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!

It’s not unheard of to see someone from a Left-leaning source (media, university, etc.) coming to grips with reality (to an extent) and realizing the error of the Left.
 
On Monday, in an op-ed written for the Wall Street Journal, Steven F. Hayward, a senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at U.C. Berkeley declared that Climate Change, as a prime political movement, is dead. And no, it’s not because of Trump, though he does say that the POTUS has a hand in it.
 
Hayward explains that the culprits to blame for the movement dying is the activists pushing the movement itself. Activists who have “let their social justice and ‘green utopian vision’ sabotage viable solutions,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
Hayward writes: “All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers.” And explains that most national governments are “backing away from forced-marched decarbonization.”
 
Regarding Trump’s hand in this, Hayward explains that, while the issue has run its course over Trump’s presidency thus far, the POTUS’ decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement “merely ratified a trend long becoming evident.”
 
Hayward then explains: “The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm – a blaring noise people are tuning out.” He also explains that this is not a surprise to some – that it was rather predictable.
 
Hayward cites an article by political scientist Anthony Downs in 1972 titled “Up and Down With Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle’”. Hayward lays out the five stages of a political movement, and the climate change movement fits the mold perfectly.
 
Here are the five stages:
 

• Stage 1: Experts and activists call attention to a public problem.

 

• Stage 2: The “alarmed media and political class discover the issue” and often stir up “euphoric enthusiasm… as activists conceive the issue in terms of global peril and salvation.”

 

• Stage 3: The “hinge”, characterized by “a gradually spreading realization that the cost of ‘solving’ the problem is very high indeed.”

 

• Stage 4: The “gradual decline in the industry of public interest in the problem.”

 

• Stage 5: A “prolonged limbo – a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest,” which often involves “painful trade-offs” that activists simply aren’t willing to make.

 
 
He explains that climate change is in its last stage, where activists block viable solutions because of their ideology of social justice and a “utopian” environmental vision.
 
“A case in point is climate campaigners’ push for clean energy, whereas they write off nuclear power because it doesn’t fit their green utopian vision. A new study of climate-related philanthropy by Matthew Nisbet found that of the $556.7 million green-leaning foundations spent from 2011-15, ‘not a single grant supported work on promoting or reducing the cost of nuclear energy.’ The major emphasis of green giving was ‘devoted to mobilizing public opinion and to opposing the fossil fuel industry.’”
 
Hayward concludes by saying: “Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics, die by politics.”
 
All fascinating and very good points that Hayward makes.
 
It’s very logical and highlights today’s world, or at least today’s America. Despite the constant bombardment of propaganda by the MSM regarding the urgency of climate change, it doesn’t seem as though very many people are putting that at the forefront of their minds and worries.
 
If there is anything to take away from the 2016 election is that people wanted to prioritize other things apart from climate change. They wanted jobs to return, ISIS to be destroyed, illegal immigrants to be deported, a secure border and a return to God. The American people have had enough of the ridiculous climate change stories and propaganda and policy.
 
And it seems that Hayward has made note of this. Of course, I do have one problem with all of this. This is going by the assumption that climate change is either caused by humans or can be affected by humans. Neither of which is the case.
 
Ultimately, the search for “green energy” will not affect the planet’s climate even a little. The “green energy” that the Left seeks is not really environmentally-friendly at all. Electric power still requires coal or oil power plants to power up. That’s why I laugh at the concept of electric cars being “environmentally-friendly”. Sure, they may not individually emit exhaust like gas-powered cars, but they force coal or oil power plants to crank out more power, using more coal and oil than before.
 
Wind power farms are very costly and a hazard to birds, not to mention they only work in certain areas where there is a lot of wind. Solar power isn’t used an awful lot because it is insanely expensive. In fact, it is “five to eleven times more expensive to produce electricity from the sun than it is from coal, hydro or nuclear sources,” according to a website called “SolarPowerIsTheFuture.com”. And cost is not the only problem with solar power, as storing the energy produced by the sun is also a problem.
 
And with hydroelectric power, according to the website called “Environment-Ecology.com”, “… Hydropower facilities can have large environmental impacts by changing the environment and affecting land use, homes, and natural habitats in the dam area… [hydro power plants] may obstruct fish migration and affect their populations. [They] may also change the water temperature and the river’s flow. These changes may harm native plants and animals in the river and on land.”
 
So pretty much all of the solutions presented by environmentalist wackos have some sort of negative impact on the environment or are simply not cost-effective enough for anyone to use.
 
To believe that humans as a species have the power to affect the climate even a little is to believe humans are God-like beings. We are far from that. We do not have the power to negatively or positively affect the climate. We CAN affect the environment – that much is evident. But we can’t affect the planet’s global climate and temperature.
 
We can’t accurately predict the weather for next week, but we can somehow predict the climate of the Earth 50 to 100 years from now? And not only predict it, but affect it and change it in any way?
 
Like with many other Leftist ideologies and beliefs, it takes more faith to believe in man-made climate change than it does to believe in Creation, the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ. At least there is far more evidence for these things than man being responsible for climate change.
 
Regardless, I shall put that aside to recognize the perception of Steven F. Hayward in recognizing the slow death of a political movement. Don’t misunderstand, I don’t expect this to simply die out entirely and for people to stop believing in man-made climate change. But it seems clear that the movement will remain in a limbo state for the foreseeable future. Which, interestingly enough, is another mark of the Democrats’ almost certain future defeat in the midterms.
 
The movement’s state of limbo might be indicative as to why the Democrats aren’t making Climate Change their key issue. Sure, they might make it a key issue in the coming months as the midterm elections near. But as of the writing of this article, I don’t really see the Democrats sounding the alarms on it. You would think that this is something they would own and try to make a major political issue, but I haven’t seen much of that.
 
1 Corinthians 15:57
“But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

​
In a meeting with congressional leaders, the president suggested the idea to install solar panels on the future border wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. Now, why would I suggest that this might be another reason to love the president? Because this is his funny way of trolling the Left after leaving the Paris Climate accord.
 
Now, while this suggestion might be legitimate and the wall might eventually have solar panels, I think that the timing for such a suggestion is what’s important here. Trump knew that he angered everyone on the Left after announcing the U.S. would be pulling out of the Paris Climate accord, so now, he’s ‘making amends’ for it (in a way only Donald J. Trump can). By suggesting to install solar panels, he’s not only telling people that he’s concerned with the environment and wants to use alternative sources of energy, but he’s also making fun of the Left in the process.
 
This, along with several other reasons, is why we voted to elect Trump to be president. All throughout the campaign, he would troll and make fun of the Left (without losing sight of the important issues). This is simply the latest of Trump mocking the opposition on an issue that they consider to be of utmost importance, but that we (conservatives) and the president know is not a high priority issue: climate change.
 
The Left believes in climate change as though it were a religion. And more importantly, they want YOU to believe in it as well. But they won’t be able to get very far with it for as long as Trump is president, and for as long as Trump continues to mock the Left for it.
 
And perhaps the best part of this whole thing, despite the fact that a Republican is going after the Left, is that the suggestion the president made would be BENEFICIAL TO THE ENVIRONMENT TOO! So this means that Democrats in Congress would be turning their backs on protecting the environment if they vote against the building of a wall.
 
Don’t misunderstand now, the Democrats will never vote for a border wall unless it seriously benefited THEM. Let’s not forget that they failed to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, a bill that would allow for illegal immigrants to become legalized simply because Ted Cruz implemented a ‘poison pill’ element into the bill. Ted Cruz proposed five amendments into the bill that would bar citizenship and other benefits to illegal immigrants. Meaning that the people that are already here illegally would never be able to become citizens of the U.S. Meaning those illegals would never legally have the right to vote.
 
That’s the biggest reason the bill failed. Democrats were hoping to turn those illegals into future Democrat voters, but with that amendment implemented into the bill, the Democrats decided not to ‘help those poor people that simply want to come to this country for a better life’ because the Democrat party wouldn’t benefit from it, even though those people certainly would.
 
It’s the same deal with the border wall. Even though installing solar panels on the future wall would BENEFIT THE LEFTIST CAUSE, they will still refuse to vote in favor of building that wall. In reality, the Left (be it the American Left or the Global Left aka Globalists) doesn’t care about anyone other than themselves. Globalists wanted the U.S. in the Paris Climate accord to steal money from us. Democrats didn’t want to let ‘poor immigrants’ into the U.S. because those immigrants would never be able to vote for them in national elections. And Democrats won’t vote for a wall that can also help the environment because it means Democrats won’t directly benefit from it.
 
We have to remember that the Left – everyone from elected Democrats to the MSM – are SELFISH. They will only help a cause if it benefits the Leftist agenda or makes the Left richer. Anything that helps the growth of government is a good thing to them. After all, THEY WANT TO REPLACE GOD WITH GOVERNMENT. I’ve said it many times before because it’s true every single time.
 
The Left wants the very same thing the Devil wanted when he fell from heaven: to be God. They (the Left and Satan) want people to follow them. To trust them. To WORSHIP them. And while there will indeed come a point in which the whole world will consist of leftists and devil-worshippers, their time on Earth won’t last.
 
Revelation 16:17-19
“The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple, from the throne, saying, “It is done!” And there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, and a great earthquake such as there had never been since man was on the earth, so great was that earthquake. The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of His wrath.”