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. 2019

July 17, 2019
(Version 7)
(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.).


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

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

    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: