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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

We’re all veterans of the liberals’ environmental “blame game.” But what’s the real deal regarding pollution on our planet?

It seems we are bombarded by liberals in our country, shaking their fingers at us, and perpetually making us feel guilty for our standard of living, and for “trashing” the world’s environment on a daily basis.

blame 4

We hear “The evil United States is to blame for the world’s air pollution, global warming and ‘climate change…,’ with all of our evil factories, evil cars, evil trucks, and evil farting cows!”

blame 9

blame 8

We hear “The evil United States is to blame for polluting our oceans, especially with our evil plastic bottles, our evil plastic this and our evil plastic that.”

We hear that we must adopt the democrats’ “Green New Deal” policies, which would set out economy back 200 years, in order to pay our environmental dues and save our planet.

blame 6

blame 7

What’s really going out there, however?

According to data from the World Health Organization, regarding air pollution and air quality per city:

INDIA has 13 of the top 20 worst cities.

CHINA has 23 of the top 50 worst cities.

CHINA has 44 of the top 75 worst cities.

CHINA overwhelmingly dominates the list in general.

But wait!  How many U.S. cities are in there and where do we rank on the list you are probably asking?

NOT EVEN ONE U.S. CITY APPEARS ON THE LIST OF THE 500 WORST CITIES!

Let me repeat that.

NOT EVEN ONE U.S. CITY APPEARS ON THE LIST OF THE 500 WORST CITIES!

How can that be, you might be asking?

How are the democrats allowed to get away with all of this misrepresentation and disinformation regarding the environment?

blame 5

The answer is the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” is a co-conspirator in this environmental charade.

blame 12

blame 13

Okay, okay, but what about saving our oceans?!

What about the polar bears and the whales?!

According to Earthday.org website, the United States ranks number 20 on the top twenty list of ocean polluters.

Yes…, we’re last on that list, and a distant last at that.

How can that be, you might be asking?

How are the democrats allowed to get away with all of this misrepresentation and disinformation regarding the environment?

The answer is the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” is a co-conspirator in this environmental charade.

All of the other countries on this ocean pollution list account for 2 times, 3 times, 4 times, 5 times, 6 times, 10 times, and 32 times the amount of ocean pollution the United States is guilty of!

And who’s at the top of this list?

Well if isn’t our old friend CHINA again!

blame 10

blame 11

So the next time you hear some liberal crying about the environment and demanding we flip our country upside down and turn it inside out to save the planet…, tell them to take their story walkin’…, over to China and India, for starters.

blame 15

And tell them they can take their “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” with them!

blame 3

 

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.

Do any of these “climate change” eggheads realize how stupid they sound? 

“The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”

“Climate change!  Global warming!  The ice is melting!  The oceans are rising!

fresh 9

Although this is a recurring occurrence for these alarmist propagandists, most recently, I’m referring to a couple of articles that I came across.

The first article is by Christopher Carbone of Fox News, and the headline states, “Mysterious freshwater reservoir found hidden beneath the ocean!”

My first thought is, “okay, this sounds pretty interesting,” but the more I think about it, the less surprised I am by the discovery.

But they’ve peaked my interest…, so let’s proceed.

My next thought is, “Aren’t most things in life and our planet “mysterious?”

I would think the word “mysterious” would be a word that scientists would not be too fond of, however, as it seems to imply something not very scientific, but more supernatural, more beyond our understanding.

The truth is that there is a heck of a lot more that scientists don’t understand than they do understand.

Carbone continues, “Scientists discover world’s largest freshwater aquifer underneath the ocean floor.”

“Surveying the sub-seafloor off the eastern coast of the United States, researchers at Columbia University uncovered what appears to be the world’s largest freshwater aquifer. Believed to hold at least 670 cubic miles of fresh water, the discovery could usher in similar discoveries for other regions throughout the world.”

fresh 1

“The surprising discovery, from a new survey of the sub-seafloor off the northeast U.S. coast by researchers from Columbia University, appears to be the largest formation of this type anywhere in the world — stretching from Massachusetts to New Jersey and extending continuously out about 50 miles to the edge of the continental shelf.”

“Researchers said that if it was discovered on the surface it would create a lake covering some 15,000 square miles.”

That would be about half the size of Lake Superior, or about two-thirds the size of Lake Michigan.

‘“We knew there was fresh water down there in isolated places, but we did not know the extent or geometry,’ lead author Chloe Gustafson, a PhD. candidate at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in a press statement.”

Okay…, this is all very well and good…, but I would have to question whether “we” knew this “fresh water” was down there, or if “we” only suspected it.  I don’t ever recall hearing anything about this type of thing before.

But here’s the kicker that justifies the use of the term “egghead.”

“Scientists also said that if the water was to ever be processed for consumption, it would need to be desalinated.”

Wait…, what?

Desalinated?

You “scientists” do understand that if the water would need to be “desalinated,” THEN IT’S NOT FRESH WATER!  IT’S SALT WATER!

I’m sorry, but am I missing something?

“The study was [original] published in the journal ‘Scientific Reports.’”

And none of the other “scientists” felt it necessary to point out that referring to salt water as fresh water kind of changes the whole concept of the report?

Brilliant.

fresh 4

Next we have an article by Karl Mathiesen for “The Guardian” website that asks, “Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming?”

Good question!

How dare this ice act in a way that contradicts all of our “climate change” claims!

“While Arctic sea ice continues to decline, Antarctic levels are confounding the world’s most trusted climate models with record highs for the third year running.”

fresh 2

So the Earth is “confounding” “the world’s most trusted climate models” with its ice growth? And for the third year in a row?

This sure doesn’t jive with the “climate change propaganda” I’ve been hearing over the past couple of years.

How about you?

And doesn’t it make sense that while the Arctic ice levels are in decline, the Antarctic ice levels are increasing?

You know…, I bet if you looked back in history, at times when the Antarctic ice levels were in decline, the Arctic ice levels were on the rise.

Just a guess.

Nothing scientific, but…, hey…, at least their claims and my claims would have that in common!

Mine would just make more sense, that’s all!

fresh 7

“Antarctic ice floes extended further than ever recorded this southern winter, confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models.”

“Ice floes extended further than EVER recorded!”

“Ever” is a long time.

‘“It’s not expected,’ says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. ‘The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.’”

Like Gomer used to say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise.”

If those are your “50 best models,” and they are all pathetically wrong, what are you basing your claims on and why should anyone listen to anything you have to say?

Just sayin’.

“But Dr. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, says increasing Antarctic ice does not contradict the general warming trend, ‘Not every location on the Earth is having the same responses to climate changes. The fact that ice in one part of the world is doing one thing and in another part ice is doing another is not surprising. The Earth is large and as the climate changes it is normal to see different things going on,’ says Parkinson.”

fresh 8

Wow.  You are wise Dr. Claire.  I’m pretty sure that most 5th graders could have made those deductions.

And basically what you’re saying is that no matter what happens with the Earth’s climate, we can twist it around to support our claims of global warming.

The “climate” changes all of the time, and we’ll give you that.  It’s been changing since the beginning of time, and all by itself, with no help from humans.

fresh 6

“In a video made by Eco Audit reader and journalist Fraser Johnston, Dr. Guy Williams, a sea ice scientist at the Tasmanian Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, says that even though it had fooled climate models the increasing sea ice was well understood by scientists.”

‘“In some ways it’s a bit counterintuitive for people trying to understand how global warming is affecting our polar regions, but in fact it’s actually completely in line with how climate scientists expect Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to respond. Particularly in respect to increased winds and increased melt water,’ said Williams.”

Okay…, so these ice occurrences are “well understood” and “completely in line with how climate scientists expect Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to respond,” yet earlier, Professor John Turner was quoted as saying these results were “not expected.”

So what is it?  Was this ice situation expected by you “scientists” or not?

It kind of sucks when reality doesn’t line up with your propaganda, doesn’t it, docs?

I get the feeling that the next “climate change” study that we get to read about will being with the words, “Once upon a time…”

fresh 5

 

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.

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez…, yes…, you are an idiot.

Patrick Moore, the co-founder of the environmentalist group “Greenpeace,” ripped into New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over the weekend, calling her a “pompous little twit,” and saying the Green New Deal plan she’s advocating is “completely crazy.”

aoc

This is a damning statement coming from someone who is a legit and historically important environmentalist.

For nearly 50 years, Greenpeace has been sailing the world’s oceans protecting our planet and fighting for environmental justice.  From obstructing nuclear tests in the Pacific, to documenting plastics in our oceans; from conducting research into the effects of climate change in the Arctic, to stopping shiploads of illegal timber leaving the Amazon; from bringing humanitarian relief to communities devastated by extreme weather to collaborating with local authorities to arrest illegal fishing operations.

According to Alex Pappas of Fox News, “In a series of tweets, Moore argued Ocasio-Cortez, who has called for drastically reducing fossil fuel production, doesn’t realize what would happen across the world if the radical plan were implemented.”

‘“If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating,’ Moore said in a tweet Saturday directed at Ocasio-Cortez. ‘You would bring about mass death.’”

“Referring to the New York Democrat as a ‘pompous little twit,’ Moore said, ‘You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities.’”

“Moore also unloaded on her for calling climate change ‘“Our World War II.’”

‘“It’s her @GND [Green New Deal] that would be worse than WW2,” he said. ‘Imagine no fuel for cars, trucks, tractors, combines, harvesters, power-plants, ships, aircraft, etc. Transport of people & goods would grind to a halt.’”

“In another tweet, Moore called the Green New Deal ‘so completely crazy it is bound to be rejected in the end.’”

“He also referred to Ocasio-Cortez as a ‘garden-variety hypocrite,’ in response to a New York Post story that said the democrat frequently used gas-guzzling Uber and Lyft rides during her 2018 campaign instead of taking the subway station near her campaign office.”

‘“You’re just a garden-variety hypocrite like the others. And you have ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know,’ Moore said.”

“Ocasio-Cortez responded to that story over the weekend saying she’s ‘living in the world as it is.’ But she said that shouldn’t be ‘an argument against working towards a better future.’”

aoc 2

It’s all a matter of perspective I guess.

Nobody is opposed to working towards a better future, unless your method of doing that destroys our 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,’ she said.”

Is there anything stopping the development of new technologies now?

Is there anything stopping the building of new infrastructure now?

The sticking point is that last one about “getting us to 100% renewable energy.”  It’s just not realistic.  Especially when she wants the United States to be “emissions free” in 10 years.

This is because she is predicting “our world will end in 12 years if we don’t change our ways.”

Her plan of course doesn’t take into consideration any other country on our planet…, just the United States, and we are already one of the best performing countries in the world regarding pollution and emissions.

I would agree with Patrick Moore that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has no basis for her claims and no common sense regarding her “Green New Deal” demands.

Why the democrats would allow a “know nothing” idiot like Ocasio-Cortez to drive their environmental and economic agenda is beyond me.

On the other hand, I guess that’s just the way the democrats are doing business these days.  They are choosing to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

“We should never underestimate the capacity for peoples’ stupidness.” – MREricksonRules.

aoc 3

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the very bottom of this page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Climate Change!  Global Warming!  It’s the end of the world as we know it…, and I feel fine.

There are a lot of misconceptions and misnomers being thrown around by “Climate Change Alarmists.”

Climate Change Alarmists are individuals who look at you as if you have three heads if you dare to question any of their Climate Change claims or appeals.

Climate Change Alarmists call people other people who don’t swallow their story hook, line and sinker, “Climate Change Deniers.”

Ok…, let’s be clear…, NOBODY believes the climate doesn’t change or isn’t changing.

Some people just believe the Earth’s climate changes naturally, and on its own, just like it is scientifically documented to have done throughout the world’s history, whether people were around or not.

“Climate Change Deniers” are also typically skeptical of policies directed at combating Climate Change because they don’t believe there is anything people can really do to effect the climate one way or the other.

My question to the Climate Change Alarmists would be, “Did you actually expect the Earth’s climate to NOT change from time to time?  Did you really expect the Earth’s climate to remain exactly the same forever?

That seems to be where these Climate Change Alarmists are coming from.

The Earth has had periods of “Global Warming,” “Global Cooling,” and even “Ice Ages” in the past when people either weren’t even around, or people did not burn fossil fuels.  How does the Climate Change community explain this?  How did the climate change back then without the help of the “evil” human polluters?

Let’s look at a recent article by Harry Pettit, of News.com, as a typical example of a Climate Change Alarmist spinning another fantasy climate change story and scenario that just doesn’t make any sense.

According to Mr. Pettit, “An Antarctic ‘time bomb’ is waiting to go off.”

He says that, “Earth’s sea levels should be nine meters higher than they are,” and that “dramatic melting in Antarctica may soon plug the gap.”

That’s over 29 feet higher for us unscientific and/or American Neanderthals.

So…, the oceans should be 29 feet higher than they are?

That’s like a three story building you know?

Really?

Do you understand how stupid that sounds?

“They say global temperatures today are the same as they were 115,000 years ago, a time when modern humans were only just beginning to leave Africa, he continues.”

Oh really?  How could that be?  What types of cars were people driving back then?  They must have had a lot of factories pumping out plenty of emissions in old Sub-Saharan Africa, huh?

Again, do you understand how stupid that sounds?

“Research shows during this time period, ‘scorching’ ocean temperatures caused a catastrophic global ice melt.  As a result, sea levels were six to nine meters higher than they are today.  But if modern ocean temperatures are the same as they were during that period, it means our planet is missing a devastating sea rise.”

I feel like I’m dumber for just having read that.  Please take a moment to reread the previous paragraph in order to properly appreciate all of the contradictions and false assumptions made here.

And again, do you understand how stupid that sounds?

“If oceans were to rise by just 1.8 meters (about 6 feet), large swathes of coastal cities would find themselves underwater, turning streets into canals and completely submerging some buildings,” and that, “There’s no way to get tens of meters of sea level rise without getting tens of meters of sea level rise from Antarctica,” said Dr. Rob DeConto, an Antarctic expert at the University of Massachusetts in the U.S.

“In the next century, ice loss would get even worse,” he added.

Even if you throw all common sense out the window and take all of these doomsday predictions at face value, do these people really think that having America return to the Middle Ages would make any difference?

If we all stopped driving cars, stopped transporting things with trucks, stopped flying in commercial jets and stopped using fossil fuels for electric power tomorrow, would that avert all of this supposed ice melting?

If you really think so, I’ve got this bridge I’m looking to sell…, cheap.

“The Sun” newspaper, in the United Kingdom, actually has a “sea level doomsday simulator” on its website if you’d like to know whether your home would be wiped out by rising oceans!

Well isn’t that special.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

ice-caps melting

So, what the heck is this “Green New Deal” anyway?

Well, first of all it’s NOT a law.  It’s more like a “game plan” or a “road map” to follow.

It’s a liberal/socialist/environmentalist manifesto in the same vein as the Communist Manifesto.

Yes…, that’s exactly what it is.

Let me be your guide about something you will be hearing about non-stop for a long time. The “biased, liberal, fake news media” will be getting their propaganda machine cranked up into overdrive for this one.

The people that put this “Green New Deal” resolution together were either high on drugs, extremely naive, extremely confused, stupid, or some combination of all of the above, in my opinion.

So…, let’s see exactly what we have here.

This resolution validates all of its proposed actions based on the October 2018 report entitled “Special Report on Global Warming [of 1.5 degrees centigrade]” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report.

If the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to be believed, humanity has just over a decade to get carbon emissions under control before catastrophic climate change impacts become unavoidable.

At the rate our government works, I guess we should all start planning our funerals, or preparing to live underground, and stockpiling food and water, because nothing is going to happen over the next ten years to fix our environment, if in fact it is broken, and if in fact it is our fault.

The United States is already the most environmentally friendly country, among major industrialized nations in the world by the way.  You sure wouldn’t know this by the way the “biased, liberal, fake news media” demonizes the USA on a daily basis.  Is China, Russia, India, Germany, The United Kingdom or Japan on board with any of this?  Because we surely cannot effect global climate change without global participation.

If the Paris Climate Agreement is any indication of the level of global participation we could expect, we’re in trouble!

In the Paris Climate Agreement, which President Trump wisely backed the U.S. out of, all of these other countries pledged their support with flowery environmental words and swore to meet the new pollution regulations AFTER the U.S. had piloted the proposed pollution levels for the first 10-20 years of the agreement!

Such determination!

Such support!

Such disingenuousness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The resolution consists of a preamble, five goals, 14 projects, and 15 requirements. The preamble establishes that there are two crises, a climate crisis and an economic crisis of wage stagnation and growing inequality.

The goals are: achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, creating jobs, providing for a just transition, and securing clean air and water.

The projects are things like: decarbonizing electricity, transportation, and industry, restoring ecosystems, and upgrading buildings and electricity grids.

Our liberal/socialist/environmentalist friends have managed to incorporate virtually all aspects of our society, economy, employment, racial issues, gender issues and government into their “end all, be all” “primary directive.”

The document itself is not even 14 pages long, so please, read it for yourself if you get the chance.

In the meantime, let’s take a look at some excerpts taken directly from the resolution:

“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’); Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States…”

Say what?

Are you starting to get the point?

This new Raw Deal…, I mean Green Deal, is your typical “bleeding heart” bunch of politically correct mumbo jumbo.

Here are some of the more detailed goals taken directly from the resolution:

“Upgrade all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”

Well gee…, that doesn’t sound expensive at all.

“Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry.”

What exactly is meant by “spurring?”  I’m guessing it means spending more money.

“Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible…”

“Working collaboratively” mean dictating unmanageable pollution standards.

“Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and high-speed rail.”

“Overhauling transportation systems” sounds like a lot of money…, again.

“A Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses…”

This last part is just a bunch concepts that sound good, but will never actually happen.  Just like with The Affordable Care Act legislation, there will be nothing inclusive or transparent about it.

“To achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects:”

“Providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization.”

“Making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries; directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries.”

Mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money!!!

“Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level; ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition.”

“Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers” means only selected “enlightened” liberal individuals and groups will dictate to all of the rest of us “knuckle-draggers” what to think.

“Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

In the government world “Guaranteeing” something means there will be no budgetary concerns.

“Strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment; strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors.”

“Enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections, to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States.”

Hasn’t President Trump already pretty much taken care of this one?

“Ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused.”

This means eminent domain will be abused.

“Obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous people for all decisions that affect indigenous people and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous people, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous people.”

Here’s your “bone” Native-Americans!

“Ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and providing all people of the United States with: high-quality health care; affordable, safe, and adequate housing; economic security; and access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

This last section, and the last section of the resolution, is kind of a catch-all.

According to David Roberts for Vox.com, “The question of how to pay for the many public investments called for in the GND [Green New Deal] is still a bit of a political minefield. There are centrist Democrats who still believe in the old PAYGO rules, keeping a “balanced budget” within a 10-year window. There are Democrats who think deficit fears have been exaggerated and there’s nothing wrong with running a deficit to drive an economic transition. And there are Democrats who have gone full Modern Monetary Theory, which is way too complicated to explain here but amounts to the notion that, short of inflation, the level of the deficit is effectively irrelevant, as long as we’re getting the economy we want.  That discussion is just getting underway, and the better part of valor is to do what the GND resolution does: say nothing about it. Leave it for later.”

Just in case you’re keeping score at home, the Green New Deal includes a “federal job guarantee,” the right to unionize, liberal trade and monopoly policies, and universal housing and health care.

In other words, “Hello Socialism…, here we come!”

Some of this stuff is even too far left for Nancy Pelosi!  She is actually coming under some attack for even having the slightest bit of skepticism about some of the goals in the Green New Deal!

Remember the name Rhiana Gunn-Wright.  She has apparently been tabbed to be the architect of any official policy platforms developed from the Green New Deal resolution.

“Obviously, figuring out how to fundamentally transform the world’s largest economy is a lot for one person to take on. When Gunn-Wright was asked if she knows what she’s gotten into, she laughs. “It’s really exciting!”

Do you mind if I ask if this person has ever really done anything regarding any of this stuff, or is she just working from a theoretical stand point?  Has she ever had a non-political job?  Does she really know anything about economics?

“If you have more money or access to power, you can either opt out or pay to make it simpler,” she says. “The people who will have to go through all the mess are generally poorer people, with the least access to power.”

So it’ll be just like usual…, with the rich liberal entertainers, athletes, businessmen and politicians being exempt or being able to “buy” their way out of the policies the rest of us are forced to deal with.  Again…, “do as I say not as I do.”

David Roberts for Vox.com Thinks, “Gunn-Wright’s command of the issues, coupled with her unapologetic belief in the public sector to “shape markets and direct innovation,” coupled with her evident concern for the low-income and working classes, make me excited to see what New Consensus produces.”

So…, apparently Mr. Roberts is just as clueless as the authors of the resolution, Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Gunn-Wright and all of their partners in crime.

Ocasio-Cortez calls for 100 percent renewable electricity within 10 years, but very few policy experts believe that is possible.

By their own admission, the top three challenges facing the GND are paying for it, convincing the public, and winning over Democrats.

Roberts adds, “In the real world, if the GND looks like it has any chance of becoming a reality, it will face a giant right-wing smear campaign, coordinated across conservative media, think tanks, and politicians, funded by effectively unlimited fossil fuel wealth. The right will rush to define the GND as a silly, ridiculous, naive, unaffordable government boondoggle meant to destroy your way of life and funnel your taxpayer money to Democratic constituencies like illegal immigrants.”

That’s because, Mr. Roberts, the Green New Deal IS “a silly, ridiculous, naive, unaffordable government boondoggle meant to destroy your way of life and funnel your taxpayer money to Democratic constituencies like illegal immigrants.”

Trumpeting the truth about this foolishness is not a “right-wing smear campaign,” it’s just a matter of combating the propaganda of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” and the rest of “the swamp.”

Well, there you have it.  I hope this helped.

Like I said…, we’re not going to stop hearing about the Green New Deal anytime soon.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

ocasio-cortez inventions

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