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

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

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

It is not often that I even care to write about anything with relations to animals. For the most part, I care more about matters of God, or matters of humans than I do about matters of animals. Usually, the lowest creation I will consider talking about is the actual planet whenever I discuss climate change. But I suppose this article sort of connects to climate change as well in some ways, at least with the fictitious notion that we are killing our planet.
 
Recently, two previously-thought extinct creatures were discovered. On the Galapagos Island of Fernandina, a giant tortoise, which was last seen more than 100 years ago (1906, more specifically) was discovered.
 
This tortoise was found to be a female tortoise, is believed to be more than 100 years old (roughly the life expectancy of a giant tortoise) and other tracks and scents were also found near her, which might belong to other members of her species, indicating she may not be alone.
 
The other creature that was recently found is perhaps the only creature I would be willing to advocate for its extinction. The Wallace’s Giant Bee (the nightmarish creature is seen right below), named after Alfred Russel Wallace, who discovered the species in 1958 and was last seen in 1981 also was found in Indonesia.
 
The Wallace’s Giant Bee, according to CBS News, is around 1.5 inches long and has a 2.5 inch wingspan. Unsurprisingly, LiveScience dubbed this bee a “nightmare bee”.

​The giant tortoise was discovered by an expedition by the Giant Tortoise Restoration Initiative (GTRI) and Satan’s bee (as I shall call it henceforth) was discovered, oddly enough, by a conservation photographer who had been trying to find this bee for 20 years.
 
I don’t know about you, but the only way I’d be willing to spend 20 years looking for a nightmare bee is if my mission were to, upon finding it alive, kill it with fire. Just bring a flamethrower with me and burn the nightmare fuel of a creature along with the nest it was found in, collateral damage be damned.
 
Of course, since it is a bee, it might not necessarily be immediately hostile like wasps are, but still. One look at this thing and I can’t help but want to kill it off.
 
In any case, let’s get down to the reason I am even talking about this at all. As the title suggests, I am adamant in explaining the simple fact that nature always finds a way.
 
Beyond the fact-less narratives of the Left when it comes to climate change, it is simply a ludicrous thought that humanity could cause harm to the climate this much, even when it “tries” to do the opposite (I put that word in quotation marks because it’s clear to me countries still participating in the Paris Climate Accord don’t actually care about the environment if their CO2 emissions are still as bad as they are).
 
Man has the power to do a lot of evil and a lot of damage, but not this much, not without nuclear weapons.
 
In a previous article, I talked about how if you tasked me with destroying the planet without nuclear weapons, I would not be able to. Despite however much gas we may be emitting, the polar ice caps aren’t melting like Al Gore and the other idiots are telling us. You need only think of the time when TWO ships were stranded in the South Pole back in 2014 to see how bogus of an argument that is. Those ships were stranded because the assumption was that there was less ice in the area than there actually was.
 
Not to mention that if you look at an image of the planet in a time lapse, you can see the ice caps GROWING not receding.
 
So whatever damage the Left says we are doing to the planet is simply not true. Which is why I would not be able to destroy the planet without nukes. What is thought to be destroying the planet now is certainly not doing it, so how else would I be able to?
 
But even if you do want to continue with the notion that we are destroying the planet, or at least not doing our best to help it, the fact is that nature still finds a way to survive.
 
Look at Chernobyl as an example. The Chernobyl disaster occurred on April 26th, 1986, with subsequent evacuations happening over the next few days (not immediately because communism).
 
I won’t go into detail about the level of radiation that was released by the accident because it’s a lot of technical words that might confuse some people, but there was a lot of radiation that was released.
 
All that we really need to know about this is that Live Science says that the region surrounding the nuclear power plant won’t be habitable for humans for at least 20,000 years. Which, I honestly find odd because they also say that “thriving populations of wolves, deer, lynx, beaver, eagles, boar, elk, bears and other animals have been documented in the dense woodlands that now surround the silent plant.”
 
Of course, this isn’t to say that people literally can’t go there, since my 8th grade science professor actually went there but literally had to burn the clothes he wore on his trip. Still, I don’t suggest anyone try and live in the area any time soon.
 
In any case, my point is that Chernobyl currently has “thriving populations” of different kinds of animals with minimal signs of radiation effects apart from a few stunted trees. Aside from that, if you look at pictures of Chernobyl, you will find a lot of areas where nature is growing even inside some buildings.
 
So despite the terrible radioactive accident of Chernobyl, nature found a way to survive the radioactive area. Despite our CO2 emissions, nature finds a way to get HEALTHIER. And despite whatever else we may be doing to nature, long-thought-extinct creatures can pop up again.
 
Now, I doubt we’ll ever see a dodo bird again, much as I would love to see one, but nature always finds a way to survive because nature’s God is the one in control. He gets to decide what animal survives, what animal thrives and what animal dies.
 
He gets to decide what happens to the polar ice caps. He gets to decide what happens in the event of nuclear accidents (or even nuclear war).
 
The thought that man can destroy the planet stems from unbelief in God, who controls the planet and the universe. This particularly is among the reasons I seriously doubt Pope Francis’ faith. He supposedly believes in God, who created the universe, but does not believe God is currently in control of the climate of the planet? He believes man can do anything to override whatever God does or wants?
 
What sort of faith is that?
 
God is the one who decides that the giant tortoise is still around. He is the one that decides that Wallace’s Giant Bee is still around (for a reason that currently escapes me, but I won’t question Him).
 
So nature always finds a way solely because God is the one who dictates what happens in nature and the way it works. It is asinine to claim we are killing the planet when A) there’s no actual evidence to support that and B) we don’t have the power to override God’s work.
 
Again, the only way I can see to destroy the planet (and even then, the planet would still be around, but most humans and animals likely wouldn’t be) is through the use of nuclear weapons. And like I said, God still dictates what would happen even if humanity foolishly were to destroy itself.
 
1 Chronicles 29:11
“Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Last week, socialist nut-job Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, alongside Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), released the outline for what the Green New Deal will try to achieve in the next ten years.
 
And boy, oh boy, does it read worse than the worst essay I’ve ever written for school.
 
Since this was released last week, I imagine many of you know some of the details of the proposed Green New Deal, but allow me to go over some of them just in case you haven’t desired risking IQ points reading through it.
 
The beginning really just talks about how we’re destroying our climate (no evidence to point to, of course) and we need to do make severe changes (note how it’s only because of us that the climate is being destroyed. We’re reducing CO2 emissions, while France, China and other socialist countries increase theirs, but WE’RE the problem).
 
The first objective of the Green New Deal is “to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers…”
 
Okay, a few things. First, it’s pretty much impossible to do that (a recurring theme you will see as I go through this laughable-if-people-weren’t-so-serious-about-it proposition) without nuclear power. And the Green New Deal is adamant about MOVING AWAY from nuclear power, so the chances of managing to do that in the next 50 years, let alone 10, are zero.
 
Second, what exactly does it mean by “fair” and “just”? Definitely not what we think as fair and just. The plan, of course, is to have the government pay for all of this. The government gets paid by We the People. Sure, the rich pay the vast majority of it, but, as I’ve said in multiple articles, the threshold for what is considered rich always gets lowered when you take away rich people’s money. So how is it fair (under the assumption this is even doable) to have upper middle-class, and then middle-class and then lower middle-class and then lower-class people pay for it? (Side note: the country would collapse way before they get to the lower class, but they are still made to suffer the most by massive nation-wide layoffs before they are stuck with the bill).
 
Let’s move on to what immediately follows that idiotic proposal: “to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”
 
Again, a couple of things. First, we’re already managing to do the first part with the Trump economy, which Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is “resisting”. Second, what she proposes would do literally the opposite of that. Third, economic prosperity and security should not be a guarantee. No one is entitled to living well. People have to earn it. When people feel entitled to it, they get bitter and will refuse to work (and we’ll get to that in a moment). The Declaration of Independence grants certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. No one is entitled to happiness, but they are entitled the right to pursue it (which would be taken away by the implementation of this pile of dog-crap).
 
Skipping some other items, we get to some more “guarantees”: “to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come – clean air and water; climate and community resiliency (what does that even mean?); healthy food; access to nature (apparently, people can’t go outside); and a sustainable environment; and to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘frontline and vulnerable communities’)…”
 
Okay, that was a whole lot of stupid to compile into one paragraph and a whole lot of things to cover. Now, I don’t want to make this article too long (the Green New Deal is more than 10 pages long), so I will get to the most important bits (although the whole thing is a compilation of socialist lunacy and a saddening lack of any kind of intelligence).
 
Of course, the Green New Deal just has to include reparations not just for black people, but all people who have been “oppressed” historically. Because you see, the mere fact that there was slavery at all is disqualifying of the entire country. Never mind that every other country in existence, with few exceptions, have also allowed slavery (some still allow for slavery to this very day) and heavily benefited from slavery. No, it’s just the U.S. that’s bad.
 
Let me remind you just who it was that FOUGHT for slavery. America is the only country in the world that actually had to go to war to end slavery. On one side, you had the Republican North, led by Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to abolish slavery. On the other, you had the Democrat South, led by Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, who wanted to keep their “right” to keep slaves.
 
Let me remind you that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a hot-button issue for the Democrat Party, with about half voting for it and the other half voting against it, while the Republican Party was almost entirely unified in their support of the bill.
 
The only people that continually oppress people is the Left. How do we go about abolishing them?
 
In any case, let’s move on. The Green New Deal also proposes “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”
 
Again, a few things to talk about. First, there are about 127 million residential buildings in the country. That doesn’t include commercial buildings (good luck trying to literally rebuild all of Manhattan), industrial buildings, hospitals, schools, government buildings, etc. I don’t see this happening in the next 100 years, let alone 10.
 
Second, what do you mean doing this “including through electrification”? Powering them up? Makes sense. But how exactly would that be accomplished? The power grid relies almost entirely on fossil fuels (the GND also proposes upgrading the power grid, of course, just doesn’t mention exactly how). Batteries, even if they could actually power up whole buildings (which they can’t), need to be recharged BY FOSSIL FUELS.
 
The GND also proposes building high-speed rails across the country to make air travel obsolete (and even Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) had issues with that, given it would really screw Hawaii over).
 
It also proposes “guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” That, on top of guaranteeing a free college education, as well as ensuring there are “high-quality union jobs” and guaranteeing everyone “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work”, “build charging stations everywhere” (yes, everywhere), “replace every combustion-engine vehicle”, and try to “get rid of farting cows” (not a joke, that part was included verbatum) and other emitters of pollution is a recipe for economic disaster.
 
Let me ask these nut-jobs a question: if people are guaranteed economic security, even if they refuse to work, then who in the world is going to build those cross-country railroads? Who is going to renovate and rebuild literally every single building in the country to be environmentally friendly? Who is going to build charging stations “everywhere”? Who is going to produce the necessary materials to even try to do all that? And who is going to be qualified to do all of that and willing to do it as well?
 
Who is going to run the electrical plants (that are somehow free of gas emissions) to power up anything?
 
And most importantly, where is the money to do all of this going to come from?
 
When people are GUARANTEED free stuff, such as money, they will largely be unwilling to do work that helps everyone. I’ve made this argument before, but it’s just as relevant as ever: no one is going to do manual labor if they are guaranteed an income and economic security. The only jobs that people will do are things relating to the arts. Only works of passion will be done. But then again, who is going to run the cameras for shows? Who is going to put the make-up on the actors? Who is going to do anything that has nothing to do with a passionate job?
 
If everyone is guaranteed an income, who is going to tear down the buildings to renovate them in the first place? And if the money is only guaranteed after either the buildings are torn down (which in itself would take ages) or when the new buildings are up (which would take far longer) how are the workers going to live? They won’t be getting that guaranteed money everyone else is getting, so why would they bother to do anything?
 
This ENTIRE proposal is lacking in so much common sense, I think I would’ve come up with something better while I was in preschool. Even back then, I understood the concept of money. If something couldn’t be paid for, I understood the concept of doing something else.
 
One of my earliest memories is hearing the news that the Argentine government was confiscating people’s money in their bank accounts, causing millions of Argentines to go below the poverty line overnight (and don’t think that can’t happen here, particularly with what these lunatics are proposing).
 
I remember because my family was also affected by this (thankfully, my parents, or at least my mother, had a good job so we’d be okay, but not many people were so lucky) and it got me to realize some basic truths in life: money is limited.
 
Of course, as I grew up, I understood the concept of printing money (which is probably how these whackos will try and pay for all of this, because it WILL have to be paid somehow and the rich don’t have enough money to pay for it) and the concept of inflation created by doing such a thing.
 
It’s basic economics, basic supply and demand, that should tell these idiots that you can’t just print unlimited money and pay for everything. The more there is of an item, i.e. money, the less valuable it is. So that multi-trillion dollar price-tag for even ONE of these items gets increased exponentially.
 
Now, the reason I say that this is bad satire, is because I could hardly believe anyone would be stupid enough to suggest these things and anyone would be stupid enough to back these things. Kamala Harris supports it, but I don’t think she read it. I might be giving her too much credit, but I don’t think she’s all that dumb.
 
Nancy Pelosi, being that she’s actually politically smart (even if she says dumb partisan things like the GOP tax cuts will cause the apocalypse) actively avoids this Green New Deal. She doesn’t flat-out reject it, but she is not taking it seriously and likely doesn’t want to put this piece that might as well have been written in crayon on the House floor.
 
This entire proposal highlights what the Left wants to do: replace capitalism with socialism. In the name of fighting climate change, of course.
 
I would laugh at this proposal if people weren’t so serious about this. They legitimately think these things can be done. They completely ignore reality – the reality that even trying to implement ONE of these things would destroy us economically and everyone would be living in abject poverty as the rest of the world did before capitalism became a thing. The reality that the U.S. is lowering its CO2 levels while China cares nothing for the climate. And why would they? The communists already have total power. They didn’t need to run on fighting climate change. They were helped by the Soviets to establish a communist state.
 
The good news about this is that it’s become very easy to counter all of these points. The bad news is that people might just be getting dumber and dumber. The fact that this proposal, alongside AOC and Markey, aren’t being laughed out of Washington speaks volumes.
 
Just 5 to 10 years ago, these proposals, as they are written, would’ve caused laughing fits. Of course, the actual proposals are nothing new. The Left has been trying to accomplish these things, such as eliminating combustion engines and air travel for decades now. But the language of it all is very blunt. It spells out exactly what they want, which is something they previously had to hide.
 
The problem then is that this is not being met by mock and ridicule, but applause and cheers. People in California will read this and think it’s a brilliant masterpiece, as if written by the great Karl Marx himself. They won’t stop to think “this is ludicrous and actually impossible to accomplish in the next century, let alone decade”. They see the goals and don’t care about how to accomplish them as long as they just try.
 
This is the culmination of the participation trophy generation. As long as we try, it’s okay. It doesn’t matter if millions are starving to death, are homeless and there is absolutely no hope for anyone to live better lives (and we all know Christianity would be rejected and persecuted), as long as we tried, that’s all that matters.
 
It’s not just sickening and idiotic, it’s actually insanely dangerous. This is the sort of mindset that will set humanity back thousands of years. Nothing good can come of even trying to implement all of this (and that’s all there is: trying. There is no accomplishing any of this because it’s uniquely impossible to do any of this, especially in just a decade).
 
I just hope that God will spare us of this mess and Rapture comes before these people attempt to implement these things.
 
Titus 3:5
“He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

For many people in the United States, it is hard to ignore the polar vortex that struck the U.S. this past week. Many in the northern and mid-western states are facing record-lows in temperature.
 
And just as quickly as the polar vortex hit, climate “experts” and believers chocked it all up to man-made climate change.
 
However, this is one massive and ridiculous copout and I will explain momentarily.
 
First, let me tell you that the reason for me writing this is the fact that I was looking through articles to give me some inspiration to write and came across one that contains an excerpt from the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”
 
I was originally going to write about this topic yesterday, but the whole issue of debating whether or not a baby is a baby and should be allowed to live OUTSIDE the womb came up and I really needed to address that.
 
However, now we shall discuss this climate topic because it’s still relevant.
 
This is the excerpt of the book around which I am basing this article:
 
“Predictions of less snow were ubiquitous by global warming scientists. But once that prediction failed to come true, the opposite of what they predicted instead became – what they expected. How did global warming scientists explain record snow after predicting less snow? Easy. More snow is now caused by global warming. ‘Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists’ blared a UK Telegraph headline in 2009. The Financial Times tried to explain ‘Why global warming means… more snow’ in 2012… So no matter what happens, the activists can claim with confidence the event was a predicted consequence of global warming. There is now no way to ever falsify global warming claims.”
 
A very interesting excerpt from that book. However, I would like to disagree with the final argument that there is no way to falsify global warming claims now. There is.
 
This is precisely the reason I call this sort of thing a copout. Scientists and “experts” were predicting less snow. When that prediction turned out to be false, and the opposite happened – more snow – they said that that was also global warming.
 
Even though it literally makes no sense to chock up snow and cold temperatures to global WARMING (and even that Financial Times headline alludes to this ridiculous notion) that’s what they were saying. And that’s why they switched from “global warming” to “climate change”, so they would never be wrong about predictions (except, of course, they still are).
 
But it’s a complete and total copout. Every time they use “climate change” instead of “global warming” that’s a copout.
 
At least global warming was trying to predict something specific. But using “climate change” just so they can be right about the climate getting warmer or colder is basically the same as saying: “I predict the stock market will end higher by the end of the year… or lower… or about the same. I’m an financial genius!”
 
As it turns out, the climate will either get colder after a certain amount of time, get hotter, or stay about the same with next to no change.
 
THOSE ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS! So of course they are never wrong in their predictions. They don’t have to be specific about this sort of thing anymore.
 
Notice how the whole argument of “our kids will not get to experience snow unless they see it in movies or the internet” is no longer used? That’s because they have no actual way of telling whether or not that will actually be the case, so their predictions get broader and vaguer, or they are predictions about things that won’t happen for a very long time when no one will remember such predictions.
 
Of course, people like AOC still make short-term predictions just because, but it really doesn’t matter. No one’s going to hold her accountable for it, even when she turns out to be wrong in 12 years.
 
I’ve often said that the point of climate change is not so the Left would be right about anything. They don’t care about being right. They only care about making people be afraid of this climate change and make people think only Democrats can ever come up with “solutions” to this “problem”.
 
It’s almost like the mafia demanding “protection” money. The Democrats are the ones that make people be afraid and thus, they make people “pay” them by electing them into power.
 
But at the same time, the Democrats need to be able to seem somewhat reasonable as far as climate change goes. What I mean by that is that they can’t keep making predictions of less snow when there’s more snow, can’t make predictions about an impending apocalypse set to occur in a decade or so, and can’t keep suggesting the climate is only getting warmer, when it could also get colder.
 
Their credibility would take some serious hits if they are constantly wrong about every single thing.
 
Granted, they have no credibility with conservatives, but I’m also talking about credibility with just about anyone.
 
Are people more likely to believe someone who is constantly wrong about something or someone who cops out and makes general and broad predictions that will turn out to be true only because they cover the only possible options?
 
It’s because of this that they switched to “climate change”. They saw they were dead wrong about pretty much everything they were selling to people, so they started to say that cold weather is also because of global warming. Only that makes zero sense to anyone with half a brain, so they decided to start calling it climate change. The focus was that the climate was still getting warmer but they leave themselves the room to claim that the climate can also get colder.
 
It’s a massive copout, but it’s necessary to retain their credibility (however little they may have) and to retain the narrative’s usefulness to elect Democrats.
 
These people are completely shameless in their pursuit of power, opting to constantly lie and deceive people to attain it. Workers of deceit is what they are.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

About a month ago, I wrote an article that is fairly similar to this one. The title was: “How Much Longer Can The Left Say ‘It’s Our Last Chance To Save The Earth’?” In that article, I mentioned a Newsweek article dating back to 1975 that discussed global cooling and how year after year, climate summit after climate summit, “experts” warn that this is our last chance to save our planet.
 
Well, similarly, Left-wing activists warn that we have a certain number of years, months, days, or even hours until the end of the world due to catastrophic climate change that we are to blame for.
 
Recently, Socialist darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave a similar warning, saying that the world “is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”.
 
12 years, huh? I’ll take her up on that bet.
 
But in any case, she is just the latest of the Left’s nutcases to warn of apocalyptic events surrounding climate change, giving a set number of years for people to vote Democrat so that they can “fight” climate change and turn out to not have to worry in 12 years about an impending apocalypse, instead, opting to reset the clock and say the word would end in another 10 to 20 years.
 
This is a tried and true method that has worked for Democrats at varying degrees since they began using it.
 
But when did this sort of nonsensical apocalypse warning begin?
 
Well, according to an MIT professor named Leo Marx, George Perkins Marsh may have been the first person to issue a similar warning to what the Left is crying out.
 
George Perkins Marsh, according to Professor Marx, is “sometimes said to be the father of American ecology” and “warned that the earth was ‘fast becoming an unfit home for its “noblest inhabitant”’, and that unless men changed their ways, it would be reduced ‘to such a condition of impoverished productiveness, of shattered surface, of climatic excess, as to threaten the depravation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species.’”
 
In other words, George Perkins Marsh gave similar apocalyptic warnings regarding the climate (though with no set date as to how much longer humanity has to fix it) as modern-day Democrats often give.
 
When did George Perkins Marsh give this warning, you ask?
 
1864!
 
THE GUY GAVE THIS WARNING WHILE LINCOLN WAS STILL PRESIDENT!
 
ONE YEAR AFTER THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION THAT FREED THE SLAVES!
 
So the Left has been using a warning issued by someone as far back as the days of the Civil War.
 
Now, again, Marsh did not specifically say how much longer humanity had to deal with what he saw as a sort of climate crisis. But still, that was 155 years ago. We are in no more danger of dying due to climate change today as we were back when a full pound of sugar cost you roughly 9 cents.
 
And allow me to remind you: this was WELL before “modern” cars were a thing (it is said that 1886 was the birth year of the modern automobile when Karl Benz patented his first automobile) and well before they were mass produced.
 
Farming equipment was very different and farming itself largely relied on manual labor (hence the reason for there being slaves in the first place) and wars were still largely fought either on foot or with cavalry.
 
In other words, just about everything the Left blames for the destruction of our planet (cars, heavy machinery, war vehicles, even A/Cs) had yet to be invented when the first guy warned of a possible climate crisis that would doom humanity.
 
Oh, and when I said that people on the Left were trying to narrow down just how much, or little, time left humanity had even down to hours, I wasn’t joking.
 
In March of 2009, Elizabeth May of the Canadian Green Party declared that “we have hours” to prevent climate disaster, according to a piece written by May herself to a publication called The Star.
 
But as far as I know, she’s the only person who has said we only had hours to fix climate change.
 
Still, back in October of 2009, UK’s Gordon Brown warned of a climate catastrophe and we only had “50 days to save world”.
 
One of the most notorious claims regarding a short period of time to “fix” climate change came from Prince Charles himself when he claimed we only had 96 months to solve that “crisis”.
 
Each of them is fixated on the possibility of there being an apocalyptic event that has to do with climate change and make the most ridiculous claims imaginable thanks to Marsh floating around the idea that there would likely eventually be a sort of climate crisis.
 
I have no idea how the guy arrived to that conclusion. Maybe he noticed that one day was particularly cold or hot and jumped to conclusions.
 
But in any case, the guy made this sort of claim roughly a year before President Lincoln would be assassinated, and it’s a claim the Left largely runs with nowadays. Although, I doubt they know that this is likely where it comes from and I doubt they would acknowledge it even if they knew about it.
 
In any case, the fact that 155 years have passed since the earliest known case of someone making a claim relating to the apocalypse coming through climate change and we are doing just fine is an indication of how looney and wrong the Left is with regards to this issue.
 
Certainly, there is little more the U.S. can do to “fight” climate change. We’re reducing our CO2 emissions and following the Paris climate deal pretty much to the letter without getting scammed by the other countries in the deal.
 
And it’s not like taxing the hell out of corporations and the rich will help either. We tried that with Obama, and where did that lead? Seriously, I’m asking, because I swear every year Obama would say that it’s the hottest year to date in a long time. If that was the case, then whatever Obama was doing regarding the environment clearly wasn’t working if that’s the result you get.
 
In any case, the U.S. seems to be quietly (it’s only quiet because the MSM refuses to report on this because Trump is president) helping in protecting the environment while China, France and many other countries seem to be harming the environment more and more. Now, China doesn’t even have to pretend to care about the environment. The Communist Party of China will rule that country until it sinks, so they don’t have to pretend to care about what people care about.
 
The environmental movement is only useful if it can get you power. The Communists have that power, so they don’t have to care about the environment.
 
But France pretends to care for the environment and yet, their CO2 emissions have only RISEN since the Paris deal was made.
 
In any case, I find it hilarious that the earliest known case of someone issuing some sort of warning pertaining to climate change leading to the destruction of humanity comes from a guy who was around before and after slavery was abolished.
 
I will try my hardest to remember this fact in the future, provided we are still around for the next 12 years.
 
James 3:17
"But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Apparently, we’re going to be talking a little bit more about climate change in general after the last article discussing when the Left might actually stop saying that a summit or conference is the “last chance” to “save the planet”. Why? Because Michael Bloomberg recently held a supposed “art” event in which he flew in 24 large chunks of ice from Greenland to London, where they would melt to signify climate change is real.
 
However, if you have anywhere near a double-digit IQ, you can probably come up with a good number of things wrong with this entire stunt.
 
Michael Bloomberg tweeted: “Public art reminds us that it’s possible to think differently and boldly. With #COP24 (a climate summit) underway in Poland, our hope is that #IceWatchLondon, a public art piece by Olafur Eliasson with support from BloombergDotOrg, will inspire new action on climate.”
 
If by “think differently and boldly” he means not thinking whatsoever both in terms of science and the cost (not even monetary) of transporting a lot of huge chunks of ice far away, then sure, that’s “thinking differently and boldly”.
 
First of all, and perhaps the biggest reason I say this is the dumbest piece of “evidence” of climate change is the fact that ice tends to melt at anything above freezing temperatures (0 degrees Celsius). I actually read this story earlier in the week, so it’s not exactly new, but I was recently reminded of this and felt like it would make sense to highlight just why this is so stupid.
 
You see, by the time I read about the melting point of ice in order to reply to a tweet about this event, it was already pretty late in London time. Don’t remember the exact time, but it was nighttime for certain. I made sure to check my weather app on my phone to see what the temperature was in London in Celsius. It was 3 degrees.
 
So during the night, it was still hot enough for ice to melt. Showing that ice melts anywhere where it’s not literally freezing is not a sign that climate change is happening or that it’s caused by mankind. It’s a sign that whoever is making this argument is a blockhead.
 
But that’s simply the logical aspect of this entire debacle. Ice melts at anything above 0 degrees. But I also said that this is a costly endeavor.
 
Well, apart from this obviously taking a good amount of money, as would hauling anything large from one part of the world to another would be (and he did that with 24 of these ice chunks), I’m also talking about this being costly for the environment… that Bloomberg and the people attending the Polish climate conference are trying to protect.
 
I used MyClimate.org to calculate how much CO2 is released in a one-way trip from Greenland (Nuuk, particularly) to London’s Heathrow Airport. I calculated that such a trip releases 0.618 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere… for a single passenger aboard economy class. Aboard business class, it’s 1.2 metric tons and first class, it’s 1.9 tons.
 
Now, I have no idea why it makes a difference what sort of class you use. I don’t think it really would matter where you sit inside a plane. I think it would emit about the same amount regardless of where you sit. The only thing I could possibly think would affect it is the number of passengers aboard, the weight of the passengers and the total weight of the luggage including carry-on. But the science behind that is largely irrelevant to my point.
 
What I was talking about was referring to a single person aboard a plane. Bloomberg hauled TWENTY FOUR MASSIVE pieces of ice from Greenland. Being extremely conservative, Bloomberg released at least 12 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for this. And that’s if the ice chunks all weigh what an average human would which is definitely not the case here.
 
Ironically, that’s nothing compared to the actual emissions from holding the conference in Poland and having people attend it in the first place.
 
The Daily Signal says that the two-week conference emitted over 55,000 metric tons of CO2.
 
“The U.N. estimates the summit, called COP24, will emit 55,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide – the very greenhouse gas U.N. officials are trying to keep from accumulating in the atmosphere. Based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency figures, that’s the equivalent of more than 11,700 cars driving for one year or 728 tanker trucks worth of gasoline. That amount of carbon dioxide emissions is also the same as 8,243 American homes for an entire year, according to EPA,” reported The Daily Signal.
 
That, by the way, excludes the cost (in gas emissions) of travel to and from the conference, which is sure to add a lot because most COP24 attendees “flew on private planes to and from the conference” according to the Daily Wire.
 
If First Class means dishing out more CO2 (for some reason) then these people flying in private planes definitely contribute significantly more to carbon dioxide emissions.
 
As I said in the last article, it’s largely “shame on thee, but not on me” with regard to these people.
 
So the conference-goers who are oh so worried about our precious climate that they feel it necessary to impose taxes and other things on people to get them to stop polluting so much send out far more CO2 into the atmosphere than you or I would on an individual basis in more than a year.
 
Same thing goes for Michael Bloomberg. I mean, ignoring the fact that it’s an insanely stupid argument that there’s proof of climate change because ice melts when you take it into a climate with higher natural temperatures (no duh, Sherlock), he himself is contributing an awful lot of carbon dioxide emissions in his efforts to prove that we should not emit so much carbon dioxide.
 
It’s incredibly dumb no matter what way you slice it. It makes a dumb argument and it makes that argument in a really dumb and ironic way.
 
Not that Bloomberg will stop to think “maybe hauling 24 large chunks of ice from Greenland to London to make an argument about climate change might be contributing to the very thing I’m claiming is real”. Much like Obama delivering an environmental message while aboard Air Force One, there is zero sense of self-awareness.
 
That goes for both Bloomberg and the climate conference-goers.
 
The reality is that, while I think the climate does change over time, there is nothing we, human beings, do that actually affects it to such extreme degrees. Like I said in the last article covering climate change, the fact that we’ve had five major ice ages in the past is indicative that we are not responsible for the changes in the world’s climate.
 
We have gone through periods of extreme cold and warmth. What we do has next to no effect on our climate.
 
But as I said in the last article, this isn’t about the climate or you or me. It’s not even about them being right. It’s about them being in control. That’s the ultimate goal.
 
Proverbs 8:5
“O simple ones, learn prudence; O fools, learn sense.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One of the funniest lines I often hear from the Left year after year is that an upcoming climate summit or conference is “the last chance” we have to “save our planet”. And recently, CNN made sure to say an upcoming climate summit is our last chance at doing just that. But yet, that’s what the Left has been saying for literally decades now.
 
Newsweek magazine also offered its own opinions on the matter of climate change, singing a very similar tune: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” Sounds scary, right? If we don’t do something now, we will be faced with a grim reality, right? Well, this was actually from an article from 1975 discussing global COOLING.
 
Let me show you some other “last chance” warnings the media or Leftists in general have perpetuated:

• “A Global Warming Treaty’s Last Chance” from Time magazine circa 2001.

• “Climate campaigner Mark Lynas warned ‘with time running out for the global climate, your meeting in Montreal represents a last chance for action” from Independent, circa 2005.

• “World leaders will converge on Bali today for the start of negotiations which experts say could be the last chance to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change” from the New Zealand Herald, circa 2007.

• “European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told a climate conference that it was ‘the world’s last chance to stop climate change before it passes the point of no return’” from Reuters circa 2009.

 
 
And there are tons of other headlines that read very similarly, including one for the Paris Climate Accord where Michael Mann writes “Paris is probably the last chance to bring the necessary emission reductions…,” with the media singing a similar tune, saying that Paris was “the last chance”.
 
Ironically, the U.S. actually held up its end of the deal in reduction of CO2 gases AFTER it left the deal, whereas other countries like France increased their CO2 gas emission.
 
But we hear over and over again that an upcoming summit or conference of climate “leaders” and advocates will be the last chance we have to save the Earth. Over and over again, experts say that we only have one last chance at turning things around before we reach a point of no return. It’s been literal DECADES that they’ve put up this charade and we seem to be doing just fine.
 
Just like no one died from the repeal of Net Neutrality or the implementation of the GOP tax cuts (and how no one’s going to die from the ruling against Obamacare), no one is dying from man-made climate change. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING!
 
I concede the fact that the climate does change. The various ice ages the world’s sustained (and we are technically in one now) is evidence enough of that. But there is nothing to even briefly prove that we, humans, are responsible for any change in the climate. We’ve gone through five major ice ages, and more minor ones, and no one can realistically tell me that our CO2 emissions had anything to do with their beginning or end.
 
And even if any output from us actually did do it, then why in the world are these “climate leaders” and advocates all congregating and meeting in one particular location? Do they not realize that doing so forces them to EMIT MORE CO2?! These climate conferences are such a joke, with these supposed climate experts and geniuses telling us how we should live before, during and after they board gas-powered planes to travel back and forth to these places.
 
Of course, that’s part of the entire thing. “Shame on thee, but not on me” with regard to how you spend your energy. YOU are supposed to switch to hybrid or electric cars (that do jack-all in terms of reducing oil and coal usage). YOU are supposed to reduce your carbon footprint in the world.
 
Much of the same can be said about socialism, with socialists saying YOU should be more considerate of the poor while they themselves sit inside one of their multiple million-dollar homes, but this is a conversation about climate hysteria.
 
As I shared earlier, this kind of ridiculous nonsense dates back to at least 1975, if not farther back. But let’s say that 1975 is the absolute earliest you would find talks about global warming or any sort of climate change whatsoever and having only one last chance to change it. 1975 was over 40 years ago. 44 to be precise, unless you’re reading this article after April 28th, 2019, when that Newsweek article will be 45 years old by that point.
 
Roughly 45 years since the initial hysteria about a race against the clock in ensuring the survival of humanity and our planet and what do we have? A perfectly fine, habitable ecosystem, but the same hysteria year after year, summit after summit.
 
So how much longer can the Left say this sort of thing before people start collectively calling out the bullcrap that this is? Again, it’s been about 40 years of “last chances”. And it’s not like these summits are a rare occasion. They happen every year. And every time, we hear that this summit in Poland, or Canada, or Paris, or Wakanda is the last chance we have to save the Earth, when that clearly is not the case whatsoever. And yet, they keep saying it. Why?
 
Well, it’s certainly not because they are right, or even because they believe it to be right. They create climate models about what the Earth might look like 50 or 100 years from now, when next to no one will remember the asinine predictions. The point of this hysteria is not to be right, or to prove anyone wrong, but to cause enough fear in people for them to want to put into power those who would “save the planet” aka Democrats and Leftists.
 
It’s nothing more than fear-mongering over an unscientific claim that they say is as scientific as the Earth being round or gravity existing when nothing could be further from the truth.
 
They say “it’s the last chance” because it causes a reaction in people who are uninformed. It creates a sense of urgency to try and “fix” a fictitious problem by electing those who promise to do something about it when it’s all a PR stunt. The Paris Climate Accord was not intended to actually do anything about gas emissions (as evidenced by the fact that the countries that stayed in the deal INCREASED their gas emissions), it was supposed to be a sign to the world, saying “hey, these progressive, Leftist people are doing something to save the planet!” which will ironically be forgotten the next time there is a summit when THAT summit will be “the last chance”.
 
It’s not about the planet or the kids or you whatsoever. The U.S. reduced our gas emissions this year, despite our leaving the Climate Accord, but did that make the national news? We are actually doing what these Leftists claim they want to do, but does that matter? No. Because that’s not the point. The point is to attain more power for the Left. Power to influence how you live your very life.
 
Unfortunately, I cannot answer the title question. It’s largely a rhetorical question, of course, but I do wish it was a legitimate question because this nonsense has to stop. We are no more in peril of destroying our global ecosystem today than when we were first hearing these claims. Why? Because we CAN’T do that. We don’t have the power and capacity to do that even if we wanted to.
 
If you asked me to destroy the world without the use of nuclear bombs, I would not be able to do it (not that I want to, of course).
 
But the destruction or preservation of our planet is not the point of this hysteria, as I mentioned multiple times. The point is to get gullible and uninformed people to be scared to death over things that humanity (or Trump and Republicans particularly) is doing to our planet so that those who pretend to be Captain Planet get elected into office so that they can regulate how you live (but never regulate how they themselves live).
 
It’s all about power – increasing the size of the government. And it’s unfortunate that they can so often get away with these dumb claims. I sincerely hope that more and more people use logic and sound reasoning to recognize that these same people warned us decades ago that we had one last chance and we’ve had about 40 different last chances since then. At one point, that last chance ceases to be a last chance.
 
James 1:5
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

With a booming economy, a nearly defeated ISIS, a denuclearizing North Korea and successful trade war pressure to make better deals, the Democrats have to have something to attack Trump (and thus, Republicans) with in order to stand a chance at actually taking back the House. So, like with many other attempts, they go with a tried and true measure: blame the Republican president for a major hurricane.
 
While they’ve tried to do this with Hurricane Florence, since the effects of the hurricane won’t be known until after it’s gone, the Left-wing media is trying to make last year’s hurricane that hit Puerto Rico, Hurricane Maria, Trump’s Katrina.
 
Despite the fact that Trump’s response was excellent according to even Governor Ricardo Rossello, who said: “The president and the administration, every time we’ve asked them to execute, they’ve executed quickly,” back in September of 2017, and the fact that 20,000 pallets of undistributed bottles of water delivered in the aftermath of the hurricane are sitting on an airport tarmac, the Left is out to destroy Trump with a death toll reaching 3,000.
 
However, that number is about as real as climate change. How? The way this number came about was through the same way the Left argues that climate change is real: through a computer model.
 
Allow me to give you the context.
 
Last month, George Washington University published a new study that estimated “excess mortality” over Hurricane Maria’s impact on Puerto Rico, and estimated, over a six-month period following the hurricane, that there were 2,975 “excess” deaths due to the hurricane.
 
But the way they came up with this estimate wasn’t through counting bodies, but through calculations in a statistical model subtracting the number of people who would’ve died over that same period of time had the hurricane not happened from the number of people who actually died during that time period.
 
In other words, they ESTIMATED the death toll STRICTLY THEORETICALLY! As in WITHOUT EVIDENCE!
 
Now, aside from the fact that multiple news organizations are running with this number as the official death toll for Puerto Rico, the Left is also criticizing Trump over his comments regarding this.
 
Trump tweeted: “3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. When I left the island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000…”
 
“… This was done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible when I was successfully raising Billions of Dollars to help rebuild Puerto Rico. If a person died for any reason, like old age, just add them onto the list. Bad politics. I love Puerto Rico!”
 
Now, it’s only natural for death tolls after disasters and tragedies to go up as time goes on. We’re still seeing people dying because of debris and other factors after 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina’s death toll technically kept going up even years after the storm. However, he is right in challenging these numbers. They are far too big in too short a time-span, particularly considering the great response from the Federal Government in the aftermath of the storm, for this to be even remotely accurate.
 
And it’s because Trump is bold enough and smart enough to challenge this number that the Left attacks him, saying he is challenging this “without evidence”. Well, the number itself was presented without evidence and the MSM ran with it as though it’s the gospel!
 
Not to mention there are a lot of other estimates that have the death tolls going well over the 4,000s. So it’s clear that the Left is really trying to make a mountain out of this more-than-likely molehill.
 
Now, that’s not to say that we shouldn’t dismiss the hurricane’s devastation on the people of Puerto Rico. It destroyed homes, killed dozens according to official estimates (and likely more at this point, though still less than that 3,000) and left Puerto Rico in shambles. They need help and they should be receiving it. The problem comes with the fact that Puerto Rico is basically run by socialists, with one of its cities’ mayors being under FBI investigation over corruption, and Puerto Rico was basically already in dire need of help before the hurricane due to a debt crisis over recent years. People in Puerto Rico were already getting screwed by their government before the hurricane.
 
And taking into consideration the fact that 20,000 pallets of water bottles are sitting on an airport tarmac, that raises some level of suspicion regarding the local government. Why not distribute those water bottles if things are so incredibly dire? I’m not disputing that things are dire, but if anyone wants to put blame on anyone, it would have to go to whoever was responsible for delivering those water bottles, not Trump’s administration.
 
Not that any of these things will matter to the Left. If they can successfully blame Trump for Maria (they’re already trying to blame him for Florence) then they have some ammunition to use for the midterms. It doesn’t matter that the number is without evidence. It doesn’t matter that even Puerto Rico’s governor initially praised Trump over his response and effectiveness. It doesn’t matter that there are tons of undistributed water bottles in an airport tarmac in Puerto Rico. A death toll of 3,000 puts Bush’s Katrina death toll to shame and we all know how effective the Left was regarding that storm.
 
The interesting thing is that I doubt this will do much to help the Democrats down the line. Those who were already planning to vote Republican likely won’t just accept what the fake news media says and what the Left tells them. Those who were already planning to vote Democrat are already fairly energized, but that won’t matter if Republican voters are energized themselves.
 
But that’s to be talked about when we come closer to November.
 
The point I want to make with this article is that the Left’s purpose in using this number is to make Maria Trump’s Katrina. The problem the Left faces here is that Trump won’t sit quietly while the Left berates him over it. He always fights back, as he’s clearly doing now. And as we have seen plenty of times, Trump seems to be right while the Left is wrong (and lying).
 
Democrats only tend to do well when they can make Republicans submit. If Trump can successfully push back against this number, which will likely be difficult even if we all know it’s fake, then that obliterates the Left’s best weapon as of this moment.
 
I say it will be difficult even if we all know the number is fake because feelings don’t care about your facts when it comes to the Left. 3,000 is a big number that will trigger an emotional response. The Left, the media, the Democrats and Democrat voters won’t care that the numbers are presented without evidence and are not factually accurate. They care that the number is big and that they can make the connection to Trump, somehow.
 
Not to the fact that Puerto Rico, under socialism, was already a “s**thole” and that Puerto Ricans are being denied the water they need by someone within the local government, but the fact that Trump is currently POTUS.
 
Do you think this number would’ve ever come up if Hillary were POTUS? Of course not. The tally would likely be around the official estimates and, naturally, slightly increasing over time. But never to those levels under a Democrat President.
 
This death toll serves the same purpose as climate change in general: attack Trump and Republicans over supposed inaction. Never mind that Trump did his part in assisting Puerto Rico.
 
Again, at the end of the day, I doubt this will have a tremendous impact on the midterm elections. I’ve already made up my mind that I’ll vote for every Republican candidate on the ballot in my state. Even if they’re not great or not actual conservatives, it’s better to deal with these people than risk everything being thrown away under a Democrat majority in either or both chambers of Congress just because they don’t know how to deal with losing.
 
Proverbs 12:19
“Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. While the Left may lie to you about free college, free everything ever, we won’t lie to you about how free our weekly newsletter is. What you will receive is a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as easy access to our online store, all 100% free.
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Every summer, the Left tries to make the claim that this year’s heat waves have been the worst on record and it is all our fault and we must elect more Democrats and give Democrat organizations more money to combat climate change. Every winter, they claim it’s the coldest winter to date and we must elect Democrats who will change course. If these idiots haven’t realized they’re talking about the changing seasons, there is little hope.
 
