Climate Change: It’s A HOAX!

Here we go again: Climate Change. One thing we’ve learned since the 2018 mid-term elections if we didn’t already know it: Climate Change concern on the part of most of those on the Left is real — and it’s dramatic. The P.S. to that is that for a generation now, Leftist educators in every country on Earth have been teaching our children that Climate Change is not only real, but that is also an existential threat to the future of all mankind. And our kids believe it!

Where have we been, Mom and Dad? Our kids (and my grandkids) are hearing this everyday from those to whom we have entrusted the hearts and minds of our most prized assets — our children — only to now find out that this religion of Climate Change has been shoved down their throats from those in what was formerly one of the most revered careers any person could choose: Education. We trusted them, and they taught OUR kids what their Mom’s and Dad’s from the 1960s era were taught by radicals that though were few in number, preached a magnetic message. How can we forget the Vietnam War protests, the Free Love movement, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn bombing police stations, sit-ins and the protesters killed by police at Kent State University? Now that it has been exposed to us, it all makes sense. Or does it?

16-year-old Greta Thunberg from Sweden set the Climate Change world on fire with the anger, certainty, and confidence in her speech to the United Nations. She has in her native Sweden been a climate change activist for some time, missing school on Fridays as her personal protest to attend various climate change events in Sweden.

The 16-year-old Swedish schoolgirl, who set sail from Plymouth, England, on Aug. 14, was greeted by cheers, chants and singing as her silver sailboat, the Malitzia II, cruised past the Statue of Liberty through choppy waves and rain to drop anchor in Manhattan’s yacht harbor before her UN speech.

Thunberg, who has Asperger’s Syndrome, was named one of Time Magazine’s most influential teens of 2018. She has set the Climate Change world on fire!

But, it’s a hoax!


Wait, do I know something that no one else knows? Or are climate change loyalists deluded? Are they going down the wrong path?

Several days ago, published a list of about 41 climate change predictions made over the past few decades. Every one of those predictions was wrong: not partially wrong, not almost wrong, flat out “wrong.” The truth is, there are far more than those we published. At latest count, 71 climate change predictions were made since the 1960s, and not one of them has come true.

No, we’re not going to exhaust you by listing them all and giving you their details. That’s all immaterial. There are a few “absolutes” that we need to express before moving on.

They shove report after report in our faces that have been prepared by pro-environmental “experts.” Some of those experts are actually scientists, but most of those “experts” are making predictions and conclusions based on “obvious and natural outcomes that we see now and have seen play out in nature,” concluding if those happened then certainly the natural results of the same factors that are only more intense will produce the same results but be worse.

Let me ask an important question: where does all this go in days and years ahead? How serious is it — Climate Change? Should we join-in the movement? And if we do not, what message does that send to our children?

The Truth

Zealots have made Climate Change more than any environmental issue. It’s become environmental, social, political, and economic in nature. Few things in our lives cross such a vast spectrum of life. The zealots know that. They also know that Science is inconclusive at best on the matter, and are using that to drive a primarily political agenda. They are hell-bent on “Power!”

Environmental issues are indeed serious — at least those that we can control. We can certainly control pollution. There are billions of pounds of waste that blot the landscape of the U.S. and other countries around the world that could be prevented, at least in part. We can lessen the impact on the environment of caustic elements and materials that commercial production now spew into the atmosphere 24/7, like factories, mills, and industrial plants. We can continue to find new types of renewable energy, get those online, all to help reduce damage caused by fossil fuel production. We can be successful at all of these and more. But even so, we cannot take control and operate the Earth’s environment. And anyone that says we can is trying to perpetrate a hoax.

The questions that are asked so often by those who are not sold out to Climate Change are “How can we afford the obvious staggering expense necessary to fund real Climate Change? Who can and who is going to take responsibility for that process? Who is going to devise the process? How long will it take? And what are the known expected results?

Let’s try to answer those:

  • Can we afford it? I’m not a scientist, but I something of a business economist. I do not know all of the factors that must go into determining an expense and if it’s affordable. But based on the little we know and that the Climate Change advocates already are certain of, we simply cannot afford the cost. For the U.S., the initial cost estimates are $10 trillion a year — which is three times the U.S. total Gross Domestic Product. In other words, the U.S. would be required to produce the exact same revenue as being produced today and add twice that amount each year, just to pay for Climate Change. That doesn’t include the current normal operating budget of the U.S.
  • Who would take responsibility for the project? Conventional wisdom is the United Nations. God forbid we would empower and trust the UN with so much of American money to spend on this or any other project! The United Nations is perpetually racked with fraudulent financial event after another: graft and corruption are rampant. And the U.S. has very little sayso over what the UN does. That would mean immediate failure.
  • Who will devise the process? Scientists from numerous countries have provided massive amounts of data supporting Climate Change. Of course, there are Scientists from numerous countries that have provided massive amounts of data discounting Climate Change. Who’s right? Who knows! The problem about “process” is that there being no real consensus on whether or not there really is anything we can do that can actually impact Climate Change. At best, no matter what these scientists say, their conclusions are conclusions not made from actual facts but are made from opinions drawn from a certain set of data facts, knowing all the while there are exactly opposite opinions from scientists based on another certain set of data facts. Knowing that, who should be tasked for the job?
  • Finally, there really are not any known expected results. There are hopes and projections made, but there are no known results.


Knowing all this, how can we launch what would be the most exhaustive, most time consuming, most expensive project in human history? No one knows how long it would take, even if mankind garnered enough proven factual information to justify doing so. And we certainly cannot afford to fund it — at least not in current world economic circumstances.

Let me ask YOU a question: knowing all this, and especially knowing that it would be impossible to do, why do the Climate Change advocates still push forward to initiate it? I’ve spent a lot of time thinking through that, and can only reach one conclusion: to take control of every part of such a process would necessitate controlling the entire political, economic, and industrial sectors of every country involved! Think about it: the necessary resources are not available without a combination of numerous if not every world country to assist in planning, implementing and operating and its funding.

Oh, there would be an absolutely necessary bi-product of this process: Power — total and unilateral power that would be given by all to some ruling entity.

Do you think I’m kidding? Do you think I’m trying to scare you? Nope. Can you think of any other way to get such a monstrosity created and put into operation? There’s never been anything like it. Doing it would require massive power to accomplish.

I’m not the first to think through and reach this result. But here’s the caveat: I’m certain that many of the leaders in Climate Change are way ahead of the majority of world citizens who have signed-on. These leaders know it will never happen; know it’s impossible, and probably know it’s not necessary. It simply will not work.

What happens then? They’ll have power — massive power — and will be in control of multinational economies, politics, government, and social functions. That’s a utopia!

Don’t laugh at me: George Orwell was thought by many to be a blathering idiot when he penned 1984. But much of what he predicted in his novel came true and, in fact, some came true before January 1 of 1984!


Climate Change: It’s a Religion!

Yep, it certainly is. Originally it was a social and political cause, but no more. It’s a religion.

That shouldn’t surprise you. With the latest numbers showing that a large majority of Americans than ever do not affiliate themselves as religious, it seems only natural they’d replace religion with something that commands as much attention, devotion, and fervor as religion. Enter Climate Change.

Don’t dismiss this premise just yet. NBC has actually set up online a site for those who have “sinned” regarding not initiating or ignoring the climate change “rules” a place for them to chronicle their repentance. Some of the confessions are hilarious:

  • ”I keep my home thermostat at 75 in the Winter and 55 in the Summer. Deal with it, Hippies!”
  • ”I need to recycle more, especially since I drink 40 bottles of water a week. But the recycling truck only comes by my house on the day that I sleep in.”
  • ”I use half a roll of toilet paper when wiping.”
  • ”I run my AC 24/7. I’m not going to sweat to appease this climate religion.”
  • “I don’t do anything for the environment. I don’t care.”

Some of these are hilarious. But I think NBC may have it on something: while religious membership in the U.S. has plummeted, it appears that the religion of Climate Change is growing.

The two have much in common. Most religions are based on unscientific facts. Climate Change advocates although they claim to base each of their claims on specific scientific facts, they too cannot honestly claim so.

There certainly are a large number of scientists who claim to have factual evidence supporting climate change, there are just as many scientists who present a different set of facts disproving what the Climate Change proponents allege.

In the spirit of transparency and in the spirit of many in the U.S. leading Americans down a path of forgetfulness of American history, we have researched to find the truths regarding Climate Change that scientists have offered-up to Americans accompanied by facts that have been debunked in a dramatic way. What’s that “dramatic way?” They did not happen at all. In fact, they’re still waiting on them!

Climate “Doomsday”

Los Angeles Times, 1967

It is already too late for the world to avoid a long period of famine, a Stanford University biologist said Thursday. Paul Ehrlich said the “time of famines” is upon us and will be at its worst and most disastrous by 1975. He said the population of the U.S. is already too big, that birth control may have to be accomplished by making it involuntary and by putting sterilizing agents into staple foods and drinking water, and the Roman Catholic Church should be pressured into going along with routine measures of population control.

The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970

Air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the next century if the population continues to grow and the Earth’s resources are consumed at the present rate, a pollution expert predicted yesterday. James P. Lodge Jr. also warned that if the current rate of increase in electric power generation continues. The demands for cooling water will boil dry the entire flow of the rivers and streams of continental United States.

Washington Post, July 9, 1971

Dr. S.I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that “In the next 50 years, the fine dust that Man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees. If sustained over several years — five to 10 — such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”

Brown University Dept. of Geological Sciences, Dec. 3, 1972

Letter to the U.S. President: “Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you in the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.”

The Guardian, January 29, 1974

Worldwide and rapid trends towards a mini Ice Age are emerging from the first long term analyses of satellite weather pictures. This appears to be in keeping with other long-term climatic changes, all of which suggest that after reading a climax of warmth between 1935 and 1955 world average temperatures are now falling. But the rate of increase in snow and ice cover is much faster than would be expected from other trends.

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974: “Another Ice Age?”

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in part of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst floodings in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.

The New York Times, July 18, 1976

“The Cooling,” writes Stephen Schneider, a young climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO, reflecting the consensus of the climatological community in his new book ” The Genesis Strategy.” His warning was th.t world food reserves are an insufficient hedge against future famines, has been heard among the scientific community for years. But Schneider had decided to explain the entire problem, as responsibly and accurately as he can, to the general public, and thus has put together a useful and important book.

Bullet Point Timeline Items Alleging U.S. and World Climate Change

  • In 1980, a story titled “Acid Rain Kills Life in Lakes” was published in the Noblesville Ledger (Noblesville, IN). But 10 years later, the U.S. government program formed to study acid rain concluded: “Acid rain no environmental crisis.”
  • January 5, 1978, the New York Times published a story titled ‘No End in Sight’ to 30-Year Cooling Trend.
  • James Hansen of NASA in the Miami Herald June 24, 1988, said this: “It is time to stop waffling so much and say the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here. Our climate model simulations for the late 1980s and the 1990s indicate a tendency for an increase of heatwave drought situations in the Southeast and Midwest United States,” he testified. The last really dry year in the Midwest was 1988, and recent years have been recorded wet.
  • The Canberra Times on September 26, 1988, published this: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to completely cover the Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands within the next 30 years, according to authorities. The Environmental Affairs Director, Hussein Shihab, said an estimated rise of 30 to 50 centimeters in the next 20 to 40 years could be catastrophic for most of the islands, which were no more than a meter above sea level. “But the end of the Maldives and its 200,000 people could come sooner if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.”

Climate Change in the 2000s

The Guardian February 21, 2004

“Britain will be ‘Siberia’ in less than 20 years.” According to a secret government report, Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine, and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

Associated Press, 2008: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013

On December 14, 2008, former presidential candidate Al Gore predicted the North Polar Icecap would be completely ice-free in five years. As reported on WUWT, Gore made the predictions to a German TV audience at the COP15 Climate Conference.

2013: Arctic ice-free by 2016

An ongoing U.S. Department of Energy-backed research project led by a U.S. Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 — 84 years ahead of conventional model projections. The project, based out of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School’s Department of Oceanography, uses complex modeling techniques that make its projections more accurate than others.

May 14, 2014, French Foreign Minister: “500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos”

Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, “climate chaos.” Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid “climate chaos.”

2019: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us, are looking up, and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?”


Honestly, I could continue to give headline after headline, quote after quote, excerpt after excerpt of the dire predictions of the end of life on Earth as we know it due directly to climate change. “Climate Change” has been known as a new “Ice Age, Earth Scorching, Permanent Flooding, and Armageddon.” You take your pick: they’re all about the same thing.

Yes, scientists are quoted time after time. Yes, they are quick to produce data to back up their claims. But, oddly, there are just as many (if not more) scientists who are just as educated, just as knowledgeable, who have just as much data to support their findings that plainly state the other side’s scientists have it wrong. Who’s right?

I won’t argue that point. But I think there’s one thing we should all mutually agree: though there is science on both sides, there are examples to support allegations of both sides, there are current and past weather occurrences which “should” prove there’s something up. But all that they prove is that weather and climate change — constantly. It further proves that hard, 100% facts do not support an absolute version of those on either side. And to believe the Earth’s about to , Climate Change advocates are forced to rely on one thing and one thing only to support their basis: Faith.

