Countdown to the End of the World--
Putting Down the Nonsense from the Democrats
that Climate Change Will Kill the Planet in 12 years
[or less, really, given time has passed since
the prediction was made in October 2018]


Victor Edward Swanson,

The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan  49721
The United States of America

copyright c. 2021

September 10, 2021
(Version 18)
(Draft version)

    In the 1970s, communists, socialists, progressives, liberals, Shariaists, and like rotten people began to do work in earnest to take down at least the United States of America by promoting the idea that developed countries of the world, such as like the United States of America, are leading to the death of Earth by using carbon-based fuels.  Since then, predictions upon predictions noting the the people of the Earth only have ten years or so to stop using carbon-based fuels or the planet will die have come and gone.  By the way, the document of mine that is entitled Television History and Trivia #175 (which is free to you and is available through this T.H.A.T. #175 link) shows examples of predictions of the recent past decades that were wrong and goof-ball thought.  Around October 2018, bad people, such as communistic and progressive-based newspaper writers and television reporters, were pushing the idea that a new climate-change prediction from, for instance, the United Nations (a rotten organization) was great and useful and something to be listened to, and all the bad people in the country--those wishing to turn the country into an enslavism-based entity, such as a communist state, like Cuba--endlessly said that the people of the world, especially the people of the United States of America, only have 12 years before the Earth will die if carbon-based fuels are no longer used immediately, and some of the real freaks and evil people who were big in pushing the idea front and center were U.S. Representatives related to the Democratic Party in the United States of America   By the end of March 2019, people were yet pushing the idea that the world will die in twelve years, even though the prediction was already six-months old, and by late March 2019, people should have been saying (if the timetable of the prediction was to be followed) that the world only has eleven years and a half left.  Any person hearing the prediction should be wondering--When the deadline comes will things go dead almost all at once and in a matter of days?  A smart person will say that it is idiocy and impossible.  Given the information that I have presented so far, a person should expect to see big signs of things dying off or no longer growing well all over the world some time previous to when the deadline is supposed to hit (like a big bang maybe).  On March 20, 2019, there were no signs to me that the planet was on the dying path, and I must report that strong rain storms and strong snow storms and tornadoes and earthquakes and forest fires and the like are no signs of the dying path, since all such things have been happenings with the world for years and decades and centuries--The dying clues have to be something really extraordinary.  This document has been created as sort of a countdown log, which will be added to from time to time, noting whether or not something extraordinary has showed up.  During the days to come, you can learn more about the nonsense of the manmade-global-warming idea or the manmade-climate-change idea leading to the death of the planet by seeing my document entitled "CAP AND TRADE" and Carbon Dioxide Facts and Nonsense, the first version of which was posted on the Internet on May 12, 2009, when other predictions were hinting that the planet would die in ten years [and it has not], and that document can be reached by using this Carbon link [Note: The document also talks about the "Climategate" scandal in the so-called scientific community.].

    Entry for March 20, 2019: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    And then on March 21, 2019, I saw an article in the Detroit Free Press that started on page one that was entitled "Great Lakes area warming faster than rest of nation" (Matheny, Keith.  "Great Lakes area warming faster than rest of nation."  Detroit Free Press, 21 March 2019, pp. 1A and 6A.).  Here is material from page 1A and a bit of page 6A:

    The Great Lakes Basin has warmed more over the last 30 years than the rest of the contiguous United States--and could warm dramatically more by the end of the 21st Century, a new, first-of-its-kind study of how climate change has impacted the Great Lakes region finds.
    Among the study's other findings:
    * The number of cold winter days that never reach a 32-degree high temperature could drop significantly--by almost two months under some scientifically modeled scenarios.
    * Areas within the Great Lakes Basin could see an increase of 17 to 40 extremely warm days, with temperatures above 90 degrees, by century's end.
    * More spring flooding and rainfall in extreme precipitation events could occur, disrupting agriculture and causing expensive infrastructure damage and runoff into rivers and lakes that leads to beach closings and algae blooms.
    * Some fish species will be negatively impacted, a cause for concern for Michigan's $5 billion annual sport-fishing economy.
    A smart person can see that the material is more useless prediction nonsense.  Look at how many times "could" is used in what I have presented of the article so far.  I state that the "could" shows that the makers of the study and others, such as Keith Matheny, were working to scare readers, especially in the Great Lakes region.  Notice how the writer of the article has put in "scientifically modeled scenarios" into the material.  I state that the scientific models involved are "models" and not fact--guesses.  Here is the next paragraph in the article--"The study was produced by 18 university researchers, most of them from institutions around the Great Lakes, including Michigan State University and the University of Michigan.  It was commissioned at no cost by the nonprofit Environmental Law and Policy Council, based in Chicago, and the Chicago Council of Global Affairs, a nonprofit public policy organization."  A smart person knows Chicago is a hot-bed of communism in the United States of America, and I have found that information about climate from places based in Chicago and information about climate from the communistic University of Michigan and the Michigan State University cannot be trusted--communists cannot be trusted.  Today, no person can determine what weather will be like in decades to come.  Consider--It is hard enough for weathercasters to determine the weather for the next few days--forecasts are often wrong or imprecise.  Yet, the article had this paragraph, which was material from Howard Learner, the president and executive director of the Environment Law and Policy Center--"'This is a fact-based, sound science report.  The facts of what's happened, in terms of temperature and impact to the Great Lakes, in terms of increase storms and ecological impacts, gives us a basis to project what will happen in the future, unless policies are changed to reduce carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions.'". The article is loaded with idiocy.  Look at this example--"'This is one of the most serious problems humanity faces--I just say this as a scientist who's been studying this now for 30 years, and what the science is telling us,' said study lead author Don Wuebbles, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois and former assistant director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Barack Obama.  The past data and projected climate changes come from data sets and modeling produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the fourth National Climate Assessment, released last November.  The assessment, which looks at the state of knowledge on climate change and its current and future impacts, is required by federal law, and submitted to Congress and the president.".  I report that the previous quoted material hints at where past data has come from, but I have to report that the past data has been shown to be untrustworthy--that is what "Climategate" was all about, the scandal that showed how the scientific community, even involving NOAA, faked climate data, and the data yet being uised.  To yet use the old data shows defective scientific technique.  In addition, the fourth National Climate Assessment is a defective document.  The writers of the study are pushing out the idea that the new study was "entirely data-driven".  But I say that it cannot be if the future is based on guesses--and no data.  There is a logic problem with the entire study.  Much of the article was made up of paragraph and paragraph of predictions.  Stop!  Think a moment.  The article is predicting--predicting--things to the end of the century.  The article makes no mention of the idea that we only have--now, at the time the article in the Detroit Free Press was published--eleven years and a half before the planet dies.  The makers of the study made a big error.  The study is counter to the planet-will-die-in-roughly-twelve-years plot being used.  The study did not predict the death date of the planet.  Hold it again!  Notice how near the beginning of the article in the Detroit Free Press writer has "...Some fish species will be negatively impacted...".   What does it mean that "some fish species will be negatively impacted"?  Will not all fish species be impacted?  In order to help sell to stupid people the idea of fish species, such as walley, being adversely affected in the near future, the article had a large photograph with it on page 6A showing a man named Ronnie Gotcher of Detroit fishing on the Detroit River.  It was a rotten tactic used by the makers of the Detroit Free Press, and it was used to get people into emotional thinking and not logical thinking.  By the way, Barack Hussein Obama is a big supporter of communism and Sharia, and the people who are supporters of communism and Sharia act on the idea that it is quite all right to lie to people.  Why did not the article push out predictions related to the 12-year theme?  Remember--If the 12-year theme is right, there should be predictions noting when things will die off.  We cannot simply reach the 12-year date, and then everything all over the world will die off almost immediately.  For example, the article should have noted that, in two years, orange trees will be dying in great numbers in Florida or the coffee plants of the world will be dying off in great numbers.  Yes, the "study" should have presented the idea that fish will be showing up dead in big numbers on the coasts of the Great Lakes by a certain date, such as 2022.  The planet cannot die all over the place all at once!  There will have to be big signs--soon--if the 12-year theme is right.  I report that the study and article had nothing that was related to the 12-year prediction.  The prediction and the report are crap!
    And nowhere in the article was there proof that man was killing the planet!

    Entry for March 30, 2019: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    On March 28, 2019, I was exposed to an article from The New York Post that I had to talk about in this document.  The article, which I came across on the Internet, was called "White people's diets are killing the environment: study" (Sparks, Hannah.  "White people's diets are killing the environment: study."  New York Post, 28 March 2019, 10:52 a.m..).  Upon seeing the title of the article, I knew the article had to be more crap, pushed along by rotten people.  I read the article, and I hit the link on the article to material upon which the article was based (a study, the main author of which was Joe Bozeman, a student at the University of Illinois of Chicago).  The material--the document--upon which the article was based was flap-doodle material, which--I determined--was designed to make the naive believe it was something worthwhile, though it was a collage of nonsense.  Let me show how idiotic the article was, using logic.  Heck with the document, which was tied to the Journal of Industrial Ecology.  For one, the article pushed out the idea that the diets of whites were contributing more to climate change than the diets of blacks were, and the article noted how "environmentally intense foods" were the problem.  "Environmentally intense foods"--this set of words should make any good and smart person gag, given it is sounds like a crap idea.  Some of the bad foods were said to be potatoes, beef, apples, and milk.  A smart person has to wonder--You mean to tell me blacks are not big users of beef (such as in hamburgers, maybe Big Macs and Whoopers), and blacks are not into eating potatoes, such as in French fries, and doctors are not telling blacks to eat more fruits, such as apples, (to protect their lives), and blacks are not drinking milk and eating ice cream and cheese?  [Note: I see blacks buying milk and cheese and ice cream at grocery stores.]  I note that, in the last ten years or so, it has been commonplace for socialists and communists, starting with those in Europe, to push the idea that cows are killing the planet, because they give off methane (through farts or whatever you wish to call them), and because of that, people should give up eating beef to save the planet.  However, do not pigs give off methane, and do not blacks eat pork products?  In addition, whites eat pork, such as ribs, and yet the article said nothing about getting rid of pigs.  The chickens and turkeys give off methane.  I guess whites do not eat much chicken and turkey and only blacks do.  In Michigan, some whites go out and hunt deer to eat, and deer give off methane.  You might think blacks do not go hunting for deer.  Whoops!  In Michigan, over the last five decades, I have seen black guys--dressed up in all the typical hunting gear--who go hunting for deer and various birds, all of which give off methane.  Yet, the article pushed out the idea that whites are "...disproportionately contributing to climate change through their eating habits....".  In addition, no matter what you eat, you will give off methane.  Remember--Many animals eat plants, and because they eat plants, they give off methane.  If you eat a plant, you will eventually give off methane.  Yes, at least in the United States of America, the population of whites is higher than the population of blacks is, so it can be said that the white population is giving off more methane than the black population is--there are more whites than blacks.  By the way, remember--Chicago is a hot bed of socialism and communism and corruption teaching institutions, such as the University of Illinois.  I do hope you are aware that sheep give off methane, and blacks and whites eat sheep.  If blacks and whites stop eating beef, they will have to eat more of something else that gives off methane, such as sheep and pigs and deer and whatever, and if blacks and whites go on to eating more of other meats, then those meats will have to show up under the heading of "environmentally intense foods" it seems to me.  Hold it!  Pears are like apples, and if blacks and whites stop eating apples, they will probably eat more pears, and so you will have no gain.  I have seen whites and blacks eating yams or sweet potatoes--I have eaten them--and yams and sweet potatoes are like potatoes.  Think about this--For centuries, blacks and whites have eaten potatoes, and eating the potatoes have helped blacks and whites survive and live.  Okay, get rid of the potatoes.  Now, you will have to eat more yams and sweet potatoes.  What a reader of the article is supposed to infer and believe wholeheartedly is whites are killing the planet.  I hear racist crap in the article!  After writing all that makes up the this paragraph so far, I, on Saturday, March 30, 2019, looked up Joe Bozeman (officially, he is Joe Bozeman III) through the Internet, and, for one, I found "White people's eating habits produce most greenhouse gases" tied to "UIC Today" and dated March 27, 2019, and I learned Joe Bozeman (a.k.a. Joe Bozeman) is a young black guy.  Yes, based on Joe Bozeman's article of idiocy and based on what Joe Bozeman looks like, I can say that Joe Bozeman is a piece of shit black man, pushing along one of the main communistic-themes about the planet, which is whites and the so-called white cultural ways (related to capitalism) are killing the planet.  And, really, the article gives off to proof that the planet is dying because whites are eating stuff or that blacks are eating stuff.

    Entry for April 29, 2019: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    I note that, if the planet is going to die because of man's using carbon-based fuels, it will not die all at once, such as in a big bang, without clear notice ahead of time; for example, the planet will not reach some predicted date, and "bam!" and it will die, as if a million atomic bombs went off a once--there will have to be big indications years and years in advance of the death date since the planet is really big.  Now, remember, it was in October 2018, that the United Nations--the corrupt entity, which is mostly run by rotten people, such as communists and socialists--predicted that the planet will die in twelve years.  On April 29, 2019, that predication was now down to eleven years and a half.  Yet in April 2019, the rulers in the City of New York City, New York, such as the mayor, were still pushing the "12-year" idea, and in April 2019, the rulers of New York City made a new law called Climate Mobilization Act, and, for one, the act was designed to put down the use of processed meats, such as hot dogs, in facilities, such as hospitals, controlled by the city.  Remember--Ultimately, processed meats come from animals, which give off methane.  [Note: Some people want to get rid of some animals on the planet, such as cows and pigs, since the animals (like all animals) give off methane, which is leading to the death of the planet.  It is idiocy!]  On April 22, 2019, when Mayor Bill De Blasio of New York City made the act official through his signature, Bill De Blasio said a bunch of idiotic statements, such as "...We also believe the estimates that tell us that we have only 12 years to get it right.  Let's be clear, we have until 2030 to change things fundamentally, or our lives won't be the same...." and "...Every day we wait is a day our planet gets closer to the point of no-return.  New York City's Green New Deal meets that reality head on...." and "...We are confronting the same interest that created the climate crisis and deepened inequality.  There's no time to waste.  We're taking action now, before it's too late....".  Bill De Blasio is a hard-line communist, and communists are haters of companies that make money and allow the managers and employees of the companies to have more money than politicians have, since communists cannot have others having more than they have or be seen higher in stature than politicians are.  People who run, for example, hot-dog-making companies, such as Oscar Mayer, can make money, and I guess, to Bill De Blasio, hot-dog-making companies have caused "inequality" in the society, allowing some people to end up with more money than others, and so hot dogs have to be outlawed--their theme is hot-dogs and like things lead to "inequality".  Of course, when a mayor and city council outlaw hot dogs, fewer hot dogs are made and consumed, and that leads to fewer people, such as the not-so-rich, having jobs.  Based on the lie of manmade global climate change leading to the death of the planet, Bill De Blasio and others in New York City are going to kill "hot dogs" and the like.  If you kill "hot dogs," you will save the planet Bill De Blasio and his associates seem to believe or want you to believe.  Of course, if you kill "hot dogs," you end up with fewer people who raise cows, transport cows, and process cows, which means jobs are lost, and there will be fewer refrigerators and freezers and the people who make refrigerators and freezers....  Hold it!  Why is the idea of "inequality" even talked about in relation to global climate change?  And if the planet dies, all people die and all things die!  By the way, if no action is taken to save the planet till thirty days before the deadline comes, will the planet be saved, and all of a sudden, everything will be right, right?  Bill De Blasio and his associates in New York City are selling bullshit!  They are evil!  They are society-killers with sick minds!

        Entry for May 9, 2019: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    However, members of the United Nations--a communistic and socialist entity as a whole--disagrees with me.  On Monday, May 6, 2019, the United Nations released another document about manmade climate change, and this document pushed out the idea that some one-million species of the planet are at risk of become extinct in the "near future," and many news entities pushed out the idea that the document is something worthwhile, such as the Detroit Free Press (which is a communistic entity) [Rice, Doyle (of USA Today).  "UN report says 1 million species at risk of extinction."  Detroit Free Press, 7 May 2019, p. 11A.].  A smart and good person has to wonder how the one-million figure was determined.  A smart and good person has to wonder what facts were used to determine whether or not a particular species would disappear soon [Note: Remember--The manmade-climate-change data, which is used by the United Nations, is untrustworthy.].  A smart and good person has to wonder what entity has been created to keep track of which species will disappear, since it will take a team of millions and millions of persons doing countless hours of research work "in the field" to come up with answers, given the Earth is big [Note: A person cannot determine well all the types of bugs and the number of bugs that the person has living in the lawn of the person's front lawn without taking days and days and days or weeks and weeks and weeks of carefully tearing up the lawn (like an archaeological dig) to make a count.].  A smart and good person has to wonder why the report did not give specifics about when the species would disappear; if the report were valid, it would make it clear when the extinct dates were likely to occur, instead of noting something like "near future."  By the way, the Detroit Free Press article pushed out the idea that man has "severely altered" the planet so much that it is leading to the extinct process, though a smart and good person who sees what is around the self on a daily basis, such as the birds and skunks and racoons and deer that can be found in city areas, and sees satellite images of the planet knows man has affected little of the planet really, and the Detroit Free Press pushed out the idea from the report that the loss of species "already is ten to hundreds of times higher than it has been, on average, over the last 10 million years....", though a smart and good person knows, to date, man has little information about all the species that ever lived on the planet, even within the last ten million years, given the research field is in infancy.  Based on what I have presented here so far, I can state that the report from the United Nations is logically defective and useless information--and full of crap.
    [Note: It seems to me "rats" are not on the nearly immediate extinction list.]

    Entry for June 5, 2019: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    On June 5, 2019, I happened to open up the edition for the day of the Detroit Free Press, the communistic-guided newspaper, and I saw two related stories in it--"Lakes Erie, Superior hit record levels" (Bauman, Anna.  "Lakes Erie, Superior hit record levels."  Detroit Free Press, 5 June 2019, pp. 4A and 5A.] and "Scientists say CO2 levels highest in millions of years"  (Rice, Doyle.  "Scientists say CO2 levels highest in millions of years."  Detroit Free Press, 5 June 2019, p. 8A.].  One of the paragraphs in the latter story was--"Levels at Hawaii's Mauna Loa Observatory averaged 414.8 parts per million in May, surging past yet another climate milestone.  This level hasn't been seen in human history and is also higher than in millions of years.".  The former story noted, for example--"...The Great Lakes basin has experienced high precipitation for at least six years, with a steep increase in the last month, Lofgren [Brent Lofgren of the Great Lakes Environmental Research lab] said.  But this increase comes at the end of a lengthy period of record low water levels that lasted from the 1990s to about 2013, both scientists said..." and "...Gronewold [Drew Gronewold] and another University of Michigan professor, Richard Rood, published an article on Tuesday arguing that climate change is driving the rapid shifts between high and low lake levels....".  So, I went to a computer tied to the Internet, and I looked for a graphic image of the water levels of the Great Lakes since 1918.  I found a bunch graphics showing levels, such as "Great Lakes Water Levels (1918-2011)" (which was on a website tied to the Watershed Council of Petoskey, Michigan, and had data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and "Great Lakes Water Levels (1918-2019)" (which was on the website tied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District).  The two graphs (and others) show how the water levels have gone up and down on the Great Lakes over the decades--and that is the way the world goes, since it is impossible for anything to be exactly the same from year to year and from decade to decade.  Go look at the graphs!  Can you find the "rapid shifts between high and low lake levels" in the way that the two scientists are pushing that you should believe have happened?  There are general consistencies over in the 1918-to-2019 range.  There are general periods of up and general periods of down (related to a so-called average line), and within each general period, there are ups and downs.  In the last twelve years, I have seen--though slight--the water level of Lake Huron near Rogers City (Michigan) go up and down a bit, and this year is it higher than it has been, and I have talked with people in the general Rogers City over the years, and they have pointed out how, some decades ago, the water level was much higher and there was less beach area [Note: This year, I have had to set up a "screen house" farther up the beach than I have had to do over the last twelve summers.].  And are you going to tell me that scientists have enough accurate data of over the last million years or last some number of millions of years--for every year or every month (which would be better) to say that we have the highest amount of CO2 of the last million years or last some number of millions of years--given scientists are working with really, really, really small amounts of CO2 and do not actually have data take from the atmosphere of each year or each month of the last million years or last number of millions of years.  The article about the CO2 levels noted--"This is the highest seasonal peak recorded in 61 years of observations atop Hawaii's largest volcano, and the seventh consecutive year of global increases in concentrations of CO2.  The 2019 peak value was 2.5 parts per million higher than the 411.3 ppm peak reached in May 2018; that's the second-highest annual jump on record....".  Wow, does not that sound horrific?  Notice how the article pushed the idea that the level "surged".  What does "surged" mean?  Was it really a "surge" that can be called a "SURGE"?  It sounds as if the text is over-stating things--by a lot.  By the way, the article brought up NOAA, which was tied to "Climategate" and distorted past weather data.  [Note: Over last some number of million years, there have been shifts a bit in the locations of the continents on the Earth and shifts in what Hawaii was or was not, and I wonder whether or not scientists have taken changes in locations and in sizes of land masses over the years into consideration.  I bet they have not.].  Hold it!  At about 11:34 a.m. on June 5, 2019, I was about done with writing this section of the document, and I was listening to WJR-AM, Detroit, Michigan, and Dick Haefner (who had been with the station as the news director since 1989) was reading the news, and he read a story about how Australian scientists were now predicting the end of mankind because of man-caused climate change if something drastic was not done now in relation to carbon dioxide.  Since I did not have access to the wire service from which Dick Haefner got the story, and I quickly did an Internet search and found, for example, a story tied to CBS news entitled "Human civilization faces 'existential risk' by 2050 according to new Australian climate change report" [Pascus, Brian.  "Human civilization faces 'existential risk' by 2050 according to new Australian climate change report.", 4 June 2019, 5:18 p.m.), and it was about a report written by David Spratt and Ian Dunlop and published by "Breakthrough--National Centre for Climate Restoration" (Melbourne, Australia) in May 2019.  I read the article.  One part of  the article was (which was based on writing by the authors of the Australian report)--"...human civilization could end by 2050 due to the destabilizing societal and environmental factors caused by a rapidly warming planet....".  Hold it!  Soon after the report by "Breakthrough--National Centre for Climate Restoration" was issued, the Detroit Free Press published two climate-related stories, which were and are nonsense.  Hold it again!  I thought the planet was going to die in 12 years (as is the theme of this document) or less than 12 years, as being pushed out by the United Nations, but civilization will not be gone till 2050, which is a couple decades away.  I thought all the climate-change geniuses (which is said in jest) had the dates all worked out?  The articles and the report are all part of a collage of nonsense!  [Note: On Sunday, June 2, 2019, I did my part to "save the planet"--For several hours, I burned parts of dead trees that had fallen over the last number of months at least, and that reduced the amount of stuff that could have led to a forest fire, and that led to my giving the surrounding plants, such as cedar trees and pine trees, carbon dioxide from which to live better, and my potato plants and flowers are growing well and look happy.]

