“Climate Friendly” EVs are a HUGE Fraud!

We hear repeatedly how Electric Vehicles (EVs) are the answer to their (democrats and confused environmentally concerned others) Climate Change and evil fossil fuel prayers.

“If we could all switch over to EVs, all of our Climate change concerns, and the whining about the cost of gas, would disappear!” This is what we hear repeatedly from the dolts in the Biden administration.

Well, here is a reality check for battery-powered vehicle owners, their proponents, and climate propagandists:

This massive and ungodly machine is required to move 500 tons of earth/ore, in search of lithium, which will be refined into ONE lithium car battery.

That’s ONE lithium car battery.

ONE.

It burns 900-1,000 gallons of fuel in a 12 hour shift.

Lithium is refined from Ore using sulfuric acid. Which is handled in an environmentally responsible way I’m sure.

But the mining of lithium is only the beginning.  

A battery in the average electric car is made from:

25 pounds of lithium,

60 pounds of nickel,

44 pounds of manganese,

30 pounds of cobalt,

200 pounds of copper, and

400 pounds of aluminum, steel, plastic etc.

That averages to 750-1,000 pounds of minerals, mined and processed (in many cases by child/slave labor) into a battery that merely stores electricity…, electricity generated by oil, gas, coal, and nuclear, with a small fraction drawn from water, wind and/or solar (typically less than 10%).

Are you beginning to see reality behind the EV hoax?

I would hope so.

In addition…, The Earth is already piling up spent batteries…, which are being disposed of in the most environmentally responsible ways I’m sure.

In TRUTH, there’s nothing “green” about the “Green New Deal” …, just a whole lot of power grabbing, “green” pockets being lined, and our environment being destroyed by greed and environmental disingenuousness.

But let’s hear from some other sources regarding these electric vehicles, which are going to save us all from climate change, and our dependence on evil fossil fuels.

“The environmental downside of Electric Vehicles,” according to Michael Heberling for “The Maine Wire.” The Maine Wire is a project of the Maine Policy Institute, Maine’s preeminent free-market policy think tank.

“According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), an electric vehicle requires SIX TIMES the mineral inputs of a comparable internal combustion engine vehicle (ICE). EV batteries are very heavy and are made with some exotic, expensive, toxic, and flammable materials.”

“The primary metals in EV batteries include Nickel, Lithium, Cobalt, Copper and Rare Earth metals (Neodymium and Dysprosium). The mining of these materials, their use in manufacturing and their ultimate disposal all present significant environmental challenges.

That’s “significant environmental challenges,” regarding EV batteries.  

Ninety percent (90%) of the ICE lead-acid batteries are recycled, while only five percent (5%) of the EV lithium-ion batteries are.”

“Oil has been so demonized that we tend to overlook some of its positive traits as a power source relative to the battery power of EVs.”

“Positive traits” of oil?! You better shut your dirty fossil fuel mouth!

“The power for an internal combustion engine, oil, is a homogeneous commodity found abundantly around the world (especially in our own backyard).”

“In spite of the environmental hysteria about oil drilling, the surface area disturbed is relatively small [in comparison to] many of the materials prominent in the clean energy revolution, which are obtained through open-pit horizontal mining, which is extremely damaging to wide areas of the environment.”

You don’t say?

Let’s look a little closer at some of these materials which are prominent in the “clean energy revolution.”

“Nickel, a major component of the EV batteries, is found just below the topsoil in the Rainforests of Indonesia and the Philippines. As a result, the nickel is extracted using horizontal surface mining that results in extensive environmental degradation: deforestation and removal of the top layer of soil. It should be noted that Rainforests play a major role in “fighting climate change” by removing Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. The environmental battle cry “Save the Rainforests!” needs to be replaced with a new slogan reminiscent of this one from the Vietnam War: “It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.” Here is the new environmental bumper sticker for all Clean Energy EVs: “It was necessary to destroy the rainforest in order to save the planet”.

“Lithium. Over half of the world’s Lithium reserves are found in three South American countries that border the Andes Mountains: Chile, Argentina and Bolivia. These countries are collectively known as the ‘Lithium Triangle.’”

“According to the Institute for Energy Research, Lithium is found in salt flats in very arid areas which complicates the mining process. A multi-mineral mixture containing Lithium is removed from beneath the salt flats. The Lithium extraction from the mixture is a lengthy, 12 to 18 months, evaporation process that is water intensive. Each ton of lithium produced requires 500,000 gallons of water. Besides the discarded mineral salt mixture, the process can result in water and soil contamination plus a depleted water table.”

“It should be noted that the United States is 4th in total Lithium reserves behind the Lithium Triangle countries. However, NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) environmental protests to “Save the Planet” have stymied efforts to develop the US Lithium market. It seems that our provincial “Earth-Firsters” want to maintain a pristine US, but have no problem turning a blind eye to the environmental exploitation of third world countries.”

At least they’re consistent!

Regarding cobalt, The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) produces 70% of the world’s Cobalt. While there is no shortage of environmental issues with its Cobalt mining, the overriding problem here is human rights: dangerous working conditions and the use of child labor.”

Hmm…, that never seemed to be an issue as far as China and other Asian countries were concerned. I’m guessing the EV hucksters are looking the other way with this as well.   

“Cobalt is a toxic metal. Prolonged exposure and inhalation of Cobalt dust can lead to health issues of the eyes, skin, and lungs. Because Cobalt can be easily extracted from the ground by hand, small scale, bare-bones “artisanal” mines are common.”

“Artisanal mining” refers to informal mining activities carried out using low technology, with minimal machinery.” Basically, slave mining.

“The simplicity of the operation discourages/negates the need for ‘occupational safety measures’ and encourages the use of child labor.”

“Occupational safety measures” is a term that is completely foreign to these slave drivers, I assure you.

“According to the Wilson Center, ‘small-scale mining in the DRC involves people of all ages, including children, obligated to work under harsh conditions. Of the 255,000 Congolese mining for cobalt, 40,000 are children, some as young as six years.’”

Well, isn’t that lovely.

“Amnesty International has also made similar comments. ‘Thousands of children mine cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Despite the potentially fatal health effects of prolonged exposure to cobalt, adult and child miners work without even the most basic protective equipment.’”

Oh…, that’s odd!

These slave drivers should be reported to John Kerry and Greta Thunberg immediately!

“Chile is the leading producer of the world’s Copper. The vast majority of Chile’s Copper comes from open-pit/strip mines. This type of mining negatively affects vegetation, topsoil, wildlife habitats, and groundwater. The next three largest producers of copper are Peru, China, and the infamous Democratic Republic of the Congo. Number five happens to be the United States.

Well, there you have it.

The EV fairytale appears to be just the latest democrat hoax to be perpetrated on America, and the rest of the world as well.

And why does this gigantic hoax continue to go unchallenged and unreported?

Like I said, it’s just the latest in a long line of democrat and climate crazy activist propaganda, which includes propaganda by omission.

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.  I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Transition this, Illegitimate Joe!

We hear again and again from Sleepy Joe and all of the village idiots in his administration that we need to “transition” away from using fossil fuels. But, what are we supposed to transition to cognitively challenged Joe?

Wind, solar, and nuclear energy only produces about 20% of the energy we need. Which means fossil fuels account for 80% of the energy we currently use in this country.

There are currently 276 million vehicles on the road in the USA. Of those 276 million, only 2.5 million are all electric or hybrid electric vehicles.., that less than 1%! And remember, there are NO electric semi-trucks to transport everything in this country.

And where do electric vehicles get there energy from to charge their batteries? At least 80% of that energy comes from fossil fuels! So, EVs are not necessarily the answer either.   

Your Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg, testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on the transition to “domestic clean energy production” by the Biden administration, which launched an initiative to ensure 50% of all auto sales are electric vehicles by 2030.”

The topic soon turned to gas prices, which reached record levels in June. House Republicans questioned Buttigieg on how Americans struggling to pay $5 per gallon for gas could afford to purchase an electric vehicle.

Buttigieg then reiterated that the “pain” at the pump could be offset by using an electric vehicle, and that this “pain” was necessary to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels.

“The more pain we are all experiencing from the high price of gas, the more benefit there is for those who can access an electric vehicle,” Buttigieg said.

“So you’re saying the more pain we have, the more benefit we’re gonna get?” Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., asked. “I think that’s what I heard you say.”

