the sake of the argument, we will use the Left’s own words against them.
 
Which brings us to the second thing to talk about and the most important point within this point. The amount of people who have died from extreme weather events such as hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc. – what the climate cult would call “climate related deaths” in order to scare people into submitting to communism – has PLUMMETED since the year 1932.
 
The Cato Institute reported back in 2014: “In the decade from 2004 to 2013, worldwide climate-related deaths (including droughts, floods, extreme temperatures, wildfires, and storms) plummeted to a level 88.6 percent below that of the peak decade, 1930 to 1939. The year 2013, with 29,404 reported deaths, had 99.4 percent fewer climate-related deaths than the historic record year of 1932, which had 5,073,283 reported deaths for the same category.”
 
“The climate catastrophists don’t want you to know this because it reveals how fundamentally flawed their viewpoint is. They treat the global climate system as a stable and safe place we make volatile and dangerous. In fact, the global climate system is naturally volatile and dangerous – we make it livable through development and technology – development and technology powered by the only form of cheap, reliable, scalable reliable energy that can make climate livable for 7 billion people.”
 
Again, this was just in 2014. In 2018, according to Climate Depot, such “climate related deaths” further dropped to just 5,000, which is a 99.9% decrease since 1932.
 
As the Cato Institute notes, it is because of our ability to adapt to the climate and build infrastructure that can protect us and keep us safe that we can live in what is, by default, a dangerous planet. Like the Cato Institute said, climate catastrophists, or the climate cult, as I call them, believe the planet is stable, sustainable and safe and we make it dangerous, unstable and unsustainable with our technology and our capitalism. It is utter nonsense meant to sell people on the idea of communism (and unfortunately, it is working pretty well). But the opposite is what is actually the case.
 
One cannot tell me that, when Jesus and His disciples were on a boat during a storm, that that storm was the result of man-made climate change. Literally the only instance of climate change we see here is JESUS ordaining the wind and the sea to calm down. That is the closest the world has ever come to seeing man-made climate change, and it came from someone who is the Son of God, fully man and fully God (at the same time, but not in the same relationship).
 
That was roughly 2000 years ago, well before any of the technologies we see today – such as coal-powered engines, A/Cs, and all the other things the climate cult likes to blame for climate change – even existed. In that story, the disciples were scared that they would die, literally asking Jesus: “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?” in Mark 4:38. They risked death at the time because they were on a fairly small, wooden boat that would not be able to protect them against such a storm and they were saved by the Lord Himself. In this day and age, we have much bigger and sturdier ships (that can still go down if God ordains it) that can sustain such storms with little problem.
 
The technological advancements we have made, thanks to the Lord, have allowed us to be better prepared for the naturally hostile environment in which we live. We have much better technology today as opposed to 1932, so it’s no wonder that “climate related” deaths have plummeted so much. But therein lies the dishonesty of the climate cult. They all blame our technology and our capitalism for the “destruction” of the planet when our technology and our capitalism has had the literal opposite effect, allowing for more and more people to survive. Climate cultists like Greta Thunberg “warn” about mass extinction, when nothing could be further from the truth.
 
But regardless, that’s the first point. Now, onto the second point, which relates to the reason I put “destruction” in quotation marks in the previous paragraph.
 
Point #2: according to notrickzone.com: “In the last 35 months, 350 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published containing documented evidence that undermines the popularized conception of a slowly-cooling Earth followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped recent uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.”
 
This sort of relates to one of the points made by the Climate Depot’s “Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’” that challenges the idea brought on by the climate cult that there is “consensus” surrounding climate change.
 
Taking aside the fact that consensus is, itself, not science, as there once was consensus that the Earth was at the center of the universe and that the atom was the smallest thing in the universe, showing how irrelevant consensus actually is in the scientific world, the fact that 350 scientific papers denoting how the climate cult has it very wrong is further proof that there is no actual consensus surrounding this topic.
 
One paper published on the International Journal of Climatology reconstructed temperature extremes of the last 1200+ years in the northeastern Mediterranean region and found the following:
 
“[A]n analysis of instrumental temperatures for the period 1955-2013 shows that in northwestern Greece, statistically significant trends in summer temperature are absent… The cooling trend from 1950-1976, previously reported throughout the Mediterranean basin, was followed by an, so far, insignificant warming… Our reconstruction mirrors this absence of a clear positive trend at decadal scale… In total, 110 cold and 48 warm extremes appear in the 100SP reconstruction, and 105 cold and 57 warm extremes in the 10SP reconstruction… The year 1240 was the warmest summer, with reconstructed anomalies of +3.13°C and +2.64°C in the 100SP and 10SP reconstructions, respectively. The two coldest summers in the 100SP reconstruction are 1217 and 1884 with anomalies of -3.17°C and -3.61°C, respectively… The elimination of decadal trends in the 10SP reconstruction causes events to appear more evenly distributed. However, over the past 450 years the occurrence of warm temperature extremes is substantially less frequent compared to preceding centuries.”
 
In other words, as far as the Mediterranean goes, the temperatures seem to act fairly cyclically, with warmer and colder summers throughout, with no real significant trend that would point to any sort of major global warming or cooling. If this is the case for the Mediterranean, it’s a safe assumption that it’s fairly similar for the rest of the planet.
 
There are also other studies that show something similar: different warm and cold cycles either in different regions or in general. For the sake of brevity, I won’t quote other papers, but if you want to read them yourself, go to the link to notrickzone.com.
 
Basically, all of these papers contradict both the notion of a consensus and the notion that we are severely warming up our planet through our technological advancements and our capitalism.
 
All of that is utter b.s., but we knew that for some time now. It’s a safe assumption that whatever the climate cult claims, the opposite is probably true.
 
Proverbs 17:4
“An evildoer listens to wicked lips, and a liar gives ear to a mischievous tongue.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli. 

I’ve often noted the fact that the climate cult, the mainstream media and the global Left went from calling it “Global Cooling” to “Global Warming” to simply “Climate Change” because warming and cooling are literally the only two options for a world whose climate is not static and so that they could always be “correct” about their predictions (even though none of their predictions have come true).
 
Well, similarly, it appears as though “scientists” can’t make up their minds about what influences climate change and how climate change influences things, because different studies give very different warnings.
 
According to a recent WebMD article: “Obesity Epidemic May Contribute to Climate Change”.
 
“Rising obesity rates worldwide may be contributing to the climate crisis, researchers report… Obese people produce more carbon dioxide than those of normal weight, the researchers said. Also, obese people consume greater quantities of food and beverages that need to be produced and transported to them, and transportation of obese people requires more consumption of fossil fuels. This means higher carbon dioxide emissions related to food production and transportation for obese people, the study authors explained. The researchers estimated that obesity contributes to an extra 700 megatons of carbon dioxide emissions per year worldwide, or about 1.6% of all human-caused emissions. Overall, being obese is associated with about 20% more greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) than being a normal weight, according to the study published online Dec. 20 in the journal Obesity.”
 
From the UK Times: “Research shows obese people are each responsible for more than a tonne of extra CO2 emissions a year. If you can’t stay slim for yourself, maybe you should lose weight for the planet. A new study has calculated that obese people are each responsible for more than a tonne of extra carbon dioxide emissions a year, roughly equivalent to going on a transatlantic flight. The research, published in the journal Obesity, finds that in total the extra food consumed by the world’s 600 million obese people has a carbon footprint on a par with that of the UK. Their increased metabolism also means that every year they breathe out extra CO2 equivalent to Sweden’s annual output.”
 
In an age when people get outright cancelled for “body-shaming”, I’m kind of surprised that “scientists” would claim that obese people contribute to climate change. So what are we supposed to believe? That being fat is “good” and “healthy” and “beautiful” or that being fat is “bad” and “killing the planet”? Of course, this is not a moral dilemma I have to go through because I’m not an ignorant person like most who would proclaim the same about obesity. Being obese is far from healthy and no, I don’t want to see some random fat woman in skimpy clothing dancing during a Lakers game. It’s disgusting and said woman should be ashamed of that and ashamed of the fact that she is unashamed of it. But in any case, being obese is not “beautiful” or “good” or “healthy” – it’s anything but. And by that, don’t believe I’m saying all obese people are ugly. What I am saying, however, is that obesity itself is not beautiful and it does not make anyone beautiful; if anything, it stands to detract from one’s beauty (as does being too skinny). It certainly is not “good” or “healthy” to be obese.
 
So for these researchers to suggest that obesity leads to climate change is kind of funny to me. But this leads me to the actual contradiction of the climate cult. If they believe that obesity leads to climate change, then why don’t we take a look at some other studies?
 
UK Guardian, 2013, “Millions face starvation as world warms, say scientists – UN urges: ‘We must act quickly.’”
 
“America’s agricultural economy is set to undergo dramatic changes over the next three decades, as warmer temperatures devastate crops, according to a US government report.”
 
From the UN in 2018: “UN Warns Climate Change Is Driving Global Hunger”.
 
“Climate Change is among the leading causes of rising global hunger according to a new report released by the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) this week. Pointing to extreme weather events, land degradation and desertification, water scarcity and rising sea levels, the authors show how climate change already undermines global efforts to eradicate hunger. Overall, the number of hungry people grew for the third year in a row in 2017, reaching a total of 821 million worldwide. The paper warns that this number will continue to rise if countries fail to tackle climate change and to build resilience to its unavoidable impacts.”
 
If obesity leads to global warming and global warming leads to hunger, doesn’t that mean that global warming is good and that this whole thing will take care of itself? Obesity is a bad thing and leads to the bad thing of global warming. The bad thing of global warming leads to the bad thing of global hunger. But if there are more hungry people, which is a bad thing, doesn’t that mean that there are less obese people, which would be a good thing, and in turn, there would be less global warming, which would be a good thing, and in turn, there would be less global hunger, which would be a good thing, and in turn, there would be more obese people, which would be a bad thing, and in turn, there would be more global warming, which is a bad thing and my brain hurts.
 
Do you see the flat-out contradiction I speak of here? If obesity leads to global warming and global warming leads to hunger, then hunger leads to less obesity and so on and so forth and I’m not doing that again. It makes NO SENSE for it to work this way.
 
Of course, there are other aspects to climate change that affect it (never mind the aspects that the climate cult believes affect it), but still, this is outright hilarious.
 
But wait, there’s more, because the Weather Channel hyped up a study that claims climate change leads to both starvation AND obesity: “Climate change will increase under-nutrition through increased food insecurity from extreme weather events, droughts, and shifts in agriculture. Climate change also affects the prices of basic food commodities, especially fruits and vegetables, potentially increasing consumption of processed foods… Under-nutrition in early life increases the risk of adult obesity.”
 
Okay, taking this nonsense seriously for a minute, let’s point out a couple of things. First of all, they keep talking about extreme weather events, even though there is no link between that and climate change. If there is no link, everything else in the argument false apart, so they have to continue pushing the narrative that things like hurricanes and droughts are because of climate change when they have no link with one another.
 
Secondly, if there is less food and the food available costs more and leads to under-nutrition, how can there be a higher risk of obesity? Let’s say that the final sentence, the one about under-nutrition in early life increasing the likelihood of adult obesity, is 100% true. That would be under normal circumstances where food is easily available in most countries, particularly the developed ones. If a kid is not fed an awful lot as a kid and grows up to become an adult with a job and the ability to afford food, then maybe there is a higher risk of obesity as an adult (again, assuming that claim is completely true). But these people are talking about a world where food is less available and far more expensive. As a result, there would be more hungry people and less obese people. So I don’t see how their claim that climate change can lead to obesity makes any sort of sense in this hypothetical world that they’ve created.
 
In any case, this is far from the only nonsensical claim that people have made with regard to climate change and the way people eat.
 
One study, which is sure to really get vegans to be even sadder than they generally are, suggests that vegetarian diets are more “harmful” to the environment and could contribute to climate change:
 
“In fact, according to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie,” according to Climate Depot.
 
Another study suggests that humanity’s invention of agriculture leads to climate change, mental illness, obesity and other things:
 
“The shift from a hunter-gathering lifestyle to an agricultural way of life… has not just led to many of the environmental problems we face today, it has caused some of dire medical disorders, from infectious diseases and obesity to the mental illnesses that are rampant in modern, urban living,” according to the UK Independent.
 
Suffice to say that the study of the climate is filled with junk science fiction, with little actually being factual or logical.
 
Proverbs 16:13
“Righteous lips are the delight of a king, and he loves him who speaks what is right.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

We finally arrive to the final 9 points in Climate Depot’s “Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’”, having talked about points 10-18 in an article from last Friday. As always, we will be looking at different ways in which the climate cult either outright lies about what they sell or use unscientific methods and data to lie about what they are selling.
 
Let’s begin, shall we?
 
     19.  Tornadoes do not follow “global warming” predictions 

Similar to the final point of Part 2, we find that tornadoes do not actually follow any sort of prediction set by the climate cult. The number of big tornadoes has only seen a drop in frequency since 1950, and the years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 either record low or near record lows of tornado counts in the U.S.
 
What’s more, 2018 saw a record low in tornado death tolls and no violent (EF4/5) tornadoes happened during the calendar year, the first time that has ever happened. So while the Left insists that “tornadoes are getting worse because climate change”, we find that the opposite is actually true. This, funny enough, appears to happen often. When they say “polar bears are dying”, we find polar bear populations increasing. When they say “droughts are getting worse”, we find droughts have been less frequent and terrible. Funny how that works.
 
     20.  Hurricanes not getting worse 

Similar to the point I just made, we find that when these climate cultists say that “hurricanes are getting worse” or “getting deadlier”, we find that that’s not true at all. Norwegian Professor Ole Humlum explained in his 2018 “State of the Climate Report” that “Tropical storm and hurricane accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) values since 1970 have displayed large variations from year to year, but no overall trend towards either lower or higher activity. The same applies for the number of hurricane landfalls in the continental United States, for which the record begins in 1851.”
 
So for roughly 50 years, there has been no upward or downward trend in tropical storm and hurricane ACE values, so no real increased or decreased activity in those 50 years. So then why does the Left insist that hurricanes are getting deadlier, stronger and more frequent? Ah, right, because they’re boldfaced liars hoping to scare enough people into giving up their rights and freedoms to an ever-growing government that cannot possibly do anything about the climate.
 
     21.  Droughts not getting worse either 

Similar to the last point, we find that droughts are not getting worse. Matter of fact, we find that “droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century,” observed Dr. Pielke Jr.
 
Also, a study from 2015 found that megadroughts in the past 2000 years were far worse and lasted for longer durations than current droughts. In other words, megadroughts from the time of Jesus’ birth were far worse than anything we’ve seen in recent time. This, in my mind, is also rather funny because all of the pictures that I use when talking about the issue of climate change involve an image of a sort of drought. And yet, we know that such things are not more frequent or deadlier in general.
 
     22.  Wildfires not becoming more prevalent 

As with the last couple of points, we find that wildfires have actually not been increasing and become deadlier, unlike what the climate cult claims.
 
A 2016 study found: “There is increasing evidence that there is overall less fire in the landscape today than there has been centuries ago, although the magnitude of this reduction still needs to be examined in more detail… The ‘wildfire problem’ is essentially more a social than a natural one.”
 
     23.  Fears of Antarctic ice melts are baseless 

Perhaps one of the biggest points made by the climate cult is that the glaciers are “melting”. This, however, is not accurate, as a 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was not losing ice mass and “not currently contributing to sea level rise.” Actually, it is contributing to a REDUCTION in sea level rise. The NASA study also found that ice mass gains of the ice sheet have been greater than its losses.
 
Of course, that was four years ago. How about in 2018? Yeah, NASA still finds Antarctica to be gaining ice mass, not losing it.
 
Even studies that claim Antarctic ice melt, like one from 2019 that alleges a 6-times increase in Antarctic ice melt are found to be “statistically insignificant”. “Such a tiny loss in comparison to the total mass of the ice sheet, it’s microscopic… statistically insignificant.”
 
That 2019 study, by the way, relied on climate models, not actual data, to get to its findings. Basically, the authors of the study simulated what they thought would happen and claimed that to be scientific fact. What they did was formulate a hypothesis, throw the scientific method by the wayside, and claimed their hypothesis was fact when it is not. Recall in the last article that I talked about how scientists, if they are found to be lying and distorting data just to be “proven” right, lose their credentials and credibility, and yet, when a climate “scientist” does it, they are treated as “geniuses” and stand to gain awards for it. It is utterly disingenuous and an affront on science and truth itself.
 
     24.  Arctic sea ice also not disappearing 

Similar to the point about Antarctica, the climate cult claims that the Arctic sea ice is disappearing. Not true. A study from 2019 found that the Arctic region was 4.6° warmer during the 1930s than today.
 
Also, according to a 2018 study, “Arctic sea ice volume data show earlier projections of ice-free Arctic summers were a sham. Sea ice now steady 10 years.”
 
What’s more, even if there were changes in ice volume, many scientists and experts agree that it’s not proof of man-made global warming and it wouldn’t be unprecedented, unusual or cause for panic. This is because the Earth is dynamic, not static, so there are bound to be changes that occur. That does not mean whatsoever that man is culpable. In fact, it tells us the opposite.
 
     25.  Greenland not disappearing 

As with the last two points, we find that Greenland’s ice sheet is growing, not shrinking. A 2019 NASA study found “Key Greenland glacier growing again after shrinking for years.”
 
Dr. Pat Michaels said back in 2016 regarding Greenland that “Humans just can’t make it warm enough up there to melt all that much ice.”
 
And a 2006 study found that “The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades.”
 
     26.  Global warming does not lead to wars, terrorism or national security threats 

Interestingly enough, data and studies show that warmer periods of human history coincide with less conflict. The CIA even used this in 1974 to claim that “global cooling”, the main term of the time, would lead to war and terrorism. The Center for Strategic and International Studies report also noted: “Since the dawn of civilization, warmer eras have meant fewer wars.”
 
I imagine the biggest reason for this is due to resources being exhausted during colder periods. So, it’s not so much that there is a direct correlation between the climate and humans fighting one another, but more alongside the fact that colder climates mean burning up more resources to stay warm, and lower resources can lead people to fight one another to survive.
 
     27.  We have had to “save the world” an awful lot of times 

In 2019, the U.N. admitted that the so-called “historic” Paris climate accord did nothing to save the Earth whatsoever and it now says that reducing CO2 emissions “not enough… We must change food production to save the world.”
 
