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.
 
Matthew 7:15
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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.
 
Proverbs 14:5
“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:
 

• Strengthening the economy (70%)
• Reducing healthcare costs (69%)
• Improving the educational system (68%)
• Defending the country from future terrorist attacks (67%)
• Taking steps to make the Social Security system financially sound (67%)
• Taking steps to make the Medicare system financially sound (67%)
• Dealing with the problems of poor and needy people (60%)
• Protecting the environment (56%)
• Dealing with the issue of immigration (51%)
• Improving the job situation (50%)
• Reducing crime (50%)
• Dealing with drug addiction (49%)
• Reducing the budget deficit (48%)
• Addressing race relations in this country (46%)
• Strengthening the U.S. military (45%)
• Improving the country’s roads, bridges and public transportation systems (45%)
• Dealing with global trade issues (39%)

 
“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.
 
Psalm 111:10
“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.

It’s no secret what I think about those who espouse the belief that we will surely die in the next 10 years if we don’t foundationally change everything about our system from capitalism to communism. I believe such people to be extremely ignorant at best and wickedly evil at worst, wishing to establish a system that would only work for them if they were actually in the government and were privileged enough to be a part of the 1% that exists in communist countries.
 
But one particular teen climate activist has come to the light, at least regarding climate activism, and recognizes the farce that the climate cult is. 14-year-old Sina (no last name for obvious reasons) is a girl who used to be an active spokesperson for Fridays for Future, a climate activism organization in Germany.
 
According to No Trick Zone, “Sina began her environmental activism by joining a demonstration against coal power plants, organized by Greenpeace and WWF, before getting involved as a press spokesperson in the FFF movement in March 2019. In the interview, she reports on cult-like control, censorship, hostility and left-wing infiltration.”
 
“By November 2019, she began questioning the movement. As press spokesperson, she says she recalls having an older organizer constantly standing at her side at the demonstrations to make sure she said ‘the right things’ when interviewed by radio or television.”
 
Sina told Grosse Freiheit TV (Great Freedom TV): “No matter what was asked, it had to be answered like this or like that” and we had to “sound dramatic and to not express any doubts about it.”
 
Explaining what the organizers told the spokeschildren to say to the media, Sina said: “We have to act immediately, otherwise things will go like so, and the world will fall apart if you don’t take to the streets, and those who don’t are to blame for the world collapsing and all such things that put pressure on people.”
 
Sina eventually explained to the interviewer of Great Freedom TV how she began to have doubts about what she was doing and what the organization was trying to do. According to No Trick Zone, “the sharp-witted teen explains how she began to have doubts about the movement when the question of a CO2 tax came up and her father had doubts about it. This made Sina think about the implications of shutting down the coal power plants and the financial implications.”
 
Sina explained that she came to the conclusion that “the demands were so dogmatic and radical” that “they could not really be implemented.” She also explains how she began doing a bit of research and came to the realization that the “97% consensus” was an utter farce, as I have explained in previous articles.
 
But once she began to have doubts, she made the one mistake you cannot afford to make when surrounded by cult members: voice those doubts and ask questions. Once she actually brought up the points and began to ask questions, instead of being told some b.s. talking point or try to bring up some b.s. data to try and “answer” her questions, she was called a “Nazi” (which is pretty rich coming from German socialists) and a “climate denier”, as well as a “future destroyer”.
 
This is what led her to leave the cult and sound the alarm over its behavior. Not that this is any surprise to me – this is how all cults work. Instead of using data to support their argument, they use insults to alienate the girl and try to scare her into submission. The mentality is: “You don’t want to start questioning us, or you will forever be counted as our enemy and be added to the list.” What list you may ask? All communists have a list of targets for elimination.
 
Questioning what the communists are attempting to do labels you an enemy and gets you added. But regardless, let’s return to the interview.
 
Eventually, Sina described how she saw the FFF, saying: “In my view, it has a sort of cult character because you have to have that opinion. Otherwise you’ll be insulted out, if you will… They make demands without even thinking about solutions and thinking about the consequences of immediately exiting coal power.”
 
She also adds: “High taxes isn’t going to buy the CO2 out of the air.”
 
I have a few things to say about this.
 
First, she is absolutely right about the cult character. You cannot have a dissenting opinion or stray thought, or even question the desires and objectives of the cult. You have to have a like-mind and if you don’t, you’ll be insulted right out of it. You’ll be called a Nazi because that is just about the only insult they can come up with, not knowing anything about what it actually means for someone to be a Nazi. If you begin to even ask a valid question, such as “what’s with the fact that the ‘97% consensus’ thing isn’t real?” you won’t receive a valid answer, only insults and accusations. That’s because they do not have a valid answer, so they resort to insults, as the fool tends to do.
 
