The New Communism—The Ideologues

Welcome to the first installment of a new Crosshairs series on the 2020 United States presidential election. Unlike the 2016 election where there were 17 Republican candidates, this time the Democrats came out of the woodwork seemingly en masse all vying for the nomination—29 in all. But only one candidate has even the remotest chance to beat Donald Trump, and that candidate isn’t even a Democrat.

With the possible exception of Tulsi Gabbard, the rest of the field are unfortunately members of the lunatic fringe. But this installment doesn’t concern the congresswomen from Hawaii, it concerns the other person who also beat HRC in 2016 and that person is Bernie Sanders.

Okay, so you don’t like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, but what other choice do you have? Well, you might like the candidate with the unpronounceable last name who was the former mayor of one of the most dangerous cities to live in who looks and sounds too perfect, kind of like a 3D printed automaton.

In this field of Democrat candidates, 28 ≠ 1. Yes, some have dropped out of the race, but the inequality will still remain true even when 1 ≠ 1.

It’s hard to believe that five years have gone by since I wrote my first Crosshairs post in a series on the 2016 election. We are now less than a year away from the 2020 election and the only somewhat traditional Democrat running is the previous administration’s vice-president who hasn’t even been able to get his former boss’s endorsement.

Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders
mark reinstein/Shutterstock.com

In 2016, Bernie helped Hillary clinch the nomination when he made the stunning yet sympathetic statement, “Americans are sick of hearing about your damn emails!” during one of the debates. Bernie needs to take the old adage, “nice guys finish last” to heart if he wants to go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump.

But this installment isn’t necessarily exclusively about the socialist senator from Vermont, it’s about his ideological underpinnings which I believe are firmly communistic. After all, was it not Vladimir Lenin who said, “The goal of socialism is communism?” But do Bernie Sanders’ supporters really understand the consequences of adopting a socialistic political/economic system in the United States?

Bernie Sanders and most every Democrat, claim to be democratic socialists not socialists. Democratic socialists believe in bringing about change through “fair” elections and not through revolution. That’s why you hear talk about abolishing the Electoral College as a way to achieve “fair” elections along with policies of unrestricted immigration from Mexico and Central America. After all, isn’t it true that under socialism all people are equal? Democracy in a socialist state necessarily leads to the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Okay, just so you know, the Orlando Sentinel is nothing more than a left-wing propaganda rag for the Democratic Party or simply, The Party. Don’t believe it, then check out this biased, hate filled, factually inaccurate, criminally stupid article written by Barbara Fowler asserting that the Russian’s are using President Trump to “destroy America from within.” Yea, but wasn’t Bernie Sanders the one who honeymooned in the former Soviet Union during the 1980s?

The coordination of the media is pervasive, not only nationally but locally as well.

Propaganda won the day for the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution in 1917, and it will win the day again for the Democrats in 2024. As Lenin agitated for revolution among the masses, so it is with certain Hollywood types, academia, and the lamestream (mainstream) media today. Then, the masses were the workers, but today the masses are the sanctioned perpetual victims of systemic racism, white-supremacism, patriarchalism, and Christianism.

Communism…socialism…what’s the difference? I think those socioeconomic systems can be summed up in the following doctrine:

The State gave and the State took away, blessed be the name of the State.

A socialist’s worst nightmare is when a country and its people are prosperous. How can you agitate for revolution when things are going well? The way you agitate for revolution is to create a boogeyman, something to make the gullible and uninformed public seek salvation in the government. And that boogeyman in 2020 is [man-made] climate change. Back in 2007, a politician turned environmental scientist, won the Nobel Peace Prize for promoting the man-made climate change hoax along with the IPCC. Today, we have another potential Nobel Laureate in Greta Thunberg, a teenage Swedish climate activist.

At this point you may be asking yourself, “what does all this climate change stuff have to do with communism?” Well, the answer is it has everything to do with communism, all you need to do to convince yourself is to read H. Res. 109, 2019 which was originally sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Edward Markey. The Green New Deal proposes to achieve “net-zero global emissions by 2050” through a radical transformation of the United States economy. Note that the language states “global emissions” a point that will be revisited in a future post.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
JStone/Shutterstock.com

AOC’s message to the congress and to the voters as laid out in the H. Res. 109 is “It has become necessary to destroy the economy in order to save it.”

Until recently, the American character has been one of self-reliance and individualism but is rapidly becoming one of collectivism and conformity.

If you’re like me and like to watch news and opinion debates particularly on Fox News then you probably noticed how some program guests like to talk-over other guests holding opposing views. Without fail, the guests who like to play this game are always the ones representing radical left-wing positions.

For example, every time Candace Owens, a conservative activist, appears on Laura Ingraham’s show opposite Leo Terrell, a civil rights attorney, Terrell does his best to talk-over Candice so as to prevent the audience from hearing any of her arguments. I noticed the same behavior exhibited by Tim Kaine during the 2016 Pence/Kaine Vice-Presidential debate. Intolerance is a trademark of the socialist Left.

So, what does Bernie Sanders, and most every other Democrat in the presidential race, really believe? I’ve taken just a few examples of where Bernie stands on select issues directly from his campaign’s website.

Live up to our ideals as a nation and welcome refugees and those seeking asylum, including those displaced by climate change.

Create a Medicare for All, single-payer, national health insurance program to provide everyone in America with comprehensive health care coverage, free at the point of service.

Transform our energy system to 100 percent renewable energy and create 20 million jobs needed to solve the climate crisis.

Ensure justice for frontline communities, especially under-resourced groups, communities of color, Native Americans, people with disabilities, children and the elderly.

Double union membership within Bernie’s first term.

Will raise an estimated $4.35 trillion over the next decade and cut the wealth of billionaires in half over 15 years, which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.

Create a nation in which all people are treated equally.

Honor Native American tribal treaty rights and sovereignty, moving away from a relationship of paternalism and control toward one of deference and support.

Enact a federal jobs guarantee, to ensure that everyone is guaranteed a stable job that pays a living wage.

As can be seen from just the above list, Bernie makes liberal use of the climate change boogeyman to justify unrestricted immigration. Notice he doesn’t explicitly say “unrestricted” immigration but how else would you describe a system that proposes “breaking up ICE and CBP” federal law enforcement agencies?

Bernie hits a double when he calls out Native Americans (a class of sanctioned perpetual victims) and “paternalism” in the same sentence.
Progressives like to accuse conservatives of inserting “dog whistles” in their communications but the socialists also have their own trigger words which Bernie uses frequently such as “union,” “class,” “justice,” and “equality” or “equally.”

Too bad the Constitution prohibits anyone under the age of 35 from becoming president otherwise AOC would be leading the Democratic ticket. Likewise, the Electoral College prevents elections from being decided by the vote of only two or three states. The Constitution…a major stumbling block for the progressives.

In this initial entry in my series on the 2020 election, I’ve chosen to present “truth over facts” because it is much better to be “morally right” than to be “precisely, factually, and semantically correct.” Agreed? Besides, anyone who can make statements like that with a straight face deserves to be President.

 

©2013-2024 Gerard Sczepura. All rights reserved.

Man-made Global Warming: A Convenient Lie?

As I begin writing this blog post, it’s 94°F and partly cloudy here in Yalaha, Florida on the 4th of July, which only goes to prove the validity of man-made global warming. Maybe if I hadn’t driven my Dodge Durango as much or even better, if no one was allowed to drive a Dodge Durango the planet would be cooler and the glaciers wouldn’t be melting.

If you’re one of those unfortunates who’ve been propagandized your whole life beginning in school and then later in life by the mainstream media, then you probably already worship at the altar of climatism and your patron saint is Al Gore. If so, then give me a loud “Amen!” You might have even been a disciple sitting at Gore’s feet during one of his “Come to Climatism” revival meetings held somewhere in the world. Yes, climatism is the new religion of the political Left.

I referred to Al Gore and his film: An Inconvenient Truth in my previous post on Climatism but now I’m going to provide my impressions of the film after having watched the DVD just a few days ago. The film is a 96 minute [pseudo] documentary that [Green] fueled the current climate alarmism craze. As I’ve already mentioned, the film’s star is none other than Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States and former presidential candidate who lost the 2000 general election to George W. Bush.

Let’s start with the DVD packaging.

DVD Front Cover
Figure 1. An Inconvenient Truth, DVD Front Cover Image.

The really clever cover image in Figure 1 says it all. You don’t even have to watch the DVD to see the clear implication that natural weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina (not so subtly derived from an image shown on the DVD back cover), are being directly caused by industrial activity, that is, human activity. Notice the stark image of the factory, or worse yet a coal fired power plant, in the foreground spewing pollution into the air—reminds me of the 1910 London scenes from the movie Mary Poppins. Because of humans indiscriminately pumping tons of pollution (i.e., CO2, but we’ll get to that later) into the atmosphere, Mother Nature had no choice but to take her revenge out on the immoral, unsuspecting citizens of New Orleans by punishing them with a devastating storm. Ironically, Katrina caused more harm to poor folks and black folks than to high-income, white folks according to a 2005 Gallup poll,1 Seems that Mother Nature has a warped sense of justice. Why is that?

The title of the film, An Inconvenient Truth, leaves no doubt that the theory of man-made climate change is not just a theory but a fact, an immutable fact no less. And, it’s also a call for immediate action, as indicated by the emphasis placed on the word “Inconvenient” in the title printed in red font indicating alarm or urgency as enforced by the subtitle: A Global Warning.

To add a touch of credibility and to discount any notion of political influences, the cover contains a very emphatic quote by Roger Friedman—from Foxnews.com of all places. By the way, when has any Democrat or liberal ever considered Fox News as a legitimate news source? Also, in case you haven’t checked, Roger Friedman is not a scientist or weather authority, but a film critic and entertainment news journalist who created the FOX411 news column on Foxnews.com.

Now, on to the film…

An Inconvenient Truth. DVD. Directed by Davis Guggenheim. Hollywood, CA: Paramount Home Entertainment, 2006.

Early in the film, Gore presents a cartoon of a child stepping out of a store front eating and ice cream cone which then immediately melts into a pool of liquid on the ground in front of him. The child is confused, but then along comes an enlightened adult who explains to him why his ice cream melted, it was global warming! Yea, that explanation really convinced me…not. Don’t most people go out for an ice cream in the summer when it’s hot? Didn’t you ever have to hurry up and lick the ice cream to prevent it from dripping down the cone in the hot weather? Global warming, really?

My overall impression after watching the entire DVD was that the film seemed to place almost as much emphasis on Al Gore’s life and his failed attempt to be President of the United States than with the global warming issue. The film even went so far as to include video segments from the 2000 contested election including the scenes of the Florida recount and the infamous dangling chads.

In addition, let me say that the film left me a little bit confused. I expected it to contain a certain degree of dramatization and there was, but what I wasn’t necessarily expecting to see was the obvious bias and propagandizing throughout. I understand that I’m making a strong accusation but unlike many of the “true believers” shown in the film who accept the false notion of man-made global warming unconditionally, I did a little bit of homework before watching the film. So, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that if the theory of man-made global warming is really a solid scientific fact shouldn’t it be able to stand up to strict scientific scrutiny? Of course, in the film, everyone in Gore’s audience is right on board, as the saying goes, he [Gore] “was preaching to the choir.”

Because I had already done some research into the topic before viewing the DVD, I approached the film from a different perspective. Therefore, it was difficult for me to take seriously Gore’s thesis that climate change or global warming is being caused by human CO2 emissions, since I would have expected to see a serious debate between Gore and one of the so-called “deniers” like S. Fred Singer or Roy W. Spencer. But since this film is about propaganda and not science, there would have been no point in presenting opposing positions. On the other hand, when Gore did allude to some of his opponents it was in a mocking, condescending manner. Gore is no stranger to Alinsky’s teaching that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”2

Since Gore passionately presents only one side of the debate, it’s as if to say that if you don’t believe in man-made global warming then you’re like one of those “Flat Earthers” who are either unaware, unenlightened or just plain stupid. Or, to put a twist on an old saying: “Stupid is as stupid believes.”

So, are we to accept the proposition that this film is not political as Roger Friedman seems to imply in his quote from the DVD front cover? Well, maybe not if you consider the following quotes from the film:

I’m Al Gore, I used to be the next President of the United States of America.

I had a grade school teacher who taught geography by pulling a map of the world down in front of the blackboard. I had a classmate in the sixth grade who raised his hand and he pointed to the outline of the east coast of South America and he pointed to the west coast of Africa and he asked, “Did they ever fit together?” And the teacher said, “Of course not that the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” That student went on to become a drug addict and a ne’er-do-well. The teacher went on to become science advisor to the current [Bush] administration.

Went to Kyoto in 1997 to help get a treaty that’s so controversial, in the US at least. In 2000, my opponent [Bush] pledged to regulate CO2 and then…That was not a pledge that was kept.

You may be inclined to say that just three references to the Bush Administration doesn’t necessarily indicate he is politicizing the issue, but how about the liberal sprinkling of scenes from the 2001 Bush Presidential Inauguration and the SCOTUS decision handing the election to Bush; soundbites from George H. W. Bush and Ronald Regan; an article on a computer screen with the headline: “Bush Aide Edited Climate Reports;” comparisons made between CO2 and tobacco to global warming and cancer; and insinuations that man-made climate change deniers are immoral because of their belief that climate change is natural. Gore effectively drives home his point by saying, “Ultimately this [global warming] is really not a political issue so much as a moral issue. If we allow that to happen, it is deeply unethical.” Who wants to be called unethical? Politics or propaganda? You decide.

During our trip to Europe in 2014, we saw many wind turbines in Belgium, Germany, and The Netherlands. I don’t recall ever seeing any of them actually turning, but when they do turn, they kill birds and bats. According to a study, originally published by The ECO Report, wind farms in the United States kill between 13 and 39 million birds and bats per year.3 For humans wind farms are just an eyesore, but to birds and bats they’re death traps.

In addition to killing birds and bats, building wind farms contributes to deforestation—I guess that’s one of the reasons why planting trees is listed as one of “the ten things to do” to help stop global warming printed on the inside of the DVD cover. Speaking of deforestation…according to projections, the U.S. will need another 30 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity per year to meet the power demands in 2050. If wind power were to account for 10 trillion of those kilowatt hours, it would require the conversion of 600,000 square kilometers of land from forest to farm.4 So much for conservation. In order to save the forest we had to destroy it.

A fair amount of the film highlights Gore’s travels all over the world in his quest to become enlightened and to enlighten others on the dangers of global warming. However, he’s shown tooling around or being driven around in CO2 emitting vehicles—none of them a Prius as far as I can tell. And what about all those airline flights?

Throughout the film, Gore refers to CO2 as a pollutant. Can someone please explain to me how CO2 can be both a pollutant and a beneficial greenhouse gas at the same time? Wouldn’t sane people consider these concepts to be mutually exclusive? It’s one thing to say that too much CO2 in the atmosphere could influence earth’s climate but to say that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, in the same category as say, carbon monoxide (CO), is just plain ridiculous in my opinion.

On the positive side, I have to commend Gore’s commitment to preserving the environment, however misguided his methods may be. I do believe we all need to be conscious of wasteful habits and we all should try to conserve natural resources. I recycle and have been recycling for many years even before it was the “green” thing to do. Although many won’t believe this, we never set the thermostats in our home lower than 87 degrees in the summer, and we live in Florida! Can Al Gore say that?

I’m under no misconception that this short analysis of Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth will necessarily convince you otherwise if you’re already a member of the alarmist crowd. However, I would encourage you to do your own research by reading some of the books written by highly qualified authors who present an opposing viewpoint. That’s what I did and that’s why I believe man-made global warming is “A Convenient Lie.”

©2013-2024 Gerard Sczepura. All rights reserved.


  1. “Katrina Hurt Blacks and Poor Victims Most,” David W. Moore, October 25, 2005, http://www.gallup.com/poll/19405/katrina-hurt-blacks-poor-victims-most.aspx

  2. Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (Vintage), (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, Kindle Edition), 128. 

  3. “HOW MUCH WILDLIFE CAN USA AFFORD TO KILL?” Mark Duchamp, Save the Eagles International, April 2014, http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html

  4. S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years, updated and expanded edition (Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008), 247. 

Climatism

On May 6, 2016 we woke up to 54°F temperatures here in parts of Lake County Florida. For those of you reading this who don’t live in Florida, I can tell you that 54°F is pretty chilly. Yes, climate change is real. Global warming? Maybe not so much.

The consensus at the United Nations’ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), has it that Big Oil and self-indulgent Americans, who drive their fossil fuel burning vehicles to work every day, are destroying the planet. How dare they do this!

The true believers in anthropogenic, i.e., man-made, global warming have somehow convinced themselves that a harmless greenhouse gas, namely CO2 or carbon dioxide, which we were all taught in elementary school to be necessary for life on earth, is now a pollutant! What changed?

So, was it really science that originated the idea of man-made global warming or was it something else? If I had to bet, I would put my money on politics—progressive politics to be exact.

Hey Bernie, it’s not climate change that we deniers believe is a hoax, it’s man-made climate change that we deniers believe is a hoax. Sorry, but I’m not “feelin’ the Bern.”

Hey, oh yeah, yeah
The sky is burnin’, I believe my soul’s on fire…

Oh yeah, oh yeah, yeah
Now the sky is burnin’, I believe my soul’s on fire…1

In 2007, the anti-American, socialist Sweden’s Nobel Prize was awarded to and shared between the IPCC and none other than Al Gore “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”2 Notice that the award spells out man-made climate change. The way I see it, the Nobel Prize wouldn’t have been awarded to the IPCC and Gore if their knowledge dissemination were for natural causes of climate change.

Socialist Europe, along with their surrogates in the United Nations, are using climate alarmism via the Kyoto Protocol and other agreements to force Americans into a position where they can’t compete economically with their laid back, sophisticated European counterparts.3 Amusingly, China, India, and over 100 other so-called developing countries were exempt from Kyoto.4

After all, isn’t there worldwide consensus that so-called developing countries’ carbon emissions are less harmful to the environment than developed countries’ carbon emissions? You could just replace “developed countries” with “United States” and you would then know who Kyoto is really targeting. This all sounds more and more like politics not science.

As a result of Gore starring in and promoting the fictitious documentary An Inconvenient Truth (or more appropriately entitled: The Sky is Falling) he pretty much single-handedly gave birth to a new movement called Climatism. The IPCC and Gore should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for their success in creating global climate alarmism because that’s exactly what they have done.

Narrator:   Chicken Little was in the woods one day when an acorn fell on her head.  It scared her so much she trembled all over.   She shook so hard, half her feathers fell out.

Chicken Little:   “Help! Help! The sky is falling! I have to go tell the king!”

Narrator:   So she ran in great fright to tell the king. Along the way she met Henny Penny.

Henny Penny:  “Where are you going, Chicken Little?”
Chicken Little:   “Oh, help!  The sky is falling!”
Henny Penny:   “How do you know?”
Chicken Little:   “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”
Henny Penny:  “This is terrible, just terrible!  We’d better hurry up…”

Narrator:   And they all ran in great fright across a field.  Before long they met Turkey Lurkey strutting back and forth…

Turkey Lurkey:    “Hello there, Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey.  Where are you all going in such a hurry?”
Chicken Little:   “Help!  Help!”
Henny Penny:   “We’re running for our lives!”
Ducky Lucky:   “The sky is falling!”
Goosey Loosey:   “And we’re running to tell the king!”
Turkey Lurkey:   “How do you know the sky is falling?”
Chicken Little:   “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”
Turkey Lurkey:   “Oh dear! I always suspected the sky would fall someday. I’d better run with you.”

Narrator:   So they ran with all their might, until they met Foxy Loxy.

Foxy Loxy:   “Well, well.  Where are you rushing on such a fine day?”
Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey (together)   “Help!  Help!” It’s not a fine day at all. The sky is falling, and we’re running to tell the king!”
Foxy Loxy:   “How do you know the sky is falling?”
Chicken Little:   “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”
Foxy Loxy:    “I see.  Well then, follow me, and I’ll show you the way to the king.”

Narrator:    So Foxy Loxy led Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woodsHe led them straight to his den, and they never saw the king to tell him that the sky is falling. [iconic emphasis mine]5

The climate alarmist in our children’s story was Chicken Little, however, today we have a real-life Chicken Little in Al Gore. In our story we see there were many snuckered followers of Chicken Little. Now, instead of Henny Penney, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey and Turkey Lurkey, we have Bill Nye, Paul R. Ehrlich, Michael E. Mann, and James Hansen—all on the alarmist bandwagon.

Before we leave this discussion, let’s not overlook the villain in our story, Foxy Loxy. Foxy Loxy (or Fox News) represents the global warming deniers of today who are getting in the way of the radical environmentalist agenda.

As I’ve pointed out so far, man-made climate change, i.e., climatism, is synonymous with climate alarmism. If you don’t think so then you haven’t been keeping up with current events.

Well maybe you haven’t heard what 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said recently:

I’m the only candidate, which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity, using clean renewable energy as the key, into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.6

Ms. Clinton of course tried to backpedal her comments after she realized they were not going to help her chances of winning Kentucky and West Virginia so she offered the coal miners careers in clean, renewable energy. Really, like windmills, solar panels, and stuff? No, Ms. Clinton meant exactly what she said because the climate alarmists will propose and do almost anything to promote their agenda, up to and including destroying people’s livelihoods.

I don’t know about you, but I was caught completely by surprise recently by President Obama’s remarks at the Coast Guard’s Class of 2015 graduation ceremony. So what were those remarks that took me, and probably you also, totally by surprise? Well, it was his remarks concerning the hypothetical threat of [man-made] climate change as a serious risk to the United States. Yes, you got it right…climate change. The President and many others obviously can’t see the real threats that are right in front of their faces: IS and [Islamic] terrorism; the Iranian nuclear capability; recent Chinese expansion in the South China Sea; or even political correctness! On top of that, he went on to say that not only is climate change a risk to our national security, but that it is an immediate risk. You probably caught this soundbite on one of the nightly news broadcasts:

So I’m here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security.  And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country.  And so we need to act — and we need to act now.7

Worse yet, the soundbite you probably didn’t hear was a remark the President made linking climate change with the unrest in Africa and the Middle East:

Understand, climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world.  Yet what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram.  It’s now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East.8

I don’t know how the President can say that drought in Africa and the Middle East encouraged the rise of Islamic extremism given the position of one highly authoritative source who blames George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with inventing the Islamic State.9 Blame Bush, blame the Republicans, blah, blah, blah…nothing new from the unimaginative Left. Seriously though, haven’t there been numerous periods of drought and famine throughout the world, even in the United States? What about the Dust Bowl that devastated the Southern Plains during the 1930s?

So, what the President tried to convince the graduating Coast Guard cadets to believe is that climate change brought about the economic conditions which fueled the rise of terrorist organizations in Africa and the Middle East. Really, Mr. President? Unlike everyone else in the world who understands Islam to be a religion, you, Mr. President, obviously do not. The folks making up the Boko Haram terrorist organization aren’t a bunch of disgruntled workers upset over the meager wages paid to them by their oppressive employers; no, quite the contrary, they’re actually religious extremists trying to overthrow western influences in order to establish an Islamic State.10 In fact, anyone willing to face reality would acknowledge that this not about climate change or economics, it’s about religion; and it has always been about religion.

Speaking of religion, where should Bible-believing Christians stand on this issue? Well, it depends on where you think the Earth’s thermostat resides, on Earth or in Heaven. If it’s on Earth, then man could be responsible for how it’s set, but if it’s in Heaven then God is in control of the Earth’s temperature. I would bet good money that it is in Heaven.

While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease. (Gen. 8:22 NASB)

So, if the Earth’s thermostat is truly in Heaven, then scientific evidence for natural causes of climate change or global warming should exist. But if we are to believe the IPCC, Al Gore, the media, and many deluded climatologists, there is no evidence for natural causes of climate change. As the alarmists like to say, “The science is settled.” and “There’s scientific consensus on climate change.” Are these statements true? Well, like I’ve said on other topics in the past, it depends on who you ask.

I began my research on this topic of climatism or climate change by picking up a few books written by authors who aren’t in collusion with the IPCC, Al Gore, and other climate alarmists. If you take the time to do a little of your own research, you will find the truth to be very interesting; in fact, not only interesting but frightening.

In my research, I’ve found two common words used to describe the man-made global warming scare: “scam” and “fraud.” On the other hand, I did not find words used such as: “unbiased” and “scientific.”

The following are some interesting quotes from the resources I’ve used to write this climate change post. I’ve grouped the quotes under my own headings for emphasis.

CO2 and Greenhouse Gases

As most of us learned in school, atmospheric carbon dioxide is just as necessary for life on Earth as oxygen. Without CO2 there would be no photosynthesis, and therefore no plants, and no animals, and no people either.11

Clouds also have a strong greenhouse effect, especially relatively thin high-altitude clouds. Water vapor and clouds account for about 90 percent of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, CO2 amounts to about 3.5 percent…12

The current warming trend is following the same pattern as the natural, solar-driven warmings in the previous 1,500-year cycles. The warming began too early and too suddenly for man-made CO2 to be a likely candidate as its driving force.13

…humans exhale about 2.8 lbs. each of CO2 every day, which adds up to over a half-ton per person per year, multiplied by a population approaching seven billion.14

While SUVs and power plants garner the most media and environmentalist attention, combustion emissions contribute about 2 percent of the greenhouse gases currently keeping our atmosphere habitable.15

Climatism and Politics

It was stunning how swiftly and uncritically the IPCC embraced the hockey stick.  Many years of published research supporting the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were suddenly swept aside to make room for a revisionist climate history where there is no natural variability anymore, and where humans are in almost total control of the Earth’s climate.16

Despite a horrendous bastardization of science, Mann’s Hockey Stick has been accepted by millions. The United Nations still carries the Stick to compel global policy, while Al Gore carries it to the bank…17

The Keepers of All Climate Knowledge have erected a nearly impenetrable barrier to any new science that does not support the current paradigm of anthropogenic global warming, as defined and guided by those controlling the IPCC process.18

Cherry-picking data is not just a favorite weapon in the arsenal of alarmist activists, but it is also a beloved pastime of bureaucrats.19

Science normally involves the testing of alternative hypotheses, not picking the first one that comes along and then religiously sticking to it. But that is exactly what the IPCC has done.20

As with abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, and some other agenda items of the far Left, the fight to micromanage you in the name of global warming may find its best friends in unelected judges and unaccountable international tribunals.21

The Kyoto Protocol would drive up prices for all families, rapidly increase government (or UN) control, dramatically limit our ability to use energy, but would still not even prevent one-tenth of one degree of warming over the next fifty years.22

Any future famines will be humanity’s fault—caused by war, corrupt governments, or irrational opposition to new technologies—not the fault of climate.23

The United Nations, for its part, saw the greenhouse theory as a way to expand its influence and power. The greenhouse theory demanded that energy be scarce, and the agency that rationed energy would be powerful indeed.24

The UN views national sovereignty as the primary impediment to a UN-led system of global government, although this view is not often publicly expressed.25

Climatism and Anti-Americanism

For competitive reasons, Europe wanted to see the United States and its job-creating economy saddled with the same high energy costs that European employers and drivers already paid.26

Europe was overjoyed when Al Gore and the Clinton administration signed the American economy up for Kyoto’s energy constraints—and terribly disappointed when George W. Bush erased that U.S. commitment.27

Consider that communism and anti-Americanism remain vibrant and complementary political forces in those same areas of the world where environmentalists hold their greatest sway: mainly Europe.28

Finally, after decades of stealthy determination, the quixotic conjectures of Marx have seeped into the framework of the United States, with the most effectual being the supposed environmental crisis know as global warming or climate change.29

An elite brigade of zealots has cleverly created a new political platform to carry out the collectivist goals of redistributing wealth and destroying personal liberty, utilizing something that Karl Marx himself never envisioned: the environment, or more specifically, the climate.30

The problem with every generation is that a long-term memory of the past requires a determined and studied effort—a fact upon which modern eco-Marxists depend for success.31

Environmental pressure groups have no use for limiting governmental powers or expanding individual liberties. Instead, environmental claims are without fail invoked to advance the statist agenda.32

Climatism and Terrorism

If you penalize energy use, you destroy wealth, and when wealth is destroyed, the poor are the first to suffer.33

Penalizing the use of our most inexpensive energy sources will destroy wealth and will lead to starvation for many of the world’s malnourished.34

Cap-and-trade and carbon taxes are monsters spawned from the misguided theory of man-made global warming. These policies are inflicting real and sizable damage on citizens and businesses across the world.35

It is important not to glaze over the green antipathy toward people. In the eyes of an environmentalist, people are pollution.36

Climate alarmists point out that every human activity uses energy, and energy use emits greenhouse gases, therefore population control is essential to stop global warming.37

The Greens probably assume that even if they’re wrong about renewable energy, they’ll at least be pushing us in the right direction—toward much lower standards of living.38

In contrasting old-school naturalists and conservationists to today’s environmentalist, the twenty-first-century green begins to look not only anti-American or anti-capitalist, but nearly anti-human.39

Climate Science

Lots of the alarmists are computer modelers, that is, they make expensive mathematical guesses though with minimal background in the relevant sciences.40

Even the public understands that there is natural climate variability. It is the presumed experts—the climate modelers—who have rejected the concept of natural climate change.41

Nor is consensus important to science. Galileo may have been the only man of his day who believed the Earth revolved around the sun, but he was right.42

The key thing for us all to remember is that the 1,500-year climate cycle is not an unproven theory like the model-based predictions used by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming.43

…if researchers are not careful about distinguishing cause and effect when observing cloud and temperature variations, they can be fooled into believing that the climate system is more sensitive than it really is.44

The energy balance of the Earth is therefore, in some sense, simpler than the energy balance of a pot of water on the stove.45

The Earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt, and global. It is also unstoppable.46

All sorts of now-forgotten disease epidemics, from typhoid and typhus to diphtheria and whooping cough, afflicted communities during the Little Ice Age as they had during the cold of the Dark Ages hundreds of years earlier.47

Man’s activity has made the weather more damaging, they say…Whereas the greens will say we do this by driving too much, common sense reminds us that people increasingly develop and occupy storm-prone areas.48

Conclusions, for now…

The science is settled! Climate change is natural and unavoidable.

The so-called theory of anthropogenic or man-made climate change is either a hoax, scam, con, or fraud. Either way, pick your favorite noun—whatever fits. I’d even go so far as to add “evil” to the list.

I’m embarrassed to admit that James Hansen, a former NASA researcher, was one of the original climate alarmists.  If NASA used the same science to get to the Moon back in 1969 as it is using in today’s climate research, we’d still be out there somewhere trying to find it—forget about Mars.

Have you ever used a software application that never worked quite right? Well, the entire world is being turned upside down based on climate projections from computer models written by the very same kind of folks.

The UN, by exempting China, India, and over 100 other so-called developing countries from the Kyoto Protocol, has attempted to impose upon the United States a policy of wealth re-distribution on a global scale. The United Nations (UN) should rename itself to Nations United against America (NUaA).

Kim Jong-un is the leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), better known as North Korea. Many would consider him to be the dictator of a totalitarian regime, but did you know there is another authoritarian Korean strongman at large by the name of Ban Ki-moon. Unlike Kim Jong-un, Ban Ki-moon’s totalitarian regime is the UN. I’ll let the reader decide which ruler poses the greater threat to America.

You know what they say, “Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.” This saying is aptly used to describe the alarmists’ solutions to solve man-made climate change, a.k.a., the problem that never really existed.

Climate change is an immediate risk to the United States. That is to say, the belief in man-made climate change is the immediate risk.

Next time I’ll be posting a critique of Al Gore’s so-called documentary on climate change: An Inconvenient Truth. This will be my first viewing of the film. Afterwards, I hope I don’t get seduced by the “dark side,” if you know what I mean.

Icons made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com is licensed by CC 3.0 BY

 

©2013-2024 Gerard Sczepura. All rights reserved.


  1. Bad Company.  Burning Sky. WB Music Corp., Badco Music Inc. http://www.songlyrics.com/bad-company/burning-sky-lyrics/#TI8Ovtl9bxwMBpCx.99

  2. “The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore,” Nobelprize.org, accessed May 07, 2016, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

  3. Christopher C. Horner, The Politically Incorrect GuideTM to Global Warming and Environmentalism, (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007), 299. 

  4. “Kyoto Protocol Fast Facts,” CNN Library, updated March 30, 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/26/world/kyoto-protocol-fast-facts/

  5. “The Story of Chicken Little,” Eva L. Easton, updated: January 20, 2015, http://eleaston.com/chicken.html

  6. “Clinton backtracks on putting ‘coal miners, coal companies out of business’,” Adam Beam And Jonathan Mattise The Associated Press, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 14, 2016, http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/home/3663165-155/story.htm. 

  7. “Remarks by the President at the United States Coast Guard Academy Commencement,” The White House Office of the Press Secretary, May 20, 2015, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/20/remarks-president-united-states-coast-guard-academy-commencement. 

  8. Ibid. 

  9. “Sean Penn: Bush, Cheney ‘created’ ISIS,” Mark Hensch, The Hill, March 19, 2015, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/236285-sean-penn-bush-cheney-created-isis. 

  10. “Who are Nigeria’s Boko Haram Islamists?” Farouk Chothia, BBC Africa, May 4, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13809501. 

  11. Roy W. Spencer, The Great Global Warming Blunder, (New York, Encounter Books, 2010), XIX. 

  12. Ibid., 44. 

  13. S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years, updated and expanded edition (Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008), 38. 

  14. Brian Sussman, Climategate, (New York, WND Books, 2010), 73. 

  15. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 69. 

  16. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, 10. 

  17. Sussman, Climategate, 37. 

  18. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, 64. 

  19. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 42. 

  20. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, XIV. 

  21. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 30. 

  22. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, 67. 

  23. Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming, 9. 

  24. Ibid., 226. 

  25. Steve Goreham, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania, (New Lenox, IL, New Lenox Books, Inc., 2012), 36. 

  26. Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming, 227. 

  27. Ibid., 233. 

  28. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 7. 

  29. Sussman, Climategate, ix. 

  30. Ibid., xvi. 

  31. Ibid., 20. 

  32. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 3. 

  33. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, 65. 

  34. Ibid., 27. 

  35. Goreham, Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, 44. 

  36. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 9. 

  37. Goreham, Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, 32. 

  38. Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming, 247. 

  39. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 23. 

  40. Ibid., 109. 

  41. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, 158-159. 

  42. Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming, 7. 

  43. Ibid., 28. 

  44. Spencer, Global Warming Blunder, 72. 

  45. Ibid., 41. 

  46. Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming, 3. 

  47. Ibid., 55. 

  48. Horner, Politically Incorrect Guide™, 153. 

The End Times: Hollywood’s Take

It’s undeniable that the concept of the end of the world holds a strange fascination for many people. This fact has not been overlooked by the film industry as evidenced by the number of recent apocalyptic movies released such as: Knowing (2009), 2012 (2009), The Book of Eli (2010), and many others. There were, of course, even earlier films which attempted to portray the end times such as: On the Beach (1959), The Last Man on Earth (1964), The Omen (1976), Mad Max (1981) The Terminator (1984), Armageddon (1998), and End of Days (1999). The premise being depicted in most of these films is that the world can or will end through natural means such as war, disease, climate change or some other natural disaster. Some films even go so far as to suggest extraterrestrials as the antagonists.

While some movies about the end times are entertaining and even plausible, others are just totally ludicrous such as the zombie apocalypse in the anti-Israeli World War Z or the laughable climate change disaster as portrayed in the anti-American 2012. Those who don’t believe in what the Bible teaches about the end of this age are left with nothing else but to fantasize about how man can prevent or even ride out the coming apocalypse. On the other hand, the Bible presents a totally different explanation for how and why these events will come to pass.

While war and disease are certainly strong possibilities, the notion of climate change bringing about the apocalypse is ridiculous from a biblical perspective. The Bible teaches that the laws of nature won’t be changed while the earth exists as recorded in Genesis, “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.” (Gen. 8:22 NASB)

Even though it is certain that there will be severe storms; extremes in temperature; floods and droughts; earthquakes; and volcanic eruptions, another certainty is that God is in control of the weather and He has determined that the current order of things won’t be changed.

Climate change is the least of man’s concerns; there are many other things to worry about. We can see in our day the constant threat of war including terrorism—which is still a war whether you want to accept it or not. Jesus himself predicted there would be “wars and rumors of wars” (Matt. 24:6) (Mark 13:7) before the end comes. Wars have always been with us; as the poet has said, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

More troubling than wars, if that’s possible, are pandemics. Infectious disease outbreaks are becoming more frequent and deadly than they have been in the past. Worse yet, some diseases are difficult or near impossible to treat effectively including antibiotic resistant bacteria such as MRSA, VRE, and MDR-TB. The Bible predicts such things will exist in the end times. (Rev. 6:8)

So, how does Hollywood’s take on the end times stack up against Scripture? Let’s look at a few examples:

On the Beach

This film presents a post-apocalyptic scenario which depicts the end of the world brought about by nuclear war. In the movie, almost everyone has died from radioactive fallout except for those living in Australia and those serving on an American submarine. The end of the movie depicts the death of every human being. The movie closes with a warning to the viewer that “There is still time…brother.”1 implying that man can prevent the apocalypse whereas the Bible teaches that God is going to bring it about and no one will be able to stop it.

The Last Man on Earth

This is a creepy movie about a plague that turns those affected into vampire-like creatures. There appears to be only one survivor who is immune to the disease. You can almost make a case for this scenario from a verse in Revelation which states, “And in those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death flees from them.” (Rev. 9:6) Of course, in order to accept this possibility would take a stretch of the imagination and would certainly require reading more information into the verse than is given.

The Omen

This film is about the birth and early childhood of the antichrist or beast which is mentioned in Revelation. Most people use the terms antichrist and beast interchangeably. The apostle John refers to the antichrist or spirit of antichrist as being anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ. (1 John 4:3) (2 John 1:7) On the other hand, the references to the beast in Revelation seem to indicate that he is a specific person. (Rev. 19:20) Since the Bible doesn’t give any information about where the beast comes from; his background; or his childhood, the events depicted in the movie are pure speculation.

Armageddon

Unlike what the title implies, this movie is really about an asteroid hitting the earth and has nothing to do with the biblical references to a major battle to be fought in the Valley of Megiddo. The movie is entertaining even though it’s one or two references to the Bible are inaccurate such as the quote made by the President, “The Bible calls this day ‘Armageddon’ – the end of all things.”2 If you read the book of Revelation in the Bible, you’ll find that the battle of Armageddon is not the end of all things; there will be survivors on earth who enter into the 1000 year reign of Christ. (Rev. 19:15) (Rev. 20:7-10)

End of Days

This film was obviously inspired by the Y2K (Year 2000) hysteria that was going around during the 1990s. The movie was released in 1999 in order to take full advantage of the uncertainty surrounding what would happen if all the computer software in the world couldn’t handle four-digit dates. The movie’s premise is based on a misinterpretation of the 1000 years mentioned in the book of Revelation. Again the premise of this movie is based on an amillennial interpretation of Revelation Chapter 20, verses 7 through 8. The term “amillennial” or “amillennialism” refers to a theological belief that teaches there is no literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. Hence, the year 1999 is the last year of a 1000 years, (1999 – 1000) +1 = 1000 years, so Satan is released to wreak havoc on the earth. The movie proposes that if Satan can find a bride before the Year 2000 arrives he wins; and if one man can stop him, it would be Arnold.

The Terminator

The antagonists in The Terminator are the infernal machines developed by Cyberdyne Systems Corporation and adopted by the U.S. Air Force in a global defense network called Skynet. Skynet becomes self-aware and through a bug in programming decides that all humans are a threat. This movie capitalizes upon President Eisenhower’s fear of the “Military-Industrial Complex” and its consequences. Obviously, the movie takes these concerns to an extreme. And it’s not surprising that almost every issue of the Journal of the ACM in the 1980s contained at least one article in opposition to the development of Skynet…I mean, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). In this film, the antagonists are corporations and the military.

Most all the other films have themes that are similar to those I’ve just described. I won’t even mention World War Z and 2012 since they are just beyond ridiculous in my opinion.

It’s clear that Hollywood is convinced that the end of the world will be brought about by man’s actions, either through war or climate change or by some natural calamity such as disease or by some extraterrestrial event. In many of the movies listed above, there is always some individual or group of heroes that steps in to save mankind from himself; in The Terminator it was Sarah Connor; in End of Days it was Jericho Cane; in Armageddon it was NASA. But according to the Bible, there won’t be a superhero that comes along to save the world; neither will man’s attempts to reduce his carbon footprint prevent the end from coming. The only hope for mankind is the King of kings and Lord of lords. (1 Tim. 6:15)

©2013-2024 Gerard Sczepura. All rights reserved.


  1. “Synopsis for On the Beach (1959),” IMDb, accessed March 3, 2015, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053137/synopsis

  2. “Armageddon (1998) Quotes,” IMDb, accessed March 3, 2015, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120591/quotes