Faith is pretty much a religious term. And as defined in the Bible in the New International Version it states this: Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Climate Change zealots have turned their beliefs into a virtual religion! To commit oneself to it they must go totally all-in. No, they’re not people who believe that pollution is destroying Earth as we know it. Most people on Earth believe that pollution is horrible, takes a horrific toll on our World, and certainly can be if not eliminated, dramatically reduced by people. But that’s not enough for the zealots.

Adherent religious people go all-in on their beliefs. Most people understand and accept that they do that, and most people believe many religious folks take their beliefs too far.

I believe we have climate change all the time and every year. Weather is always unpredictable, can be devastatingly dangerous, and is extremely difficult to predict and deal with in a scientific manner. I believe Climate Change is in that same class.

We must diligently work to reduce our pollution. We must work diligently to develop different types of energy that will allow us to depend less around the World on fossil fuels. But we cannot do that by eliminating the usage of fossil fuel. Fossil fuel is here, it’s created a worldwide industry that supports billions of people and the economies of more than 100 countries. Science has led us through constant innovation to the reduction of pollution from fossil fuel by over 70%. And we can do better.

Solar energy, battery power, wind energy creation are up and coming industries. They’re still in development stages to make commercially viable. We need to keep pushing forward in developing and improving those energy sectors while at the same time finding new alternative energy sources. But while doing so, we cannot and must not destroy the energy platforms we have in place now worldwide. It’s financially and fiscally impossible. And it’s just plain stupid!

Many on the far-left politically have led the U.S. into an all-out war to do away with fossil fuel — not with facts, but with the emotion akin to a religion. That’s dangerous. Why? Not solely because of their purpose — making fuel less dangerous to the environment IS admirable — but because they’re preaching an “all-or-nothing” policy leaving us no real alternatives. And that’s what has happened throughout U.S. history in religion.

The sad thing is that their zealous attitudes and pretentious threats and demands make their idea far less palatable to most Americans. I encourage all to work on becoming more environmentally conscious in everything we do. Promote and support alternative energy research and development as you can. But please stop the demonization of fossil fuel and all who work in the industry and all that use fossil fuel energy. Help us to all amicably work together for the common cause of keeping our environment clean.

And, by the way, Al Gore famously proved to us all that “the World’s gonna end in ten years” proclamation he made more than ten years ago was a bogus fear tactic. We don’t need to go in that direction with predictions. I for one would be more open to hearing a scientist or some scientists create an environmental model to simply clean up our environment. They need to leave off the ending two words they continually slap us in the face with: “Or Else!”


Is Climate Change Real?

“Another” climate change analysis has been released. They do one each year. With its release come the questions again: can we believe what’s in the report? Is climate change real? And as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez maintains, is the World over in 12 years because of climate change IF we don’t do something?

Activists tend to exaggerate the impacts of climate change while underestimating the costs of tackling it. The reception to the new climate assessment was instructive. The report largely attempts to remain soberly scientific and follows the even more careful global report by the United Nations’ climate science panel, known as the IPCC.

Sadly, accurate science doesn’t make for good television; predicting the end of times does. Among many others, widely quoted climate scientist Michael Mann talked up the report to NPR and CNN, saying its predictions are already borne out in today’s “unprecedented weather extremes.”

Actually, the assessment and science tell a different story:

  • “Drought statistics over the entire contiguous US have declined,” the report finds, reminding us that “the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event.”
  • On flooding, the assessment accepts the IPCC’s finding, which “did not attribute changes in flooding to human influence nor report detectable changes in flooding magnitude, duration or frequency.”
  • Even more dramatic was CNN’s headline, screaming that “climate change will shrink [US] economy” by 10 percent, a figure also repeated on The New York Times front page.
  • Actually, the UN’s climate scenarios envision US GDP per capita will more than triple by the end of this century, so this 10 percent reduction would come from an economy 300 percent larger than it is today. A slightly smaller bonanza, in other words. But the 10 percent figure is itself dodgy. It assumes that temperatures will increase about 14 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. This is unlikely. The US climate assessment itself estimates that, with no significant climate action, American temperatures will increase by between 5 and 8.7 degrees. Using the high estimate of 8.7 degrees, the damage would be only half as big, at 5 percent. But even the 8.7-degree warming estimate is unrealistically pessimistic. This stems from an extreme high-emission scenario that expects almost the entire world to revert to using massive amounts of coal: a five-fold increase from today. That, in turn, assumes a much higher amount of fossil fuels than are realistically available for use, according to one study. Another study likewise found the scenario “exceptionally unlikely.” So, even a 5 percent reduction in the size of the American economy only follows from picking unlikely worst-case scenarios.
  • Two-thirds of the purported 10 percent damage to the economy comes from just one category: heat deaths. While it is true that more people die when it is unusually hot, it is not true that lives are shorter in hotter places. That’s because people adapt. And studies of migrants show people do so very quickly, within weeks. Forecasting that the temperature-mortality relationship in the US would remain constant over a century is ludicrous. This assumes that even if temperatures were to increase by 14 degrees, people would die in masses, ignoring the fact that people have been shown to adjust over time to temperature changes. Then, too, over the 80 years until 2100, people can make many additional changes that reduce this risk, from getting air conditioners to changing how they build structures. So, the well-reported idea that warming will shrink the economy by 10 percent disregards huge economic growth, assumes twice the damages of the worst-case temperatures the report itself expects and even then only finds such high costs stemming almost exclusively from easily preventable heat deaths.

The Cost?

While activists overstate the costs of climate change, they suggest its reversal is simply a matter of political will. In fact, there are significant costs to climate action: It often involves replacing relatively cheap, efficient fossil fuels with still-uncompetitive green-energy sources. Climate economist William Nordhaus has shown that a globally coordinated and gradually increasing carbon tax could cut temperature rises to 6.3 degrees from 7.4 at a cost of $20 trillion in lost productivity, but more than pay for itself by lowering climate costs. But his requires a very well-designed, coordinated global policy. In the real world, climate policies are typically less effective and much costlier.

Nordhaus shows that more ambitious policies like the Paris Agreement target of 3.6 degrees would cost some $134 trillion, much more than the associated climate benefits. Such prescriptions for climate change are worse than the disease.Yes, we need to speed up the transition from fossil fuels by investing in green R&D. Even so, reporting on climate change needs to be grounded in reality. Exaggeration is understandable but dangerous, because it risks wasting resources on the wrong policy answers, and gives proponents of climate change a political football to throw into conversations and studies which seems to muddy the waters of actualities.

“Experts” Say…

It seems like “experts” on climate weigh-in left and right on the topic. Have you notice their doing so is cyclical? It is almost as if nothing in climate actually happens unless and until an expert makes a new blockbuster prediction. Al Gore started it, but it hasn’t happened yet and other “experts” don’t think it ever will. (More from Al Gore later)

Co-founder of environmental organization Greenpeace Patrick Moore said recently that the climate change crisis driving much of liberal politics today “is not only fake news. It’s fake science.”

Moore also wonders why people would be worried about global warming: “A little bit of warming would not be a bad thing, for myself being Canadian.”

Moore bounced back into the climate change debate in an online feud with New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after he blasted her Green New Deal for being not ambitious but ridiculous. 

“Well, it’s a silly plan; that’s why I suggested she was a pompous little twit, twit meaning silly in the British lexicon,” Moore said, adding, “She really rubbed me the wrong way when she said she’s ‘the boss’ because she can make up a proposal that’s completely ridiculous, and nobody else did.”

Moore, who now sits as a director on the CO2 Coalition, a group of American and Canadian scientists who refute man-made climate change, says carbon dioxide is “the main building block of all life” and that it is good for the environment. “There is nothing to be afraid of.”

He doesn’t deny climate change. “Of course climate change is real: it’s been happening since the beginning of time but it’s not dangerous and it’s not created by people … a completely natural phenomenon.”

Moore questioned why so many scientists who promote a climate change crisis receive “perpetual government grants,” insist “the science is settled and say people like myself should just shut up. On the other hand, they keep studying it forever as if there’s something new to find out.” The former Greenpeace director says the organization has been “hijacked by the extreme left.” 

Getting back to the Green New Deal, Moore insisted the plan is a recipe for catastrophe: “You cannot do agriculture for 8 billion people, produce the food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels.”

Global Warming Predicitons that Failed

There have been global warming and climate change predicitons made by purported experts and scientists for years. Dozens and dozens of them have never occurred, but their failure to materialize has been lost on members of the media who initially preached those to us but never mentioned the reasons for their failure to predict accurately.

Chief of among the global warming warners was former Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore. I’m not certain how he became a climate expert, and climate financial guru, or even a soothsayer or where he got his license. But coming from the guy who once claimed to be responsible for inventing the internet, his doing so is not too surprising. He has even released a couple of climate change movies which leftists ate up with their support. After all, he’s a Democrat. And left-leaning entertainment experts love Al Gore. Al Gore was certainly in the faces of all Americans with his earth-ending predictions. And he literally warned us against allowing our personal climate-changing habits to end the World. But things didn’t work out for Al. But so far, they’ve worked out pretty well for Mother Nature.

12 years after Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” guilt/fear producing predictions, let’s close by examining just how accurate his “science” proved to be on his way to the bank.

1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered
purchasing a beachfront mansion!

2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.

3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.

4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.

5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.

6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.

7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!

8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18

9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3
hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”

10.The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never happened.


The arrogance of Man is so obvious it blinds most. Are we so naive or illiterate to think that anything we could possibly do would be sufficient to make a significant difference in the climate of this planet? Do we honestly feel we could do something so drastic, so devastating that would actually destroy Earth in just a bit over a decade? THINK ABOUT THOSE THINGS!

Although we are far from being the smallest country on the planet, we’re certainly not the largest either. What things regarding the environment are just a drop in the bucket of what scientists tell us will turn Earth into another Jupiter or Mars.

How much of what we see today regarding those evolutionary changes that would simultaneously occur as our climate changes have we witnessed the last 50, 60, 70, or even 80 years? Certainly the climate changes. But it’s almost as if Mother Earth was getting a few chuckles at climate experts and their predicitons. I remember the Ice Age predictions that were rampant in the early 1990s. I remember the Global Warming predictions. Of course we hear everyday the new climate change folks scolding us about carbon emissions. Do you know how the United States carbon emissions have changed over the last couple of decades?







This bar chart may be difficult to read because of its size. But just glance across the top. Since the early 1990s, the U.S. carbon emissions on which climate change experts base ALL of their dire predictions have virtually been flat. In fact they are trending down! And this happened while the U.S. population has swelled 33%!

If you ask most people on the street they would say that the U.S. has done a pretty good job taking care of our environment.

Don’t get me wrong: taking care of the resources we have been given is a critical thing. All Americans need to be more responsible for the ways in which we can help do just that. However, alarmists have through decades continued to forecast the destruction of Earth through Man’s refusal to fix the environment. They’ve even been so naive as to predict specific times for that destruction to occur. And they’ve been wrong every time.

A thought for consideration: where do the statistics originate on which climate change experts base their predictions? “Computer models.” What are those models: mathematical equations (algorithms) that are manually prepared by “experts.” What determines the substance of each? The opinions of those who prepare them. Are we so naive as to think a mathematician’s personal and political views are not going to impact the data process they prepare? And the science of climate change as we have seen is NOT accurate, NOT factual, and is ALL opinion.

Is is smart for everyone to simply swallow predictions of these experts that (if we follow their conclusions) will dramatically change the content and directions of every part of our lives knowing every one of their cataclysmic predictions have failed miserably in the past? And their conclusions demand we permanently alter our way of existence.

Climate change specialists, Leftist politicians, and the Mainstream Media find it mesmerizing to perpetuate their climate change theories in the minds of Americans. Their doing so keeps the sob story alive. Who in the U.S. is willing to roll the dice on meat and carbohydrates in the name of  climate change?

To finalize this story, who are those experts that over and over tell us “The Sky is Falling…The Sky is Falling?” Where is the incontrovertible science that supports that hypothesis? I’ll answer that: There is none!

And there’s on little thing they forget to tell Americans: more than half the time they make weather conditions — like the ones we see in the early evening news shots — THEY ARE WRONG!

Are we going to roll the dice to pay for a government to take all of our dollars and cents to end climate change? If so, how will Americans transport themselves? Who will we feed them? How will we transport that food without fossil fuel? How can they possibly be fed without oil, carbon products to undergird production.

 Yes, it is complicated. And, no, we don’t have an absolute. But one thing we DO know: For certain if the U.S. implements programs like the “Green New Plan” crafted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, we will immediately run out of money. THIS NATION CANNOT EXIST (nor can any other) without the capability to buy or barter for those things you need to survive. “NO MONEY” certainly means the Green New Deal cannot survive, nor would we.

Can we make it better? Sure. Should we make it better? Absolutely. You won’t hear that from Socialism supporters. Well, we CAN make it better according to Ocasio-Cortez, but we must stop cows from farting first!