Second, she is also right about the fact that they do not think about the consequences of their desired actions. If we eliminated ALL coal and fossil fuel use right this moment, cities would go dark, vehicles would stop moving, farm equipment would stop functioning, supermarkets would quickly run out of food and in a matter of weeks, people would begin to scavenge the streets for food because no new food is being delivered to the now-dark supermarkets.
 
Basically, the entire country would turn into Venezuela in a matter of about a month. Of course, this is the result of magically eliminating all coal and fossil fuels. In order to even get to that point, you would have to “immediately” exit coal power, as Sina said, but that is not really possible. Even if you outlaw all sources of CO2 (that aren’t humans or animals), it’d be a bit difficult to enforce such a law. Sure, coal power plants would be forced to shut down, but vehicles would still be used. People would have to get electric vehicles but you run into a series of problems. First of all, electric vehicles cost money. And if they are the only legal vehicles out there, prices will immediately skyrocket for them, particularly as auto makers would lose money from not being able to sell gas-powered cars anymore.
 
For the consumer, that means forking over an extremely high amount of money to replace the car they currently have, and since there are far more people than electric cars out there, that would create a massive surplus. However, you eventually run into a brick wall in the form of manufacturing. No matter the kind of vehicle being made, manufacturers have to rely on fossil fuels to make new vehicles. This creates a massive problem for the vast majority of the country: the first few people lucky enough to be able to get a car will pay a lot, but without new manufacturing, there is a finite number of possible cars to be made. This brings up even more demand, which brings up the prices of the cars, and this is without even mentioning the fact that even electric cars need fossil fuels in order to be recharged.
 
There are plenty more disastrous consequences of “immediately” or even just altogether exiting fossil fuel usage that I am failing to mention here, but I believe the point has been made: you LITERALLY cannot outlaw fossil fuel usage without completely halting our entire country’s civilization. You would only be able to do this with a viable alternative source of energy, and there is nothing out there that can produce as much as fossil fuels can and to the same extent. Nuclear power is a close second, but even that cannot be used to power vehicles, as even the smallest of nuclear reactors in the world are too large for an average-sized vehicle.
 
But this is why Sina says that the cult does not think about the consequences of their desired actions. They just see the fake news garbage that “the world is literally on fire” and arrive to the extreme conclusion (with help from Marxists in schools and the media) that we must upend our entire economic system, immediately stop using fossil fuels and we will magically save the Earth from ourselves.
 
Even Dr. Seuss wrote more realistic narratives than what the climate cult is driving.
 
In any case, Sina finished the interview by advising people to just “do a little research.” She described how “dissent is absolutely not tolerated by the movement in any way,” as I explained earlier in the article, and that some school teachers “couldn’t understand” why she left the cult. She also explains that some of her radical classmates confronted her and continued to insult her, saying things to her like: “If you don’t take part, then it will be your fault that none of us will have a future and we’ll all die.” Her response to her was simply “do a little research,” but I would like to say something about that sort of attitude such classmates are giving her.
 
It is absolutely disgusting the effects the climate cult is having on children. They are being led to believe they will literally have no future and will die an early death due to climate change if people like Sina or me or other NORMAL, LOGICAL PEOPLE don’t submit to the insanity of the cult. They are scaring children half to death with this unscientific lunacy and it’s an absolute disgrace. We can see, in real time, Satan’s hand at work in the hearts and minds of these impressionable children who do not really know any better.
 
Sina, to her credit, has a good head on her shoulders and recognized the disgusting and erratic nature of the climate cult. As time goes on, I hope she continues learning the truth and eventually comes to the Truth of Jesus Christ, if she isn’t already there.
 
I pray that more and more children come to see the ugly face of the climate cult and see it for what it is.
 
Ephesians 6:12
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

This is a point that I have made many times in the past. Many on the Left have claimed there to be a “consensus” regarding the state of the climate and the “danger” of climate change. However, there are a couple of problems with that argument straight out of the gate.
 
First of all, even assuming they were right and the overwhelming majority of scientists agreed that climate change is real and that it’s an existential threat to humanity and the planet itself, that doesn’t mean a darn thing. Why? Because science ISN’T A DEMOCRACY. Consensus doesn’t equal scientific fact. We know this because for a very long time, people believed the Earth to be the center of the universe and that the Sun, the moon and the other stars, planets, etc. all revolved around it. This was the theory of Geocentricity. But eventually, it was discovered that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as did the other planets in the solar system.
 
It doesn’t matter if the vast majority of people delude themselves and say that the sky is red. It doesn’t matter if scientists come out with “scientific data” that supposedly “proves” that the sky is red. Consensus doesn’t mean that something is fact.
 
Secondly and lastly, there is no actual consensus surrounding this topic anyway because the Left can’t pay off or intimidate every single scientist on the planet to parrot their talking points.
 
According to an article on No Trick Zone, “in 2019, more than 440 scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob… or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related ‘consensus’ positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.”
 
