Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi (BOP) have all repeated the climate change hoax of “the sea is rising” in their actions and words.

Being the corrupt and hypocritical politicians that they are, BOP have all purchases real estate on or near beaches.

JOE AND JILL BIDEN

Biden bought a $2.4 million North Shores neighborhood beach home at the Gordons Pond section of Cape Henlopen State Park, Delaware in 2017.

BARACK AND MICHELLE OBAMA

When the Obama’s bought a home in Martha’s Vineyard, the late Rush Limbaugh observed, “the Obamas have just sunk $15 million into something that may not be there in 10 years because of climate change and rising sea levels. So why would the Obamas do that?”

“Why would the brilliant Barack Hussein O plunk down $15 million on a property that’s gonna be ruined and destroyed inside of 10, maybe 12 years at the outside because of climate change?”

“Well, let’s see,” Limbaugh continued. “What could the answer be? Maybe because they know that this whole climate change thing is nothing but a gigantic left-wing agenda-driven hoax! Seriously, folks! Seriously!”

NANCY AND PAUL PELOSI

Nancy Pelosi and venture capitalist husband Paul Pelosi are worth about $144 million and are heavily invested in real estate–some along coastal property.

Although the rumor that they were moving to Florida was untrue. What is accurate is no member of Congress has received more criticism in the past decade than Nancy Pelosi.

Since 2008, Paul Pelosi’s financial moves have been suspiciously timed, raising concern how his political ties have gained him insider information benefit on bills and laws. Unbelievably, many of his real estate deals involve government properties.

CONVENIENTLY IGNORE TRUTH

In March 2019 near the South Pole, a Russian ship carrying scientists and tourists traveled to the bottom of the Earth so pro-climate change alarmists could gather more ammunition to document global warming and shrinking ice caps. With hundreds of thousands of dollars pumped into the expedition, the return on investment backfired.  The ship became stuck on ice that was thicker than at any time since records started being kept in 1978.

A year later, also in December, a Russian military vessel, Sparta-III became lodged in ice due to record breaking cold with temperatures of -58F and below reported.

Then, in November 2021, 18 Russian cargo ships were trapped, some for weeks, by another freeze.

It seems like these Big Climate scientists and propagandists would have learned a thing or two about previous attempts. Like the one in December 2013, when the Russian vessel M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy, with 74 people on board for a polar expedition, was stuck in ice near Antarctica for days.

Similar to what the world is currently experiencing with the false narratives of government and Big Pharma related to disease, viruses and vaccines, the Big Climate industry has pulling the same types of scams for decades.

Unfortunately for the BOPs, John Kerrys and Al Gores of the world, the real truth is that Arctic ice “recededing” wasn’t accurate. In fact, between 2012 and 2013, the ice actually grew by 29 percent into an unbroken patch more than half the size of Europe and within 5 percent of what it was 33 years ago, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Over time, millions of Americans have wised up to Big Pharma and Big Climate. They have especially learned and rightfully concluded that “climate change is a hoax.”

The economic consequences of Biden’s global warming policies can already be seen in electricity and fuel prices, which are currently the highest in U.S. history.  Remarkably, Biden’s global warming policies are increasing electricity prices even while new natural gas discoveries, revolutionary advances in natural gas production technologies, and a dramatic resultant decline in natural gas prices would otherwise spur a dramatic decline in electricity prices.

The Biden Administration habitually recite Big Climate global warming alarmists who argue that changes in the biosphere make it richer, lusher, and more conducive to life are changes to be feared and opposed.

If barren ecosystems and deserts constitute their ideal planet, then the alarmist fears of more plant life make sense. On the contrary, global warming realists understand a climate more conducive to richer, more abundant plant life is beneficial rather than harmful.

We learned and agree that severe storms, floods and agricultural losses do indeed cost a great deal of money, but such extreme weather events – and their resulting costs – are dramatically declining as the Earth modestly warms. 

Documented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, severe storms are becoming less frequent and severe as the Earth modestly warms.

This is especially evident regarding hurricane and tornado activity, which are both at historic lows. Similarly, scientific measurements and peer-reviewed studies report no increase in flooding events regarding natural-flowing rivers and streams. Any increase in flooding activity is due to human alterations of river and stream flow rather than precipitation changes.

The fact is NASA satellite instruments have documented a great greening of the Earth, with foliage gains most prevalent in previously arid, semi-desert regions.

Although forests and plant life are expanding globally, this is particularly true in the western United States. 

Regarding food and water supplies, global crop production has soared as the Earth gradually warms. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential to plant life, and adding more of it to the atmosphere enhances plant growth and crop production. Longer growing seasons and fewer frost events also benefit plant growth and crop production.

Big Pharma and their puppet politicians and universities make a big deal about icebergs breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet. They deliberately ignore the overall growth of the Antarctic ice sheet.

Icebergs break off the Antarctic ice sheet every year, with or without global warming, particularly in the Antarctic summer. However, a particular iceberg – no matter how large – breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet does not necessarily result in “Shrinking Glaciers.” To the contrary, the Antarctic Ice Sheet has been growing at a steady and substantial pace ever since NASA satellites first began measuring the Antarctic ice sheet in 1979. 

Big Climate’s assertion that polar ice sheets are melting is simply false. Although they often point to a modest recent shrinkage in the Arctic ice sheet, that decline has been completely offset by ice sheet expansion in the Antarctic. Cumulatively, polar ice sheets have not declined at all since NASA satellite instruments began precisely measuring them 39 years ago.

Objective data show there has been a gradual increase in global precipitation and soil moisture as our planet warms. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, which in turn stimulates more frequent precipitation over continental land masses. The result of this enhanced precipitation is an improvement in soil moisture at almost all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank.

The Biden and leftist’s preferred electricity source – wind power – kills nearly 1 million bats every year (not to mention the more than 500,000 birds killed annually) in the United States alone. This huge death toll occurs even though wind power produces just 3% of U.S. electricity.

Lyme Disease is far more common in northern, cooler regions of the United States than in southern, warmer regions. Asserting, without any supporting data or evidence, that a disease that prospers in cool climates will become more prevalent as a result of global warming defies objective data and common sense.

While it might sound cynical, global warming has been used politically in order for governments to gain control over the private sector…As a former government employee, I can attest to the continuing angst civil servants have over remaining relevant to the taxpayers who pay their salaries, so there is a continuing desire to increase the role of government in our daily lives.

In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given a legitimate mandate to clean up our air and water. I remember the pollution crises we were experiencing in the 1960s. But as those problems were solved, the EPA found itself in the precarious position of possibly outliving its usefulness.

So, the EPA embarked on a mission of ever-increasing levels of regulation. Any manmade substance that had any evidence of being harmful in large concentrations was a target for regulation.

I was at a Carolina Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA) meeting years ago where an EPA employee stated to the group that “we must never stop making the environment cleaner” (or something to that effect).

There were gasps from the audience.

You see, there is a legitimate role of the EPA to regulate clearly dangerous or harmful levels of manmade pollutants.

But it is not physically possible to make our environment 100% clean.

As we try to make the environment ever cleaner, the cost goes up dramatically.

As any economist will tell you, money you spend on one thing is not available for other things, like health care. So, the risk of over-regulating pollution is that you end up killing more people than you save, because if there is one thing we know kills millions of people every year, it is poverty.

Global warming has become a reason for government to institute policies, whether they be a carbon tax or whatever, using a regulatory mechanism which the public would never agree to if they knew (1) how much it will cost them in reduced prosperity, and (2) how little effect it will have on the climate system.

So, the policy prescription does indeed become a hoax, because the public is being misled into believing that their actions are going to somehow make the climate “better”.

Even using the IPCC’s (and thus the EPA’s) numbers, there is nothing we can do energy policy-wise that will have any measurable effect on global temperatures.

In this regard, politicians using global warming as a policy tool to solve a perceived problem is indeed a hoax. The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.

Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.

Dr. Roy Spencer, former NASA climatologist

We are thankful to our incredible sponsors!

Please Support These American Owned Businesses

___________________________

Get Your Natural Vitamins A & D from the Sea!

___________________________