My favorite “climate change” memes!

Here is my first collection of my favorite “climate change” memes!

“Meme” is pronounced [MEEM], and rhymes with “seem,” if you’re not familiar with the term.

A “meme” is a humorous image that is copied and enhanced (often with the addition of a message, joke, or saying) and spread rapidly by Internet users.

So, without any further adieu…, here are the memes!

Enjoy.

I hope you enjoyed my inaugural collection of climate change memes!

If you haven’t already seen them, please check out my previous editions of funny and favorite memes!

“A day without laughter is a day wasted.” –  Charlie Chaplin   

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please ley me know, by “clicking” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know if you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts. 

We’re all entitled to our opinions.  I value yours and your feedback as well.

I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

“The sky is falling!  The sky is falling!” – Chicken Little

Although in this case it’s “The oceans are rising!  The oceans are rising!” – Climate change whackos

Chris Ciaccia of Fox News reports that, “Melting Antarctic ice will raise sea levels and might cause humanity to ‘give up … New York!’”

There’s one of our favorite “scientific” words again…, “might.”

“Might” is right there with “may,” “could,” etc.

“The research notes that if temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius, ocean levels will rise 8 feet.”

Note: 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit for every 1 degree in Celsius. So, a 2 degree rise in Celsius would be a 3.6 degree rise Fahrenheit.

“If the goals of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement are not met, the Antarctic ice sheet will melt, resulting in global sea levels rising to the point where humanity will have to ‘give up … New York,’ according to a new study.”

Ahhh…, the old Paris Climate Agreement.

The agreement that proposed to hold the US to higher standards than everyone else, while having the US pay dearly, monetarily and economically speaking, while the rest of the world took its time sacrificing anything in the name of saving the environment.

So, in actuality, it isn’t up to the United States to insure the Paris Climate Agreement environmental goals are met, it’s up to the major pollution violators, like China, India, Russia and Japan.

I’m assuming this article and this study are being highlighted and touted in the countries I mentioned above, right?

Right?

I would recommend not holding your breath while waiting for any of these countries to take any environmentally responsible actions if it costs them one extra dollar to do so.

Just sayin’.

I really hate to throw my Indian friends under the bus here, but even they would have to admit that India definitely has issues with clean air, clean water, and pollution in general.

“The research, published in ‘Nature,’ [‘Nature’ is a British weekly scientific journal founded and based in London, England. It features peer-reviewed research from a variety of academic disciplines, mainly in science, technology, and the natural sciences], notes that if temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius, ocean levels will rise 2.5 meters (8 feet), the temperature limit set by the Paris agreement. Should temperatures rise 4 or 6 degrees Celsius, sea levels would eventually rise 6.5 meters (21 feet) and nearly 12 meters (39 feet), respectively.”

‘“Antarctica holds more than half of Earth’s fresh water, frozen in a vast ice-sheet which is nearly 5 kilometers thick,’ study co-author Ricarda Winkelmann said in a statement. ‘As the surrounding ocean water and atmosphere warm due to human greenhouse-gas emissions, the white cap on the South Pole loses mass and eventually becomes unstable.’”

“Winkelmann continued: ‘Because of its sheer magnitude, Antarctica’s potential for sea-level contribution is enormous: We find that already at 2 degrees of warming, melting and the accelerated ice flow into the ocean will, eventually, entail 2.5 meters of global sea level rise just from Antarctica alone. At 4 degrees, it will be 6.5 meters and at 6 degrees almost 12 meters if these temperature levels would be sustained long enough.’”

Okay Professor, let ME throw some numbers at YOU.

In the Antarctic (the South Pole) the warmest month of the year is January, with an average temperature of -14 degrees Fahrenheit.

The coldest month of the year in the Antarctic, is September, with an average temperature of -70 degrees Fahrenheit.

So even if the average temperature rises 40 degrees, we would still be well below freezing, which is +32 degrees Fahrenheit.

So, what would a rise of 4, 8, or 10 degrees Fahrenheit cause?

I mean, freezing is freezing, isn’t it?

Something is just as frozen at -70 as it is at -30, isn’t it?

Do you really have to be a “scientist.” An “expert,” or a “professor,” to figure this stuff out?

Additionally, the oceans make up 71% of the surface of our planet.

If you’ve ever taken a trip and flown across the Pacific Ocean or the Atlantic Ocean, you have gotten a feel for ow immense they really are.

Now, the Antarctic makes up only 2.7% of our planet’s surface.

It is utterly absurd to suggest, or insinuate, that an area so small in relation to an area so big could have such a huge effect on the larger area.

Like I said before, “Do you really have to be a “scientist.” An “expert,” or a “professor,” to figure this stuff out?”

The answer is “no.”

A little common sense will serve you well every time.

“The landmark Paris Climate Agreement, which was agreed to in 2015 under the Obama administration [An administration which was always eager to enter into agreements that put appearances over reality], has as its long-term goal limiting the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Nearly 200 nations signed the landmark agreement, including China.”

Signing something in which you have no responsibility, only benefits, is not a hard thing to do, nor is it something which is particularly noteworthy.

“In early November 2019, the Trump administration began its formal withdrawal from the agreement.”

And rightly so.