Buttigieg emphasized, “Of course – no, no, that’s what you heard me say. I know you want me to say it so bad but honestly, sir, what we’re saying is we could have no pain at all by making EVs cheaper for everyone.”

No, Mayor Pete, I’m pretty sure Rep. Gimenez heard you correctly, as did I.

And either way, your misinformation campaign is quite alarming.

Then, recently, Biden’s ever competent, White House National Head Climate Advisor, Gina McCarthy, said on CNN, “Just because Congress couldn’t get it done (referring to climate change/Green New (Raw) Deal, he’s (“President” Biden) going to move forward with every power available to him (and then some, I imagine) to make the change in the shift to clean energy.”

That’s all well and good Ms. Climate Advisor, except for the fact that clean energy is not readily available in the usable amounts we need, and probably won’t be for decades. In the meantime, people and our economy still need to function in the real world…, not your imaginary dream world.

Hopefully, most of this foolishness will come to a screeching halt after the 2022 mid-term elections, and then return to some form of normalcy and common sense in 2025…, if we can last that long!

Hopefully.

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.  I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

What would John Kerry do?

Regarding the promoted global climate “crisis,” what would John Kerry and the rest of his “climate change” friends actually do about “climate change” if they could do anything they wanted? If I had the capacity to hand over a blank check to the “climate change” propagandists, what would they do with it, and how would their actions solve this “climate change” crisis?

I have to give credit to Mrs. MrEricksonRules for coming up with this question.

And it’s a good one.

So, again, what would the “climate change” propagandists do with a blank check, and how would their actions solve this “climate change” crisis?

The answer is, they would use the money to create an all-powerful, over-reaching, bureaucracy, dedicated to electing more “climate change” propagandists, dedicated to destroying capitalistic systems, destroying western civilization, destroying the practice of individual freedom, and most importantly, destroying America.   

NOTHING they would do would actually effect the climate in any meaningful way, because THERE ISN’T ANYTHING PEOPLE CAN DO TO EFFECT THE PLANET’S CLIMATE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

Believe it.

For all of you “climate change” propagandists out there, set aside your indignation at my remarks for a moment and create a short list of what you would do with my unlimited amount of accessible money in order to solve your “climate change” crisis.

Go ahead…, we’ll wait…, and feel free to send me your comments, so everyone else can see your actions which would solve the Earth’s “climate change” issues.

Oh, and please remember that anything you propose we do will not be accepted by China, who is the world’s most heinous polluter by a gigantic margin. One hundred times worse than the evil United States of America.

Just sayin’.

Like I mentioned before, I think you’ll see that anything on the action lists of these “climate change” propagandists, only attacks the American economy and American freedoms, not anything directly pertaining to the planet’s climate.

Again, the answer to “What would John Kerry do to solve ‘climate change,’” is, he would create an all-powerful, over-reaching, bureaucracy, dedicated to electing more “climate change” propagandists, dedicated to destroying capitalistic systems, destroying western civilization, destroying the practice of individual freedom, and most importantly, destroying America. 

So, please, John…, spare us all your warnings of impending climate doom. You’re not fooling anyone…, well, at least you’re not fooling most of us.   

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you,

MrEricksonRules.

It’s a virtual “flashflood” of democrat lies!

The lies and disingenuousness of the democrats keeps coming fast and furiously from every direction.

Honestly…, it’s getting hard to keep up.

Let’s take a look at what law-abiding Americans are having to deal with these days.

We have the FBI, the DOJ, and the mainstream media continuously looking the other way where Hunter Biden is concerned. Specifically regarding foreign money funneled to his family, information on his laptop, Hunter’s felony violations of gun laws, and his art money laundering scam.

We have the FBI, the DOJ, and the mainstream media refusing to acknowledge voting laws were ignored and broken during the 2020 election, and that very troubling voting irregularities are coming to light with these various vote audits.

We have the FBI, the DOJ, and the mainstream media continuously looking the other way where any fellow demonazi is concerned.

We have the Biden administration ignoring laws and making up their own laws regarding immigration at our southern border.

We have the whole “defund the police” movement, cash free bail (which lets criminals back out on the streets as soon as they’re arrested), and radical leftist district attorneys who refuse to prosecute any criminal behavior, which has resulted in making America a much more dangerous place to live.   

We have democrats accusing the republicans of trying to suppress the vote, while the exact opposite is true, while at the same the same time trying to tie republicans to “Jim Crow laws” (laws which legalized segregation by race), which were originally enacted by democrats, by the way!  Biden’s own home state of Delaware is much more restrictive, voting-wise, than either Texas or Georgia, which are the current targets of the democrats voting disingenuousness.

We have the CDC continuing to perpetrate flawed recommendations, while ignoring the science, and causing unimaginable mental and physical harm to the children of our country…, all while this is ignored by the mainstream media, of course.

We have educational institutions across the board, along with teacher’s unions, promoting that Critical Race Theory (CRT) become a part of their indoctrination process, which basically prejudges and assigns blame or victimhood based solely on the color of the students’ skin. The true definition of racism.

We have the whole Cuba situation now, and the Cuban people’s call for freedom and the end of their oppressive communist government, and the demonazis’ reaction to them. “What do you mean you don’t like communism?! You must be mistaken!”   

We have the federal government, specifically the Biden administration, working hand-in-hand with a private corporation (Facebook) to flag, suppress, and censor posts they deem as “misinformation.” From the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” I suppose the demonazis feel they can get around The Constitution by not actually passing laws that support their actions by just doing what they want, while the fake news media looks the other way.  

And, we have the democrats blaming anything and everything that happens in the world on climate change, except China, of course.

It sure hasn’t taken the demonazis long to try and impose their will on the American people.

It’s only been eight months or so since Illegitimate Joe was “elected.” I’m just hoping our country can make it until the next election, and that that election is conducted relatively fairly.    

 

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.  I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

“2020 was 2nd hottest year ever!” Really?

According to Charlie McCarthy, for Newsmax, “NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] scientists say 2020 was the 2nd hottest year ever.”

“A year forever defined by COVID-19 and a controversial U.S. presidential election has added another item to its resume — second-hottest year on record.”

Hold on.

Now, wait a second, please.

First, they said it was the “2nd hottest year EVER,” and then they said it was the “second hottest year ON RECORD.”

So, which is it NOAA “scientists?” 

“According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists, 2020 nearly surpassed 2016 as the hottest year ever recorded.”

Oh, okay, so, it’s the second hottest year ever recorded, NOT the second hottest year ever.

There’s quite a big difference between “ever” and “ever recorded.”

I would think “scientists” would recognize that.  

“NOAA has kept temperature records since 1880.”

“Since 1880?!”

I don’t believe they even have comparable records that go back that far, but nonetheless, since only 1880?

That’s only the last 140 years.

There’s been 2,000 years since Jesus’ time.

2,100 years since Cleopatra.

2,700 years since the founding of Rome.

4,300 years since Stonehenge was built.

4,500 years since the Great Pyramids were built.

6,000 years since the beginning of the Egyptian civilization.

9,000 years of Biblical history.

13,000 years since humans appeared on Earth, per discovered DNA.

4,543,000,000 (that’s 4.543 billion) years ago since the Earth was created, according to the National Geographic Society.  

So, what’s my point?

My point is, a sample size of 140 years is nothing to base any scientific determinations on, when that only accounts for about 1% of the time humans have been on the Earth, and only 0.000003% of the time that the Earth has supposedly existed.

Just sayin’.

I admit that I’m no “scientist,” so, why do I have to keep pointing stuff like this out?

Aren’t “scientists” supposed to strive for the truth and facts?

Just sayin’…, again.

I’m not suggesting that this data isn’t worth noting…, I’m just saying These “scientists” should put it in the proper context.

“Earth’s seven warmest [recorded] years all have occurred since 2014, according to NOAA.”

If Earth’s seven warmest years EVER have occurred since 2014, I would truly be concerned, but since we don’t really know if that is the case, it’s just worth taking note of, in my opinion.

If these “scientists” really think our world is coming to an end, I suggest they present these figures to China, who is, BY FAR, the biggest violator in the world of reasonable, environmentally responsible, practices.

Even if the concerns of these “scientists” are valid, and we are in a “climate crisis,” like some like to promote, we should realize that there is nothing we can realistically do about it.

The Earth is going do what the Earth is going to do, and we are just all along for the ride. 

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

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.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