In the world of battling the outright insane religious beliefs of the climate doomsday cult, it is rare to see one who believes in climate change (at least, anthropogenic climate change, presumably) admit their wrongdoings and the dangerous nature of the climate alarmist movement that has traumatized young generations into believing the world will not even be around by the time they reach adulthood and that it is the fault of their parents and grandparents (and capitalism, because of course) that they are in such a situation. Usually, we just meet wacko after wacko pushing ever-more insane crap that has no basis in reality.
However, we do sometimes see actual climate scientists pushing back against the insane agenda of the climate doomsday cult (and suffer the consequences as a result). But even rarer than that is to see someone who used to participate in the very same climate alarmism and scare tactics recognize the error of their ways and attempt to not only atone but even apologize for it.
Which brings us to Michael Shellenberger, who wrote the following on environmentalprogress.org: “On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare.”
He begins by writing: “On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.”
It must have taken a lot for the guy to come to grips with just how wrong the entire doomsday cult of climate change is and to come forward and apologize for having been a part of it. He further explains that he, himself, has been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30, has worked with the UN’s IPCC, serving as an Expert Reviewer of their Assessment Report. He even succeeded in convincing the Obama administration to invest in renewables.
He is, by no means, a “climate denier” (and that term has roots in “Holocaust denier” to delegitimize any opponents to the climate cult). He even explained that at 17, he lived in Nicaragua “to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution.” The guy is very much a Leftist, but at the very least, he is honest enough and sane enough to recognize the damage the Leftist climate cult has created.
Which is why he shares the following factoids:
So the guy is very much a liberal, and yet, he is willing to go against the cult by sharing these facts that directly contradict the cult’s narrative and rhetoric. Surely, there must be a reason, particularly for doing it now as opposed to any other time.
Well, as he explains, it wasn’t until last year that he began to be openly against the climate scare. Not because he believed it until last year, or because he was fully on board with the idea, but because of a couple of factors. For one, he says that he felt “embarrassed” about doing so, seeing as he, himself, was an alarmist for most of his life. As he explains, “for years, I referred to climate change as an ‘existential’ threat to human civilization, and called it a ‘crisis.’”
But that was only part of the reason for his avoidance of outspoken dissent. For the most part, he explains that he “was scared.” “I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.”
“Gay Pride” month just ended, and I can’t help but make a noticeable connection between what Shellenberger said and what people on the Left often say about gay people: that it’s hard to come out to friends and family out of fear of rejection and consequences. That it’s hard to be gay or lesbian or whatever at work because of “persecution” or even for the potential of being fired just for that reason alone. However, the truth is that, in this day and age, it takes no courage at all to come out as gay or whatever else. Coming out as a conservative, a Christian, a Trump supporter, or even just as sane enough to not believe the climate cult’s agenda takes considerably more courage because THAT has more consequences in this day and age.
When you are a climate scientist and you offer a dissenting opinion towards the climate cult agenda, people will bash you into next week and there will outright be calls for your termination at your job. I have no doubt that Shellenberger truly was afraid of the consequences of doing what he’s doing and have no doubt that he already has, to one extent or another, suffer said consequences. I don’t know if he has suffered in terms of his job (and he wrote a book debunking the climate alarmists, which I will get to in a moment), but I have no doubt that, if nothing else, he has lost people he once considered “friends” for offering such dissent.
After all, being part of such a radical movement and then being outspokenly against it will brand you a traitor to the cause and leave you with few honest friends.
But what finally got Shellenberger to swallow said fear and come out against the insanity of the cult was a number of things. For one, there is what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said regarding what will happen in a 12 years if we “don’t do something” about climate change. Though that’s not the ONLY thing that got Shellenberger to act, of course. As he explains, “last year, things spiraled out of control.” AOC’s doomsday “prophecy” and a high-profile environmental group from Britain declaring “Climate Change Kills Children” (didn’t know Planned Parenthood changed their name to “Climate Change”) were among the many reasons Shellenberger decided to be outspoken.
But perhaps what were the biggest reasons were a poll that said that “half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct,” and another poll that said “in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.”
The fact that the climate cult is TRAUMATIZING children with crap that is absolutely not true is what got Shellenberger to write his book: “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.”
The Left is outright abusing children, filling their minds with pessimistic outlooks of a grim world that they will inherit supposedly because of their parents and grandparents and because of the economic system of capitalism. These jackals are scaring children half to death just to obtain political power.
The fact that Shellenberger has a daughter himself was also a part of it, as she has had to tackle the topic of climate change, and even though Shellenberger has taught her well with regards to the topic, her friends are still misinformed and she would likely be the only dissenting opinion in her group of friends were she to try and correct them, which would undoubtedly cause her to suffer the consequences of such dissent.
So, Shellenberger decided to write a book and was kind enough to share some highlights from it for our understanding.
For example, he writes that:
As you can see, he is still used to using Leftist terminology like “saving the environment” as opposed to simply saying “protecting” it, as that would be a bit more accurate, I’d say.
As I have stated in the past, if the Left truly cared about moving away from fossil fuels while also truly helping the environment, they would advocate for nuclear power, since that would accomplish both, but alas they are adamantly against it for a number of reasons ranging from “they are extremely stupid and misinformed” to “they don’t actually care about the environment, just the power they can obtain through abusing it as a narrative”.
In the book, aside from these factoids, Shellenberger also explains the reasons as to why the climate cult operates as it does, and honestly, it’s not for reasons one would be shocked to hear: financial, political and ideological motivations. There is money in environmentalism for those interested and the political Leftists view it as a means to achieve global communism, a system in which they and only they get to profit and thrive, trying to replace God with government.
But regardless of that, I am glad that Shellenberger has realized the error of his ways and has recognized the dangers of the climate cult. I am glad that he formally chose to apologize for having been a part of it (apology certainly accepted) and more importantly, I am glad that he chose to speak out against the climate cult (even if he won’t necessarily call them that) and wrote a book debunking their lies.
What’s more, Shellenberger offers a good bit of hope for the future. Though he recognizes that the faulty ideology of Malthusianism, which has been repeatedly debunked for a couple of centuries now, even by yours truly, is “more powerful than ever” as a result of the Left’s indoctrination of children in school, there is reason “to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.”
He says this because the Chinese coronavirus pandemic has led to the WHO and even the IPCC to lose credibility. Remember, it was the WHO that was doing the bidding of the Chinese, telling people that there was no “human-to-human” transmission even though that was proven to have been a lie from the Chinese. No one has any reason to trust the WHO anymore, and by extension, the other “scientific” institutions under the UN (or even in general).
I would say more, but this article is already rather long and I must draw it to a close. In conclusion, I would simply like to say that Shellenberger is certainly forgiven and that I hope he will not get discouraged by the Left’s tactics of destruction that will definitely come for him soon enough.
I hope and pray that Shellenberger is successful in at least convincing a good amount of people of the reality that is separate from the cult’s depiction of it.
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
While I’ve already talked at length about the many Leftist talking points surrounding the global climate and have noted people who have debunked those talking points, allow me to get to another oft-used talking point, that being that “the sea levels are rising and our lifestyles, mainly because of capitalism, are to blame.”
That nonsense can very quickly be put to rest for much of the same reason that capitalism outright cannot be blamed for the changing of the climate: the fact that our world is dynamic.
Our climate is dynamic, so it is entirely natural for it to go through warm and cold periods. We’ve already established, time and time again, how there was the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and we are currently going through the Modern Warm Period.
By the same token of a dynamic ecosystem, our planet’s sea levels have seen various shifts, going up and going down. And according to several new research papers, sea levels in various places around the globe were considerably higher thousands of years ago as opposed to today.
Funny enough, the research papers talk about one of two periods in our planet’s lifetime: the Mid-Holocene period, which happened 2000-7000 years ago and the Last Interglacial (LIG) period which happened roughly 120,000 years ago. From that alone, we can discern the fact that, over large periods of time, sea levels throughout the world have gone up and have gone down simply because of their very nature and not because of man.
Let’s begin with the papers that focus on the Mid-Holocene period.
First, we have Lopez-Belzunce, et al., 2020, studying Mediterranean sea levels: “Regarding the stabilization of the RSL [relative sea level], our data show it to be 1.20 m above the present-day level at 3000 cal yr BP and 1 m higher at 2000 cal yr BP.”
What this study is saying is that Mediterranean sea levels were around 1-1.2 meters higher around 3000 calibrated years before present and 2000 calibrated years before present. In other words, the sea levels in the Mediterranean were higher 2-3000 years ago than they are today.
From Burley et al., 2020, studying in Polynesia: “At the time of first Lapita arrival at Nukuleka, sea levels were 1.2-1.4 m higher than present.”
From Lopes et al., 2020, studying in Brazil: “The late Pleistocene-middle Holocene post-glacial marine transgression (PMT) that started around 18 ka b2k in response to the melting of ice caps and glaciers, together with increased precipitation, would have led to another lake highstand… Sea-level curves obtained from several sites along the Brazilian coast show that a mean sea level (m.s.l.) equal to the present one was reached at ~7 ka b2k, and continued to rise until reaching up to +5 meters between 6 and 5 ka b2k… In the CPRS the PMT formed the Barrier IV, and the estimates based on geologic and fossil records indicate that it reached amplitude of about 2-3 meters above the present m.s.l…”
“The altitude of the terrace T3 above the fossils of Toxodon found in situ indicates this was cut by the Holocene sea-level highstand that reached a maximum altitude of 3 meters [above present] between 6 and 5.1 ka b2k. At that time Mirium Lake was invaded by the Atlantic Ocean through Taim and Sao Goncalo channel, becoming a large paleo-lagoon with conditions suitable for its occupation by marine organisms, including sharks, rays, teleost fishes and whales. The coastal waters were warmer than today, as indicated by the presence of fossils of the shark Carcharhinus leucas, common in tropical areas.”
Okay, while that was a lot of technical stuff, let’s go over them before moving on.
Both the Polynesian and Brazilian studies report that sea levels were higher thousands and thousands of years ago. The Lapita people were the Polynesians and Nukuleka is the oldest known Polynesian settlement. The Polynesians arrived on Nukuleka an estimated 2,838 years ago, so this is also within that range of 2-3000 years that the other study was discussing (which makes sense because the Mid-Holocene period was around this time as well, like I said earlier). Those Polynesians saw sea levels that were 1.2 to 1.4 meters higher than what we see today.
For Brazil, we are talking considerably farther back. The first thing it talks about is the post-glacial marine transgression (PMT), which began around 18,000 years ago (ka b2k means “thousands of years before AD 2000”. Don’t know why they don’t just say “18,000 years ago” instead of “18 ka b2k”).
Funny enough, it talks about that event having occurred as a result of what Al Gore and the Left blames humanity for: melting of ice caps and glaciers.
Weird, I didn’t know that humans 18,000 years ago traveled by plane, car, used air conditioners and employed structural capitalism, you know, the things the Left loves to blame even though it makes no sense for them to do so (at least if you are an objective person. We know precisely why they blame capitalism and our lifestyles).
In any case, the study then also talks about the main topic, that being sea levels. The mean sea level off the coast of Brazil seemed to be equal to what we have today around 7,000 years ago and was more than 5 meters higher between 5 and 6 thousand years ago, indicating receding sea levels as time went on (because that’s what they do). It also talks about another area which showed a sea level of about 2-3 meters higher than present at around the same time.
Another area of study seemingly showed that the sea level was 3 meters above the current levels roughly 5,100 to 6,000 years ago. And the final thing that the study mentions is the water temperatures, as indicated by the fact there was the fossil of a shark that can usually be found in tropical climates.
Moving on to other studies, while there are a few more that talk about the Mid-Holocene period, I believe the point has been made for that one.
From Muhs et al., 2020, studying in the Bahamas and Bermuda, talking about the Last Interglacial period of roughly 120,000 ago: “Corals with closed-system histories collected from patch reefs on NPI have ages of 128-118 ka and ooids/peloids from beach ridges have closed-system ages of 128-126 ka. Elevations of patch reefs indicate a LIG paleo-sea level of at least ~7m to ~9m above present. Beach ridge sediments indicate paleo-sea levels of ~5 m to ~14 m (assuming subsidence, ~7m to ~16m) above present during the LIG… Results of this study show that at the end of the LIG paleo-sea levels could have been as high as 11-13 m above present (at localities close to North American ice sheets) to as little as 5-8 m above present (at localities distant from North American ice sheets.”
This is important to note because 5 or 7 meters to 14 or 16 meters is A LOT of meters. At the low end, these scientists are saying that sea levels were a little over 16 FEET higher than today. At the high end, that goes up to as much as more than 52 feet.
Contrast that to the relatively minute doomsday warnings of a few centimeters and inches extra of sea level rise we get from the climate cult!
Reality has shown that sea levels can go higher than what the climate cultists say it currently is going, and despite all of that, regardless of how much they claim that sea levels are rising, we can clearly and plainly see that none of this is unprecedented.
Now, make no mistake, the sea levels being so many meters higher than they are today does bring with it awful results. Depending on where it happens, cities can, indeed be flooded this way. So it does present actual problems. However, the “solution” to these problems isn’t for people to abandon their use of air conditioners or cars or air travel or for the United States to turn towards socialism. All of those have a negligible-at-best, disastrous-at-worst result.
What all of this tells us, however, is that it is not unforeseen for the sea to rise to incredible levels and it definitely cannot be blamed on man-kind, and therefore cannot be solved by mankind. The best we can do is hope to mitigate such damage were it to occur (and there is no real indication that it will, but it’s worth keeping in mind that it could, as it did happen in the past, albeit hundreds of thousands of years ago and such levels have never been seen since then).
Whatever magic beans the Left tries to sell people with regards to the environment and climate change, they are nothing but garbage. The people that peddle these nonsensical solutions are snake oil salesmen too gripped by the fear and terror of the Left’s narrative to see reason.
We can clearly see that all of the “terrible and awful things” happening to the climate are not a result of humanity, given the history of the planet. Here’s hoping more and more people come to the realization that humanity cannot be blamed for natural events.
“I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It is rare for us to see blue-on-blue crime, so to speak, but boy is it a joy when we do. Recently, Michael Moore produced and released a movie attacking the environmentalist movement (without departing from the overall insane ideologies it espouses) as being ineffective in the way it attempts to “fight” climate change.
Without going too much into detail, the movie talks about the inefficiencies of current “green energy” alternatives to fossil fuel as being just as, if not more, environmentally unfriendly as fossil fuels. However, Michael Moore’s ultimate solution isn’t to abandon the ridiculous and actually insane movement or to undo the damages it has caused. Rather, it is to go down the route of eugenics and espousing heavy population control to mitigate the amount of people that can affect the environment.
This, even in the eyes of a wacko environmentalist, is asinine. Not only is it asinine, but racist, according to George Monbiot, who wrote an entire Twitter thread to explain his reasoning (and he also wrote about the movie in a UK Guardian article, which I will cover in a moment).
The Twitter thread is quite lengthy so bear with me.
“Prompted by the shocking falsehoods in Planet of the Humans, this thread asks why so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth. The conclusion will enrage some people, but I think it’s unavoidable. Let’s take this step by step,” began Monbiot.
“There’s no question that population growth exerts environmental pressure. It’s one of many issues about which we should be concerned. But the global impact is much smaller than a lot of people imagine.”
“Undoubtedly, rising human numbers can have important local effects: pressure on housing, green space, wildlife, water quality etc. And it’s essential that all women have full reproductive choice, full control over their own bodies and full access to family planning.”
Ah, yes, good to see the Leftist shilling out for Leftist women by loudly proclaiming a right that they definitely do not have: the right to kill their own children should they please. Even though the originator of American abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was the very eugenicist that Monbiot seemingly dislikes, as he makes note in one of the tweets in this thread. And we will get back to Sanger in just a moment.
“But I see population growth repeatedly blamed as THE MAIN CAUSE of climate breakdown and other global issues. This is flat wrong.”
“There’s something else to note. The great majority of the world’s population growth is happening in countries where most people are black or brown.”
“So why do so many people in the rich world (the great majority of whom, in my experience, are male, white and quite affluent) insist, often furiously, that the ‘real’ global issue, the ‘elephant in the room,’ is population growth?”
“The first part of the answer is deflection. Blaming other people for your own impacts is a familiar means of avoiding responsibility and shedding feelings of guilt. But why point to the birth rates of the poorest people? Why not to consumption by billionaires?”
“It’s clear to me that generalized deflection is an insufficient answer. This is a particular variety of deflection. What we see is white people pointing the finger at black and brown people, saying ‘It’s not us. It’s Them’.”
“In different ways, this has been happening for a long time. Throughout the colonial era and after, the rich nations portrayed themselves as the ‘civilized’, virtuous actors, while their colonial subjects were ‘inferior’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘degenerate.’”
“There was – and is – a long-standing moral panic about the reproduction rates of these ‘inferior’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘degenerate’ people. If something was not done, ‘They’ would overwhelm ‘Us’. The human species would decline as ‘inferior’ people took over.”
“It was this terror of being ‘outbred’, ‘outnumbered’, ‘diluted’ that inspired the eugenics movement. A similar set of claims persists to this day, and is popular among white supremacists. It’s called Replacement Theory.”
I agree! But then, why does Monbiot still adhere to the ridiculous beliefs of the pro-abortion movement? The movement was SPAWNED BY THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT AND IS NOTHING BUT EUGENICS ITSELF. According to an article on Arizona Capitol Times, quoting a 2011 CDC report on Abortion Surveillance, “black women make up 14% of the childbearing population. Yet, 36 percent of all abortions were obtained by black women. At a ratio of 474 abortions per 1,000 live births, black women have the highest ratio of any group in the country.”
And if you remember, I talked about how the NAACP has long stopped caring about black people because of their support for Planned Parenthood. In that article, I mentioned how abortion was the leading cause of death for black people, 1,800 black babies are aborted every day, 52% of all black pregnancies end in abortion, and that “79% of [PP’s] surgical abortion facilities [are] located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods.”
So why does this guy openly abhor the practice of eugenics, yet at the same time, claim to support “women’s rights” to practice such eugenics? The guy either is ignorant of the eugenics that is abortion or is a hypocrite.
But moving on, Monbiot reaches his conclusion:
“So what is the disturbing conclusion to this thread? The answer to my question – ‘why do so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth?’ – is… racism.”
“I’m not saying this to cause offense. I’m saying it because it appears to be the most likely and parsimonious explanation of a bizarre phenomenon: affluent people with enormous impacts pointing the finger at poor people with tiny impacts.”
“Nor am I claiming that most of those who over-emphasize population are intentional racists. I think it is possible to entertain subconscious racist beliefs without actively wishing to discriminate against people of color.”
In short, his reasoning behind the affluent white people’s desire to control population growth is racism, be it intentional or not. I agree, but let’s not get things twisted here. Only ONE side of the political spectrum espouses such beliefs. Only ONE side advocates for eugenics of abortion and population control. Only THE LEFT believes in controlling populations for “the environment” (though we know perfectly well it’s for control and power as part of their communist ideal).
The rich, white liberal is the one that wishes to control population sizes wherever it might see fit. It’s no surprise, then, that a rich (for the time), white liberal by the name of Margaret Sanger once wrote to her friend Clarence Gamble that “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”
THE LEFT has idealized means of controlling various populations, be it through slavery, economic welfare (like today), abortion (like today) or other population control measures. Which is why it’s so funny to read the following from Monbiot:
In his lambasting review of Moore’s film, Monbiot writes: “When wealthy people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this issue without the necessary caveats, they are saying, in effect, ‘it’s not Us consuming, it’s Them breeding.’ It’s not hard to see why the far-right loves this film.”
“Population is where you go when you haven’t thought your argument through. Population is where you go when you don’t have the guts to face the structural, systemic causes of our predicament: inequality, oligarch power, capitalism.”
As I said, it is THE LEFT that espouses the eugenic belief of population control, not the Right or the “far-right.” Wanna know why the “far-right” likes Moore’s film? Because it DESTROYS the environmentalist movement’s arguments towards “clean” energy that isn’t clean whatsoever. Moore, in that film, said what the RIGHT has been saying for DECADES. Moore’s solution, however, is not something any conservative would want and is something only a LEFTIST would agree with, even if not this particular Leftist in question.
Again, the LEFT has been espousing and practicing the belief of eugenics. To blame CAPITALISM for a NATURAL occurrence of climate change is asinine. Don’t forget, the guy was discussing things in terms of anthropogenic climate change being real and being a problem. It isn’t. It’s a hoax. Climate change happens because ours is a dynamic climate. But we do not affect the climate at any rate, let alone at the rate that the environmentalist wackos claim we do. Which is another reason as to why we ABHOR population control, because it’s an inefficient non-solution to a non-existent problem that only leads to death and desolation, no matter the population being targeted.
But regardless, I am always happy to see some blue-on-blue fighting. Wrong as I may believe both are to different extents, it’s good to see this happen whenever it does.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
With the 50th Earth Day celebration coming and going (though definitely dampened by the current situation as a result of the Chinese coronavirus), a noted writer from Junk Science took notice of what efforts have been taken in the last half century to clean up our planet and put them together in a recent article titled: “Eco-Reality Strikes Back: Earth Day at 50.”
Steve Milloy’s article began with a summary of the article he would further write. In his summary, he wrote: “Americans began cleaning up their industrialized environment in the late 1940s, well before the first Earth Day in 1970. Since then, many decades of efforts have produced a U.S. environment that is as clean as any industrialized society in the world, especially considering a population of 330 million with a historically unparalleled high standard of living. In fact, this high standard of living is what made environmental clean-up desirable and possible.”
So right off the bat, Milloy notes that efforts to have a cleaner environment have been taken since well before the first Earth Day, which as I have noted in a previous article, was stupid and at points, counterproductive, for the most part. If what people did for the first Earth Day in 1970 was sing, dance, drag dead fish on the streets (NYC), stage die-ins at an international airport (Boston) and sign an oversized “Declaration of Interdependence” (Philadelphia), then this hippy crap was useless at best and counterintuitive at worst.
Useless and counterintuitive is what the Left is best known for anyway, so it was entirely on-brand.
In any case, Milloy then went on to cite the quality of our air. “U.S. air is as clean as it has ever been. From 1980 to 2018, except where noted:
This is noteworthy because the Left, as you well and truly know, has been saying for decades now that we are slowly but surely killing our planet with our cars and our planes and other things that we use that “pollute” our planet, kill the ozone layer and result in the dirtying of our air and destruction of our planet. But according to the EPA’s figures, that is far from the case. Over a roughly 40-year period, carbon monoxide has dropped significantly, as well as lead, nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide.
If you ask a climate cultist, you would get the sense that we are pumping all these toxins into the atmosphere like one would pump air into a tire. But reality, as often is the case, is far different from what these people claim it is.
When it comes to drinking water, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) says: “Generally, water systems in the United States provide reliable and high-quality drinking water. Violations tend to be infrequent.”
Regarding surface waters, Milloy says that “U.S. surface waters are as clean as any in the world and progress continues to be made. Since 2005, 832 bodies of water have been restored from run-off/non-point-source pollution. Under President Trump’s leadership, this includes 131 bodies of water.”
And when it comes to waste sites: “Superfund waste site clean ups have accelerated under the Trump administration.”
Over the last two years of Obama’s presidency and his EPA, 9 waste sites were cleaned up. Over the first two years of Trump’s presidency and his EPA, 28 sites were cleaned up.
The president that the Left loves and considers to be an environmental champion can’t hold a candle to the president that the Left hates and considers to be almost singlehandedly killing the planet. Not that this ought to come as any surprise at any rate.
What’s more, even with CO2 emissions in the atmosphere (or actually, precisely because of it), the Earth is greener now than ever before, according to NASA.
That is the great irony of environmentalism. The climate cult salivates over a greener planet with more vegetation and trees to produce oxygen, but this comes through carbon dioxide warming the planet a bit more (and before anyone tries to call me a hypocrite for noting that CO2 warms the planet and saying that man can’t do anything to the climate, let me point out that the vast majority of CO2 released onto the atmosphere does not come from cars or planes, but from activity in the sea floor and volcanic activity, so it’s natural, not anthropogenic).
When it comes to the planet, Milloy writes: “Since the pre-industrial age, there has been approximately 1.1°C of warming and almost 50% more CO2 in the atmosphere. Since that time, more people are living longer lives at a higher standard of living.”
“Life expectancy is up from approx. 40 years (1850) to approx. 79 (2019). US per capita GDP is up from approx. $2,825 in 1850 to approx. $53,000 in 2016 (2011 dollars).”
In other words, the nations that tend to be the wealthiest, with the highest standards of living, also tend to be the cleanest and healthiest. This should come as no surprise to people either.
Milloy then goes on to ask the question of how exactly it was that we came about to cleaning our environment. He credits this environmental progress to:
Milloy also notes that, in order to continue cleaning our planet and keeping it clean and safe, we need to continue with efforts in amassing more wealth, as more capital means more ability to clean up our environment, put in place strong property rights, innovate with new technologies, implement better education and become less hysterical about the nature of our planet.
Constant news cycles about the mere existence of people on this planet resulting in its death achieve nothing of value to anyone (except the climate cult and the organizations running such news cycles, I suppose).
Milloy’s final verdict on environmental activism and Earth Day are summarized as follows: “While green groups and Earth Day organizers will grasp for all environmental improvement and protection credit since 1970, the actual story is far more complex. Since the 1960s, green groups have often taken extreme positions to advocate for overregulation that has impeded environmental protection and wasted time/money. Radicals often attack capitalism with the line, ‘You didn’t build that.’ On Earth Day, that should be retorted with: ‘You didn’t clean that up.’ Environmental protection has been a group effort enabled by our wealth and system of government.”
One thing I would like to talk about with that last quotation is the idea that the climate cultists would take credit for the cleaning up of our planet since 1970. The thing about that is that they don’t even do that.
You would think that with each doomsday warning that doesn’t come true, the Left would try and take some credit for that and say that “we have staved off the apocalypse because of our efforts, but we must continue with them, and implement stronger measures, to stave off any possible future apocalyptic climate events,” but they don’t even do that. They just ignore the previous climate warning (Al Gore didn’t face any major criticism for his 10-year doomsday clock expiring in 2016 and AOC won’t receive any either in 11 years) and issue another one as though what they are saying is gospel and totally infallible.
They don’t even really acknowledge that they are cleaning up the planet (they aren’t, but they could lie to people about it). They just keep telling people that it’s getting worse and worse, telling people that our current way of life is unsustainable and things must change in order to “save the planet.” Acknowledging that things have been improving is counterproductive to their fearmongering strategies and desires.
The point isn’t to actually clean up the planet or protect it. It’s to scare people into giving up their rights and liberties “for the common good of the planet”. Acknowledging that our efforts have helped clean the planet would only tell people that our capitalist system has been beneficial to the planet. The Left can’t have that, so they ignore the environmental progress in favor of a lie that they can, unfortunately, pass off to people really well and get them to believe it.
But the good news is that reality does come back to face these lies and wipe them out. We have done great things for our environment and the only ones standing in the way of progress have been the climate cultists and the Left (but I repeat myself).
“The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Almost a year ago to the date, I wrote about how the Green New Deal, the extremely insane, costly and ridiculous communist power-grab supported by communists in and out of Congress would not do anything to combat climate change even if it worked entirely as advertised.
Of course, that is a situation far from reality for economic and environmental reasons. However, a recent study has pointed out that, were the GND to be made law of the land, it would be an absolute environmental DISASTER to try and implement in full.
Paul Driessen wrote a fairly short study titled: “How the Green New Deal’s Renewable Energy Mining Would Harm Humans and the Environment,” clearly not pulling any punches here and getting straight to the point.
The Left is practically in love with “renewable” energies such as wind and solar power, and hate gas, coal and oil, as well as nuclear power because they believe them to be dirty and unsafe.
However, what the Left fails to realize is that, in order to create these wind and solar plants, one must gather the resources to build them. In order to do so, natural resources such as copper, cobalt, lithium, iron, aluminum and other rare earth elements (REE)s must also be gathered and in order to do so, mining must be done in the places where they are available.
I can only assume you know where I am going with this: the Left can’t have it both ways. In order to get the GND to work (speaking strictly about gathering the materials for wind and solar plants), mining must be expanded. But the Left hates the amount of mining already being done because of the environmental harm the operations are causing to their local areas.
According to the study: “[E]xpanding mining on the scale needed to meet the renewable energy requirements contained in the Green New Deal and other proposed renewable energy mandates would cause unimaginable harm to the environment, wildlife, and humans.”
The paper goes over six particular topics:
1. The Green New Deal’s Need for Metals and Minerals
2. Ruinous Rare Earth Elements
3. Lethal Lithium
4. Killer Cobalt
5. Copper Complexities
6. And Green New Deal Mining Hypocrisies
Let’s briefly go over each of these points. First, the Green New Deal’s need for metals and minerals. According to the study: “The solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries needed to replace fossil fuels and nuclear energy over a 10-year period to produce the 8.2 billion megawatt hours of power for America’s annual electricity-equivalent needs under the GND would require an unprecedented increase in mining for raw materials.”
“To replace all energy generated by [fossil fuels] with power from solar panels – which now generate just 1.5 percent of the country’s electricity – plus a week’s worth of backup power, would require nearly 19 billion solar panels, blanketing an area the size of New York and Vermont. A 2018 study by Harvard University scientists who believe in a human-caused global warming crisis shows that to meet present-day U.S. electricity demand, wind turbine projects would need to cover one-third of the continental United States. Transforming motor vehicles to run on electric batteries would require even more land.”
In other words, in order to even just replicate the output this country can generate, A TON of land would have to be used up. That means destroying entire habitats and ecosystems to fit these plants, not to mention the destruction of rocks around the mining operations that also destroy their local environments.
Ruinous Rare Earth Elements. According to the study, “more than 70 percent of… rare earth minerals are mined in China or by companies under Chinese control, with much of China’s production coming from areas north of Baotou, Inner Mongolia, though there are substantial reserves in other parts of the world.”
“Not long ago, the Inner Mongolia region included massive tracts of fertile farmland. However, it has become a vast toxic wasteland, where virtually nothing grows and few wildlife or humans can live.”
So not only do these mining operations already cause great environmental harm to their local communities (a point which the Left will agree with), but they also would mean reliance on foreign powers, namely China. And we have seen, especially in recent time, how bad of an idea such reliance would be.
Trump has already talked about the supply chain that currently exists and how if one part of the chain breaks, the entire chain becomes compromised. In this instance, the supply chain would be about building and maintaining energy production, which would be a sight worse than a supply chain of cars or phones being disrupted.
What’s more, according to the study, “Producing one ton of REEs releases up to 420,000 cubic feet of toxic gases, 2,600 cubic feet of acidic wastewater, and one ton of radioactive waste” in just that particular region of China. Not only is there far more environmental damage being caused in other mining operation areas, but the damages would be exacerbated to meet the demand of so many solar panels, wind turbines and lithium batteries.
Speaking of lithium, we move on to “Lethal Lithium.” According to the environmental group “Friends of the Earth”, so clearly a Leftist organization, “lithium extraction inevitably harms the soil and causes air contamination.” Lithium is most often found and mined in the South American countries of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile.
According to the study, “in Argentina’s Salar de Hombre Muerto (‘salty basin of the dead man’), locals say lithium operations have contaminated streams used for human drinking, livestock, and crop irrigation water.”
University of Chile lithium battery expert Guillermo Gonzalez said “Like any mining process, [lithium mining] is invasive, it scars the landscape, it destroys the water table, and it pollutes the earth and the local wells. This isn’t a green solution – it’s not a solution at all.’”
The actual wind turbines and solar panels also require lithium, not only the batteries, so lithium mining would have to exponentially increase to meet the demand.
“Killer Cobalt”. Since this is getting to be a bit of a long article already, I will summarize this as largely being the same sort of thing as having to mine for other minerals and rare earth metals. More than 66% of the world’s annual output of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where, unsurprisingly, health and safety standards, as well as labor laws, are pretty lax.
“Entire families – fathers, mothers, and children – work for extremely low wages in mines, from sunrise to sundown, six or seven days a week, to meet the constantly growing demand for this critically important metal.”
“More than 40,000 Congolese children, as young as four-years-old, work alongside their parents, often in mine tunnels too narrow for adults, say UNICEF, Amnesty International, and other investigators… The risk of cave-ins and mud slides is ever-present. Depending on the weather, they work in dust or muck, exposing themselves constantly to filthy, toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water, and air. Dangerous levels of cobalt, lead, uranium, and other heavy metals build up steadily in their body tissues, blood, and organs. Many have died as a result of their work under these horrible conditions.”
“Gloves, facemasks, protective clothing, and showers to wash the toxic dirt off their bodies at the end of the day are typically not available. Broken bones, suffocation, blood and respiratory diseases, birth defects, cancer, and paralysis are commonplace.”
“Copper Complexities”. The study explains that as much as three times more copper is required in electric vehicles than in gas-power engines, and “renewable energy systems consume approximately five times more copper than conventional power generation systems.”
In 2019 alone, a total of around 20,000 tons of copper was mined, with the world reserves standing at 870,000. It doesn’t take much to believe it would take a lot more than that, and a lot greater output, to meet the demand for these “renewable” energy options.
For this point, the focus is specifically in entire ecosystems, as ore contains just 0.8 percent copper, so 125,000 tons of ore have to be mined to get just 1,000 tons of finished copper, according to the study. In order to extract this copper, surrounding rocks would have to be removed and/or crushed. An increase in copper extraction would mean more and more land having to be destroyed.
The final point is the hypocrisies of the GND advocates. Namely in that they want the GND to be fully implemented but also do not want any more mining to be done. They already are angry at the amount of mining being done as it stands, so mining even more would be unacceptable. However, you can’t have one without the other. Even assuming GND was affordable, with the understanding that no mining would be done within the U.S. (as there are laws in Western states and Alaska against such mining), we would have to depend on other countries to do the mining and do a lot more of it just for the individual parts.
Land is destroyed as a result, animals die, humans get sick and die and the damage done to the environment is more than if there is no GND at all.
The GND’s technology goals are supposed to be “clean, renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly and ethical.”
However, actually putting in place this sort of policy would not accomplish any one of those things, let alone all of them.
Speaking specifically about the ethical part, in 2019, California law-makers voted down Assembly Bill 735. This bill would require that “zero emission” electric vehicles sold in the state must be free of any materials or components associated with child labor.
In other words, California legislators prioritized “zero emission” vehicles over human rights because they cannot have such vehicles without such child labor.
The goals of the GND as listed above are not achievable with the actual GND. It’s like saying that your goal is to lose 30 pounds but you go about it by eating McDonald’s every meal.
The GND is not only unaffordable, and not only would it not actually achieve its supposed goals of fighting climate change (as I noted in the article I mentioned in the beginning), but it would actually be COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to the idea of protecting the planet.
It would require an exponential increase in the sorts of mining that everyone agrees is a detriment to the local environments and the people having to work and live under these conditions, not to mention the animals and livestock that get sick and die.
The more we find out about the Green New Deal, the more insane and unrealistic it becomes. More so than it already was, surprisingly.
“The simple inherit folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I have talked a lot about climate change over the years and have made many arguments, with some of the most prominent ones being that, apart from lack of evidence to suggest anthropogenic climate change is real, there is no possible way for there to be man-made climate change as there have been two other particularly warm periods in human history apart from the modern one: the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence of this is shown in two new studies looking at old trees in the mountainous regions of Greece.
One of the studies’ abstract reads as follows: “The Mediterranean has been identified as particularly vulnerable to climate change, yet a high-resolution temperature reconstruction extending back into the Medieval Warm Period is still lacking. Here we present such a record of warm season temperature variability back to 730 CE. The reconstruction is derived from 192 annually resolved, latewood density series from ancient living and relict Pinus heldreichii trees…”
“Although the recent 1985-2014 period was the warmest 30-year interval (+0.71°C) since the eleventh century, temperatures during the ninth to tenth centuries were even warmer, including the warmest reconstructed 30-year period from 876-905 (+0.78°C).”
In other words, not that this ought to come as a surprise to many of you if you’ve been reading my material for quite some time now, there is no evidence to suggest anthropogenic climate change is at play here. There is climate change, no doubt. This is a dynamic world and our climate is just as dynamic. It’s the way that God created the planet, after all. Of course there is climate change. However, one cannot possibly blame humanity for climate change at all.
Taking aside the fact that the climate was always going to be naturally dynamic, the things that the Left often points to as the reason for us “killing our planet” cannot be pointed to for the warming periods of centuries and millennia past. Things like air conditioners, automobiles, air travel, sea travel, oil drilling, the gas industry, manufacturing, etc. are inventions of the industrial revolution; products of recent time. As such, it would be totally unrealistic and illogical to argue that these things contributed to warm periods of the past (which is why the Left avoids this topic like the Plague).
Man only began air travel (barely) a little more than a century ago; the same goes for automobile travel; neither of which were commonly used back then.
One cannot possibly blame automobiles for the warming period experienced in the Medieval Warm Period, much less the Roman one. There were no cars in the 10th century. There were no air conditioners during the age of the Roman Empire. And yet, warm periods existed and were prevalent at the time.
The aforementioned study also makes mention of the cold periods that have occurred throughout recent history, such as the Little Ice Age and its coldest 30-year period of 997-1026 CE (-1.63°C). Throughout the history of this planet, the world has gone through periods of warmth and cold. Neither of which are peculiar, neither of which are unprecedented and neither of which are particularly harmful to the survival of the planet itself, the fauna and flora, or humanity. If they were, we wouldn’t even be here to have this discussion in the first place.
Another study also took a look at tree rings from places like Scotland, Scandinavia, Continental Europe and the Pyrenees. According to that study, the 1930s and 40s were just as warm or even warmer in those regions than they are today.
As you can see from the image above (ignoring the stuff to the side), we see that, over the past 150 years (roughly), temperatures in these areas have been about the same, or at least, there is no trend in either direction that would suggest impending climate doom like what the Left is trying to say there is. We can see some highs and some lows, but other than that, nothing really out of the ordinary. There are some periods when it gets particularly hot or cold, but according to the graph, it’s nothing to get stressed about nor is it something that would warrant panicky and unnecessary action to be taken.
Action which wouldn’t do anything about the climate but would only affect the livelihoods and the lives of sovereign citizens throughout the world (and let’s not pretend like that’s not the real goal here. Communists hate freedom when others have it).
The world has a very clear record of having both warm and cold periods. Those are sort of the only two real options. Neither of which ought to cause people concern, but the rhetoric and narrative from the Left is that if the global temperatures move either direction as much as 0.000000000001°C, that’s cause for concern and that we are responsible for it.
Never mind that the sea floor has a far bigger say in the planet’s warmth than humanity does. Never mind that the world has gone through multiple periods of warmth and cold (there’s more warm periods than just the Roman, Medieval and Modern ones, we just haven’t figured them out yet). Never mind that the previous periods of warmth cannot possibly be attributed to anything the Left wants to blame for temperatures going up (or sometimes down, since they employ copout tactics to pretend to be right no matter what).
The Left’s true objective isn’t “saving the planet”. That much was clear when AOC’s former chief of staff admitted that the Green New Deal wasn’t about the planet or the environment at all but about the economy in this country and going from capitalism to socialism. The Left’s true objective is socialism, where they get to rule over us and dictate what we can and can’t do.
This Chinese coronavirus has given us some insight into what it’s like to live under such a rule, with tyrannical governors like Michigan’s Whitmore banning people from buying seeds and banning people from visiting family or traveling to other houses (among other things). Imagine this insane and tyrannical rule times 10x, and for every other aspect of our lives, and you have socialism.
The climate change agenda is just the tool through which they can usually get more power. The Chinese virus was the tool for Whitmore to gain more power for herself. The means may be different but the goal is always the same.
But as far as the climate change angle goes, it really doesn’t hold up well at all, given what we know (and have known for quite some time).
Here’s hoping more people realize the farce that the climate change agenda is and recognize the perils that subscribing to such an agenda would bring on everyone.
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Why am I not even the least bit surprised that, even amidst a global pandemic of the Chinese coronavirus, climate cultists can’t help but spew the most ignorant and fanatical b.s.? Seriously, can’t they give lying their butts off a break even for a virus epidemic?
A journalist for National Geographic, named Elizabeth Kolbert, wrote an essay for the publication titled: “Why we won’t avoid a climate catastrophe.” Of course, from the get-go, it’s clear that this is outright b.s., because all the models and predictions ever made about a “climate emergency” or “climate catastrophe” in the past have been entirely wrong, as I’ve already written in a previous article.
But let’s go ahead and read her reasoning, shall we?
“By not doing enough to fight global warming, we’re trashing the planet. Innovation may save us, but it will not be pretty.”
Okay, a few things already. First, what does she propose we do to “fight” global warming? I imagine it’s something along the lines of giving the federal government all the power it wants to place crushing regulation after crushing regulation on oil and natural gas companies, if not outright forcing them to shut down, and placing mandates on people as to what sort of vehicle we can drive, what sort of food we can eat, what sort of land we can live on, what sort of building we can create, what sort of entertainment to watch and what sort of media to ingest.
Why does “fighting” global warming always involve us losing our rights and freedoms? Oh, right, because the whole thing is a LEFT-WING SCAM.
Second, why isn’t the accusation of “trashing” the planet directed at China and India, some of the biggest land, air and sea polluters in the world? Why is it that every time we discuss people “trashing” or “killing” the planet, the accusations and the ire and anger are always thrown at capitalist, Western countries and not the biggest polluters on Earth? Why does the teen climate puppet hate Trump, even though his administration has allowed for the U.S. to heavily SLOW its CO2 emissions, and not China, who is a massive contributor to air pollution?
In any case, let’s move on. Kolbert then writes about how, in 1970, the U.S. had its first national “Earth Day”, with millions of people participating. “Participants expressed their concern for the environment in exuberant, often idiosyncratic ways,” wrote Kolbert. “They sang, danced, donned gas masks, and picked up litter. In New York City they dragged dead fish through the streets. In Boston they staged a ‘die-in’ at Logan International Airport. In Philadelphia they signed an oversize, all-species ‘Declaration of Interdependence.’”
Good to know that people did the same hippy crap back then that they do now, only there were actual hippies back then, so it was a bit more understandable (even if it was still stupid). Seriously, the only part of that first “Earth Day” that seemed even relatively useful was people picking up litter. Not sure what dragging dead fish through the streets did for the environment, nor signing an honestly offensive mock of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia.
But regardless, I can’t help but be incredulous at the sheer lack of common sense by these people. Wanna know what two headlines came out around that time? From the New York Times on August of 1969: “Foe Of Pollution Sees Lack Of Time”, a piece that quotes Stanford University biologist Paul Ehlrich: “We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.” He was particularly talking about the “threat” of “overpopulation” and “contamination of the planet by man,” according to the NYT.
In 1970 specifically, an issue of The Boston Globe was titled: “Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century.” “Air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the next century.”
Kolbert writes that she is old enough to remember the first “Earth Day”. Surely, she also remembers what idiocy the media was spewing even back then and can tell that NONE OF THE DOOMSDAY WARNINGS THEY HAVE ISSUED HAVE COME TRUE!
1970 was FIFTY YEARS AGO EXACTLY, and yet, despite all the nonsense that “scientists” and people in the media were saying at the time, we are not only living, but THRIVING. The Earth is GREENING precisely BECAUSE of the warmer climate. The global temperatures aren’t increasing at dangerous levels, and we are not going to go extinct any time soon (at least due to anthropogenic climate change, since that’s a massive hoax).
And yet, Kolbert writes nonsense like this: “Perhaps people will perfect pollen-carrying drones (They’re already being tested). Perhaps we’ll also figure out ways to deal with rising sea levels and fiercer storms and deeper droughts. Perhaps new, genetically engineered crops will allow us to continue to feed a growing population even as the world warms. Perhaps we’ll find ‘the interconnected web of life’ isn’t essential to human existence after all. To some, this may seem like a happy outcome. To my mind, it’s an even scarier possibility.”
Right, let’s dissect what she is saying here. First, she’s outright lying about the “rising sea levels”, the “fiercer storms” and “deeper droughts.” I’ve already written THREE articles talking about the usual talking points of the climate cult and how those talking points are not supported by science at all, only climate models (which, as recent coronavirus models have shown, are never reliable).
The part about sea level rise (which is happening in some parts of the world, but sea levels are receding in others, so this is not a global threat), I’ve talked about in part II of the three-part series: “27 Points That Highlight The Scientific Inaccuracies And Dishonesty Of The Climate Cult.”
The part about “fiercer storms” and “deeper droughts”, I wrote in part III: “[F]or roughly 50 years, there has been no upward or downward trend in tropical storm and hurricane ACE (Accumulated cyclone energy) values, so no real increased or decreased activity in those 50 years,” as a result of a 2018 climate report noting: “Tropical storm and hurricane… (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.”
As far as the “deeper droughts” go, Dr. Pielke Jr. observed: “[D]roughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century.” A study from 2015 had also found that megadroughts in the last 2000 years were considerably worse than anything we see today and they lasted far longer. Obviously, no one can sincerely attribute A/Cs, engines and capitalism for those droughts during the times of Jesus Christ Himself.
So her entire premise regarding a “climate catastrophe” hinges on heavily-flawed and scientifically-inaccurate logic. But there is another part of that quote that is very interesting. In her mind, the ability of the human race to innovate itself out of a “climate catastrophe” that would “destroy” plants and the rest of the Earth is WORSE than humanity’s extinction as a result to said “catastrophe.”
You can tell who clearly does not have any respect for human life whatsoever when they say crap like this. To Kolbert, the idea of human extinction to climate change is A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE to humanity being innovative enough to find ways to cope with “altering the atmosphere, draining wetlands, emptying the oceans, and clearing the skies of life,” according to her.
You have to be a real sicko to think the entirety of the human race going EXTINCT alongside everything else is BETTER than humanity being able to adapt and innovate and SURVIVE whatever “climate catastrophe” comes our way.
Keep in mind how utterly selfish such people have to be to think this. I bet you Kolbert never thought of herself as being part of the “extinction” she would prefer. She believes she would be exempt from this, either because she would die beforehand or because, as a result of her “being a good girl and being on the right side of history”, she would be spared of the fate of human extinction.
It reminds me of the white people who are calling for the elimination of white people because of their “racist history”. Said white people never include themselves and believe themselves exempt from such ethnic cleansing because they were “on the right side”. It’s elitist bullcrap and utterly narcissistic.
Humanity and the planet aren’t facing a “climate crisis” or a “climate catastrophe”. It’s facing a communist catastrophe if we allow for such insane people to get their way.
“And give no opportunity to the devil.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
If you want some respite from every other news story having to do with the Wuhan Virus, whether it be Bill de Blasio’s idiotic trip to the gym or Bloomberg’s (the site, not the individual) running cover for the Chinese government who are responsible for this virus, then you’ve come to the right article because I will do my absolute best not to talk about anything to do with the Wuhan Virus here.
On March 12th, 2020, BBC ran with this story: “Greenland and Antarctica ice loss accelerating”.
“Earth’s great ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, are now losing mass six times faster than they were in the 1990s thanks to warming conditions. A comprehensive review of satellite data acquired at both poles is unequivocal in its assessment of accelerating trends, say scientists. Between them, Greenland and Antarctica lost 6.4 trillion tonnes of ice in the period from 1992 to 2017. This was sufficient to push up global sea-levels by 17.8mm. Of that combined 17.8mm contribution to sea-level rise, 10.6mm (60%) was due to Greenland ice losses and 7.2mm (40%) was due to Antarctica.”
“The combined rate of ice loss for the pair was running at about 81 billion tonnes per year in the 1990s. By the 2010s, it had climbed to 475 billion tonnes per year. According to the IPCC, its mid-range simulations (RCP4.5) suggested global sea-levels might rise by 53cm by 2100. But the Imbie team’s studies show that ice losses from Antarctica and Greenland are actually heading to much more pessimistic outcomes, and will likely add another 17cm to those end-of-century forecasts.”
Notice how it’s never good news when it comes to climate change with these people. It’s always “THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING! MAJOR CITIES WILL BE FLOODED! THE END IS NIGH IN LIKE 10 TO 12 YEARS DEPENDING ON WHO YOU ASK! VOTE DEMOCRAT!” It’s actually insane.
Speaking of that 10 to 12 year timetable, if we are going to die in that time span, what sense does it make to say that sea levels will be at a particular level in the year 2100? Is it because the decade doomsday clock is illogical, based on nothing but fearmongering and there have been an awful lot of doomsday clocks in the past? Nah, that can’t be it.
Seriously, though, the claims made by the BBC here are either completely wrong or, at best, half-truths that are greatly exaggerated. What do I mean? Well, according to the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), melting of Greenland’s ice caps contributed to just 0.6mm/year to global sea level rise from 2003 to 2017. Most of this ice loss is due to receding glacier fronts, but in November of 2018, DMI confirmed that glaciers have largely maintained their area since 2012.
Meaning that, while ice losses have been found, they aren’t close to the level that the BBC talked about and over the past 8 years, ice levels have remained about the same. As a result, no one can realistically claim that there has been accelerated ice loss since 2003. It’s just not the case.
The half-truth from the BBC is that Greenland was losing ice rather quickly since the 1990s, but that’s largely a red herring argument. It has no bearing on future rates of loss and is therefore a fallacy of reason, believing that just because something was like this in the past, that it will definitely continue to be this way without deviation when in fact that’s not how the real world works. Matter of fact, in 2003, according to Climate Depot, “scientists reported that Greenland had cooled significantly between 1958 and 2001.”
As a result, ice loss slowed down significantly in that time period, as is to be expected, and since 2001, temperatures have returned to 1930s and 1940s levels.
As you can see in this graph, there have been plenty of other periods of high temperature in the past:
What’s more, according to Climate Depot, “Far from ice loss increasing in the Antarctic, scientists cannot even agree whether the ice cap is even shrinking at all.” This is because a recent NASA study showed ice sheets GROWING, with snowfall in East Antarctica exceeding ice loss in West Antarctica. That same study also showed that “Antarctica gained 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.”
Regarding sea levels, they have been rising at a rate of 2mm a year since the late 1800s, with a slowdown between the 60s and 90s. Climate Depot also says: “Sea levels provide no evidence that the poles are losing ice at a faster rate than in the first half of the 20th [century]. They certainly do not support the theory that ice loss will significantly accelerate in the rest of the 21st [century].”
So there is really no need to fear anything that the BBC insinuates that we should fear. We are not going to see major cities flooding and we are not going to see major sea levels rising over the next 80 years. Why? Well, apart from the established facts and science, every other major prediction made by these climate freaks has been WRONG as I have said in the past.
Nothing we do or could possibly do (outside of using nukes) would have an effect on our climate to the point where we would see the kind of stuff these liars are telling us we are “seeing”. And, by the way, I am always amused when they try to argue this with man-made climate models, which are not based on reality, but rather on the junk science and math that they run to try and scare people into believing future generations are doomed. It’s kind of like the bogus calculations made by people who say that the Wuhan Virus (and I’m sort of breaking my earlier promise here, so forgive me, but it’s relevant and I’ll keep it brief) could cause up to hundreds of thousands of deaths if we don’t go straight up communist and impose quarantines, when in reality, death rates go down and the math that these people use to calculate such ridiculous numbers only works in a static world of hypotheticals. In Italy, where we are told is the “worst case scenario” deaths are nowhere near the hundreds of thousands.
Arguing using man-made climate models is arguing using people’s worst assumptions as though they are the definite and most likely future, an issue many climate scientists have raised in the past about using climate models in this manner.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Climate Change Contradictions: CC Caused Great Lakes’ Low And High Water Levels + Trees Solve And Worsen CC
This is not the first time I have pointed out the flat-out contradictions made by the climate cult. The day before Christmas last year, I talked about how different cultist “scientists” said flatly contradicting things about climate change, namely about how obesity “caused” global warming and that global warming would “lead to starvation”.
So basically, the problem should theoretically take care of itself, then, but of course, that wasn’t the message being given by the cult.
But now we return with TWO more contradictions by the climate cult, both of which I find utterly hilarious.
Let’s begin with the first contradiction mentioned in the title: the one about the Great Lakes and water levels.
You see, back in the early 2010s, namely 2012 and 2013, the Great Lakes experienced unusually low water levels. Given the frenzy of global warming in the cult’s mind, at the time, multiple people on the Left blamed climate change for “drying up” the Great Lakes.
From National Geographic in 2012: “Warming Lakes: Climate Change and Variability Drive Low Water Levels on the Great Lakes.” The fake news didn’t end there, because the article’s subhead reads: “Low water levels expose the sandy lake bottom on Lake Michigan,” accompanied by a photo of a rusted boat sitting on top of sand with some water around it. This is largely fake news because what was being talked about was not “lake bottom”. Lake Michigan is over 900 feet deep. If the entire lake dried up to that point THAT would be cause for major concern, but nothing of the sort has occurred.
From a local radio station’s online article in 2011: “Gore links Great Lakes problems to climate change.” “Former Vice President Al Gore says dealing with the climate change crisis is essential to fixing some of the environmental problems plaguing the Great Lakes.”
Keep that little quote in mind as we go along.
From Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin in 2013: “Recent record-low water levels in Lake Michigan are evidence that global warming is leading to ‘the evaporation of our Great Lakes.’”
Based on this, we surely must do something to combat climate change! What can be done?! THIS IS A CRISI- what do you mean the water levels are at record-highs now? Wasn’t global warming evaporating the Great Lakes? Oh, our friendly neighborhood Democrats are telling us it’s see-sawing and climate change is causing the climate to be erratic and highly dynamic? But isn’t our ecosystem dynamic anyway so change is bound to happen regardless of what people do? You’re telling me to shut up because that makes far too much sense for this topic? We should just say it’s still climate change even though that’s a blatant contradiction? Okay.
That’s what the Left wants us to believe and honestly expects us to believe because they think we are just that stupid (though the cult’s intellect is probably hovering around that area anyway). Roughly a decade ago, the Great Lakes were “evaporating” because of climate change and today, they are at record-highs, apparently also because of climate change.
From The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2019: “Researchers think they know what’s causing record water levels on and flooding around the Great Lakes: climate change.” Do they know? Because a decade ago, their stories were the exact same when the situation was the opposite. They still blamed climate change (man-made, specifically) for low water levels in the Great Lakes, so now that they’re at record-highs, that’s also climate change?
The irony in all of this is that we can clearly see what has been historically happening in these lakes because there is documented data going back a CENTURY. According to the Southeastern Wisconsin Coastal Resilience, Lake Michigan’s water levels were around what we see today back in much of the 1970s, some in the 1980s when it experienced a record-high (that according to the chart is still the record, but this is an article from August of 2019). Then, it went back down a lot and stayed down plenty during the 2000s and roughly the first half of the 2010s (nearing record-lows around the time of those “global warming is evaporating the Great Lakes” articles, which, by the way, were not too different from other lows back in the 1920s, 1930s and 1960s) and then went back up to the levels we see now.
You can more easily see what I mean here:
As you can see, over the last 100 years, the various levels of water found in Lake Michigan have not been particularly weird. Water levels tend to go up and down. The reason for the latest rise is because of a combination of high precipitation and a cold winter, which led to water being frozen and causing less of it to evaporate. These are not abnormalities for our planet, not by a long shot.
And yet, despite the clear evidence of how NORMAL it is for the Great Lakes to act in this manner, any level of water that is outside the Left’s comfort zone (which is practically non-existent) is blamed on anthropogenic climate change, which is laughable at best. The data is right there. Man-made climate change is NOT REAL. The climate is dynamic because that is how the environment is. It’s the way God created this planet. I can guarantee there is NOTHING humanity could’ve possibly done in less than a decade to go from record-low water levels to record-high water levels, at least in terms of what the cult says we do with regards to the climate.
For all the Left tells us, we’ve only been doing worse and worse in “combating” climate change, to the point where we only have 10 years left (though that’s far from the first doomsday prediction these people have made) and yet, we see such radical change in the Great Lakes. Mankind was blamed for low water levels when they were low and now, we’re blamed for high water levels now that they’re high.
Any wonder we keep saying how much of a hoax this whole thing is? Any wonder I accuse these people of orchestrating massive cop-outs when things don’t go as they predicted, but only double-down in saying climate change has caused this new situation?
But like I mentioned in the title, the Great Lakes debacle wasn’t the only contradiction I had in store for this article.
Now let’s move on to how trees both cause and solve climate change, seemingly at the same time and in the same relationship. For those of you who have been reading my articles for some time, you know what I am about to bring up: the Law of Non-contradiction.
The Law of Non-contradiction simply states that something cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, I cannot be a father and a son at the same time and in the same relationship. I can be a father and I can be a son at the same time – I can be my child’s father (provided I had one) and I can be my father’s child – but I cannot be my own father or my own child, as that would violate a basic law of logic.
And yet, this is what the Left has done with regard to the idea of planting trees (which is in some ways surprising and in others not particularly surprising).
According to CBS News from 2018: “Planting a trillion trees could be the ‘most effective solution’ to climate change, study says.”
That seems to be the conventional wisdom: trees good; no trees bad. Live Science also echoes that sentiment, writing: “Want to Fight Climate Change? Plant 1 Trillion Trees.”
But according to Discover Magazine: “We Can’t Just Plant Billions of Trees to Stop Climate Change.”
According to Climate News Network (no, not CNN) in 2017: “Planting trees will not slow global warming.”
Even the UN’s IPCC in August of 2019 said: “global-scale deforestation has a net cooling influence on Earth’s climate.” (That's from a PDF file, so no link directly to it, but ClimateDepot's article talks a bit about it)
So trees both cause climate change, according to these guys and trees are the solution to climate change according to the ones mentioned earlier.
What are we to do, then, because some people say “plant a trillion trees”, which would not really be particularly effective (aside from the fact that we can’t alter the climate) because there are around three trillion trees on Earth, according to a Scientific American study from 2015, which is a staggering increase from the previous estimate of 400 million. That means that the number of trees has increased 7,500-fold between that previous estimate and the most recent one.
Planting another trillion would not really do anything. Planting trees and not planting trees both seem to both be good and bad things for the planet at the same time and in the same relationship. It literally makes no sense and someone here is not telling the truth. Either trees are good for the planet or they aren’t. I can buy that having too many trees can be bad and that not having enough can be bad too. What I cannot possibly buy is the idea that planting trees is, at the same time and in the same relationship, a way to “solve” climate change and make it worse.
So we have two particular contradictions here: the Great Lakes’ water levels, both low and high, are because of climate change and trees both solve and worsen climate change.
And the only solution to this lunacy is, apparently, giving up all our rights and freedoms to the government so that they can “solve it”. Yeah, that’s a hard “no” for me, bud.
But it is always hilarious to take note of the grave inconsistencies found within what the cult even tries to sell, to the point they are selling outright contradicting talking points with the most serious of faces.
“A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The Left often tries to argue that they are the clear majority in this country (despite another poll showing the very few number of liberals in this country) and that what they think about and the way they think about those things are what the vast majority of Americans think about and the way they think about them. For example, they believe the vast majority of Americans want to get rid of the 2nd amendment and often lose nights of sleep because of this “issue” in our Constitution. That is, of course, nowhere close to true, but this is how the Left operates.
So it is no surprise that they would believe that the vast majority of Americans are deeply concerned with the state of our planet and what we are “doing” to it. They believe that if their candidates run on the “issue” of climate change, that they are practically guaranteed to win most seats and most states in the country because oh, so many people must be just as concerned about it as they are and are willing to rid themselves of all their rights and freedoms to give to the government so that they can “come up with a solution” to the “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” or whatever else these commies are calling it.
However, reality is VERY far from what the Left says it is (not that that should come as a surprise to anyone. When has the Left ever been right about anything?).
According to a Pew Research Center poll, 44% of Americans told Pew that “dealing with global climate change” should be a top priority for Trump and Congress to tackle. On its own, that seems like a fairly decent number of people and like what I was saying up to this point was entirely wrong, right? Well, it would appear as such on its own, but definitely not when compared to other issues.
You see, Pew Research Center gives surveyors a list of issues or topics to rank on a priority scale.
Here are the other topics that Pew gave to surveyors:
“Dealing with global climate change” squeezes in between improving roads, bridges and public transport and dealing with global trade issues, at 44%. That puts it in 17th place out of 18 total places for it to go.
Of course, there is also the “protecting the environment” issue much higher, but that’s not strictly a Leftist thing. People on both sides of the aisle want to protect the environment because we know that we can affect it greatly. What we can’t affect is the weather, which is what the Left and the native Americans of old believe(d). What we can’t affect is our GLOBAL climate. We can affect our local ecosystems, environment, etc. Just look at the literal craphole San Francisco and L.A. are turning into. But we can’t affect the global climate and people understand that other things ought to be prioritized more.
By the way, I say “people” on both sides of the aisle to mostly talk about everyday Americans. It’s clear that the Left, as in the elected Left and those aspiring to run for office, do not care one wit about the environment, given the state of some of their cities. The fact the EPA hasn’t sued San Francisco for its roads made of crap is astonishing. But everyday Americans do tend to care for the environment and do not wish to harm it, regardless of what side of the political aisle they are on. So the fact that “protecting the environment” is higher than some of the other ones isn’t necessarily good news for the Left since they don’t own that talking point, at least not anymore (and again, they aren’t doing much of that anyway).
People want to take care of the environment, with some even naively believing they can do something about global climate change, but most wouldn’t go to the extremes the Left wants to take us to. What this poll shows us is just how much more the economy and other topics are to the average person than turning this country into a socialist one to deal with a nonexistent threat.
Virtually every elected Democrat in this day and age wants to foundationally change the very system that has made America great in order to “fight climate change”. It’s stupid both in terms of effectiveness (it wouldn’t do a darn thing to help “fight” climate change and it would likely hurt the environment far more than help it, given their insane obsession over getting rid of CO2, which is essential for all life on Earth) and in terms of it being a selling point, as we can clearly see.
The VAST majority of Americans don’t want to turn this country into a socialist hellhole just to try to “fight” something that isn’t even a man-made issue at all. People want to prioritize the economic well-being of this country because when the country does well financially, so do most people. They want to focus on reducing healthcare costs because, after a decade of Obamacare, it’s clearly not been the “affordable care” that has been promised, not even a little.
They want to fix the education system because kids are learning useless things (I have yet to put into use my knowledge of the Pythagorean theorem or the fact that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell in any real life situation) that they largely won’t have to use in the real world unless they specifically go into professions that require such knowledge (knowing the aforementioned things I learned in school WOULD have been useful if I decided to become a mathematician or a scientist, but I am neither of those things and never will be).
They want to make sure that this country is safe from terrorism, want to ensure that Social Security doesn’t screw people, want to fix the costly Medicare system, want to help the poor and the needy (very Biblical, even if they do not recognize it), protect the environment, deal with a broken and abused immigration system that makes it far too easy for people to get in and many, many other things.
That’s not to say that they don’t care about climate change at all. But they definitely do not want to sacrifice things like economic well-being and security, which they would have to (even if not told) if they were to sign on to the radical Leftist ideals of the Green New Deal and other socialist schemes to strip people of their rights and their liberties.
This poll tells us that running on a campaign of “we’re going to save the planet” is not a big-time seller for most people. Running on the things Trump tends to run on, like economic well-being, is more important to the average voter than “let’s start eating roaches to protect the Earth”.
And by the way, this isn’t the only year that this line item has ranked so low on that poll. The poll began to ask about global warming in 2007, when it also ranked second-to-last. From 2008 to 2013, it ranked dead last, in 2014 and 2015, it climbed back up to second-to-last and in 2016, when Pew began to refer to it as “global climate change”, the topic did the best it ever has at an impressive… third-to-last. And in the years following, it has ranked second-to-last time and again.
This has never been a major selling point for Democrats, no matter what they believe, no matter what kind of climate puppet they prop up, no matter how many hours Leftist cable news spend on talking about how “we are killing our planet” and how it’s “literally on fire”. People are concerned (more than they should be, given the farce that this entire thing is), but won’t go full-on communist, giving up everything they own for “the better good”, and that isn’t a good thing for Democrats, especially going into 2020.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...