    Entry for July 17, 2019: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    I begin my noting that the water level for Hammond Bay of Lake Huron of Michigan of the United States of America is higher than it has been in the last twelve seasons, but I report that it not higher than it has been in the recent past, such as in the late 1950s or early 1960s, and my proof is the tree line in the area and information from people who have been in the area since the 1950s.  Yet, people are pushing out the idea that the water levels are the highest ever, and a good example of such a person is John Gallagher (a pusher of socialism and communism) of the Detroit Free Press, who on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, had an article published in the Detroit Free Press for the day entitled "A preview of climate change?" (Gallagher, John.  "A preview of climate change?"  Detroit Free Press, 16 July 2019, pp. 1A and 7A.), and he pushed out in the story such text as--"...Not that we can blame coastal flooding from spring rains and record high water levels in the Great Lakes on climate change....".  John Gallagher passed along crap about so-called manmade climate change leading to the death of the planet in his article.  However, John Gallagher was beaten out as a bigger jackass and piece of shit of a man of the the recent past by Prince Charles (of England), who on July 11, 2019, pushed out the idea that--"I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival" (Fernandez, Colin.  "Princes Charles gives the world 18 months to save humanity from climate change and keep global warming to 'survivable' levels."  The Daily Mail (the United Kingdom), 19:24 EDT [updated 09:08 EDT on July 12, 2019]).  I consider the statement something from an idiot man.  Consider other idiocy from Prince Charles.  In July 2009, Prince Charles pushed out publicly the idea that the people of the world have only 96 months (eight years) to save the world or save the world from "irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it...." (Verkaik, Robert.  "Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles."  The Independent (the United Kingdom), 9 July 2009, 00:00.).  Hold it!  Eight years beyond 2009 was 2017, and yet in 2017, the planet was still alive.  In addition, in July 2009, Prince Charles was pushing out the idea that blame can be put on "capitalism" and "consumerism".  The prediction of 2009 failed.   So, in 2019, Prince Charles has come out with an 18-month idea now.  The predictions of climate change are based on nothing concrete, and so the garbage predictions keep on coming, even from goof-ball royality--and royals are almost always defective-thinking people because they have done nothing in life.  I wonder if Prince Charles was inspired to make his comments after having seen the story about how three scientists, one of whom was Alex Robel (a glaciologist and an assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology), were saying a day or so earlier that a glacier the size of Florida is becoming unstable in the Antarctic and could break off and lead to dire implications related to water levels in the world, which--I assume--will include Hammond Bay of Lake Huron of Michigan of the United States of America (Aguilera, Jasmine.  "A Glacier the Size of Florida Is Becoming Unstable.  It Has Dire Implications for Global Sea Levels."  Time, 10 July 2019.).

    Entry for October 23, 2019: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    However, National Geographic put out the edition for September 2019 that works to tell you that, for instance, "THE ARCTIC IS HEATING UP" because of man, and the National Audubon Society is predicting that man is killing off the birds of the world by using carbon-based fuels that are heating up the planet [Note: Do not birds like warm winter so that plants and bugs will go and lead to more food for the birds?].  I am not going to waste time on the material in the September 2019 edition of National Geographic, which is a communistic/socialistic publication, but I note that even the people of the National Geographic are pushing the crap of man killing the planet at this time when the famous prediction of a year ago is one-year old or so.  I will talk about birds and the National Audubon Society.  The National Audubon Society says that, by 2100, two-thirds of the birds on the North American continent will be threatened with extinction, if global warming tops 5.4 degrees by 2100 [Rice, Doyle.  "'Bird emergency': Two-thirds face extinction." Detroit Free Press, 11 October 2019, p. 14A. [Note: The wording style of the article is defective, since it is vague--If the writers were not working to be vague, they would have said that two-thirds of the birds will become extinct.]].  The prediction is another fact-less prediction related to the global-climate-change idea about man's using fossil fuels.  By the way, around the middle of October 2019, news entities were publishing information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (or NOAA) about winter-weather forecasts or predictions, and one article that I saw (Witsil, Frank.  "Mich. winter forecast: Plain old cold, with extra snow."  Detroit Free Press, 18 October 2019, p. 4A.) noted--"...The outlook doesn't project snowfall, because that generally is not predictable more than a week in advance, and even during a warmer-than-average winter, cold and snow should be still expected....".  The article entitled "'Bird emergency': Two-thirds face extinction" in the Detroit Free Press of October 11, 2019 had this material--"...'A lot of people paid attention to last month's report that North America has lost nearly a third of it birds,' said David Yarnold, CEO and president of Audubon.  'This new data pivots forward and imagines an even more frightening future.  It's a bird emergency.'...."  I report that I do not trust the information, such as bird surveys, from the National Audubon Society, since the entity is tied to many people who consider themselves enviromentalists (environmental activists, who are not reliable researchers), unlike years and years ago.  In addition, the article noted--"...Three hundred eighty-nine out of 604 species are at risk of extinction from climate change, the report said.  A few of the imperiled species include state birds such as Minnesota's common loon, New Jersey's goldfinch and California's quail....".  I ask--How does the National Audubon Society know "389" out of "604" and which birds will get threatened?  We have no idea what the weather will be over the next eighty years.  Of course, the prediction that is the underlying theme of this document says that the world will be dead in eleven years (given on what date I write this), so why is the National Audubon Society talking about birds of eighty years or so from now.

    Entry for November 19, 2020: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    So, in the fall of 2018, people, such communists, were pushing out the idea that the planet is going to be dead in twelve years, if, for example, people in the United States of America do not stop using carbon-based fuels, such as oil, coal, and wood immediately, and now two years have passed, so we are down to ten years.  On November 19, 2020, I fired up my computer in the morning, and when I got to the "Yahoo!" page on the Internet, I got exposed to fake news and propaganda through a story entitled "The Universe Just Keeps Getting Hotter.  That Shouldn't Be Happening.".   My first thought, based on the title of the article, was who says that the universe keeps getting hotter, given almost nothing is known about the universe today and given real study of the universe only really got going in the last century.  People on Earth have little data about the climate of this planet, shown by how weathercasters can barely predict weather a week away for a given place, and they have even less information about the universe.  The article pushed forth the idea that scientists, such as Yi-Kuan Chiang of the Ohio State University, are saying that the universe is heating and not cooling down (the latter related to the expanding universe idea).  Maybe, the universe is heating up and not cooling down, but that means nothing to people on this planet--for the next few years or for centuries or millions and millions of years.  Yet, the article turned the news into a propaganda piece, as you can see through the last sentences of the article--"...So what does all this mean for us?  Well, if the universe is getting hotter, that might mean we'll also see an increase in cosmic radiation.  That doesn't bode well for us Earthlings.".  The theme is bullshit--in this day-and-age of the lie of the manmade-global warming idea--and the article was trying to hint that cosmic radiation would probably increase soon, like in the next few years, and, maybe, the article was hinting that the people of Earth (who really do not read the short article well or think well or are stupid) are contributing to the death of the universe by what they are doing.  The article was and is journalistic malpractice, and it shows more of the work to push the manmade-global-warmnig lie!

    Entry for December 13, 2020: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    Before starting to write this section in the afternoon of December 13, 2020, I had to shovel snow--three-inches of heavy snow--on what amounts to some 500-feet lane of a place located along Lake Huron, where the water is higher than it has been in fifteen years, which had caused me to not be able to set up a screen house at the beach this past summer because some 150 feet of beach is gone (taken away by the lake over the last two years) when compared to the beach area of 15 years ago.  By the way, the beach area has been a terrible place to see good bikini gals over the last 15 years, but that is not surprising since, it seems to me, the nature of the American woman has gone to crap in a way, because many women have wanted to be like men, dressing like men, which makes them lazy and puts them in a state of mind where they do not care as much about their shape--so they look like and walk like men.  I could have written this section the previous evening, when I found the article, but I had other things to do.  The focus of this section is an article entitled "Water Is Running Out So Fast, Wall Street Is Trading It Like Gold and Oil" [Spector, Nicole.  "Water Is Running Out So Fast, Wall Street Is Trading It LIke Gold and Oil.":, 11 December 2020, 4:30 p.m. CST.].  The title made me think it was written by socialist or communist, because it is nonsense, and you should notice it was written by a gal, and, to me, the odds are good she is a "feminist" and a crappy looking woman (always angry looking and hard-edged).  Hold it!  I have learned over my 67 years that what is in the mind of a person over the years does over time show up on the face.  The article had this material--"...A recent study published in the journal Earth's Future and highlighted by Harvard University found that by 2071, almost half of the fresh water basins in the country may fall short of meeting the monthly water demand.  The projected shortage comes down to two key factors: increased demand as human population in the U.S. swells; and diminished supply because of climate change....".  The people who put together the study have no idea what the weather patterns will be over the next fifty years of so.  Water does not disappear from the planet--water does not escape the atmosphere and head to the moon or Mars.  Keep in mind--About 70 percent of the surface area of the planet is water.  And consider--In the Detroit area, water is taken up from, for example, Lake Huron and Lake Erie, and the water goes to water-treatment plants, and the water gets sent out to buildings (such as houses), and the water gets used (such as through drinking), and the waste water leaves the buildings, and the water usually goes through waste-water treatment plants, and the water is returned to the Great Lakes.  So they say that the water is disappearing?  That is crap!  Notice the article uses "may" (in "may fall short'), and that hints the people involved with the study are pushing useless guesses.  By the way, Harvard University is a communistic entity, so it cannot be trusted, especially in a speculative piece.  The entire story is fake news and crap news.  And a person has to keep in mind that the predictors of the end of the world are hinting that the seas and oceans and lakes and rivers are all going to rise and swell in the next eight years or so--killing things and destroying things.  Yet, the article pushes out the idea that water is disappearing.  You cannot have both ideas at the same time!  Well, the beach and lake will be out my window next summer, maybe a good bikini gal will show up, but it had better not be one who thinks the water is going to disappear soon.  Incidentally, this past summer, I had the best crop of tomatoes ever, in relation to the crops of the previous fourteen seasons, and, yes, I did water them regularly.

    Entry for January 27, 2021: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    On January 20, 2021, Joseph Biden (a Democrat and a supporter of communism, socialism, Sharia, and more that is rotten) became the U.S. president, and on that day, through executive order, Joseph Biden killed the work being done of the famous Keystone XL oil pipeline (which involved the United States of America and Canada), and, immediately, thousands of jobs (union jobs) were killed, but Joseph Biden did not care about the loss of jobs, since Joseph Biden and his defective associates were pushing the idea the new "green" jobs--making solar panels, for example--would soon come, though a good and smart person was well aware it can take years to create so-called new technical jobs (which involves years of training and more), and January 20, 2021, was the start of more idiocy related to so-called saving the planet from man and man's use of carbon-based fuels.  A week later--on January 27, 2021--a press conference was held in Washington, D.C., in which John Kerry (a communist who had tried to be the U.S. president) was one of the featured speakers, and, then, John Kerry was considered the "Special Presidential Envoy for Climate," and after the event, John Kerry was scheduled to meet with Joseph Biden.  The event showed up more the idiocy that the environmental movement was or is.  Hurricanes have been around for decades and centuries, and if a person does a search on the Internet, the person will find lists about the hurricanes that have affected the North American continent since the 1800s.  Hurricanes are not new, or hurricanes are not a recent development, such as because of the idea that man is causing hurricanes to develop, which has never happened, and causing stronger hurricanes to develop because man is using carbon-based fuels.  Man cannot kill off hurricanes, since man is too small.  Hold it!  Let me back up.  When Joseph Biden killed the Keystone XL pipeline, Joseph Biden simply made it so that--in the short run--foreign countries would now sell more of their oil to the United States of America, which would make those countries more money and would put the United States of America in more debt to other countries, such as those in the Middle East.  On January 27, 2021, John Kerry put out a bunch of nutty statements, and one of the statements was illogical and was an answer related to the United States of America's plan (under Joseph Biden) to spend more money to fight climate change, and the money was going to be in the trillions of dollars--"...It costs a lot more if you don't do things we need to do.  It costs a lot more!  There are countless economic analyses now that show that it is now cheaper to deal with the crisis of climate than it is to ignore it.  We spent 265-billion dollars two years ago on...three storms--Irma, Harvey, and Maria.  Maria destroyed Puerto Rico. Harvey dropped more water on Houston in five days than goes over Niagara Falls in a year.   And Irma had the first recorded winds of 155 miles an hour for 24 sustained hours.  Last year, we had one storm--55-billion dollars---so we're spending the money, folks!  We're just not doing it smart.  We're not doing it in a way that would actually sustain us for the long term.  So this is, ah, critical!....".  Hold it!  Man cannot stop hurricanes!  Man cannot spend a bunch of money to create wind turbines and solar panels while killing the using of carbon-based materials and think we would stop hurricanes from developing. By the way, in the 1800s, there were hurricanes, and man had no input into creating them.  How much was or is or will be spent to clean up after hurricanes is useless information.  Since the late 1800s, metropolitan areas have gotten bigger on the North American continent, and there are more metropolitan areas, so, when a hurricane hits today, more things are going to get hit today than one-hundred years ago, so more money will have to be paid out, and more work will have to be done to fix things, and a person has to take into account inflation from year to year and decade to decade.  John Kerry's talking about money to clean things up is crap stuff.  How can anyone put together an analysis of something yet to come, or how can anyone show that it will cost less in the long run to spend money now on so-called climate-change things, given it is not known what the world will be like in the years to come, given the world does what it does, and given man cannot know how many hurricanes will be created by the Earth for the years to come so that someone can make a calculation?  The press conference was a collage of idiocy, another job to push the lie that man is killing the planet so that communists and such--evil people--can make big money and get in control of countries, especially the United States of America!

    Entry for April 11, 2021: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    When the dinosaurs were around, there was a lot of carbon dioxide in the air, and there had to be to allow plants to be so abundant that super-big plant-eating dinosaurs could have something to eat and could have evolved, and because there were super-big dinosaurs, there had to be a lot of carbon dioxide in the air, allowing a lot of plants to grow, and then the Earth did not die.  On Friday, April 9, 2021, I saw an article in the Detroit Free Press [Rice, Doyle.  "Earth's carbon dioxide levels highest in over 3 million years."  Detroit Free Press, 9 April 2021, p. 14A.] that came off as crap and showed off the rottenness of people in the federal government, and here is the article as a "for-the-record" entry for this document--"The COVID-19 pandemic did nothing to slow the root cause of global warming.  In fact, the level of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is now higher than it had been in at least 3.6 million years, federal scientists announced Wednesday.  At that time, sea levels were as much as 78 feet higher, the average temperature was 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in preindustrial times, Greenland was mostly green, and Antarctica had trees.  Overall, levels of carbon dioxide and methane - the two most important greenhouse gases - continued their unrelenting rise in 2020 despite the economic slowdown caused by the pandemic, according to scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  'Human activity is driving climate change,' Colm Sweeney of NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory said in a statement release Wednesday.  'If we want to mitigate the worst impacts, it's going to take a deliberate focus on reducing fossil fuels emissions to near zero - and even then we'll need to look for ways to further remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.'  The burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas released greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane, which has caused the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to rise to levels that cannot be explained by natural causes, scientists say.  In the past 20 years, the world's temperature has risen about two-thirds of a degree, NOAA said.  'We're completely certain that the increase in CO2 is warming the planet,' Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA, told the Capital Weather Gang this week.".  Hold it!  Where was Greenland some 3.6 million years ago?  The continents moved over the 3.6-million-year history.  What other things about the planet are different between 3.6-million years ago and today?  What was the Earth's core like years ago?  What were the magnetic fields like years ago?  Where is the proof--proof--that man has caused the temperature to rise recently?  This portion of the article--"...which has caused the Earth's atmosphere to rise to levels that cannot be explained by natural causes..."--can mean that the scientists are missing something.  So, years ago, Greenland was mostly green and Antarctica had trees, and yet the world survives today!  Where is the problem?  The article is idiocy!  Maybe, we will have things as big as dinosaurs soon because carbon dioxide will be abundant enough for a lot of plants to grow, which will give animals a lot to eat.  [Note: The "Capital Weather Gang" started out as a blog in 2004 and became tied to The Washington Post (a communistic newspaper) in 2008, and since almost every member is a white guy (as noted through the website in April 2021), I can say that, basically, the entity is made up of a bunch of white communists, which is head by James Samenow.]

    Entry for April 27, 2021: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    On April 27, 2021, I got exposed to something that was highly illogical and rotten.  The thing was a so-called news story in the Detroit Free Press entitled "New study: Climate change has shifted the Earth's axis" [Rice, Doyle.  "New study: Climate change has shifted the Earth's axis."  Detroit Free Press, 27 April 2021, p. 2A.].  I state--the theme in the story is not possible.  Look at the story (as a "for-the-record" piece that will show in the years to come just how far rotten people will take nonsense)--"Climate change is likely the cause of a recent shift in the Earth's axis of rotation, a new study suggests.  Melting glaciers around the world--a result of rising atmospheric temperatures from the burning of fossil fulels--redistributed enough water to cause the locations of the North and South Poles to move eastward since the mid-1990s.  The locations of the poles aren't fixed and unchanging.  The way water moves around the planet's surface is one factor that causes the two poles to drift, the study said.  Each year, as the globe warms, hundreds of billions of tons of ice melt into the Earth's oceans.  'The faster ice melting under global warming was the most likely cause of the directional change of the polar drift in the 1990s,' study co-author Shanshan Deng of the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research at the Chinese Academy of Sciences said in a statement.  Since 1980, each pole has moved roughly 13 feet.  In addition to melting glaciers, the pumping of groundwater has contributed to the shift in Earth's axis, the study said.  In the past, only natural factors such as ocean current and the convection of hot rock deep in the planet contributed to the pole drift, the Guardian said.  Climate scientists Vince Humphrey, from the University of Zurich, Switzerland, who was not involved in the new research, said the Earth spins around its axis like a top.  If the weight of a top is moving around, the spinning top would start to lean and wobble as its rotational axis changes.  The same thing happens to the Earth that it can change the axes of the Earth.'   However, the movement of the Earth's axis is not large enough to affect daily life, he added: It could change the length of a day, but only by milliseconds.  The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.".  Hold it!  So there was a "recent shift".  If the shift was a recent event, some big event all at once should have happened first (right before).  With melting over time, the shift would be over time--not at once.  In addition, it has yet to be proved that the "burning of fossil fuels" is a big contributor to climate change.  China is a communistic country, and communists lie, and China lied about the "China virus" (COVID-19), and so we should listen to Shanshan Deng of China.  I do not think so.  The article talked about "pumping of groundwater".  Should not the article have talked about the pumping of "oil" out of the ground and the moving of rock from mines, such as gold mines and calcite mines and salt mines?  The article talked about "convention of hot rock" in the Earth, but it did not talk about the shift in weight or mass of the core, which no one in the environmental movement talks about (it seems).  The core affects the magnetic fields of the Earth.  It is a big thing, as is the sun.  It theme of the article does not add up.
    [Note: I report that I do not trust the American Geophysical Union, based on my seeing the website (a weak presentation) for the entity on May 3, 2021, which was noted that the entity was focusing on "diversity, ethics, and inclusion" (which is bullshit stuff) and which is involved with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Geophysical Society, which are communistic entities).]

    Entry for May 10, 2021: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    On May 6, 2021, I took a long-distance drive in Michigan, and at one point, I heard a radio report about some new environmental story through Fox News (the radio entity), and the report was predicting more dire stuff, and it sounded like idiocy, and then it was not till May 7, 2021, that I went looking for the story--though not in earnest--and I did not find it, but I found some stuff to pass along here.  I found a story of May 1, 2007--some 15 years previous--entitled "Arctic ice cap melting 30 years ahead of forecast" [Zabarenko, Deborah.  "Arctic ice cap melting 30 years ahead of forecast.", 1 May 2007, 2:03 p.m..], and, for one, the story noted--"...This means the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020, three decades sooner than the global panel's gloomiest forecast of 2050....".  By the way, I did not look hard for the stories noted in this section; the stories were thrown up by "Google" in the first few pages of stories offered in relation to my search terms.  So, that story turned out to be crap!  John Kerry, at this time the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, pushed a bunch of crap on August 31, 2009, about the climate, and he reported publicly that scientists say that the Arctic will be ice-free in 2013 and not in 2050 (as was being predicted by others) [Richert, Catherine.  "Kerry claims the Arctic will be ice-free by summer 2013.", 2 September 2009.].  That prediction pushed out by John Kerry turned out to be crap!  Hey, get this next story!  Around March 2019, it was being predicted that "...Even if we stopped emitting any more greenhouse gases right now, we still  could not save the Arctic...." [Cross, Daniel T.  "UN: it's too late to save the Arctic from warming.", 19 March 2019.  I guess the Arctic is gone now!  Hold it!  I have to back up in time.  Around November 2016, children were being taught by that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2050 [Sumner, Thomas.  "Arctic sea could be ice-free by 2050.", 16 November 2016, 7:00 a.m..], and the story noted that "....This might be the first time the summer Arctic has been ice-free in 125,000 years....".  The year "2050" is the big prediction for the disaster year.  Hold it again!  Based on the prediction of 2018, the planet will be dead by 2030, so why the hell are the predictors talking about 2050?  On May 6, 2021, issued a story called "Study Predicts 'Rapid And Unstoppable' Antarctic Ice Melt If Paris Targets Missed" [Moran, Barbara.  "Study Predicts 'Rapid And Unstoppable' Antarctic Ice Melt If Paris Targets Missed.", 6 May 2021.}, and the story noted--based on stuff from Rob DeConto (a professor at the University of Massachusetts) and others--that ice melting could be much faster in the second half of the century than predicted previously if countries do not do something fast, and it was reported that, if Antarctica alone completely lost ice, the levels of the seas would rise 187 feet, and it was reported that Phil Duffy (the president and executive director of the Woodell Climate Research Center) said that "...there are two causes of sea level rise--ocean water expanding as it gets warmer and land ice melting into the sea....".  Hold it!  Hold it!  Are you going to tell me that liquid water expands so much as it warms that it expands out greatly.  Put water in a plastic cup or jug, and put the container with the water in the freezer, and after there is ice in the container (the ice has expanded the container), set the container on a table or a room, and let the ice melt so that there is water in the container only, and measure the water level every so often, and keep a record of the height, and stop taking readings when the water gets to about 80-degrees Fahrenheit, and see what your statistics show.  Did the water expand enough to even notice?  Remember--the seas are not going to get above about 80-degrees Fahrenheit, so there is no reason to go above 80-degrees Fahrenheit on your statistical chart, and, really, the water temperature range is from about 32-degrees Fahrenheit to about 80-degress Fahrenheit.  The idea that warming water of the oceans is going to be a big deal in relation to flooding the coastal cities is nonsense!  And what do you have when ice melts to water?

    Entry for June 29, 2021: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    From the summer to 2019 to the summer of 2020, the waters of Lake Huron rose, and I saw the change in person on many days of that time, living right off of Lake Huron for many of the days of that time period.  For the summer of 2020, I was unable to set up a screen house on the beach, as I had over the previous fourteen years, because the water to up and beach had been taken away.  For the summer of 2021, the lake was down, and I was able to set up the screen house and use it regularly.  Hurray!  That reminds me.  The May 2000 issue of a magazine called Reason had an article that talked about predictions made around 1970 by ecologists and climate-change people about what is going to happen to the planet because of man, and on July 28, 2021, the article--"Earth Day, Then and Now" (written by Ronald Bailey)--was available at, and, by the way, one piece of quoted material in that article came from Kenneth Wait (a so-called ecologist), and it was--"We have about five more years at the outside to do something.".  On June 28, 2021, Jennifer Granholm the head of the U.S. Department of Energy (though she had no previous experience related to energy) and a former governor of Michigan, appeared on CNN as a guest for Erica Hill, and one thing that they talked about was a recent building collapse in Surfside, Florida, and Jennifer Granholm pushed the idea that climate change was involved, and Jennifer Granholm said--"...Michigan, where I'm from, we've seen the loss of beaches because the waters are rising....".  Jennifer Granholm pushed bullshit!  The water of Lake Huron was way down over 2020 on the day that Jennifer Granholm got to push her crap on television.  And I report that, over the last five decades or more, the water level of Lake Huron has gone up, then down, then up, then down, then up....   And that is that!

        Entry for June 30, 2021: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    On June 30, 2021, I ran into an article that I had to pass along here, and it was entitled "Climate change makes poison ivy grow even nastier" [Stein, Emma.  "Climate changes makes poison ivy grow even nastier."  Detroit Free Press, 30 June 2021, pp. 1A and 7A.].  The story was in the rag--the communistic rag--known as the Detroit Free Press.  Look at what was on the first page of the article--"Katie McGlashen didn't have to walk more than a few steps outside her office at the Eddy Discovery Center at Waterloo Recreation Area in Chelsea to find a long, twisting vine of poison ivy crawling up a tree.  Just a few feet down the path, there's a small patch springing up from the ground, its leaves edging toward the trail, reaching for any passersby.  Climate change has led to more frequent heat waves, stronger hurricanes, melting glaciers and rising sea levels.  And now, in another impact of climate change, poison ivy is becoming more abundant and toxic as the years go by.  'I've been here about 10 years,' said McGlashen, a park interpreter.  'So I think over my lifetime, I definitely have seen an increase in poison ivy.  I can tell the difference.'  This increase in poison ivy is due to higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, according to a 2006 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences....".  I left out a bit more on the first page, because I saw no reason to add it to this document.  Yes, maybe, there is more poison ivy at the Eddy Discovery Center.  And so it goes in nature!  Where is the study of the entire planet that shows poison ivy in increasing or has increased over the planet, and where it the proof that the cause is so-called climate change (specially manmade climate change, which is really what is meant in the article)?  One little piss-ass park does not make up the world.  A world study is needed for Katie McGlashen to even begin to make a statement about poison ivy increasing in the world, and Emma Stein put together an article that had no real basis in fact, especially the line about "more frequent heat waves, stronger hurricanes, melting glaciers and rising sea levels....".  Katie McGlashen passed along junk not based on science and surveys--it was flap-doodle stuff (going on guesses and feelings).  Only a screw-up would believe the crap (a scare tactic and journalistic malpractice) presented by Katie McGlashen and Emma Stein (another stupid woman in the news field) through the Detroit Free Press.  And I do hope you caught the nutty idea that that poison ivy is stalking you--eager to pounce on you like a wolf monster carrying a chainsaw in the forest of an old-time horror movie.

        Entry for September 10, 2021: I state that there has been no real clue that the planet is dying yet.
    Well, let me see.  No, I have no clues about the Earth dying, and the prediction is about three years old now.  However, in the summer of 2021, I did see evidence that strong storms, such as hurricanes, yet exist, and the history of hurricanes go back for decades and decades and decades, and, for example, Hurricane Ida caused problems in the eastern half of the country from New Orleans to New York City, and water from Hurricane Ida flooded subways--down-below-ground things--in New York City.  Hey, here is something to consider.  People think manmade global climate change was the reason flooding occurred in places of the country because of Hurricane Ida (and other storms).  When did the manmade global climate change begin in the United States of America (or the world)?  Some say that it is a recent thing because of man's use of carbon.  But maybe it was in the 1800s when it started, and it was started by settlers and American Indians burning wood, such as to cook fish.  Cape Hatteras Lighthouse is a lighthouse, the history of which goes back to the middle of the 1800s in relation to real Frensel lens history for the lighthouse, but Cape Hatteras (the place) had lamps to light the way for sailors back around 1803.  Books and articles in magazines and such can be found that report on the history of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, which is tied to North Carolina and Pamlico Sound and the Atlantic Ocean.  Here is some information from an article entitled "150th Anniversary of the First Lighting of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse on December 16, 2020, which was written by Kevin P. Duffus, and the article was in Lighthouse Digest for January - February 2021, running from page 40 to page 50--"...In 1832, according to U.S. Treasury Department reports published in The American Pharos, Or LightHouse Guide, the lighthouse was, at that time, one mile from the ocean.  Fewer than two decades later, when Cap'n 'Naka's great-grandfather Benjamin Fulcher was keeper at Cape Hatteras in the late 1840s, the high-tide line had receded to just a half mile away.  On the day in 1919 when Cap'n 'Naka became the principal keeper at the lighthouse, the ocean's waves were crashing just 200 feet from the base on the tower.  In 1936, the government abandoned the seemingly doomed tower for the next 14 years until a transitory accretion of the beach encouraged the Coast Guard to reestablish the light at the top of the preeminent landmark...."  Yes, maybe those American Indians helped in causing the waters to get closer and closer to Cape Hatteras in the 1800s and early 1900s.  Blame the American Indians!  Blame the settlers from China and Europe and everywhere else!  [Note: I am joking about the settlers and the American Indians.]  I report--The Earth is ever changing because of the sun, the moon, the core of the Earth, et cetera, and that is the way it is, and the tides rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall, as they have for centuries and centuries and centuries.


    DeAvolo, Lucy.  "New York City Passed Its Own Green New Deal-Like Legislation.", 19 April 2019.

    Leman, Jennifer.  "The Universe Just Keeps Getting Hotter.  That Shouldn't Be Happening."  Yahoo!, 18 November 2020, 8:39 a.m.CST.

    Press Office.  "Action of Global Warming: NYC's Green New Deal.", 22 April 2019.

    Rice, Doyle.  "'Bird emergency': Two-thirds face extinction."  Detroit Free Press, 11 October 2019, p. 14A.

    Spector, Nicole.  "Water Is Running Out So Fast, Wall Street Is Trading It Like Gold and Oil.", 11 December 2020, 4:30 p.m.CST.

    Watts, Jonathan.  "We have 12 years to limit climate change, warns UN."  the, 8 October 2018, 02:33 EDT.

    Weatherboy.  "Hot Dogs Banned in NYC to Improve Weather and Climate.", 23 April 2019.

    Zanotti, Emily.  "NYC Considering Banning HOT DOGS And Other Processed Meats Over Climate Change."  The Daily Wire, 24 April 2019.


    Note: This document was originally posted on the Internet on March 20, 2019.

    Note: This document is known on the Internet as

For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Conservatism for
    Children and What Conservatism Means,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Conservatives and
    The United States Constitution Versus
    Enslavers and Enslavism (Communism,
    Sharia, Socialism, et cetera), which can
    be reached by using this link: Enslavism.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled The "Enslavers" Want
    Your Retirement Plan or Pension Plan,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Nonsense Statements
    and Quotations of Barack Obama, which
    can be reached by using this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Madness in a President
    and Other Matters of a Defective Mind,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see my
    document entitled Sharia Law, Shariah-
    Compliant Finance, Radical Islam, and
    Barack Obama, which can be reached by
    using this link: Sharia.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Never Forget These
    Media "Darlings" ?: A Guide for the
    Individual in the United States of
    America, which can be reached by
    using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled A Little History of
    Barack Obama Events: A Show of
    Deconstruction, which can be reached by
    using this link: History.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Lessons for Children
    about Politics and Dangerous People,
    which can be reached by using this
    link: Children.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled The Next Elections:
    What Has to be Done to Protect the
    United States of America, which can
    be reached by using this link: Elections.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled World Tyranny:
    Warnings about  the Insane Who are
    Trying to Create a Communist World
    Country, which can be reached by
    using this link: World.

Note: Many other documents exist at the
Web site for The Hologlobe Press that will
give you information about the bad that Barack
Obama and his associates are doing to the
United States of America, such as the Michigan
Travel Tips documents and the T.H.A.T.
documents that have been published since
the fall of 2008.

To get to the Site-Summary Page for The
    Site-Summary Page for The Hologlobe
    Press, you may use this link: Summary.
To get to the main page for The Hologlobe
    Press, you may click on this link now: