Tell me again how “climate change” is the world’s greatest concern?

If “global climate change” is such a global concern, (the world is going to end in 10 years we’re told) then why are the vast majority of countries doing nothing about it currently, except demanding that The United States address this perceived threat by reducing their omissions, their use of fossil fuels, sacrificing their economy and paying for any and all perceived corrective actions?

Why?

Because it’s not really about “climate change,” it’s about using and abusing The United States, as usual, and governmental control.

It’s real easy to get on-board with a cause when nothing is required from you, and someone else is going to do all the work while you reap the rewards.

Yes, the members of the Paris Climate Accord are sooooo noble and soooooo “woke.” 

All they contribute is their hot air, while paying lip service to each other and the media. 

If you are really “all in” with this “man-made climate change” theory, then put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is!

The bottom line is humans are incapable of affecting the global climate, unless we’re talking about all-out global nuclear war…, and that goes both ways, positively and negatively.

There, I said it. 

I’m not a “climate change” denier, however…, I’m a “man-made climate change” denier.

There’s a difference.

A big difference.

The Earth’s climate has been changing since its existence…, and without any help from humans.

No one denies an ice age occurred on Earth roughly 10,000 years ago, scientists say…, and humans had nothing to do with that, so how could it have happened?

The truth is the Earth’s climate changes from time to time, and not just since the relative speck of time that humans have been around and burning fossil fuel.

There are many natural factors and natural events that affect the Earth’s climate thousands of times as much as people ever could.      

Now I’m not a “scientist,” but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express!

But seriously, I’m not a “scientist,” but I can recognize obvious truths and obvious facts and make intelligent determinations, and I’ve heard the “scientists” cry wolf before.    

Here endeth the lesson.

    If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please let 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 choice is really quite simple.

Our presidential election is only a few weeks away. 

We have the choice between the democrat/liberal, Joe Biden, and the republican/conservative, Donald Trump.

Yes, we have to vote for one of these two men, but we also need to consider what these two men represent.

Let’s review what you apparently support by voting for either the democrat/liberal, Joe Biden, or the republican/conservative, Donald Trump.

Democrats/liberals believe it is a woman’s right to abort a baby right up to the moment before birth.

Republicans/conservatives believe all babies have a right to be born and live. 

Democrats/liberals support defunding police departments.  All criminals are fans of this!

Republicans/conservatives believe if anything, police department support needs to be increased.

Democrats/liberals support taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Again, all criminals are fans of this!

Republicans/conservatives believe law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves and bear arms, as guaranteed in The Constitution.

Democrats/liberals believe anyone from anywhere should be able to freely walk right into our country whenever they feel like it.  The drug cartels and human traffickers love this.

Republicans/conservatives believe our borders should be secure, limiting who can and who can’t come in at any given time, while affording us an orderly and managed legal immigration process.

Democrats/liberals believe in tearing down monuments to our history as a country.

Republicans/conservatives believe in honoring and learning from our history, not trying to erase it.

Democrats/liberals support “sanctuary” cities and states, where illegal immigrants can live without fear of being taken into Federal custody and charged with crimes or be deported.

Republicans/conservatives believe illegal immigrants are “illegal” and are here illegally, and should be treated as such. Republicans/conservatives also believe that the concerns of legal citizens should come before those of illegal immigrants.  

Democrats/liberals support raising taxes across the board.  They claim working class people won’t be affected, but we all know higher tax rates for companies and corporations are just passed down to us.

Republicans/conservatives support the continued reduction of taxes across the board.

Democrats/liberals immediately take money from the military at their earliest opportunity, weakening our nation’s defense.

Republicans/conservatives believe a strong military is an absolute necessity in today’s global environment.  The defense of our country is also the federal government’s primary responsibility per The Constitution.

…   

Democrats/liberals love implementing a seemingly never-ending list of federal regulations designed to suffocate construction, business operations, and whatever else they can think of to stifle our civil liberties.

Republicans/conservatives believe some regulations are necessary, but that less regulation is preferable in order promote businesses and maintain a strong economy.  

… 

Democrats/liberals feel it is a good idea to allow anyone living in our country to vote, regardless of whether they are here legally or not, and regardless of whether the voter has any proper ID to prove who they are.  

Republicans/conservatives believe only legal citizens should be allowed to vote, and that an ID should be required.

Democrats/liberals believe that government should be the “end all be all” for anyone living in America.

Republicans/conservatives believe that government is a “necessary evil,” and that most things are done more efficiently and cheaper by the private sector.

Democrats/liberals believe in a person’s dependence on government, and that having some form of a socialist government is more desirable that our capitalist system, even though no socialist government in the past can be pointed to as a successful government.  

Republicans/conservatives believe in our capitalist way of doing things, providing for ourselves as a rule, and system which allows individuals to rise to any level of success, dependent on the individuals’ desire to attain it.

 … 

Democrats/liberals believe in free speech as long as your speech agrees with their beliefs, if not, they have no problem with censoring or silencing you.  

Republicans/conservatives believe in the 1st Amendment, and that everyone has a right to their own opinions and that they have a right to voice those opinions. 

Democrats/liberals believe rioting, burning, and looting are acceptable forms of “peaceful protesting.”  They believe in deferring to the desires of “the mob” as opposed to following the law.

Republicans/conservatives believe in law and order, and that no one has the right to harm other people or their property as part of their “protest.”

Democrats/liberals prefer to operate in a way that highlights a person’s racial identity, gender identity, or sexual preference above all else…, except their political leaning.  

Republicans/conservatives prefer to identify people by the quality of their character and by their actions and beliefs, without concern for race, color, or creed.

Democrats/liberals believe the United States’ industry, people and economy need to be punished and restricted due to “climate change,” while the rest of the world is allowed to keep right on polluting and taking advantage of us.

Republicans/conservatives believe if “climate change” is real, it wasn’t caused by us and we have no real way of affecting “climate change” one way or the other.

Democrats/liberals believe fossil fuels are evil and need to be done away with.  

Republicans/conservatives believe fossil fuels are still the energy souce of choice right now, at least until other options become viable. Republicans/consrvatives like the US having energy independence, not having to rely on the Middle East for anything, contolling our own energy pricing.

Democrats/liberals believe it’s okay for the “media” to operate as an arm of the democrat party, reporting only things that support their narrative, while attacking republicans/conservatives, and especially President Trump on a daily basis.  

Republicans/conservatives believe the “media” should report from an unbiased point of view, acting as a watchdog against all government improprieties, regardless of which party it is. 

And what about the economy?

Democrats/liberals point to the economy after China, and the democrats I believe, dropped the coronavirus bomb on us.  

Republicans/conservatives point the hottest economy in history, prior to the China virus, and believe President Trump can get our econmy humming again. Without the release of “The virus,” the democrats would not have stood a chance in this election.  

So, like I said in the beginning, “The choice is really quite simple.”  

The differences between democrats/liberals and republicans/conservatives have never been more obvious. 

The question is which side are you on?

If you’re having a hard time deciding who to vote for, you are obviously one confused individual!

There should be no undecided voters at this point. 

If you really are undecided, then maybe you shouldn’t even bother voting.

Just sayin’.       

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please let 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.

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.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