Let’s take a look at what former President Obama agreed to under the wonderful Paris Climate Agreement.

Per Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, “The poorly negotiated Paris climate accord imposed unfair, unworkable and unrealistic targets on the United States for reducing carbon emissions.”

“Poorly negotiated?”

Is that the definition of a “negotiation” to President Obama and his friends…, bending over and grabbing your ankles?

“As the climate deal punished America’s energy producers with expensive and burdensome regulations, it gave other countries U.S. taxpayer-funded subsidies and generous timelines.”

“Countries like China got a free pass to pollute for over a decade. With abundant low-cost coal, China and India would put our manufacturers at a huge competitive disadvantage. Economic costs would be severe.”

“According to the National Economic Research Associates, if we met all of our commitments as part of the Paris climate agreement, it would cost the American economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040. We don’t need to cripple our economy to protect our environment.”

“America’s emissions actually continue to decline, and we are the world’s driver of innovative solutions. Since 2005, the United States has reduced its combustion-related carbon dioxide emissions more than any other nation in the world. Global emissions have moved in the opposite direction.”

Huh.

It sounds like a typical “putting America and Americans last” Obama deal.

But all of that being said…, President Trump will just be accused of being an evil “climate denier” for getting the US out of that agreement, regardless of how detrimental and unfair it was towards the United States.

I guess President Trump didn’t get the memo that the US is supposed to be everyone else’s bitch.

Anyway…, getting back to the issue of the Antarctic melting…

“The period of melting is likely to last for many years, but it’s likely the changes will be permanent, the researchers added.”

“Likely,” huh?

Another typically “scientific” word these days.

You’ve heard of the term, “the new math,” right?

Well, what we are dealing with now is “the new science.”

It’s “science” with a twist of propaganda.

‘“Antarctica is basically our ultimate heritage from an earlier time in Earth’s history,’ study co-author Anders Levermann added. ‘It’s been around for roughly 34 million years. Now our simulations show that once it’s melted, it does not regrow to its initial state even if temperatures eventually sank again. Indeed, temperatures would have to go back to pre-industrial levels to allow its full recovery – a highly unlikely scenario. In other words: What we lose of Antarctica now, is lost forever.’”

Anders Levermann is a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Columbia University. He is a Professor of the Dynamics of the Climate System at Institute for Physics and Astrophysics of the Potsdam University, Germany.

“In an interview with the Guardian, Levermann was even direr, noting ‘we will be renowned in future as the people who flooded New York City.’”

“Earlier this week, a separate study said sea levels could rise 15 inches by 2100 because of melting from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current pace.”

There’s that word again, “could.”

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

“The research shows the stark impact humanity is having on the planet, even if the most extreme impacts will not be seen for years to come, Winkelmann continued.”

‘“In the end, it is our burning of coal and oil that determines ongoing and future greenhouse-gas emissions and therefore, if and when critical temperature thresholds in Antarctica are crossed. And even if the ice loss happens on long time scales, the respective carbon dioxide levels can already be reached in the near future. We decide now whether we manage to halt the warming. If we give up the Paris Agreement, we give up Hamburg, Tokyo and New York.’”

“A separate study published in February suggested that if global temperatures were to rise 0.5 degrees Celsius over the next 50 years, approximately half of the world’s species would become locally extinct. If temperatures were to rise 2.9 degrees Celsius, 95 percent of the species would become locally extinct.”

“In March, another study suggested that almost half of the world’s sandy beaches could be gone by 2100 if climate change continues.”

“In August, researchers found that 28 trillion tons of ice, primarily from the Arctic sea, Antarctic ice shelves and mountain glaciers, had been lost over the past 23 years, ‘a direct consequence of climate warming.’”

So, why aren’t coastal cities being flooded already?

Hmmm.

“In May 2019, a separate study suggested climate change could raise sea levels by as much as 7 feet by 2100.”

Wow…, it’s just study after study of “could” and “might.”

Back in the day, I think these would have been called theories…, but with the “new science,” theories along the preferred narrative are considered proven facts.

“Skeptics have largely dismissed fears over man’s impact on global warming, saying climate change has been going on since the beginning of time. They also claim the dangers of a warming planet are being wildly exaggerated and question the impact that fossil fuels have had on climate change.”

Exactly.

Call me a “skeptic” then.

I believe you can question “science” without being a “science denier.”

“Science” should be questioned…, that’s a part of the process, unless you’re talking about “the new science.”

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know if you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

We’re all entitled to our opinions.  I value yours and your feedback as well.

I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

 

 

Jeff Bezos – “I have not yet begun to waste my money!” 

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has pledged $10 billion to “fight climate change.”

abezos 2

Like Chris Rock said, “You know Jeff Bezos is rich, when he can get a divorce and he’s still the richest man in the world!

How exactly do you “fight climate change” with your money though?

Exactly who do you give your money to or what can you buy that will actually effect the global climate in a positive way?

And how would you measure that?

How exactly would you know if you’re doing any “good…,” whatever that is?

Reggie Wade of Yahoo Finance reports that, “Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, is committing $10 billion of his own money to fight climate change through the creation of the ‘Bezos Earth Fund.’”