Remember back in 2015, when the accord was first signed? Many people hyped it up as the date in which the world was saved. Quite literally. Al Gore said of it: “Years from now, our grandchildren will reflect on humanity’s moral courage to solve the climate crisis and they will look to December 12, 2015, as the day when the community of nations finally made the decision to act.”
 
But since then, the U.N. has proposed more and more communist agenda items, particularly trying to convince people to give up eating meat in favor of… eating insects. What’s more, they aren’t the only ones bringing up insane proposals that wouldn’t have to be brought up if the world really was saved on that fateful day, December 12th, 2015.
 
This harkens back to a point made in Part 2, about the very existence of the U.N.’s IPCC relying on there being a man-made climate change. If there is no man-made climate change, there is no need for IPCC. If the world actually was saved by the Paris climate accord, there would be no need for the GND or the stuff the U.N. is currently proposing. There’d be no need for the communist Left to attempt to sell people on communist ideas for the purposes of “saving the planet” if the planet was already saved by the Paris climate accord, which would defeat the Left’s entire purpose for living. They consider themselves the elite, who “deserve” to rule over those they consider to be inferior, and without scaring them to death about us killing the planet, there would not be all that much that they could do to convince people of their insane and twisted ideals that will only benefit them.
 
Not only can these people do nothing to actually “solve” climate change, when they try, they take a victory lap and then go on to continue proposing more and more freedom-limiting, right-stealing plans to further their own authority and power over others.
 
The hysteric climate cult is wrong about virtually everything it attempts to sell people, but it’s not like pointing that out will do anything. The climate cult is a cult of emotion, not logic or reason. Facts don’t matter. Only feelings do, and these babies are vewy upsetty at the governments of the world for doing “so little” to “combat” climate change.
 
Proverbs 28:26
“Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Yesterday, I shared with you the first nine points out of a total of 27 that highlight the deceitful and scientifically-inaccurate nature of the climate cult. Today, we will go over points 10-18, another 9 points.
 
Without further ado, let’s begin:
 
     10.  GND would have no real impact on climate, even using U.N. and Al Gore’s claims 

According to a 2019 study by American Enterprise Institute, the GND would have “no effect” on climate change, even if one were to use UN “science”, and the GND’s temperature impact would be “barely distinguishable from zero.”
 
“In total, completely enacted, funded, and efficiently meeting goals,” something AEI does not anticipate the GND to be capable of, the plan would cut the global increase in temperature by “0.083 to 0.173 degrees,” a figure that the report acknowledges is “barely distinguishable from zero.”
 
Even using climate models, the effect of the GND would be “barely detectable in the climate record,” according to Dr. Patrick Michaels, a climatologist who ran the GND’s alleged climate impact through the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s climate model simulator.
 
     11.  Greta’s of the world are being misled by adults who should know better 

TIME’s Person of the Year award went to the 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden, despite her accomplishing basically nothing at all, only garnering media attention due to her age. The girl famously decried that she wanted everyone to “feel the fear I feel” with regards to climate change. This is completely unnecessary and speaks volumes of the malignance of the Left, allowing for a teen girl to be afraid to death over something totally fabricated.
 
And instead of calming her down and telling her the truth, like responsible, sane and civil people would, the Left puts her on a pedestal and uses her young age as a shield against criticism of the lunacy that her mind has been filled with. Greta Thunberg is not a “climate heroine”, she’s a victim whose life has been severely negatively altered by the lies of the Left. She claims that government’s inaction on climate change has stolen her dreams and childhood. They have been stolen, alright, but not by “government inaction,” but by a power-hungry, demonic Left.
 
     12.  GND, UN, Paris accord, carbon taxes, EPA regulations cannot alter the climate 

Dr. Robert Giegengack made the obvious observation that “none of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”
 
This point sort of calls back to point #2 in Part 1 of this 3-part series. That point talked about how CO2 was not the “control knob” of the climate and many other things affect the climate. The reason that Dr. Giegengack said this is because the governments of the world have demonized an essential part of our planet, thinking it bad and killing our planet, and have sought to eliminate it when it has little to do with the actual climate. This is the ecological equivalent to treating a cold in the hopes of curing cancer.
 
     13.  Sea level rise NOT accelerating 

One of the Left’s favorite arguments is the claim that a rise in sea level will flood areas like L.A., Miami, etc. They also say that the rate for rising sea levels were accelerating due to climate change. This is a lie. Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age happened and have been rising for around 20,000 years. There is no evidence to suggest sea levels are rising faster now than ever before.
 
According to former NASA climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every 10 years.”
 
     14.  U.N. and others use climate hysteria for political agenda 

U.N. official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, once said the following: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
 
My 11th grade Chemistry teacher taught us that scientists, if they lie about their findings and alter their data, and are found to have done so, risk losing their credentials and certainly all credibility. But when climate “scientists” with doctorate degrees lie about their findings and alter their data, they get awards and prizes for their lies, not scorn and punishment. The people that do this simply are not real scientists. Science isn’t about setting a narrative, it’s about clear, objective truth and fact and the attempt at discovering said truths and facts. To lie, whether for a political agenda, or for power, or for money, or for advancing one’s own career, is utterly unscientific.
 
     15.  U.N. IPCC climate panel is more of a political organization than a scientific one 

Similar to the previous point, the U.N.’s IPCC is simply a lobbyist organization hiding behind the mask of science. Climate data analyst John Mclean concluded that “the UN IPCC is, in fact, no more than a craftily assembled government-supported lobby group, doing what lobby groups usually do.”
 
Climate Depot actually puts it quite well when they say: “the UN IPCC is a lobbyist organization that seeks to enrich the UN by putting it in charge of ‘solving’ climate change. If the UN fails to find man-made global warming a problem, it no longer has a reason to continue the climate panel and therefore cannot be in charge of proposing ‘solutions’ to climate change.”
 
Basically, the only reason the IPCC makes the claims that it does about climate change is because it HAS TO in order to even exist. If they find there is no man-made climate change, they go out of business, so to speak. So, they lie and they create problems that aren’t real so they get paid and have the authority to propose ways for people to live.
 
They are like those shady mechanics who break something or claim something is messed up and charge you to fix it when nothing is actually broken or at least, nothing was broken before you took your car to such mechanics. Except, these people are actually worse because, while they can’t “break”, so to speak, the climate, when they claim something is messed up, they propose that you change everything about your lifestyle. At least shady mechanics are only after your money; these people are after your whole lives.
 
     16.  Polar bears are thriving and extinction fears are baseless 

One of the most famous climate change pictures is that of a polar bear floating in the ocean on top of a small bit of ice, big enough to barely support the large animal. With this image, we are given the dire warning that polar bears are “going extinct” because of climate change. However, a study from 2019 revealed that polar bear numbers may have “quadrupled”, and another study finds that polar bear populations are at highest levels:
 
“Far from the 2007 predictions of a 67% decline in global polar bear numbers, the new report reveals that numbers have risen to the highest levels in decades. The US Geological Survey estimated the global population of polar bears at 24,500 in 2005. In 2015, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group estimated the population at 26,000 (range 22,000-31,000) but additional surveys published 2015-2017 brought the total to near 28,500. However, data published in 2018 brought that number to almost 29,500 with a relatively wide margin of error. This is the highest global estimate since the bears were protected by international treaty in 1973.”
 
In other words, polar bears are FAR from seeing extinction-level threats.
 
     17.  Gore did not mention polar bears in “An Inconvenient Sequel” 

Do you want to know the biggest reason for the polar bear scare to happen in the first place? Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth”. But since the film’s original release in 2006 to the sequel’s release in 2017, we’ve only seen polar bear populations GO UP, not down as Gore predicted. As a result, he left the situation with the polar bears out of the film entirely because it didn’t fit with his narrative.
 
He doesn’t consider it good news that polar bear populations have increased, despite what concern he may have pretended to show over a decade ago. If the world is not literally on fire, Al Gore can’t make his money, and news that the world isn’t literally on fire is a bad thing for Gore.
 
     18.  Extreme weather does not follow predictions 

In the last point that will be shared for today’s article, we find a topic that I personally have also talked about at length. Back in 2017, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., who should be rather recognizable for those who have been reading these articles for a while now, testified to Congress that there was “no evidence” that hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, etc. were increasing. Even the UN IPCC admitted in a 2018 Special Report that extreme weather events have not increased and that “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.”
 
They also report that there is low confidence in “the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale.” In other words, cyclones and droughts have not been more prevalent as time has gone on. In fact, extreme weather is either in no trend or declining trend on climate timescales. Dr. John Christy eloquently explains why extreme weather claims are so unscientific: “The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, ‘whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.’ In other words, there is no event that would ‘falsify’ the hypothesis.”
 
This is a point I have also made myself, when the Left decries global warming when it gets hot during the summer and global cooling (or just climate change) when it gets cold during the winter. Basically, they are saying “whatever happens, we are right and we should be very afraid.” That’s the issue with the term “climate change” in general: it covers the only two possibilities of global warming or cooling and Leftists pretend they are right either way. As I have explained before, this is nothing short of a complete and utter copout.
 
But regardless, this is where we will leave off until Monday. Again, we see the disgusting lies, deceit and crap being passed off as “science” that the Left attempts on a daily basis with the issue of climate change. They insist we “feel the fear they feel” about something that is based entirely on lies and altered data.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Before I begin this article, I should mention that I did not come up with these points myself. They were brought up by Climate Depot in a rather lengthy article where they explain that paper copies of their 36-page report of what they call “Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’” were distributed at the UN Climate Summit in Madrid on December 10th, 2019.
 
However, I feel the need to write about this and highlight their points to you guys, so here we go: the 27 talking points that point out how the hysterical climate cult either alters facts, uses non-scientific “facts” or outright lies about things in an effort to scare people into submission for the purposes of building a global communist government:

1. There is no such thing as a “97% scientist consensus.”

 
Many have attempted to say that the “facts are undisputed” on climate change because there is a “consensus” of scientists who agree that we are facing a “climate crisis” or some such nonsense. However, there are a couple of problems with that. First of all, there is no study or poll that gives credence to that figure. UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol said of this so-called consensus: “The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.”
 
The second problem with this argument is that, even if there actually was a consensus on this, that doesn’t mean it’s scientifically accurate. There used to be a consensus that the Earth was at the center of the universe. There used to be a consensus that people could be witches in Salem. There used to be a consensus that the atom was the smallest thing in the universe. And yet, each and every one of these things were corrected as more scientific evidence became available.
 
      2.  CO2 is not the “control knob” for the climate
 
To say that CO2 is the only, or even the biggest, influencer of climate change is simplistic at best and outright ignorant at worst. There are many factors that influence the climate, from sun activity, to volcanic activity, to ocean cycles, land use, tilting of the Earth’s axis, etc. The levels of CO2 we see today are actually, geologically speaking, among the lowest in earth’s history, as far as we know.
 
     3.  We are not facing a “climate emergency” 

The preferred terms in previous years and decades have included: global cooling, global warming, climate change, etc. “Climate emergency” is nothing more than a marketing ploy to sell people on the idea that they must act quickly before it’s too late. It’s no different, conceptually, to seeing an ad that screams at you: “Act now, before it’s too late!” or “If you call now, you’ll get double the items for the same low price as one!” or something else that is meant to get people to act with urgency and with little thought.
 
     4.  Doomsday clocks have been around for centuries and are nothing but garbage
 
As explained in previous articles, the first prediction of an ecological catastrophe dates back to 1864, when George Perkins Marsh, who is known as the father of American ecology, warned about the earth’s “noblest inhabitant” going extinct as a result of “climatic excess” and a home becoming “unfit”.
 
What’s honestly hilarious about this is that there isn’t even much consensus about when exactly we’re all going to die. AOC famously claimed we would die in 12 years if climate change wasn’t “addressed”. Prince Charles, in July of 2009, warned that we would be at a “point of no return” in 96 months. That was 125 months ago and people are still pushing back the “tipping point” because they keep being proven wrong but they won’t admit they are totally wrong about the climate.
 
     5.  Actual scientists don’t demonize CO2 as a pollutant 

Physicist Freeman Dyson, often known as “Einstein’s successor” says, “I like carbon dioxide, it’s very good for plants. It’s good for the vegetation, the farms, essentially carbon dioxide is vital for food production, vital for wildlife.”
 