Still, there are some climate scientists who are not paid off by George Soros and the Democrat Party to make outrageous and often scientifically inaccurate claims about the changing climate of our planet. One such noted climate scientist is Dr. Roy W. Spencer, who often tries to put the brakes in people’s climate change hysteria by offering more accurate data.
 
Most recently, Dr. Spencer wrote an article challenging the message of a memo released by Public Citizen, a George Soros funded “consumer rights advocacy group”. In his article, Dr. Spencer shows graphs about New York’s maximum temperature for every June since 1895 (a figure from the NOAA) all the way to last year. The figure shows that the median temperature from 1901-2000 is 74.9 degrees Fahrenheit. It also shows that last year’s maximum temperature was LESS than 74.9 degrees.
 
According to Dr. Spencer: “The long term trend is not statistically different from zero.” In other words, New York’s maximum temperature last year is so close to the median, it’s statistically DEAD-SET on the median.
 
Dr. Spencer then mentioned: “The memo also made mention of the widespread record warmth the U.S. experienced in May, 2018. New York had its 7th warmest May on record this year, and the long-term linear warming trend there since 1895 is weak (0.22 F/decade) and not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. The May warmth in the U.S. was regional, as expected for weather variations, with much of Canada being exceedingly cold.”
 
And with the Left’s constant talks about this year being hotter than the last, Dr. Spencer makes quick mention of New York’s record high temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit. Take a guess as to when the state set this record. Surely, with all the talks about climate change, it must have happened in the last 20, 30 years tops, right? If the world is basically burning, we must be seeing record highs in a small timeframe, correct?
 
Not quite. It was on July 22nd, 1926 in Troy, New York. Over NINETY years ago. Do you want to know from what year it’s agreed (by the climate change community) substantial human-caused warming began? 1950, 24 years AFTER New York’s record high temperature.
 
So even they don’t have any argument that humans caused New York’s record high temperature. Thus, the only other possible contributor to the Earth’s change in climate is God. I know mentioning God in any scientific topic is taboo, for some reason, but let’s be honest here: nothing in this universe happens without God’s approval. That includes the Earth getting warmer or cooler.
 
But returning to New York, what’s more interesting is that the state’s record coldest temperature is far more recent. The state’s record low temperature is -52 degrees Fahrenheit. (If you thought 52 degrees was chilly, try its ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR DEGREES LESS!). This was on Feb. 18, 1979 in Old Forge, New York.
 
Now, if you want to talk about last week’s heat wave, Dr. Spencer has that covered, using the NOAA’s GFS forecast model for 5-day average temperatures. Dr. Spencer mentions: “… the excessive heat is (again) regionally isolated, which is exactly what we expect for weather… not for climate change.”
 
What the good doctor is saying here is that weather, even extreme weather, tends to affect specific regions. The concept of climate change only talks about global climate. Meaning that, under climate change, you would not have regional heat waves. You would have global-scale heat waves, which are not happening. The NOAA’s forecast shows that much of the southern states and west coast states are considerably colder.
 
Of course, that’s just the forecast. Let’s see what actually happened. According to Oregon State University’s Prism temperature analysis for July 1-2 (Dr. Spencer’s article was written on July 3rd) shows a similar picture to the forecast, although more of the southern states were covered in the heat wave and more of the Midwest avoided the heat wave (which was forecasted to hit them). This shows a couple of things.
 
First, this shows a temporary and localized weather pattern, again, contradicting the idea that we are suffering under climate change conditions (it would be warm everywhere, not just parts of the U.S.)
 
And second, it shows the inaccuracies and flaws with our current weather forecasting systems. The NOAA’s forecast showed more of the Midwest covered by the heat wave. According to what actually happened, that was erroneous. That doesn’t necessarily discredit the NOAA’s forecasting system, but it does show its flaws and inaccuracies.
 
What I’m trying to say here is that our current forecasting system can’t accurately predict the weather within a week, or even within a few days. But somehow, we can predict our Earth’s climate and state 50 to 100 years from now? At least when the Left was trying to predict 10 years down the road (still being completely wrong), they could be at least somewhat more believable (except when they would say all sea life would die and the ice caps will melt within that timeframe). But 50 to 100 years? Who could possibly accurately predict that? It’s just wild guesses to profit the Democrat Party and Democrat-affiliated organizations. Not to mention filling George Soros’ pockets.
 
Dr. Spencer then shows extreme high temperatures for the entire country from 1895 to 2017. The figure he shares (based from NOAA data) shows that there is no trend towards more hot days. In fact, 11 of 12 hottest years happened before 1960. The graph shows that the record high for days spent in a year with temperatures above 100 degrees was in 1935, with the second highest occurring a couple of years earlier and the third highest occurring in 1955. For 2017, we had (statistically) just over 4 days of temperatures over 100 degrees, and that’s the highest in roughly five years.
 
Finally, Dr. Spencer talks about renewable energy that the Public Citizen memo claims we can achieve with today’s technology (meaning today’s technology allowing 80 to 100% of our energy coming from renewable sources). Dr. Spencer (and logic) informs us that “this is patently false. Solar and wind are relatively diffuse (and thus expensive) sources of energy which are intermittent, requiring fossil fuel (or nuclear) backup. It would be exceedingly expensive to get even 50% of our energy from such sources.”
 
Of course, this is nothing new to us. We’ve known for ages that renewable energy is crazy expensive that would not get us anywhere near as much energy production as we do now. But it’s always good to see a climate scientist saying that renewable energy sources, as of right now at least, are simply too expensive and would be ultimately detrimental to people (even Dr. Spencer mentions that striving for using renewable energy right now would “worsen poverty” and would ultimately harm a lot of people).
 
Overall, it’s good to see a climate scientist calling out the Left’s hysteria when it comes to climate change. Usually, things aren’t even half as bad as these people claim they are. But hey, they need voters and the environment is so far the only thing they’ve got going for themselves since the economy is roaring, ISIS is defeated (pretty much), North Korea is looking to denuclearize and people are feeling confident about the future.
 
Wait, you’re telling me the Weekly Standard reported that greenhouse emissions in the U.S. are falling due to the falling costs of renewable energy and natural gas? And that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions last year plunged by 42 million tons, while “environmentally friendly” Europe’s emissions climbed by 92 million tons?
 
So, what you’re telling me is that Trump has been more environmentally friendly, despite rolling back green energy policies, than Europe?
 
Ok, maybe Democrats don’t have the environment card either.
 
Isaiah 45:7
“I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.