Ohhh…, that’s what you do…, you create a fund!

abezos 4

“The Amazon CEO announced the launch on Instagram, asserting humans can save the Earth by using an inclusive approach that combines the efforts and resources of all stakeholders.”

Well said, Jeff…, well said.

Wait…, what?

abezos 5

‘“We can save Earth. It’s going to take collective action from big companies, small companies, nation-states, global organizations, and individuals,’ the post stated. I’m committing $10 billion to start and will begin issuing grants this summer. Earth is the one thing we all have in common — let’s protect it, together.’ A post shared by Jeff Bezos (@jeffbezos) on Feb 17, 2020 at 10:00am PST”

abezos 6

Again…, what exactly would these “collective actions” be?

I could tell you exactly what you could do to fight global pollution…, but “climate change?”

“Bezos, who has a net worth of $130 billion, is no stranger to the climate change fight. In September 2019, the Amazon founder announced: ‘The Climate Pledge,’ which stated that the retail behemoth’s ultimate goal is to become carbon-neutral by 2040.”

Well, okay Jeff, but the Earth is supposed to end in like 2030…, soooo.

Maybe get with Ocasio-Cortez and her people, and see about moving up that timetable.

abezos 7

abezos 8

“At the same time, Bezos has been criticized about contributions made by himself and Amazon. Observers recently accused Bezos of being stingy after he donated $690,000 toward relief efforts related to devastating wild fires in Australia (which experts link to climate change). And Amazon, which Bezos founded in 1994, routinely pays an incredibly low tax rate on billions in profit.”

What kind of jerk donates ONLY $690,000?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He should be ashamed.

I mean, c’mon!

Well, the “experts” were right in a sense.  The wild fires in Australia were set by “climate change” proponents and enthusiasts, just to hurry the process along…, because “climate change” would have caused the fires on its own eventually anyway.

Yes folks…, you can’t make this stuff up.

That’s why the fires in Australia suddenly disappeared from running on the fake news 24/7.  As soon as they stopped fitting the “climate change” narrative, they got about as much coverage as President Trump’s historic economic numbers…, ZERO.

“Former Democrat presidential candidate Andrew Yang praised Bezos’s initiative.”

abezos 3

‘“Good for Bezos pledging $10 billion to fight climate change. But it’s going to take nation-scale resources and policies to genuinely shift consumption, adaptation and mitigation.’— Andrew Yang (@AndrewYang) February 17, 2020”

Thanks for clearing that up Yang.

Nothing personal, Yang…, but if you could never get over like 1% support in the polls, were you ever really a “real” candidate?

I mean, couldn’t anybody get less than 1% in the polls without any effort at all just by saying they’re a candidate?

Just sayin’.

 

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Is “Climate Change” really the issue?

Did you notice that over that last 5-10 years the cries of “Global Warming” have morphed into cries of “Climate Change?”

Why is that?

Could it be because “Climate Change” can’t be denied?

aclimate 10

It’s like complaining about the Sun disappearing for half of the day.  You may not like it, but there’s nothing you can do about it.

It’s the same with “Climate Change.”

You may not like it, but there’s nothing you can do about it.

The biggest shams being perpetrated on the citizens of the Earth is that humans have caused “Climate Change” and that humans can do anything about “Climate Change.”

aclimate 12

The Earth’s overall climate changes based on many global and solar factors, way above and way beyond any effect humans may have on the planet.

We have seen many doomsday scenarios over the years, ranging from over-population to a coming ice age, then to global warming.

These false alarms have more to do with the government’s desire for control over a population willing to hand over its rights in order to “save itself” than it does any real environmental concern.

aclimate 7

aclimate 6

These alarmists always point to their all-knowing “scientists” and “science” as their foundational defense.

They cry, “You can’t deny science!”

Umm…, well…

May I remind you that it was “scientists” who believed at one time that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the earth was flat, and that if you didn’t agree you were put to death?

May I remind you that it was “scientists” who believed at one time that we were entering a new ice age…, which is a complete 180 from what they are predicting now?

For how many years were we told there was no water on the moon, only to find out now there is a lot of water on the moon?

For how many years were we told that the Sun was the basis for all life on the earth, only then to discover lifeforms on the bottom of the ocean living in complete darkness which use chemical reactions as a basis for life?

These are all pretty big things that “science” was totally wrong about.

Just sayin’.

According to Chris Ciaccia of Fox News, “A startling message on a 1,200-year-old granite slab created by the Vikings appears to predict climate change, experts say.”

aclimate 2

aclimate 3

Here we go with “experts,” again.

I guess the Vikings realized that predicting climate change was as safe a bet as predicting the weather would change.

aclimate 8

And guess what?

There weren’t any cars or factories back then.

So how could climate change be possible without humans causing it?

Socialist wannabe, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, among others, claim we have ten years to “save the earth” before we all perish.

aclimate 5

aclimate 11

aclimate 4

I am publicly going on record right now that I will match ANY bet that AOC is dead wrong.

In fact, in AOC’s honor, I’ll throw in an extra 5 years!

I’m saying the earth will still be here, just like it is right now, 15 years from now, in 2035.

If you’d like to place a wager against me, just comment your name, address, and amount. (No wagers less than $1,000 please)

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

If you’re right…, neither of us have anything to lose!

If I’m right…, and I am…, I could end up being a little richer!

On a side bet…, I bet none of these liberal alarmists will be brave enough to risk any of their own money…, which tells you all you need to know!

Like President Trump said, “What the hell do you have to lose?!

WINNING!

aclimate 9

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

A Chihuahua a day keeps the doctor away!

EXTRA! EXTRA! Actress Emma Thompson foresees people eating pets for “protein” due to “climate crisis!”

aemma 1

Melissa Roberto of Fox News reports, “Fido and Sylvester could be in big trouble, according to Emma Thompson.”

“The actress issued a strong warning on Thursday of an impending ‘climate crisis’ so dire that people will have no choice but to eat their own pets.”

That is, of course, if we haven’t eaten all of our pets and all of the zoo animals because we have devolved into a socialist country, a la Venezuela, by that time!

aemma 2

aemma 10

Ouch!

Just sayin’!

I’ve prepared a statement for Ms. Thompson to release. Hopefully she’ll release it since she seems to be such a concerned citizen of our dying planet.

It reads:

“Hi…, I’m an actress who routinely portrays intelligent people on TV and the big screen…, but apparently, I’m really a clueless liberal idiot!”

“The actress, 60, attended an Extinction Rebellion protest outside of the BBC Broadcasting House in London on Thursday, where she claimed there is ‘extreme weather’ ahead.”

aemma 7

Oh…, and apparently Ms. Thompson stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before, because now she thinks she’s some kind of expert long-term weather analyst and predictor.

“Thompson joined Extinction Rebellion demonstrators causing disruption at the major road junction Oxford Circus in central London, Friday, April 19, 2019 [as well].  The pressure group Extinction Rebellion is calling for continuing civic disobedience to demand government action on climate change.”

aemma 8

And here we have the whole crux of the problem, Ms. Thompson.  The whole crux of the problem with what you and your friends are doing, is that you actually believe the government or people, other than you or your rich friends of course, can actually do anything that will make any difference at all regarding the Earth’s “climate.”

aemma 3

In fact, in 2000, on its Earth Observatory web site, NASA published the information they possessed about the Milankovitch Climate Theory, which was PROVED to be fact by core samples from the earth’s seas.  It proved that Climate Changes, warming and destructive weather, happen naturally from changes in earth’s solar orbit, and the extent of earth’s axis tilt.  NOT from man-induced factors!

We sure don’t hear much about that information from NASA, do we?

aemma 12

“Citing climate trends, the ‘Saving Mr. Banks’ star warned citizens there will be an ‘increased chance of warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, along with an increase of frequency and intensity of extremes.’”

Hey…, I’ve got a great idea!

Maybe next year when they’re handing out Oscars, they can hand one out for the best supporting actor and actress in a “climate change” fairy tale!

aemma 5

aemma 4

aemma 16

aemma 11

“The activist read a script as she advised the public to prepare for what the ‘gloomy’ future holds.”

‘“Better wrap up warm, stockpile food and remember there is a surprising amount of protein in the average household pet,’ she added”

“Also included in the British film star’s grave warning was the possibility of flood warnings ‘almost everywhere,’ the Evening Standard reported.”

‘“Expect crop failures, water contamination, damaged houses and ruined lives, and we will see these persistent weather fronts continue to wreak havoc across the nation, albeit with one or two days of dry and settled weather,’ she continued.”

And remember…, we can avoid all of this by just simply voting for liberals, paying for their whacko ideas, like the green new deal, and reversing our level of civilization back to the middle ages.

aemma 13

Of course, what “they” fail to mention is that making all of these sacrifices only applies to the “common people,” and not to the liberal government or the “elites.”

“[Thompson] is well known for speaking out about environmental issues. But in April, she came under fire for flying thousands of miles to attend an event to protest climate change.”

aemma 6

‘“I may well be hypocritical by flying but I’m conscious of flying so I fly much less, but sometimes I have to when I’m working. But I’ll continue to find ways to get to places without flying,’ she said.”

In fact it is hypocritical Emma!  Thanks for noticing.

aemma 15

And we know Ms. Thompson…, you’ll do what you can when it’s convenient for you.

Oh Emma…, you’re such a shining example to us all!

 

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

 

You can add crude oil to the list of things some “scientists” would have you believe they have figured out. 

“Oil that is…, black gold…, Texas tea.”

When you get right down to it, there isn’t a heck of a lot that “scientists” really “know.”

There’s a lot they’d like you to think they know, but in the end it’s mostly educated guesses…, and uneducated guesses.

aoil 3

We see these educated and uneducated theories and guesses passed off as facts most of the time.

When reading textbooks or listening to the news, we never hear these “scientists” say, “We believe that …” or “It’s our theory that…”

I’m talking about global warming (now called “climate change” since the warming part is a hard sell), the creation of the universe, the evolution of life on Earth, and what’s inside the Earth.

aoil 5

Now don’t get me wrong…, I’m not anti-science…, I love science.  I just don’t like it when wishful thinking is passed off as science, and this wishful thinking is then used as propaganda to support liberal fairy tale narratives.

Regarding oil, one of the “fossil fuels,” “scientists” have spun a pretty wild tale, it seems.

aoil 2

In an article titled, “The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil,” by Ker Than, for the LiveScience website, Than says, “… some experts [are]  predicting that the end of oil is near, scientists still don’t know for sure where oil comes from, how long it took to make, or how much there is.”

Wait…, what?

What was that?

“Scientists still don’t know for sure where oil comes from, how long it took to make, or how much there is?”

Really?

But they feel safe “predicting that the end of oil is near.”

Again…, “Scientists still don’t know for sure where oil comes from, how long it took to make, or how much there is?”

Well, you could’ve fooled me!

I was under the impression that “scientists” knew all there was to know about oil in the Earth.

Hmmm.

aoil 1

Soooo, it’s called a “fossil fuel” even though “fossils” may have nothing to do with it?

See what I mean?

Ker Than continues by saying, “A so-called ‘fossil fuel,’ petroleum [oil] is believed by most scientists to be the transformed remains of long dead organisms. The majority of petroleum is thought to come from the fossils of plants and tiny marine organisms. Larger animals might contribute to the mix as well.”

“Nature has been transmuting dead life into black gold [or natural gas] for millions of years using little more than heat, pressure and time, scientists tell us.”

That sounds like a statement of fact without any caveats to me.

Again…, see what I mean?

aoil 4

“The idea that petroleum is formed from dead organic matter is known as the ‘biogenic theory’ of petroleum formation and was first proposed by a Russian scientist almost 250 years ago.”

“In the 1950’s, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth [the abiogenic theory].”

They say, “Both processes for making petroleum likely require thousands of years,” although, here again, they really have no clue how long it takes, or if either of these theoretical processes are even responsible for the creation of oil at all.

According to an article on the ScienceDaily website, “Estimates of how much crude oil we have extracted from the planet vary wildly. Now, researchers have published a new estimate in the International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology that suggests we may have used more than we think.”

“Now, John Jones in the School of Engineering, at the University of Aberdeen, UK, says that we have used at least 135 billion barrels of oil since 1870, the period during which J.D. Rockefeller established The Standard Oil Company and began drilling in earnest.”

“However, in 2005, The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC) [Is that really a thing?] in London provided a total figure of almost 1 trillion barrels of crude oil (944 billion barrels) since commercial drilling began.”

There are 42 gallons in a barrel, and I’m pretty good at math, so that would equate to around 42 trillion gallons.

That’s a lot of “fossils of plants and tiny marine organisms.”

And that’s only what we have used so far.

From the World Ocean Review website, “Gas and oil form in the sea over a period of millions of years [Oh, now it’s millions of years?], as the remains of animals and plants sink to the ocean floor. Combined with particles flushed from the land, they are buried and compressed into layers of sediment several kilometers thick on the ocean floor.”

Excuse me, but when does this stuff stop sinking to the ocean floor so it can become buried?  Isn’t this happening continually?  Just sayin’.

“Aided by the Earth’s pressure and temperature conditions, bacteria convert the biomass into precursor substances from which hydrocarbons are ultimately formed. These hydrocarbons can permeate certain layers of rock and sediment as they move up towards the surface, in a process called migration. In some cases they become trapped in impermeable layers of rock, which is where the actual deposits are ultimately formed. Depending on the ambient conditions, oil or natural gas develops. Today’s sources of fossil fuels are between 15 and 600 million years old.”

“Between 15 and 600 million years old,” huh? Well, that’s really narrowing it down!

“During this period the continental plates shifted, transforming oceans into landmasses, with the result that mineral deposits can be found both on land and at sea. Oil and gas are usually found where vast layers of sediment cover the ocean floor.”

So there you have it.  Perfectly explained as if it were proven fact…, which it is not.  This whole previous paragraph should have begun with the words, “Once upon a time” for all it is worth.

Again…, I’m not anti-science…, I love science.  I just don’t like it when these “scientists” pretend to know more than they do, then throw their science fiction stories out there as “the truth.”

If these scientists are so smart they should know better.

aoil 8

aoil 7

aoil 6

aoil 10

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Hey…, whatever happened to that huge hole in the ozone layer that was threatening life on Earth as we know it?

I haven’t heard much about it lately.

It must not be fitting in with the current “end of the world” “climate change” narrative.

Let’s see.

According to Chris Ciaccia of Fox News, ‘“Ozone hole is the smallest on record,’ NASA says.”

“Smallest on record?!”

Why haven’t we heard more about this?!

aozone 1

Another case of liberal propaganda by omission I would suspect.

NASA also says this is due to a “rare” event, however.

Ahhhhh, the predictable disclaimer whenever “good news” needs to be tempered in order to not harm the existing narrative!

“Unusual weather patterns in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica have caused a drastic reduction in ozone depletion, leaving the ozone with the smallest hole seen since its discovery in 1982, according to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

aozone 2

First of all…, the ozone hole wasn’t even discovered until 1982!

That means we have a whopping 37 years of ozone hole history and thousands of years, or millions of years, or billions of years (depending on your belief of the age of the Earth) where we have no idea about the condition of an ozone hole, or if there even was one.

Let’s just go ahead and say that NASA has no scientific idea about what is normal and what isn’t, in regards to the ozone hole.

“Government agencies said that the hole had shrunk to 3.9 million square miles for the remainder of September and October, according to satellite data.  The peak in the hole was 6.3 million square miles, observed on Sept. 8. During normal weather conditions, the hole is usually around 8 million square miles during this time of year.”

‘“It’s great news for ozone in the Southern Hemisphere,’ said Paul Newman, chief scientist for Earth Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in a statement on NASA’s website. ‘But it’s important to recognize that what we’re seeing this year is due to warmer stratospheric temperatures. It’s not a sign that atmospheric ozone is suddenly on a fast track to recovery.’”

Time out.

I’m sorry Mr. Newman, but “it’s important to recognize” that you and your friends really have no idea what anything is “due” to, or what is causing what, or what’s “normal” and what isn’t.

“The ozone layer is approximately 7 to 25 miles above the Earth’s surface and acts as a ‘sunscreen’ for the planet, NASA added.  It keeps out harmful ultraviolet radiation from the Sun that has been linked to skin cancer, cataracts, immune system suppression and can also cause damage to plants.”aozone 8

“The hole over the Antarctic forms during the Southern Hemisphere’s late winter as the Sun’s rays start to cause ozone-depleting reactions. This involves chlorine and bromine from man-made objects being released into the stratosphere which then destroys the molecules in the ozone.”

‘“It’s a rare event that we’re still trying to understand,’ said Susan Strahan, an atmospheric scientist. ‘If the warming hadn’t happened, we’d likely be looking at a much more typical ozone hole.’”

aozone 6

Again, I’m sorry Ms. Strahan, but you really don’t have a clue about what “a typical ozone hole” is really, or what we’d be looking at based on anything happening.  The only thing you said that I believe is, “we’re still trying to understand.”

You just go ahead and keep on trying.

“The 1987 Montreal Protocol was enacted after scientists disturbingly found a hole in the ozone over Antarctica and Australia in 1985.  It was enacted by the United Nations Environment Program.  Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said it was ‘perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date’ and it has been widely regarded as successful, with the ozone continuing to recover each year.”

Again…, and again, I’m sorry, but why did these scientists find the ozone hole “disturbing?”

They had no prior data to work with.

Perhaps the hole was alarmingly small compared to the prior 10,000 years?

They didn’t know.

They had no historical data to point to.

It was just another “The sky is falling!” environmental whacko alarm, intent on attacking America’s way of life, even though we are not anywhere near the biggest environmental offenders.

aozone 4

Just as with ocean pollution, China has been found to be the major culprit damaging the ozone layer with the continued use of illegal gases.

“In May 2018, a startling study revealed that there was an ‘unexpected and persistent increase’ of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere.  At the time, scientists could not pinpoint the exact location of the polluting and ozone-depleting gas, but subsequent media reports suggested that the clues lead to a rural industrial town in China.”

“Now, a new study confirms that the rise in CFCs, to the tune of 7,000 metric tons, is indeed coming from northeastern China based on atmospheric observations.”

“In a statement provided to Fox News, acting Head of UN Environment Joyce Msuya said: ‘Action is being taken by all parties at the international level and by China domestically.  Additional scientific research is being done to pinpoint the sources and possible illegal uses of the CFC-11.  Given the large amount of emissions, all parties appreciate the urgency to ensure the ongoing protection of the Ozone Layer.  This is a priority for the UN Environment Program.’”

Believe me, the only action being taken by China is figuring out how they can avoid being detected in the future.

These diplomats are either extremely gullible or extremely stupid.

Tell me again what the UN has ever really accomplished?

I guess it’s good that we have a forum (the UN) where communication at least exists between all countries…, but that’s about it.

One hundred ninety-seven countries, including the U.S. under former President Ronald Reagan and China, are signatories of the Montreal Protocol.

For many of these countries, and especially China, these agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, however.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

The Sierra Club says climate change deniers are more likely to be racists!  Well, there’s killing two birds with one stone!

According to Heather Smith for SIERRA, The national magazine of the Sierra Club, “People who don’t believe that climate change is real are more likely to be old, more likely to be Republican, and more likely to be white.”

So you’re saying the smartest group among us don’t necessarily believe in all of this climate change mumbo jumbo?

Makes sense to me so far.

“They [the old, white, conservatives] are also more likely to have racist beliefs, according to a recent study published in the journal ‘Environmental Politics.’”

cons 8

“Environmental Politics.”  Now there’s a liberal rag of a magazine if ever I heard of one!

I take it they’re just assuming the racist part because we’re talking about white conservatives here.

I doubt they asked people in the study if they were racists or not.

Ms. Smith goes on to say, “This correlation is a relatively recent phenomenon—one that occurred in the wake of Barack Obama’s election in 2008.”

cons 7

Oh, okay…, now I’m starting to get where this is going.

“The paper hypothesizes that, however moderate his actions, the mere existence of our first African American president dropping climate change into the State of the Union Address and joining the Paris climate accord correlates with a significant number of white Americans deciding that they were done believing in climate change.”

“This correlation has also been documented with regard to health-care reform—after the Obama administration made it a priority, a subset of white Americans who had supported the issue during the Clinton administration suddenly switched their position.”

This last claim is just a plain fabrication.  Not many people supported government run health care at all during the Clinton years.  That’s why they failed to implement it.  ObamaCare was actually signed into law.  I don’t think their argument stands up here.

Their racist claims regarding President Obama and climate change are way off base as well.

cons 6

cons 4

When are these liberals going to understand that conservatives didn’t care about the color of Obama’s skin…, it was HIS policies, and HIS racism that turned conservatives off.

“Political messaging with racist over- and undertones has been deployed relentlessly by some politicians because appealing to prejudice and paranoia really does motivate racist, paranoid people to show up and vote.”

Now there something we can all agree on!

Except they’re referring to Republicans and I’m thinking about the Democrats!

cons 5

These crazy “studies” are about as valuable as their polling numbers!

But accuracy was never their goal in the first place.

It was the liberal messaging that was the most important thing.  It was only a means to an end.  Some hogwash to back up a failed narrative.

WINNING!

cons 1

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Someone’s finally beginning to clean-up our oceans!  

So who’s finally taking the initiative to start cleaning up our oceans?

The United States?  I’ll let you in on a little secret here later.

Russia?

China?

England?

Japan?

Nope.

It’s a man from The Netherlands (also known as Holland).

The Netherlands?

cleanup 2

I can’t imagine that The Netherlands is responsible for even .000001 percent of the pollution in our oceans…, but yet they are the ones (the only ones right now) attempting to clean-up them up.

The Netherlands only has 17 million people in the entire country.  It’s known for its very liberal policies, although it is not a very diverse country, as over 85% of the population are Dutch/European.

AFP (French Press Agency), recently reported from Rotterdam, in The Netherlands, that, “A special ship designed to clean the oceans has harvested its first plastic from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch since setting sail from San Francisco last month, its Dutch inventor said Wednesday.”

cleanup 1

Please refer to my prior blog, “What’s up with all of this garbage in the oceans?” from April 18, 2018, for more information relating to the “Great Pacific garbage patch.”

cleanup 3

“The project by The Ocean Cleanup, a Dutch non-profit group, involves a supply ship towing a floating boom that corrals marine plastic with the aim of cleaning half of the infamous patch within five years.”

I applaud the intentions and the effort here, but shouldn’t we attempt to attack the problem at its sources as well?

If we don’t confront those doing the polluting, and attempt to limit additional “new pollution,” it’s like buying new fly swatters, but leaving all of the doors and windows wide open to continually let more flies in.  We’ll never be able to stay ahead of the game…, or make any real difference.

Please refer to my earlier blog, “We’re all veterans of the liberal environmental ‘blame game.’ But what’s the real deal regarding pollution on our planet?” from September 11, 2019, for a better understanding of who the real polluters are.

Here’s the secret I was talking about earlier…, President Trump actually deserves some credit as well for taking action regarding the pollution of our oceans.

According to David Emery of Snopes.com, “[President] Trump signed, in October of 2018, bipartisan legislation aimed at reducing the amount of garbage (mainly plastic debris) littering the world’s oceans and threatening sea life.  Called the Save Our Seas Act of 2018 (S.3508), the bill was described by the activist group Ocean Conservancy as ‘a small but significant piece of legislation’ showing ‘leadership in the global fight to tackle the marine debris crisis.’”

Way to go, President Trump!

Raise your hand if you were aware of this.

Don’t worry…, mine’s not up either.

cleanup 5

“The act reauthorized the existing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program for another five years and called for more international cooperation in the effort to clean up the world’s oceans.”

Getting back to the efforts by The Netherlands, ‘“Today we announce that our cleaning system in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch has been catching plastic for the first time,’ Boyan Slat, the 25-year-old Dutch CEO and founder of The Ocean Cleanup, told a press conference in Rotterdam.”

‘“It’s the first time actually anyone harvests plastic from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.  So we think that we can actually clean the oceans.’”

“Slat came up with the idea seven years ago, and the system has been undergoing tests for the past year.”

“The ship finally sailed from San Francisco on September 9 for trials on cleaning the patch, a floating trash pile twice the size of France that swirls in the ocean halfway between California and Hawaii.”

“It [the ship] was towing a 2,000-foot-long boom device designed by Slat dubbed System 001, aimed at containing floating ocean plastic so it can be scooped up and recycled.”

Another article from AFP states, “Ocean plastic waste probably comes from ships, report says.”

“The study offers fresh evidence that the vast garbage patches floating in the middle of oceans, which have sparked much consumer hand-wringing in recent years, are less the product of people dumping single-use plastics in waterways or on land, than they are the result of merchant marine vessels tossing their waste overboard by the ton.”

“Three-quarters of the garbage appeared to originate from Asia, mostly China.”

cleanup 7

“Everyone talks about saving the oceans by stopping using plastic bags, straws and single use packaging. That’s important, but when we head out on the ocean, that’s not necessarily what we find.”

There are thousands of cargo ships dumping garbage into our oceans on a daily basis.

There are 46 different cruise lines operating around the globe, which have 314 cruise ships.  It is estimated that 26 million people travel aboard these ships every year.

cleanup 6

That’s a lot of people…, and a lot of garbage!

Our oceans are not liquid dumpsters!

cleanup 4

All of these countries need to stop signing these BS climate accord agreements and simply keep their garbage to themselves.

That would be a good start.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Are the people at the UN “crying wolf” when it comes to global warming?  Does it even matter?

According to a recent UN report on the world’s oceans, they say “we’re all in big trouble.”

In case the people at the UN and these contributing scientists were not aware of it…, we all are going to die at some point.

Nobody lives forever.

No one make it out of this life alive.

Don’t get me wrong.

Do I think we should reduce our levels of air pollution?

Yes.

Do I think we should pressure those countries who are the worst air pollution offenders (China) to reduce their levels of air pollution?

Yes.

Do I think we should reduce our polluting of the oceans and work to clean-up our oceans?

Yes.

Do I think we should pressure those countries who are the worst ocean pollution offenders (China) into reducing their polluting of the oceans and encourage them to help us clean-up the oceans?

Yes.

Okay…, that being said…

Chris Ciaccia of Fox News reports, “A damning new report from the United Nations says that the world’s oceans are undergoing drastic, accelerated change. And the risks associated with these changes to the climate are getting ever greater, threatening hundreds of millions of people and the global economy itself.”

change 15

“The report, issued by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), highlights the changes that are happening as a result of increased emissions from greenhouse gases, including: sea levels rising by three feet by 2100; significantly fewer fish in the oceans; stronger hurricanes; and regular flooding in coastal cities such as New York.”

Hmmm?

change 11

So are they saying our world is not going to come to an end in 12 years?

change 14

change 5

I’m confused.

Where is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez getting her information from?

change 13

Over 95% of the people on the planet right now will not be around to see the year 2100.

Just sayin’.

‘“Global warming has already reached 1 [degrees Celsius] above the pre-industrial level, due to past and current greenhouse gas emissions,’ a press release issued in conjunction with the report said. ‘There is overwhelming evidence that this is resulting in profound consequences for ecosystems and people. The ocean is warmer, more acidic and less productive. Melting glaciers and ice sheets are causing sea level rise, and coastal extreme events are becoming more severe.’”

change 1

This all may be true, but there is no way of directly tying any planetary climate change to pollution caused by people.

change 4

Our planet has, as a matter of fact, experienced many extreme climate changes in its past, without people playing any part in them at all.

The special United Nations-affiliated oceans and ice report released on Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2019, “[Also] projects three feet of rising seas by the end of the century, much fewer fish, weakening ocean currents, even less snow and ice, and nastier hurricanes, caused by climate change.”

change 2

“The report, which was worked on by more than 100 scientists from 36 countries around the world, was approved by the 195 IPCC member governments.”

100 scientists may sound like a lot…, but really it’s not.  What we basically have here is 1 scientist from every two of the 195 IPCC member countries.

Google says there are at least 7 million scientists in the world.

I think we can find 100 out of 7 million scientists who believe the Earth is flat!

‘“The open sea, the Arctic, the Antarctic and the high mountains may seem far away to many people,’ Hoesung Lee, chair of the IPCC, said in the press release. ‘But we depend on them and are influenced by them directly and indirectly in many ways – for weather and climate, for food and water, for energy, trade, transport, recreation and tourism, for health and wellbeing, for culture and identity.’”

change 10

“The press release notes that ‘without major investments in adaptation,’ rising flood risks are likely, some of which could cause ‘some island nations’ to become uninhabitable ‘due to climate-related ocean and cryosphere change.’”

I notice quite often in this report that “this or that” is “likely to happen,” and that “this or that” “could happen.”

It’s hard to push all of your chips in on man-made climate change with these types of shaky assertions.

They say that “New York City COULD see once-in-a-lifetime floods every five years.”

I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that New York City MAY NOT see once-in-a-lifetime floods every five years.

Hey!

Look at me!

I’m a scientist!

“The changes, which previous reports have said could shrink ‘virtually all’ economies around the globe by 2100, will affect people, plants, food, societies, infrastructure, in addition to the global economy.”

Oh…, these scientists are economists too?!

“The IPCC report adds to a previous report from the U.N. that some coastal cities and those in the Arctic region will have to adapt. The previous report, published on June 25 from the United Nations Human Rights Council, warned that a potential ‘climate apartheid’ could fracture the global population, splitting the planet between the wealthy and the rest of the world who will be ‘left to suffer.’”

And there we have it.

The splitting of the world’s population between “the wealthy and the rest of the world who will be left to suffer.”

And that’s different from the world’s current economic structure how?

And when I said “does it even matter?” at the top of this article, here’s what I mean.

Let’s take a quick survey here.

Raise your hand if you would be willing to stop using your own personal car, truck or motorcycle in order to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

Raise your hand if you think it would be acceptable to do away with commercial airlines, and severely limit the energy use and production of manufacturing companies of all types.

Hmmm.

I didn’t notice a lot of hand going up.

change 6

That’s exactly what I mean when I say “does it even matter?”

Regardless of what may or may not be going on with the climate, and regardless of who is or who is not responsible for it, 99% of us are really not willing to do anything serious about it, because………

NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, IT WON’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE!

change 3

And do you seriously think we could get everyone in the world to agree to living like people did before the industrial revolution?

When these elite liberals say “we” have to do this and “we” need to do that…., what they really mean is “we,” NOT THEY, need to make sacrifices.  THEY aren’t willing to sacrifice anything.

change 9

change 8

change 7

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