CO2 has been demonized by the Left as a “pollutant” and a “poison” both for the Earth and for people. And while high levels of CO2 inhalation are fatal (as most high levels of consumption of anything usually is – if you drink more water than you should, you would die, despite how essential water is for us), carbon dioxide is essential for life on Earth. We, ourselves, are carbon-based lifeforms. Eliminating carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would prove to be fatal for us, and as previously mentioned, CO2 levels are among the lowest the Earth has seen (again, as far as we know).
 
     6.  The GND is not “green” or “new” 

The GND, according to Bloomberg News, would cost roughly $93 trillion over the next ten years if made into law today. This, put simply, is totally unaffordable. Right now, we have a debt over $21 trillion. If we had anywhere close to the amount necessary to pay for the GND, we would’ve gotten rid of our debt long ago. Over the last ten years, we’ve accrued over $10 trillion in debt. This, long-term, is unsustainable and will play a part in the collapse of the United States, much as high levels of spending and debt led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. A country that can’t pay its fees isn’t a country that is very healthy and can last for a long time. Adding on nearly 10 times the amount we accrued in the last decade over the next decade would be a death sentence.
 
What’s more, it’s nothing but a communist ploy. Back in 1970, Amherst College professor Leo Marx (apt surname) warned about the “global rate of human population growth. All of this only to say that, on ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument.” The guy envisioned a global government with the power to dictate people’s lives to the point where it can regulate birth rates and the population. This is communism under another name, what the GND aims to achieve (will talk about this in the following point), and this was proposed, again, back in 1970, making the Green New Deal neither green nor new.
 
     7.  GND is not about the climate 

As previously mentioned in other articles, the GND is not about the climate, even to the admission of the very architects of the GND. Former AOC campaign aide Waleed Shahid admitted the GND was a “proposal to redistribute wealth and power from the people on top to the people on the bottom.” AOC’s former chief-of-staff also said that the GND was less a climate thing and more a “how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” What’s more, only about $8-12 trillion of the $93 trillion plan would be spent on cutting carbon emissions and environmental stuff. The rest would be used for the Left’s economic agenda, healthcare and jobs (none of which would actually be provided, realistically), so the Green New Deal is about employing communism, not about solving any sort of “crisis”.
 
     8.  “Hottest year to date” claims are scientifically meaningless 

When someone like, say, Obama, says that “this year was the hottest year to date”, what would someone who believes in the climate hysteria think? That the Earth is heating up by a lot of degrees, right? Well, when various years were claimed as being the “hottest” to date, closer examination of the data revealed the claims were “based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few hundredths of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that were within the margin of error in the data.”
 
Basically, people claiming one year to be the “hottest to date” are making scientifically meaningless claims that are only true on a technical, virtually-impossible-to-discern level.
 
     9.  Earth’s temperature not outside of natural variability 

Arriving to the last point for Part 1, we find Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever pointing out that “.8 degrees is what we’re discussing in global warming. [Just] .8 degrees. If you ask people in general what it is, they think – it’s 4 or 5 degrees. They don’t know it’s so little.”
 
Similar to the previous point, people think that, when discussing temperature increases due to global warming, the Earth is heating up by a good bit, usually 4 or 5 degrees, with some maybe thinking it is increasing double digits. But we are talking about less than a degree of difference. Award-winning climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said: “We are creating great anxiety without it being justified… there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic… The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it, we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”
 
For brevity’s sake, this is the last point we will discuss today. Tomorrow, I will release a Part 2 to this, going through points 10-18, and on Monday, Part 3, covering points 19-27, so 9 points for each part.
 
The reason for this is that, even if I’m covering each point with two paragraphs, there are a lot of points to go over and I don’t want to make an article that is about 5,000 words long. That wouldn’t be easy on me as the writer or on you as the reader. So for now, this is where we will leave off.
 
But to briefly conclude on the observations of today, it is quite clear how dishonest and actually dangerous the climate change cult can be. If allowed to succeed, we will see a global communist government dictating every aspect of our lives, using lies and deceit to drive fear into people to entice them into willingly giving up their freedoms in exchange for “safety” from climate change.
 
Psalm 118:8
“It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Of course, that question in the title is very rhetorical. The answer is that he does not know God. He knows of Him, of course, but does not actually know Him on a personal basis, otherwise, he wouldn’t say the crazy, wrong, and even at times, idolatrous, things that he says.
 
Saint Peter’s Square was holding the inauguration of the Vatican Christmas tree and Nativity scene last Thursday, and the Pope thanked the people of Veneto and Trentino-Alto Adige, who donated the tree and the Nativity scene.
 
But in doing so, Il Papa went on a tangent regarding his favorite topic: not the Gospel, but climate change and the “emergency” that we face.
 
“Today’s meeting offers me the opportunity to renew my encouragement to your people, who last year suffered a devastating natural disaster, with the demolition of entire wooded areas. These are events that frighten us; they are alarm signals that creation sends us, which summon us to immediately take effective decisions to safeguard our common home.”
 
Don’t know about you, but it sure sounds like he believes God is not actually sovereign and that the climate depends entirely on us to survive.
 
Of course, this is far from the first time Pope Francis has said ridiculous and seemingly idolatrous things. He’s often lambasted politicians for being “weak” regarding cutting emissions, has encouraged people to “adopt more simple and respectful lifestyles”, though does not show himself to be leading by example, and encourages people to seek the “old-age” wisdom of indigenous peoples and how they treated and lived with nature. Indigenous peoples were people who worshipped nature, not God, so I can see why Pope Francis feels at home with such ideologies.
 
But to return to his quote at Saint Peter’s Square, funny enough, I have already written an article discussing what he is talking about. In an article titled: “There Is No Link Between Climate Change And Extreme Weather Events”, I talk about… well… how there’s no link between climate change and extreme weather events like what northern Italy recently had.
 
If you remember, the ultimate conclusion reached in that article is that scientists researching this very topic found 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.”
 
What’s more, a 2012 IPCC report called “Special Report on Extreme Weather” ultimately agreed with these scientists on their findings that there was no actual statistical connection between climate change and extreme weather events.
 
The only reason any environmentalist whacko says that hurricanes are due to climate change is to frighten people into believing the cult’s ideologies. Because hurricanes exist and because they can cause damage, even death, then there must be a scientific explanation for them (there is). The Left has hijacked science to be a political tool (look at what they are claiming about gender) and insists that these hurricanes, which are real, is a result of man-made climate change, which is not real, and they provide no actual evidence to this.
 
Pope Francis is among the false teachers that the Bible warns us about. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 says the following: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
 
The Pope, much like other Leftists, hates the fact that he is not God Almighty. What the climate cult hopes to achieve is to turn mere mortals into gods, like Greta Thunberg. They seek to have the power of God, able to create and destroy, to be sovereign over all the universe. Convincing people that they have more power than they actually do, and that such power can be harmful to the environment and that this power must be controlled by the government and by the leaders (like Francis) aims to achieve what that letter to Timothy says. In order to suit their own desires, they get teachers (scientists) to say what they want to hear, instead of the truth.
 
It’s extremely obvious that Pope Francis is a false teacher, a false shepherd, a false prophet. He speaks of things he has no clue about, as evident by the fact that he insisted that extreme weather events are a result of climate change. But what is worse, perhaps, is the fact that he has the Truth available to him anytime he wishes to read it and still adamantly rejects it and perverts it.
 
Of course, he doesn’t explicitly say that he rejects the Truth of the Gospel. Doing so would get him removed from the power he has. But he rejects it every time he speaks such falsehoods. He does not trust that the Lord is in control; that He is sovereign over everything, including the weather and the climate of the world. He has no actual faith in God, so he turns to Man. He believes Man has the power to wrestle away control from God with regard to the climate – that we can turn up the temperature or cause it to severely drop if we so chose to.
 
He does not trust that, even if the climate does warm up or cool down, it is because God has created the Earth this way and because He has ordained it to be so. If God wanted to, He could make the climate completely static, utterly unchanging. He and He alone has the power to warm or cool the planet. To believe we are capable of wrestling away such control is heresy.
 
The Pope often says that we are “harming” the planet that God has given us because of the sin in our hearts. Of course, Man is capable of harming nature, there’s no disputing that. We can pollute lakes and other bodies of water. We can pollute the ground. We can pollute the air (by the way, it’s funny but not unexpected that whenever he talks about climate change, Pope Francis always attacks capitalism and does not say anything about China and their egregious polluting practices). However, being able to do that does not mean we are capable of forcing a warming or a cooling of the climate.
 
As stated in previous articles, the climate engages in a cycle of warming periods. There was the Roman Warming Period, which lasted around the same time as the Roman Empire did; there was the Medieval Warming Period and we are currently in the Modern Warming Period. Each of these Warming Periods denote a time when the Earth was abnormally warm, but even then, one can hardly call that “abnormal”. This is a cycle that appears to happen every thousand years, with one Warming Period and with no Warming Period in a millennium, so if it alternates like this, I’d say that the warming and the cooling is not abnormal at all. What would be abnormal would be any break in the cycle, either making the cycle last longer (the Warming Periods usually last 300-600 years) or making them way shorter.
 
This is the way that God has ordained the world to exist for now. One cannot realistically argue that any of these Warming Periods, particularly the Medieval and Roman ones, are a result of man-made climate change or are a result of our lifestyles.
 
The third chapter of the Westminster Confession of faith (which I recognize is a Protestant document, not a Catholic one, but I believe it to be accurate doctrine applicable to anyone who is a follower of Christ) begins with the following words: “God, from all eternity, did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and immutably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”
 
You don’t have to be a Protestant to believe these words to be true. You don't even have to be a Christian. If you believe in an all-powerful, sovereign God, you have no choice but to believe these words to be true. Whether you are a Christian, Jew or Muslim, this is something all theists believe and what all atheists do not believe. God, for all of time, by his own wisdom and holy counsel of His very own will, entirely freely and unchangingly ordains whatever happens. That means that nothing happens without His ordaining so. He isn’t caught off-guard by anything; nothing is a surprise to Him. He doesn’t look at anything and say “Didn’t see that one coming”.
 
So to assert that mere men, creation made from dirt by the Holy power of God and made in His own image, are capable of acting in a way that overpowers the will of God is an assertion made by someone whose life and heart and being do not totally belong to Christ. To believe that we are capable of wrestling away control from God in this manner is antithetical to the very belief system present in Christianity.
 
If one does not believe God to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and one does not believe that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, one cannot be considered a believer in God, because whatever god such a person believes in is not the One True God of Scripture and is nothing more than a fictitious, man-made deity, whose characteristics are created by Man, and not the other way around.
 
It is shameful that the man who is considered the head of the Church would be so lacking in faith. And even though he is far from the first Pope to not be a Christian, it is still shameful that such secular people could be put into what is considered the highest honor of Christendom in the mortal realm.
 
Ezekiel 13:9
“My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign Lord.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

For decades now, we have heard just about everything regarding climate change and that big, ole’, mean chemical compound known as “CO2” (that’s not actually mean at all and is necessary for life on Earth). Everyone from climate “scientists” to politicians to celebrities to fake news reporters have cried about rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere and constantly demand that people living in the Western World give up our liberties and our rights to the government in order to “fight” climate change (yeah, still haven’t heard a solid argument as to why we should do that or how it would actually solve anything. It’s very obviously a communist ploy).
 
That particular chemical compound, though necessary for life on Earth, has been so demonized that people demand we reduce the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere to 0% (which would kill us) or as close to it as possible. But climate scientists have, for a couple of years now, noted that CO2 is rather negligible when it comes to global warming.
 
In 2015, a seminal paper was published in Geophysical Research Letters that said that a rising concentration of CO2 in Antarctica causes a negative greenhouse effect aka cooling.
 
“For most of the Antarctic Plateau, GHETES is close to zero or even slightly negative; i.e., the presence of CO2 increases radiative cooling. Over Greenland, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is also comparatively weak but invariably positive.”
 
So back in 2015, a couple of scientists were saying that CO2 was actually causing COOLING rather than warming, at least in the southern hemisphere. They also acknowledged that such emissions were pretty “weak” in both hemispheres.
 
So then why did Greta Thunberg yell at a bunch of white people that they were destroying the climate when CO2 hasn’t actually been shown to be even all that relevant when it comes to climate change? The entire “fight” regarding climate change revolves around reducing CO2 emissions. Multiple parts of the Green New Deal include doing exactly that, and yet, since at least 2015, there are scientists that argue that CO2 was pretty “weak”, at least in the poles?
 
But regardless of the phoniness of the entire climate change cult, let’s move on to another piece of news (that is actually not all that new) that might intrigue us to some extent:
 
“Carbon dioxide: sometimes it is a cooling gas, sometimes a warming gas,” according to a research article from 2018.
 
Here’s what the abstract of the article says: “The laws of physics, namely the gas laws, were applied to the gases in the atmosphere that act as ideal gases. The results show that as air temperature increases from winter to summer, CO2 is a cooling gas and from summer to winter, it is a warming gas regardless of its concentration in the atmosphere. This is contrary to the commonly held belief that CO2 always warms the atmosphere… The effect of CO2 methane and the trace gases on atmospheric temperature and climate change is so small as to be negligible.”
 
The actual paper also states: “… it is the gas laws that cause CO2 concentration in dry air to fall by 26 ppmv from 403 to 377 ppmv from January to August… from January 1 to July 1 at Hamburg, the temperature rises 19°C… CO2 concentration falls 26 ppmv… water vapour rises by 9033 ppmv… and the H2O/CO2 ratio raises 25.4 units. This is conclusive evidence that from winter to summer, the warming by water vapor counteracts the small cooling by CO2. Conversely, from summer to winter, the warming effect of CO2 tends to warm the air as water vapor is cooling it. But the effects by CO2 each time are so small as to be negligible. This evidence comes to light because the gas laws show that in the atmosphere, CO2 concentration falls as temperature rises.”
 
Do you know what we call it here in Normalville when it gets hotter during the earlier parts of the year, particularly until mid-summer, and then it gets colder later in the year, particularly around winter? THE CHANGING SEASONS!
 
Revisiting some 3rd grade astronomy, the Earth revolves around the Sun in an elliptical pattern. The amount of time it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun is roughly 365 days, which tends to make up 1 year (it’s a little more complex than that, but let’s keep things simple for the sake of the argument). In that time, the Earth spins on its own axis and it tends to be kind of tilted (if you look at a globe, it’s made that way because that’s roughly how the Earth actually is spinning in space).
 
In the northern hemisphere at this present time, November of 2019, it’s autumn, or fall and it will be this way until December 21st, which is the first day of winter. In the southern hemisphere, however, it is spring, so it’s warmer.
 
The reason it’s this way is because of the tilting of the Earth in its revolution around the Sun. When it’s the summer months in the northern atmosphere, the northern hemisphere is “facing” the Sun, if you will. It’s tilted towards its direction. When it’s winter, the northern hemisphere is tilted away from it. This also causes the day to be longer or shorter depending on the point of the year.
 
As a result of this tilting of the Earth, one hemisphere receives more sunlight than the other and therefore, receives warmer temperatures than the other. It gets colder during the fall and winter seasons and warmer during the spring and summer seasons.
 
How exactly has it taken these people this long to figure it out? And even then, I’m not entirely sure they actually know this (or at least, they act like it’s a non-factor).
 
That last paragraph of the recent research paper I quoted talks about what tends to happen during the different seasons, albeit from the perspective of carbon dioxide. The claim here is that carbon dioxide acts as a cooling gas during the warmer months and as a warming gas during the colder ones. And that may be so – I am not one to be able to definitively argue solidly against that – but the paper also mentions that the effect of the gas is so weak as to be negligible, so I don’t know how they don’t connect the dots and say “maybe it’s this way because of WHAT WE LEARNED IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ABOUT THE CHANGING SEASONS!”
 
And I get that a scientific paper can’t be so bland as to have such a conclusion using such simple words, but that is the conclusion people should be reaching! When we find that we have record highs during summer and record lows during winter, it’s not because of global warming or global cooling. It’s not because of our cars or our air conditioners or our planes or our cows. It’s not because of anything we are inherently doing or not doing to the planet. It’s because of the way God created the planet.
 
God knows what He is doing and knew perfectly well what was necessary for a planet to be able to harbor life naturally. He CREATED NATURE, after all. He created the planets, the stars, the galaxies and the entire universe, known and unknown. He knows how it all works and goes together, the intricacies of everything as minute as subatomic particles to the vast universe itself and all that exists.
 
It’s ridiculous that there have to be scientific papers looking into the activity of carbon dioxide to discover something we have known for a very long time about the planet and its seasonal behavior. Even the pilgrims understood the concept of growing your food for the winter. Even animals like bears, squirrels and other animals that hibernate understand the concept of stocking up resources for winter. Even the earliest of humans understood that when it got cold, you needed to put on some more clothes and when it got hot, you needed to wear less clothing or maintain cooler temperatures for yourself.
 
Even if they didn’t necessarily understand the concept of seasons, they still understood the concept of “it gets hot during a period of the year and cold during a different one”.
 
And considering what the paper says regarding carbon dioxide, I’d say that it has so little relevance as to require a different approach to the entire field. If CO2 is so negligible and weak, why are people even talking about it as though it’s Earth’s version of cancer? Shouldn’t people be a little more aware of the fact that it just gets hot during the summer months and cold during the winter months?
 
Rhetorical questions, of course, as we know the reason the climate change cult is even a thing. It’s not about facts or science. Even Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) has admitted that this ought to be considered more of a religion than a science. This is about feelings and believing in something.
 
Whereas Christians find salvation in Christ, climate cultists find “salvation” in government. They believe the government is capable of “defeating” climate change and that it should have as much power and resources as possible in order to do that. If along the way, all our civil and constitutional rights and liberties are stripped away, then that is an acceptable sacrifice in exchange for “security” against climate change.
 
Common sense like what I was using in this article makes no difference to these people. In fact, attempting to use common sense like this will brand you a “denier” and a physical threat to people’s safety. The Left is at the point where they think the very existence of dissenters is a threat to their well-being.
 
But reality has to bite them in the rear sooner or later. Either they wake up and recognize the truth of the Gospel or they stay asleep believing the falsehoods of the climate cult.
 
2 Timothy 4:3
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.