One of the papers No Trick Zone points to, which is about sea surface temperature over the past 2,300 years, reads as follows:
 
“The core-top SST (Sea Surface Temperature) value from MD07-3093 is 12.5°C… within the alkenone-SST calibration error of the modern-day mean annual SST (12.1°C) at the core site… The slight overestimation may be due to a small bias of the alkenone SST toward the spring and summer blooming season. Over the past 2,300 yr, SST values range between 14.3 and 12.2°C… and hence most of the record is warmer than today.”
 
In other words, the sea surface temperature in the Pacific was recorded to be WARMER in millennia past than it is today. So any warming that occurs from here on out is within normal parameters for the planet and not cause for panic.
 
This is why context is so important. If (when) the sea surface temperature increases, Leftists can claim a fictitious “victory” and claim “see, we told you! We were right all along about the warming sea temperatures!” While technically right, they ignore the fact that we are within the range of warming and cooling for the sea surface temperature (at least in the Pacific) and that any warming that occurs is perfectly normal. Just because the sea is warmer in some parts of the planet, or even if the planet in general is warmer today than decades ago, that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
 
And if anything, the fact that we are within the normal range for the past 2,300 years goes to show how little impact CO2, at least anthropogenic CO2 (man-generated, in other words), has on the planet’s environment altogether. This is why this paper goes against the Left’s insane war against CO2. The chemical component is not the demon that the Left makes it out to be. In fact, without it, life on this planet wouldn’t be possible. We simply cannot, as a species, destroy our planet with CO2.
 
But let’s move on to some other examples of scientific papers going against the narrative established by the Left.
 
“The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica” reads the title of one of these papers.
 
“Until recently, the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica were among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth. Between the 1950s and 1990s temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula increased by more than 0.3°C/decade, with even higher warming rates reported for Byrd Station in West Antarctica. Since the late 1990s, however, this warming has essentially stalled. Rapid cooling of nearly 0.5°C per decade occurred on the Antarctic Peninsula. This already impacted the cryosphere in parts of the Antarctic Peninsula, including slow-down of glacier recession, surface mass gains of the peripheral glaciers and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in the northern Antarctic Peninsula islands. At the same time, temperatures in West Antarctica over the past two decades appear to have plateaued or slightly cooled… In contrast, East Antarctica has not experienced any significant temperature change since the 1950s and some areas appear to have even cooled during the most recent decades.”
 
“Cooling and an increase in snowfall in East Antarctica seems to have led to a gain in ice sheet mass and thickening of ice rises over the past 15 years… Natural climate factors such as multidecadal ocean cycles still dominate over anthropogenic climate drivers, such as CO2.”
 
I’ve said this many times in the past, but it bears repeating: everything the Left has predicted regarding climate change (not to mention other things) has not come to fruition. They said that ice sheets were thinning, ice bergs were melting, that polar bears would die off and that many parts of the planet would be underwater in as little as a few years or decades. All of it a lie and, as tends to be the case, the opposite has shown to be true, at least in many parts.
 
What that last paper lets us remember is that the planet is big enough for something to happen climate-wise in one place and something else happen elsewhere. The paper noted warming from the 1950s to the 1990s in West Antarctica, with cooling from that point to today, but East Antarctica has shown no noticeable change in temperature in that same time span. West Antarctica was experiencing some level of ice thinning, but East Antarctica has only seen thickening of ice. West Antarctica saw some recession of ice glaciers while East Antarctica saw more of them.
 
This point I'm trying to convey is that, just because it’s particularly hot or cold in one place, that doesn’t signify man-made climate change in the least. Some time ago, lunatic AOC tweeted that it was particularly hot one day in Washington D.C., despite it being winter and tried to tie that to climate change. That argument is ridiculous for more reasons than the one I have been explaining so far. Just because it was particularly hot one day in D.C. during winter that doesn’t mean climate change is to blame or that it’s a sign of the end-times.
 
It’s been fairly cold down here in Alabama and I see no sign of “man-made climate change” threatening our lives.
 
Regardless, returning to the papers, as far as No Trick Zone themselves go, they pointed out that the papers (they showed more than the ones I talked about, because I don’t want this article to be exceedingly long) “support these four main skeptical positions… which question the climate alarm popularized by today’s headlines”:
 
Position #1: “Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.”
 
Position #2: “The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities… experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.”
 
Position #3: “The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible, and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation.”
 
Position #4: “Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e. a greener planet and enhanced crop yields, lower mortality with warming).”
 
In short, climate science is not utterly dominated by science fiction and “scientists” who seek to either personally profit or advance an agenda (or both) that does not align with scientific truth whatsoever. There is no “consensus” regarding the fallacy of the climate cult’s talking points and deceptions. Anyone claiming otherwise is an utter liar or someone who stands to gain from advocating the unscientific position of climate change (often both).
 
I’ve said this plenty of times before, but the Left truly is filled with liars.
 
Proverbs 13:5
“The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

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

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

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

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