Slartibartfast

A cow takes grass, which you cannot eat, and hands back: - Beef, a complete protein wrapped in the fat your brain is built from - Milk, the only food on earth designed to be food - Leather, a coat that outlasts the person wearing it - Tallow, for the frying pan, the candle and the soap - Bones, for the broth, the handle and the field - Liver, kidney, heart and tongue, the densest nutrition in the shop - Manure, which grows the next field of grass All of that from a plant that would go through you untouched. No machine on earth can do it. No laboratory has come close. Grass in one end, a complete human diet out the other, and the thing builds soil while it stands there. It runs on rain and sunshine. It needs no factory, no patent and no delivery lorry. It repairs itself, and every couple of years it makes another one. And we are told to get rid of it to save the planet. While the almonds are flown in from California and the soy is shipped in from a field that used to be Brazil. The stupidity has a carbon footprint of its own.

Up to 1.4 million views three days and going STRONG! Fossil-fuel combustion has essentially ZERO IMPACT on atmospheric CO2 rise. They've been LYING to you for 40 years.

We now see the full extent of preplanning and empire-building that went into the United Nations' global warming campaign. It was all behind the scenes. Today, the UN has a workforce of roughly 190,000 and an annual budget of $3.45 billion. It has become a vast self-managing, self perpetuating bureaucracy - arguably the largest non-governmental network in the world. The UN had been laying the groundwork for an environmental crisis for decades before it was finally announced in 1988. The UN took control of the World Meteorological Organization in 1951, transforming it into a specialised UN agency. The WMO operates with an annual budget of approximately $138.7 million and has a staff of 350 to 400. The WMO bridges the gap between raw meteorological data, international political agendas and global news media - linking thousands of land stations, ocean buoys, aircraft and satellites. While its stated role is to share critical weather and water data, this massive infrastructure has been effectively co-opted into a public relations framework. Consequently, the world has been bombarded with weather hysteria for almost 40 years. Mainstream news outlets routinely prioritise speculative, worst-case climate models over empirical observations - like 'rain bombs' - maintaining a permanent state of crisis designed to shape public compliance. The information gathering agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, runs the scientific arm. It operates with a core secretariat of just 15 staff members and an annual budget of roughly $12.5 million. The IPCC was established 38 years ago, ostensibly as a neutral body to gather objective scientific information on climate. In reality, the IPCC became the driving force behind the greatest environmental and social upheaval in modern history. Highly politicised from its inception, it was founded entirely by UN agencies - the WMO and the UN Environment Programme. This gave the UN absolute control over the global climate agenda and funded what has become the largest propaganda campaign in history. The UN has also run annual fund raising COP summits around the world for 30 years. They have become junkets for the rich and privileged. The IPCC did not recruit independent scientific staff; instead, its administrative apparatus actively sponsors and selects studies that supported the carbon dioxide hypothesis. Research raising questions or doubts are minimised or discarded. Critics find their studies starved of funding and publishers, while some even faced threats to their academic tenures. Local weather outlets and national agencies now operate inside an ecosystem heavily influenced by these overarching, high-alarm targets, broadcasting continuous warnings of 'global boiling', catastrophic sea-level rise, and 'Code Red for Humanity' - with UN leadership acting as the chief amplifier. This environment birthed foundational, highly charged studies designed to lock in future warming projections. For decades, the UN promoted only extreme scenarios. A prime example is the IPCC's reliance on high-end warming trajectories - such as projections warning of up to a 5.5-degree temperature rise - predictions so extreme that even mainstream scientists have increasingly conceded they are implausible. Armed with a crisis of its own making, the UN called for the rapid dismantling of hydrocarbon fuels - coal, oil, and natural gas - the very energy sources that lifted humanity out of stagnation and powered the Industrial Revolution. Almost every aspect of modern civilisation, from transport networks to industrial manufacturing, relies entirely on these dense, inexpensive and reliable energy sources. Climate management bears no relation to the UN’s foundational charter of resolving international conflict; it's a textbook case of bureaucratic mission creep. The sheer complexity of this UN machinery, combined with an aura of technical authority, is precisely what insulates it from public scrutiny.

No Crisis. An Optimum. For three decades you have been told that Earth faces a climate emergency. That CO₂ is a pollutant. That the air you breathe and the weather you live in are dangerously abnormal and getting worse. Governments repeat it. Networks repeat it. Your children bring it home from school as settled fact. It's huge lie. It is a story that gets the sign wrong on every physical variable it names. Set the story aside for ten minutes and look at what the instruments actually record. The gas plants eat Everything alive is built from atmospheric CO₂. Every leaf, every grain of wheat, every muscle fiber in every animal, every cell of you reading this. Plants pull carbon out of the air, and the rest of the food chain lives on what they build. The air now holds 420 parts per million of CO₂. Across the last 540 million years, the average has been closer to 2500. During the Cambrian explosion, when complex life first flooded the oceans, it was 4500. The dinosaurs lived at 1700. Commercial greenhouses pump in CO₂ until they reach 1000 to 1500 ppm, because that is where plants grow fastest and strongest. So where are we? At roughly a sixth of the geological average. At roughly a third of what plants actually want. In the whole long history of green life on this planet, we are living at the low end of the fuel gauge. How low? Below 150 ppm, photosynthesis stops. Plants die. Everything that eats plants dies. Everything that eats those animals dies. The whole biosphere ends. Before humans started burning coal, the air sat at 280 ppm. Only 130 ppm above zero. At the last ice age it was 180 ppm. Thirty ppm above the end of the world. Rising CO₂ moves life away from that cliff. Not toward it. There is no such thing as a global temperature Before going further, throw out a phrase that has done enormous damage. "Global temperature." It does not exist. It is not a physical quantity. Nothing in nature has that temperature. No instrument can measure it. It is a number manufactured by institutions and sold to the public as if it were a reading off a thermometer. It is a blatant and TOTAL lie. It was built to propagandize and to brainwash. Every headline about the planet "warming by 1.5 degrees" or "approaching a dangerous threshold" rests on that invented number. Pull the number out and the headline collapses. So forget "global warming." It is a slogan built on a quantity that was concocted for the purpose of frightening you. Stick to what instruments at specific places actually record, and to the physical and biological changes you can see and measure directly. What is actually happening to the Earth You do not have to take anyone's word for the direction things are moving. Satellites have been watching. The planet is getting greener. Leaf area has grown across a quarter to half of all vegetated land in the satellite era, and CO₂ is the main reason. Global grain production has tripled since 1961. The Sahel, the strip of Africa south of the Sahara, is pushing green back into what used to be desert. Growing seasons in the farming belts of North America, Europe, and Asia are longer than they were a generation ago. These are not projections. These are measurements of physical things. More leaves. More grain. More forest where there was sand. The world your parents grew up on had less food and less forest than the world you live on now. What is actually happening to people Climate activists tell you the weather is killing more of us. The death records say the opposite. Deaths from floods, droughts, storms, and extreme temperatures are down roughly 95 to 98 percent per person since the 1920s. The planet has four times as many people on it as it did then, and far fewer of them die from weather. Insurance payouts for weather disasters show no upward trend once you adjust for the fact that there are more people with more stuff in harm's way. Even the IPCC, in its own latest report, quietly admits it has "low confidence" that most types of extreme weather are getting worse. The emergency is not in the data. It is in the headlines about the data. What the past tells us Every time in human history that proxy records show warmer, wetter local conditions, civilizations expanded. The mid-Holocene, when the Sahara was green and farming spread across Eurasia. The Roman period, when the empire fed itself from North African grain and grew wine in Britain. The Medieval period, when Vikings farmed Greenland and European cathedrals went up on the strength of good harvests. Every time local proxies show cold and drought, people died. The Little Ice Age brought the Great Famine, the Black Death, the collapse of Norse Greenland, witch hunts over failed crops, and revolutions driven by hunger. Go further back. During the last interglacial, hippos lived in what is now the Thames. During the Pliocene, boreal forest grew on Ellesmere Island, within a thousand miles of the North Pole. Life, including every ancestor of every mammal alive today, did better in those windows than in the glacial periods that bracketed them. Where we actually are Pull back and look at the window we live in. CO₂ at the low end of what plants want, finally climbing back toward the range in which green life was built to flourish. Local proxy records across the planet showing a biosphere that is already thriving. Grain yields at record highs. Forests expanding. Deserts in retreat. Fewer people dying of weather than at any point in recorded history. More people fed, housed, lit, warmed, and connected than any generation that came before. This is not a crisis. This is a shining city on a hill. And the trajectory is upward, provided we do not let the lie strangle it. The crisis story only works if you flip every sign. You have to invoke a "global temperature" that does not exist. You have to call the gas that builds every living thing a pollutant. You have to call the warm, wet periods that fed every great civilization dangerous. You have to call the coldest, driest, most carbon-starved stretch in the geological record normal, and treat every step away from it as a threat. That is not science. That is an inversion. It was built to frighten you into surrendering your energy, your food supply, your industry, and your freedom. Stamp out the lie The math deniers have had three decades of unchallenged airtime. They have captured curricula, redirected trillions of dollars, shuttered power plants, criminalized industries, and taught a generation of children to fear the air they exhale. They have done it with numbers that do not exist and sign errors on numbers that do. Name the lie every time you hear it. "Global temperature" is not a measurement. CO₂ is not a pollutant. The warm periods were not catastrophes. The current window is not an emergency. The geological record is not on their side. The biological record is not on their side. The mortality record is not on their side. The math is not on their side. Nothing is on their side except repetition and institutional power. Both lose to clearly stated truth, repeated by enough people, long enough. The future is better than the past. The biosphere is healthier than it was a century ago. Humanity is richer, longer-lived, and better fed than at any moment in its history. The trajectory keeps climbing as long as we keep the lights on, the fields fertilized, and the lie out of the policy rooms. Stamp out the lie. The city on the hill gets brighter from here.

The IPCC Math Deniers Every headline climate claim is proven false by simple mathematics applied to the data the IPCC itself certifies. These are not disagreements. They are lies. By Jonathan Cohler Mathematics is absolute. A theorem, once proved, cannot be falsified by new data. You accept it, you find a false premise, or you find a broken step. Nothing else works. Galileo called mathematics the language in which God wrote the universe. Denying a theorem is not disagreement. It is lying, and it is illiteracy. The United Nations climate reports include some real measurements almost no one disputes: thermometer readings, carbon isotope records running back five centuries, ice-core samples, radiocarbon from mid-century bomb tests. The reports accept these inputs. Simple mathematics applied to those same inputs proves the IPCC's headline conclusions false, and policies on the scale of trillions of dollars are built on those false conclusions anyway. When the arithmetic is pointed out, the arithmetic is ignored. Every one of the six public claims examined below (the warming target, the planetary energy imbalance, the carbon budget, the fossil-fuel fingerprint, the long atmospheric lifetime of CO₂, and the extreme-event attribution ratios) is proven false by junior-high-school math on the data the IPCC itself certifies. That is math denial, and in plain language it is lying. "Global Temperature" Is Not Real A thermometer measures the air touching the bulb. It does not measure the Earth. Temperature is what physicists call an intensive quantity: it belongs to a specific place and does not add. Two rooms at seventy degrees are not a single room at a hundred and forty. Pour a cup of coffee at ninety degrees into another cup at ninety degrees and you have two cups of coffee at ninety degrees. The number reported each year as the global temperature is an area-weighted average of readings from a few thousand surface weather stations. Do the math. The Earth's surface is about 510 million square kilometres. Each thermometer physically samples the air immediately around its bulb, a volume on the order of one cubic metre. A few thousand thermometer bulbs times one square metre of sampled area each is on the order of one part in a hundred billion of the Earth's surface. The stations are also distributed nothing like uniformly: dense across the United States and Europe, sparse to absent across the oceans (70 percent of the planet), central Africa, interior Asia, and the polar regions. From that vanishingly small and geographically lopsided sample, a single global number is announced each year to the tenth of a degree. Change the weighting recipe (by area, by mass, by solar flux, by land versus ocean, at the surface or at two metres) and the number changes with it. Thermodynamics supplies no equation that picks a correct weighting, because none of them yields a temperature. The Physical Tether Theorem proves it formally: an area-weighted mean of intensive readings has no physical referent. It is a statistic, not a measurement. The public claims proven false. "The planet has warmed 1.1°C since pre-industrial times." The 1.5°C warming limit of the Paris Agreement. The 2°C Paris target. "The hottest year on record." Every "degrees of warming" headline. Each one puts degrees on a number that is not a temperature. Every treaty, mandate, and target in international climate law uses that same false number as its central reference. The number is published. The units are published. Both are false. "Ocean Heat Content" Cannot Be Measured The reports claim the planet is gaining heat at roughly 0.7 watts per square metre of Earth's surface, with more than 90 percent of that supposedly stored in the ocean. The number comes from the Argo float program, about four thousand instruments profiling the upper 2000 metres. The whole calculation fails in exactly the same way the global-temperature calculation fails, and for exactly the same reason. Ocean heat content is built from temperature anomalies. Temperature is intensive. The Argo processing takes sparse point readings along each float's ascent, assigns them to the position where the float later surfaces (an offset of up to tens of kilometres), subtracts a climatological reference that is itself a statistical construct over 2004–2018 rather than any actual water, multiplies the resulting "anomaly" by seawater density and specific heat, and integrates over grid cells. Multiplying a non-physical anomaly by physical constants does not produce a physical energy. It produces a number with the units of energy stapled to it. The same thermodynamic theorem that rules out a global temperature rules out this scalar. There is no ocean heat content measurement here. There is a statistical construct carrying units of joules. Do the sampling math. The ocean holds about 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of water. Four thousand floats sampling a thin trail during each ten-day ascent cover a direct volume fraction on the order of one part in a billion per year. The deep ocean below 2000 metres, which is roughly half the ocean's volume and thermal energy, is essentially unsampled. The polar oceans are essentially unsampled. The CERES satellite flux data, which carries absolute uncertainty of 3 to 5 watts per square metre on its own, is then adjusted to match the Argo-derived number, so the two values "agree" by construction rather than independent confirmation. A full accounting of the real uncertainties puts the error bar at at least ±1 watt per square metre, bigger than the 0.7 central estimate itself. The claim is statistically indistinguishable from zero even before the thermodynamic objection. The public claims proven false. "Earth's energy imbalance has been quantified." "The oceans have absorbed 90 percent of excess heat." "Ocean heat content reaches a new record." These are advertised as the central empirical pillar of the greenhouse-warming case: the physical signature everything else is supposed to rest on. There is no physical signature here. There is a non-physical construct with the units of a signature attached to it. Ocean acidification is published the same way. Acidity is local. No ocean average exists in nature. One is computed anyway, and fisheries policy follows from it. The Carbon Ledger Proves Nothing Atmospheric CO₂ rises when inflow exceeds outflow. Split the inflow into human emissions and everything else. Rearrange. The ledger balances. It balances if humans drove the rise. It balances if the oceans did, or the soils, or any combination. The equation is true by construction. The textbook name is an accounting identity. A theorem of causal inference, straightforward enough to teach in an afternoon, proves that any proposition true purely by definition and conservation carries no information about cause. Zero information. Not weak evidence. None. The IPCC presents the balanced carbon ledger as evidence that fossil fuels caused the rise. It cannot be. The ledger would balance whatever the cause. The related slogan that about half of human emissions remain in the atmosphere is one divided quotient of two long sums. The ratio has fluctuated between 18 and 77 percent in individual years. The 44 percent figure cited as settled science is a smoothed average, not a measurement of how much human carbon is still airborne. The atmosphere turns over its carbon on roughly a four-year timescale. The stock from fifty years ago is almost entirely gone. The public claims proven false. "Fossil fuels caused the CO₂ rise." "The remaining carbon budget is X gigatonnes." "Net zero by 2050." Every carbon tax. Every cap-and-trade market. Every corporate net-zero pledge. Every ESG filing. Every one of them cites the balanced ledger as proof that fossil fuels caused the rise. Simple math proves the ledger cannot prove that. The Isotopes Prove the Opposite Fossil fuels carry a specific isotopic fingerprint. Carbon from coal, oil, and gas has a δ¹³C value near −28 per mil. Carbon leaving the oceans runs near −8. Measure the isotopic signature of the CO₂ actually being added to the atmosphere, and elementary two-source mixing gives the fossil-fuel fraction directly. One line of algebra. Three independent records converge on the same answer. The modern Keeling-plot intercept places the added carbon at about −13 per mil. Caribbean sclerosponges, which record ocean chemistry in their skeletons, give the same figure back five hundred years. The Law Dome ice core, the record anthropogenic-attribution proponents themselves cite, gives it a third time. Three systems. Five centuries. One number. Plug −13 into the mixing equation and the fossil-fuel fraction comes out near zero. Over those five centuries, human emissions rose from a trickle to about ten billion tonnes a year. Had fossil carbon been the dominant addition, the signature would have grown steadily lighter as the fossil share rose. It did not. The public claims proven false. "The isotopic signature proves the CO₂ rise is anthropogenic." "Humans are responsible for essentially all of the observed warming since 1850." This is the IPCC's own smoking gun. It is held up in every assessment as the clinching evidence of fossil-fuel attribution. Simple math on the records the IPCC itself relies on proves the opposite. The reports accept the data. The arithmetic the data forces, they ignore. The Thousand-Year CO₂ Lifetime Is a Fiction The nuclear bomb tests of the 1950s and 60s roughly doubled the atmospheric ratio of radiocarbon (¹⁴C) to ordinary carbon. After the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 shut the source off, that excess has relaxed back toward the pre-bomb background along a single exponential curve with a time constant of 18.4 years. Fifty-four years of global measurements. R² = 99.998 percent. One line. A single exponential has exactly one time constant. A sum of exponentials with distinct time constants is a different function and cannot be made to look like a single exponential. This is proved by elementary linear algebra: the Vandermonde determinant does not vanish, and Cauchy-Schwarz forbids the equality. There is no fitting trick that evades it. The IPCC's impulse-response function for CO₂, called the Bern IRF and used to compute every Global Warming Potential the panel publishes, is exactly a sum of distinct exponentials plus a residual fraction that supposedly never decays at all. That residual has drifted from 13.7 percent in the 1995 assessment to 21.7 percent in the current one, which is already a tell: a function tracking a real physical process does not change its asymptote every ten years. The ¹⁴C anomaly and the bulk CO₂ pulse share the same removal operator. An operator-equivalence theorem carries the single-exponential result from the isotopic decay over to the mass response for CO₂ itself. What the data proves about the shape of the one, it proves about the shape of the other. The Bern IRF is mathematically incompatible with the measurement. Not approximately. Exactly. The Bern IRF is also not fit to any measurement in the first place: it is fit to the arithmetic mean of an ensemble of climate models tuned to the same thermodynamically meaningless global-temperature index. It is a model of an average of models, and the one direct empirical test of the atmospheric CO₂ impulse response rules it out. The public claims proven false. "CO₂ emitted today will warm the planet for centuries, even millennia." The entire structure of Global Warming Potentials (GWP₁₀₀, GWP₂₀) used to compare methane, nitrous oxide, and CO₂ in treaties and markets. The Social Cost of Carbon that drives federal cost-benefit analysis. The intergenerational-ethics argument for aggressive mitigation now, in which today's emissions supposedly burden children ten generations hence. Every one of these numbers depends on the long tail the bomb data proves does not exist. A small energy imbalance, below the detection threshold of the satellite instruments, is enough to drive the observed CO₂ rise through warming's ordinary effect on seawater solubility and soil respiration. No special mechanism is needed. No tuning is needed. Extreme-Event Attribution Is Made Up When a report declares a heat wave 150 times more likely because of climate change, the comparison is to a hypothetical Earth on which the industrial revolution never happened. That Earth was not observed. It cannot be observed. No duplicate planet exists on which to tally outcomes. A probability is a count of what did happen divided by a count of what could have happened. On a planet we do not have, nothing happened. The denominator is zero. Dividing by zero does not give a small number or an uncertain number; it gives nothing at all. The "150 times" is not a measurement. It is a number someone wrote down. Two attribution studies of the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave came in at "at least 150 times" and "at least 8 times." The intervals do not overlap. A count of a real quantity does not disagree with itself by a factor of twenty. When you divide by zero you can get any answer you like, and in practice researchers do. The public claims proven false. "Climate change made this hurricane X times stronger." "Scientists link this wildfire season to warming." "The flood could not have happened without greenhouse emissions." The entire industry of extreme-event attribution. The Loss and Damage fund established at COP27, which transfers payments from developed to developing nations on the basis of climate-attributed disasters. The insurance-industry models now writing climate risk into property premiums. The litigation underway against energy companies, in which attribution ratios are offered to juries as damages evidence. Every one of these downstream uses is a made-up number dressed as a measurement. The Lies at the Center of Climate Policy The individual measurements the IPCC uses are not in dispute. Thermometers work. Floats work. Isotope ratios are measured to astonishing precision. Smokestacks emit CO₂. What is in dispute is the mathematics layered on top, and the public claims that mathematics is supposed to support. A theorem proves an area-weighted mean of local temperatures is not a global temperature. The 1.5°C target refers to a number that is not a temperature. The same theorem kills ocean heat content: temperature anomalies averaged across the non-equilibrium ocean are not an energy, and the Argo-derived "0.7 W/m²" is a construct with units of joules attached, not a measurement. A theorem proves the balanced carbon ledger has no causal content. Net zero cannot be derived from it. Simple arithmetic on the isotope records puts the fossil share of the net CO₂ addition near zero. The attribution claim runs backwards from the data. Vandermonde and Cauchy-Schwarz prove the single-exponential bomb-¹⁴C decay is not a sum of distinct exponentials, and operator-equivalence carries that result from the ¹⁴C anomaly to the bulk CO₂ pulse. The Bern IRF, and the thousand-year persistence story that depends on it, describes a different function from the one the data draws. Attribution ratios divide by zero. The headline multipliers are made up. Every major policy-relevant claim the IPCC and the media put before the public is one of these constructions. Every one is proven false by junior-high-school math on the data the IPCC itself certifies. When math proves you wrong, you have three choices: accept it, show which premise is false, or show which step is broken. The IPCC does none of them. It publishes the measurements. It publishes the conclusions. It refuses to notice that the measurements kill the conclusions. Published statements that are untrue are called lies. There is no other word for it. The IPCC and the media are telling the public lies, and the lies are the public case for climate policy. Galileo called mathematics the language in which God wrote the universe. The IPCC refuses to read it. Elementary arithmetic has already disproved every headline the panel publishes. Every policy that cites those headlines is enforcing a proven lie. Trillions of dollars. International treaties. Carbon markets. Net-zero mandates. Loss-and-damage transfers. Courtroom damages. All of it is extracted and imposed on the strength of claims the data has killed.

When we look at an oak, a sequoia, or a balsa tree in the Amazon rainforest, we're looking at solidified carbon and oxygen. Trees do not obtain structural mass from the soil; it comes out of thin air. Plants are built almost entirely from atmospheric gases—living, complex architectures of carbon, oxygen and sunlight. No wonder that as children, we hug them, play and climb in them, or wander through their woods, hearing them sighing in the wind. Around 90% to 95% of a tree's dry weight is carbon and oxygen, pulled directly from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Most people assume trees draw their body from the earth, yet the soil volume beneath a canopy remains unchanged as a sapling matures into a giant. Roots do not consume dirt to build branches; large trees leave no gaping holes in the ground. Instead, the root network is a mechanical anchor to hold the heavy tree structure upright, while absorbing water and a tiny fraction of soil minerals—nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. These are their biological multivitamins, accounting for less than 5% of final dry mass. Through photosynthesis, sunlight breaks apart carbon dioxide and water molecules. The plant releases oxygen back into the atmosphere and chains the remaining carbon and oxygen into glucose molecules, forming complex structural polymers like cellulose and lignin. Across the globe, an estimated 3 trillion trees hold roughly 500 billion cubic meters of wood. Every forest on Earth is in reality solidified atmosphere—hundreds of billions of tons of air trapped, structured and given physical form by living plants. Mankind owes its survival to these friendly giants of the natural world.

The first time ordinary English people could afford to eat meat, Parliament passed a law to stop them. In 1256 the harvest workers on one Norfolk manor were fed a diet that was 4% meat by value. Most of the rest was bread. The deer belonged to the king, the rabbits to the lord, and the peasant to the pottage. Then the Black Death killed half the country. Suddenly there were more fields than hands. The survivors could name their price, and they named it in beef. 1351: wages are frozen by law at their level before the plague. Asking for more is a crime, and every village is ordered to build a set of stocks for those who do. 1361: a labourer who leaves his lord for better pay is to be branded on the forehead with an F, for falsehood. 1363: a statute lays down what a servant may eat. Meat or fish once a day and no more. It held for 30 years. In June 1381 the ploughmen marched on London, took the Tower, and beheaded the Archbishop of Canterbury. Wat Tyler put their demands to the king in person. An end to serfdom. And every park, warren, river and wood in England thrown open, so that a poor man might take game the same as a rich one. At St Albans the rebels walked into the abbot's private warren, caught a rabbit, and tied it to the town pillory, as notice that the game was now theirs. Tyler was stabbed at the meeting. The king, who was 14, took back every promise. Villeins you are, he told them, and villeins you shall remain. 9 years later came the reply to the rabbit. 1390: nobody worth under 40 shillings a year may keep a hunting dog, a ferret or a net, on pain of a year in prison. Parliament wrote its reasoning into the preamble. Labourers had been seen out hunting on holy days like gentlemen, and were using the hunts as cover to meet and plot another rising. There were plenty of deer. What could not be tolerated was a ploughman with a haunch of venison, because a man who can feed himself can afford to say no. The laws failed. Hands were too scarce, and by 1424 that same Norfolk manor was feeding its harvesters 28% meat. The instinct behind the laws has never failed once. Whenever the poor get their hands on meat, somebody important discovers a reason they should not have it. The king's pleasure. The social order. Their cholesterol. The climate. The reason is replaced every century. The people giving it have never once missed a steak.

THE CARBON LIES TRILLIONS STOLEN MASS PSYCHOSIS Rising CO2 is NOT caused by fossil fuels. Rising CO2 is NOT harmful. Both claims are categorically false. Both are foreclosed by direct measurement. Every carbon capture project, every carbon credit scheme, every Net-Zero pledge, every fossil-fuel restriction, every carbon footprint calculation rests on physics that has been falsified. Trillions of dollars. Two lies. Here's the TRUTH. LIE #1: Rising atmospheric CO2 is harmful. There is NO evidence that increasing CO2 at current atmospheric concentrations causes ANY harm to humans, ecosystems, or the planet. NONE. The harm claim typically routes through "warming." Two problems. First: there is no physical quantity called "global temperature." What is reported as "global mean surface temperature" is an area-weighted arithmetic mean of intensive-variable surface readings from thermometers of varying kind, siting, and coverage. An arithmetic mean of intensive variables is not itself an intensive variable. It has no physical meaning whatsoever. Units belong to physical quantities. GMST is a number, not a temperature. Second: even accepting the FALSE temperature framing, the radiative forcing from CO2 is trivially small. Happer and van Wijngaarden's line-by-line calculations from the HITRAN spectroscopic database give clear-sky CO2 forcing of 2.97 W/m² for doubling from 400 to 800 ppm at the top of the atmosphere. The saturation is direct: doubling CO2 reduces outgoing radiation by only about 1%. Applying any reasonable cloud correction — Earth averages ~67% cloud cover, and clouds absorb strongly in CO2's principal 15 μm band, already blocking most of the outgoing radiation CO2 would absorb — reduces all-sky forcing below 1 W/m², plausibly below 0.5 W/m². That is undetectable. Solar input at any surface location varies by hundreds of W/m² diurnally, dozens of W/m² seasonally, and dozens of W/m² between adjacent cloudy and clear moments. A signal of 0.5 W/m² does not rise above ordinary variability. There is nothing there to measure. John Clauser (Nobel Prize in Physics 2022) has emphasized the further point: clouds are Earth's actual thermostat, responding to surface conditions on the scale of hours. No cloud feedback in any general circulation model has been validated against observation. A calculation that omits the dominant regulatory mechanism cannot testify to how the system responds. Meanwhile, what CO2 does is measured, direct, and life-sustaining. CO2 is the direct substrate of photosynthesis. Plants are the base of the entire food chain. Every calorie consumed by every animal, humans included, begins as photosynthesis. More atmospheric CO2 means more photosynthesis, more crop yield, more biomass. More CO2 means more life. Satellite measurements since 1982 show Earth's leaf area has increased substantially, driven primarily by CO2 fertilization. Agricultural yields have risen with atmospheric CO2. Commercial greenhouse operators intentionally maintain CO2 at 1,000-1,500 ppm because plants thrive there. The geological record: atmospheric CO2 has ranged from 180 ppm (glacial minima) to 7,000 ppm (Cambrian). Life flourished at the high end. The genuine danger threshold is the low end, near 150 ppm, below which C3 photosynthesis fails and terrestrial life largely ends. LIE #2: Rising atmospheric CO2 is caused by human fossil fuel burning. The isotopic mass balance forecloses this claim. Fossil fuel carries δ¹³C = −28‰. The measured signature of the actual net addition to the atmosphere, from six independent records spanning 500-1000 years (four Scripps stations, Cape Grim Air Archive, Law Dome ice core, Caribbean sclerosponge), is δ¹³C = −13.2‰. Under the physically dictated mass partition equation, the fossil fraction of the net atmospheric addition is approximately ZERO. For fossil to dominate the atmospheric increase (the IPCC and @CO2Coalition FALSELY claim), non-fossil sources and sinks would need to carry δ¹³C = +46‰ or heavier. No terrestrial reservoir on Earth carries this signature. Not the ocean. Not the biosphere. Not volcanic. Not carbonate weathering. Nothing on this planet. This is two orders of magnitude away from REALITY. Not even close. Trillions stolen. Global spending on climate policy exceeded $2 trillion in 2024. McKinsey estimates cumulative spending of $275 trillion through 2050 under the industry-standard Net Zero 2050 scenario, roughly 7.5% of global GDP annually for three decades. Carbon credit markets alone moved over $100 billion in 2023, trading permission slips against a claim the physics forecloses. Every dollar spent on carbon capture, offset schemes, Net-Zero infrastructure, carbon credits, and fossil-fuel restriction is STOLEN from productive economies on the basis of physics that has been falsified by direct measurement. This is not waste. It is thievery. Mass psychosis. Two claims that fail on the physics are treated as settled science by governments, corporations, universities, and media on every continent. Dissent is professionally punished. Nobel laureates who point out the missing physics are called deniers. Peer-reviewed papers that reproduce the direct measurements are shouted down or ignored. Children are taught the falsified claims as fact. Mattias Desmet, professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University, documents this exact pattern in The Psychology of Totalitarianism (2022). His mass-formation theory describes the mechanism: a population held in free-floating anxiety fixates on a single crisis narrative, adopts collective beliefs whose scale exceeds the evidence for them by orders of magnitude, and punishes dissent socially and professionally. That gap between belief and evidence, held collectively and enforced socially, is what mass psychosis looks like. Public policy built on falsified science is not policy. It is a crime against humanity. Paper preview with derivations: bit.ly/NoHumanCO2 Or watch he video below!

'This was never about us' is perhaps the most profound realisation a human can have. Humanity is prone to viewing the universe as a theatre built for our own benefit, but the timeline of Earth tells a vastly different story. The entire history of life rests on a few freakish moments of sheer luck, the rest is evolutionary brilliance. From a purely chemical standpoint, DNA has no business doing what it does. It is just a sequence of nitrogenous bases, sugars, and phosphates—all inanimate matter. Yet, when arranged into a double helix, it becomes an information inferno, capable of error correction, replication, and relentless adaptation. DNA possesses a single-minded drive, forcing life to colonise every hydrothermal vent, frozen tundra, and radioactive crevice it can find. Before DNA, there was likely an 'RNA World'—a simpler, more chaotic system where self-replicating molecules first learned to copy themselves in the primordial soup. DNA didn't just replace it. It joined forces. Photosynthesis was the ultimate turning point. Primitive cyanobacteria figured out how to split water molecules using sunlight, unlocking an infinite energy source. In doing so, they flooded the atmosphere with a toxic, corrosive byproduct called oxygen—triggering the Great Oxidation Event, a catastrophic extinction for the existing anaerobic world. Yet, this disaster became the foundational engine for everything that followed. Complex cellular life (eukaryogenesis) was born from a complete accident: one simple cell engulfed another (which became the mitochondrion) instead of digesting it. This symbiotic merger gave cells the immense energy reserves needed to go multicellular, leading directly to plants, fungi, and animals. When great extinctions wiped the board, life simply plodded on, re-evolved, and moved forward without tears. When 96% of marine species and 70% of land species vanished 252 million years ago, the planet didn't mourn. There was no grief for the trilobites or the massive gorgonopsians that once ruled the land. The slate was wiped clean by volcanic fury, and the surviving 4% of life simply kept going. That tiny fraction of surviving DNA diversified into the dinosaurs, that gave way to mammals, that gave way to us. DNA doesn't care about the living things it builds. It abandons lineages, mutates randomly and sacrifices entire ecosystems to the meat-grinder of extinction—so long as the master key keeps on replicating. Life will happen everywhere it can. If the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, then the emergence of life is not a localised miracle; it's an inevitability. Out in the cosmos, on countless planets orbiting distant stars, organic compounds are likely organising themselves right now. They will find their own version of photosynthesis. They will build their own complex cellular bodies. They will endure their own mass extinctions, and their versions of life will plod on—cold, beautiful and indifferent to whether anyone is there to see it. Humanity’s unique burden is that we are the only thing DNA has built on capable of looking back at the machine and feeling sorrow for it. We are the only thing DNA has built on this planet capable of looking back. We are the code that became self-aware, realising our own insignificance while grieving for the fellow creatures who share the journey with us. We have been incredibly lucky to make it this far through the gauntlet of time. Whether our specific branch of the evolutionary tree snaps off tomorrow or lasts another few million years, the code will survive us. Earth will change its temperature, forests will migrate and life will move on.

🚨 Carney warns of economic pain from U.S. tariffs clash...🤦🏼‍♀️ Canadians voted for Mark Carney to HANDLE the crisis with the United States. They did not vote to hand Mr. Banker the keys and let him fundamentally restructure Canada's relationship with our largest customer while we're strapped into the passenger seat paying for it. Remember the sales pitch? I distinctly recall Carney uttering such lines as "diversify trade," "reduce our vulnerability," and "get a deal with Trump." Now suddenly we're undergoing a grand economic "pivot" away from the United States that Carney tells us will come "at a cost." Excuse me? That's one hell of a renovation to announce AFTER you've been given the keys. The United States has been integrated into our economy for generations. You don't replace geography, supply chains, customers and billions in daily cross-border trade with a PowerPoint presentation and a few overseas handshakes and luxury Normandy Buttertarts.Yet apparently this was always the plan! Really?! Because Carney campaigned as the seasoned crisis manager who could deal with Trump. He didn't campaign on fundamentally reorienting Canada's entire economy and then informing Canadians afterward that the transformation would require their sacrifice. I find it rather suspicious how that brochure conveniently never made it to the mailbox. In October 2025, Carney made Canadians a promise: "I will always be straight about the challenges we have to face and the choices we must make." Excellent... then be straight with us right now and SHOW US THE DAMN DEAL! If the American offer was so appalling that Canadian workers, families and businesses should now accept higher costs, disrupted industries and billions in government support while Carney executes his magnificent pivot, Canadians have every right to see what we're supposedly sacrificing ourselves to avoid. Instead, we're treated to performative transparency theatre from a Prime Minister whose own financial affairs required a conflict screen covering 103 companies, while Canadians are expected to simply trust that everything behind the curtain of Oz is perfectly splendid. Apparently our role is simply to trust that the conflicts are managed, the secret negotiations are brilliant, the pivot nobody voted for is necessary, and the billions required to soften the landing are merely another delightful coincidence. And... apparently, the new societal expectation is unrequited trust that this enormous economic transformation was what we voted for all along, and to oppose or criticise it, is to "punch down" and hate on Canada. The arrogance is both breathtaking and gobsmacking! Diversifying Canadian trade is prudent. Using "diversification" as retroactive permission to dramatically restructure our relationship with the world's largest economy is something else entirely. Carney wasn't elected Canada's managing director with authority to wholly restructure the company while the shareholders sit blindfolded in the lobby. And if @MarkJCarney really intends to "always be straight" with Canadians, he can start by showing us what the hell we're being asked to sacrifice for. Until then, apparently Canadian democracy works like a software update: Nobody read the new terms, nobody remembers agreeing to them, and #MarkCarney clicked ACCEPT ALL on behalf of 41 million people. Our new reality in Canadian democracy now comes with terms and conditions subject to change after purchase. I would like to unsubscribe from Carney's free trial of economic transformation now, before he finds my credit card. #cdnpoli Melanie (Links below)

"The whole thing is a fallacy right from the start." Geologist Ian Plimer dispels the "climate crisis" narrative, arguing that no scientific paper to date has demonstrated human-induced carbon dioxide emissions as a driver of global warming. He maintains that climate models fail because they assume CO₂ drives temperature rise, which he describes as a religious belief unsupported by evidence.

Typical conversation with climate alarmists: Alarmist: “It is hot today in the northeast. This is proof of RAPID global warming.” Me: “It was hotter during this exact week in 1911. How’d that happen?” Alarmist: “So, you don’t understand the difference between weather and climate? You need to look at GLOBAL trends in averages, not just a hot day.” Me: “I know the difference. Evidently you don’t because you’re blaming a couple of hot days on climate change. I’m just pointing out that this has happened before. I also find it funny that all you talk about are extremes until you are shown that the same weather has always occurred, then you pivot to averages and try to gaslight.” Alarmist: “You’re a denier!” It’s really hard to imagine how anyone could be this effing stupid, but this happens at least once a day. These ignorant turd nibblers infuriate me to the point where if they were in my physical presence in the moment, it would take every ounce of restraint in my body to not grab them with my bare hands and snap them like glowsticks until the light came on. And, if they are just dishonest as opposed to mentally dysfunctional specimens, then that’s all the more reason why people like Klimate Karens deserve a good physical beat down. They didn’t get an ass-beating back in middle or high school, so they act like tools as adults. I realize some of you (especially family and friends reading) may not like my tone here, and that’s fine. Be offended. But I am fed up with the mental retardation. There is just zero excuse for it. Straighten up or ship out, I’m not going to entertain it any longer. End of rant. Carry on.

Two decades of global greening driven by higher CO₂ is a profound rescue mission by nature itself. The Earth’s carbon cycle had hit a catastrophic 190 ppm crisis point during the Last Glacial Maximum, some 20,000 years ago. CO₂ reached its lowest level in hundreds of millions of years; and the planet was scraping the bottom of the biological barrel. It came perilously close to choking the life out of 95% of all land plants. What could that have meant for our species survival? This steady loss of global CO₂ levels comes from weathering, erosion, absorption and burial over deep time. These processes are etched into the entire geological record. It was a critical turning point for planetary life, rarely talked about today. Now that modern-day carbon deficit is reversing, NASA’s MODIS and VIIRS satellites reveal a global recovery with undeniable clarity. They are tracking a worldwide expansion of the green leaf area almost entirely driven by carbon fertilisation. The ancient ferns and forests locked up in coal, oil and gas are being recycled back into active duty, putting the biosphere on a more stable footing. This green expansion is undeniable, covering an area twice the size of the continental United States. It makes the dogma of a climate crisis, occurring decades in the future seem shallow, even counter-intuitive. Over recent decades, we've been hammered with the narrative that CO₂ is the dark road to crisis and collapse. Yet the real collapse has been for national sovereignty, as Western economies and jobs are hollowed out and exported. The global green recovery is nature fighting back. It exposes the extent to which we have been force-fed an ideological dogma instead of reality to sustain an artificial, 'code red' climate storm. These alarm bells were manufactured via worst-case computer modeling and economic spreadsheets. They were quietly produced in sterile office suites in Geneva and New York under the watchful eye of a self-appointed globalist elite. Asset managers, investment opportunists, the political class and wayward billionaires like Bill Gates, all saw an unparalleled opportunity for power and profit. For 30 years, we have watched as the UN hosted annual COP summits—luxurious two-week junkets for the wealthy, who jet into plush hotels and resort hideaways. Yet for the rest of us, the Earth remains the same familiar, yet flawed, enduring wonderland. We still want to see roses in the cheeks of our children, yearn for the freedom of quiet country lanes, and feel a thrill at the unceasing natural world around us. This ancient human need has not been diminished. The bureaucrats are quick to analyse the planet through this economic matrix, but they fail to appreciate its endless diversity. They don't want to hear the ancient music of bird songs or watch the waves crash on lonely beaches. If they stepped back from their dead screens, they might see a grander, older story written into the deep architecture of time. To suggest a minuscule fraction of a trace gas is running the entire climate apparatus is to split hairs in the face of evolutionary history. They see the world through a pixelated lens rather than for any authentic love for it. The biosphere isn't listening to these plastic-moneyed interpretations of climate; the world is too busy drinking in the rain and soaking up the benevolence of our carbon-based heritage. Never surrender to this power-mad rush to world globalism, masked under its fake brand of environmentalism. We must strive to keep the lights of our freedoms burning. Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. — Dylan Thomas

Niemand leugnet, dass es warm ist, vielleicht auch wärmer wird. Wir leben in einer Zwischeneiszeit ffs. Warum können Klimawandelpropheten nicht zwischen einer Beobachtung (Es ist warm) und ihrer Erklärung (Warum ist es warm?) unterscheiden? Dass es wärmer wird, falls es wärmer wird, kann viele Ursachen haben. CO2 ist eine Ursache, die es haben könnte, wäre CO2 in der Atmosphäre nicht längst gesättigt. Aber selbst wenn man einmal darüber hinweg sieht, dass mehr CO2 kaum "mehr" Treibhauseffekt machen kann, stellt sich die Frage nach dem BELEG dafür, dass CO2, die 4% der 0,04% atmosphärischen CO2s, die menschlichen Ursprungs sind, für die Erwärmung verantwortlich sind. Wenn man ernstgenommen und nicht einfach als Klimawandeltroll wie Azathot im Dunkeln nagen will, dann muss man einen BELEG für die Kausalität von CO2 aus menschlicher Produktion erbringen. Ich lese nun seit mehr als 10 Jahren Studien zum Klimawandel. Mir ist kein solcher BELEG bekannt. Ich kenne nur Korrelationen, die sobald man die Ideologie entfernt, nicht von Scheinkorrelationen zu unterscheiden sind, alles theorieloses Geschwätz, gebaut auf teleologischer Argumentation, die voraussetzt, was zu zeigen wäre. Indes: Mir sind etliche Studien bekannt, die auf Grundlage der Vostock-Eisbohrkerne gezeigt haben, dass Erwärmung einer Erhöhung der CO2-Konzentration vorausgeht. Und ich kenne keinen Klimawandeladepten, der je widerlegt hätte, dass die Kausalität aus ihrer Sicht verkehrt herum verläuft. Alles, was es zum angeblich anthropogenen Klimawandel gibt, ist hypothetisierendes Geschwätz, verbreitet von interessierten Parteien, das keiner näheren Überprüfung standhält, aber die Grundlage bietet, um westliche Gesellschaften zu zerstören, Irre ihre Manie als Energieminister ausleben zu lassen, Menschen zu verarmen und mit all den Maßnahmen KEINERLEI Effekt auf das Klima zu produzieren. Es ist ein Kult, ein morbider Kult, der vornehmlich für Leute attraktiv ist, die auf Basis eigener Leistung keinerlei Status erreichen können und Freude empfinden, wenn sie anderen schaden können.

TEILEN ERWÜNSCHT ‼️😘 Der größte Datenbetrug des Jahrhunderts? – Professor Ewert entlarvt die Klima-Illusion Der Geologe Prof. Friedrich-Karl Ewert (emeritiert für angewandte Geophysik, RWTH Aachen) hat mit seiner akribischen Arbeit das Fundament der Klima-Hysterie erschüttert. Sein Vergehen: Er hat die NASA-kuratieren IPCC-Temperaturdaten von 2010 und 2012 miteinander verglichen. Das Ergebnis ist eine akademische Bankrotterklärung: Die NASA hat systematisch ihre eigenen historischen Daten nachträglich verändert. In der Mehrzahl der von Ewert untersuchten Fälle wurde der Temperaturtrend nach oben manipuliert, um die Erwärmung zu verstärken. Aus Abkühlung wurde Erwärmung – eine nachträgliche Bearbeitung, die nichts mit Wissenschaft, aber alles mit gewünschten Ergebnissen zu tun hat. Das IPCC, der Weltklimarat, dessen Berichte unsere Politik bestimmen und unsere Industrie ruinieren, beruht auf Datensätzen, die so verändert wurden, dass ihre ursprüngliche Aussage ins Gegenteil verkehrt wurde. Das ist keine Verfeinerung der Messmethoden. Das ist Fälschung. Die Verteidiger des Systems reagieren mit üblicher Arroganz: BR-Faktenfuchs und andere Klima-Jünger diskreditieren Ewert als "Klimawandelleugner". Sie tun das, was sie immer tun: Sie prüfen nicht die Beweise, sie personalisieren und diffamieren den Kritiker. Die Temperaturen werden nicht wärmer, die Daten werden wärmer gemacht. Die Klimakrise ist keine Naturkatastrophe, sondern eine mediale Erfindung, gestützt auf nachträglich korrigierte Kurven und gestützte Statistik. Die Politik, die deutschen Medien (angeführt vom Spiegel), die grünen Ideologen – sie alle haben ihr ganzes Weltbild auf einem Fundament aus nachträglich angepassten Daten errichtet. Eine gigantische Luftnummer. Der Planet kühlt, die Panik steigt. #IPCCSkandal #KlimaDatenManipulation #FriedrichKarlEwert #NASA #Wissenschaftsbetrug #Systempresse #SpiegelVersager

JOHN CLAUSER, 2022 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: "I can very confidently assert, there is no climate emergency. As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is NOT in peril. Atmospheric CO2 and methane have negligible effect on the climate. The policies government have been implementing are totally unnecessary and should be eliminated. So far, [we] have totally misidentified what is the dominant process in controlling the climate, and all of the various models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics. The dominant process, is “the cloud-sunlight-reflexivity thermostat mechanism. Clouds are all bright white, and they reflected 90% of the sunlight back into space making them the most crucial yet most overlooked aspect of the climate system. Two-thirds of the Earth are ocean. The Pacific Ocean alone is half the Earth. The average cloud cover for the Earth is 67%; about 50% over land and 75% over oceans. I claim that the above conspicuous properties of clouds are the missing part of the puzzle."

For forty years we’ve been told the planet has a single 'global average temperature'—a made-up figure treated as more credible than the weather outside your own window. The great flaw in this is that there really is no one temperature scenario that applies to any geographical point anywhere on Earth. Not in the way people imagine, any more than there’s a single 'global mood' or 'sense of irony. If you say, 'The planet's average temperature is 15°C', it means absolutely nothing to a person struggling across frost-bitten Siberia or sipping a piña colada on a humid summer's night in Brazil. It's meaningless to human geography and policy. Statistically, you can average the temperature of a polar ice cap and the Sahara Desert, but the resulting number describes a place that doesn't exist. It’s a computer model—not reality. The concept of a single global temperature metric only makes sense from a cosmic distance. It's a planetary metric, designed for satellites, not human life or geography. When international bodies focus entirely on moving a single global average by 0.1°C, they treat the Earth as a Lego land thermodynamic system. But the planet doesn't experience climate that way. Earth's climate is fractured into multiple distinct climate zones (roughly 14 separate scenarios) based on lived experiences. All of them are entirely regional, dictated by local topography, ocean currents, vegetation cover, and atmospheric pressure systems. Tourism campaigns market Hawaii as an idyllic, uniform tropical paradise. But anyone who's actually been there knows the island contains roughly 10 of the world’s 14 distinct climate zones, ranging from continuously wet tropical rainforests to arid deserts, and even alpine tundra on top of Mauna Kea where it snows. International institutions are quietly backing away from their most extreme 'collapse' scenarios. The entire apparatus was built on a flawed premise - trying to govern the world based on a single, aggregated temperature marker that no human ever actually experiences. The Hawaii analogy shows how local reality obliterates uniform narratives. The true danger isn't a minor shift in a global statistical average, but the civilisational paralysis from letting central bureaucracies replace reality with ideology. When an immense institutional and bureaucratic apparatus is built around a specific set of numbers, targets and narratives, it develops an enormous amount of structural inertia. It doesn't just stop or turn on a dime because the underlying assumptions shift. We’ve elevated heavily processed, continent-sized guesswork into a Holy Scripture, then handed trillion-dollar policy levers to people who treat any questioning of the guess as heresy. It turns out there is no thermometer big enough to measure 'the Earth'.