💥 ClimatePoet 💥

@4RealClimate @Alan_Watson_ @Kenneth72712993 @jemmm85517813 @Diver_Flemming @_ClimateCraze @Dallas62130926 @RogTallbloke @1000Frolly Correct. It's funny, because these doomers think it's cold on the top of Mount Everest because there is less CO2 up there. But it's because the air is 30% thinner than at sea level. The formula to calculate the atmophere's temperature gradient does no include which gas it is.

@JrmeBrwnCt @Kenneth72712993 @AssoClimatoReal The hypothesis is not if CO2 has absorption bands. LOL There exists no empirical experiment CO2 affects temperature. That's why you can only post random, out-of-context, trash "model" tripe you find in google images without understanding it Research the word "scientific method"

@ClimatePoet @Kenneth72712993 @AssoClimatoReal There are lot of empirical evidences confirming the radiative forcing of CO2 🥱

Depuis 2000, les décès liés au froid augmentent de +9 %/an aux États-Unis ❄️ Ils sont 12x plus élevés que ceux liés à la chaleur (72 361 vs 6 129/an). +0,5 °C pourrait sauver +10 000 vies/an. Via @Kenneth72712993 👇sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

@JrmeBrwnCt @Kenneth72712993 @AssoClimatoReal So all your beliefs are based on "models", not actual empirical evidence? LOL Let me guess, you think software models are physical evidence. LOL

@ClimatePoet @Kenneth72712993 @AssoClimatoReal Do you realize you lost any tiny little bit of remaining credibility with this reply ?

@JrmeBrwnCt @Kenneth72712993 @AssoClimatoReal "model" LOL

@ClimatePoet @Kenneth72712993 @AssoClimatoReal Wrong.

@Kenneth72712993 @JrmeBrwnCt @AssoClimatoReal Correct, unless the ocean warms, the Earth's mean temperature does not budge. The ocean is Earth's thermostat. Wavelengths in CO2s far-IR absorption bands are too weak to affect thermal equilibrium of anything. Even near-IR is too weak. SW incident solar energy warms the oceans

@JrmeBrwnCt @ClimatePoet @AssoClimatoReal "CO2 cooling effect in the shortwaves is 2.3% of it’s warming effect in the longwaves...strong warming effect" In LW tripled CO2 (>1000 ppm) radiatively affects the ocean's top 0.01 mm by 0.5 W/m² over centuries. Strong? SW directly warms the top 20,000 mm by 500 W/m² in hours.

@JrmeBrwnCt @Kenneth72712993 @AssoClimatoReal Actually correct. I said IR, not CO2's absorption band. Thus the science stands, CO2 causes an increased cooling effect, if the manmade climate change hypothesis were true. Also the atmosphere absorbs 1/4 incident radiation, increasing CO2's non-terrestrial emission to space

@ClimatePoet @Kenneth72712993 @AssoClimatoReal Wrong.

@Kenneth72712993 @JrmeBrwnCt @AssoClimatoReal Yes, if anything, CO2 has a negative-GHE (i.e. cooling effect) on the Earth since incidence solar radiation is 52% infrared, thus atmospheric CO2 increases attenuation (reduction of radiation intensity) from reaching the planet's surface, by defecting the IR back into space.

@JrmeBrwnCt @AssoClimatoReal "This is not a prediction of surface cooling." It shows a negative radiative forcing (a cooling influence) across Antarctica and especially Greenland as atmospheric CO2 is doubled from 380 ppm to 760 ppm, a doubling which is assumed to occur in the coming centuries.

@Kenneth72712993 @_JamesSteward_ Correct, atmospheric CO2 was 150 PPM lower, and the planetary temperature was 5 to 10°C warmer, very recently. And life was flourishing across the plant. A climatic Garden of Eden.

@_JamesSteward_ "climate doomists will write it off as a localised event, or some nonsense" It's amazing how many locations were so much warmer. Northern China was 7-9°C warmer. The Arctic was 7°C warmer. Antarctica 5°C warmer. The subantarctic was 5-10°C warmer. And nature loved it.

New study: Remains of several bird species known to reside at the edges of bodies of water (lagoons, lakes, rivers) with riparian vegetation (and dense forests) were recovered from a Canary Islands cave. The bones date to ~9000 to 5500 years ago. This "unexpectedly" reveals the Holocene climate was (3 to 7°C) warmer, "much wetter than it is today," and host to far more plant and animal species diversity. The modern environment is sand dune-covered arid desert (<150 mm of rain annually), cooler, and no longer supports water fowl habitat. mdpi.com/2571-550X/9/2/…

According to rates from 2021 UK census data, the UK and all of Europe will be become majority Muslim, thus Islamic-run countries. Each country before then may experience Revolutionary events similar to 1979 Iran.

The UN is the architect of the Climate Change Hoax, plus countless other Hoaxes. Actually everthing they do is grift. They provide no useful service to humanity. They are a woodened bureaucracy. New, fully-100%-transparent systems must be set up with clear goals and KPIs.

@tah_soons @RoyPentland @OwenGregorian This is like a Scientology post. 100% pure ton 'o shit pseudoscience It doesn't survive contact with real science. For one thing, "trap" doesn't exist in science. There is no formula, no scientific unit, no quantification, no experiment, no formal theory even. Only quacks.

Accusing scientists of flipping facts ignores the paper’s own conclusions and the broader paleoclimate record. Earlier 800k-year cores already showed CO₂ and temperature tightly coupled through feedbacks. This extends the picture — it doesn’t break it. 1/ @RoyPentland Not hilarious or disingenuous — just sticking to what the actual paper says. The new Allan Hills data shows CO₂ was stable at ~250 ppm (±20 ppm) over 3 million years *while* the planet slowly cooled into ice ages. That’s **not** “proof positive that CO₂ doesn’t drive temperatures.” It’s the opposite. Thread 👇 2/ In natural cycles (including this 3M-year record), tiny orbital changes started the cooling → more ice → higher albedo → oceans absorbed more CO₂ → CO₂ stayed low and amplified the cooling as a *feedback*. The paper and its authors explicitly say this shows the climate system is *highly sensitive* to even small CO₂ changes when feedbacks kick in. 3/ No one “changed their facts.” The lead author (Julia Marks-Peterson) and co-authors are clear: the stable low CO₂ during slow natural cooling *supports* high climate sensitivity. One co-author told New Scientist: the results “underline how sensitive the climate system is… that is why today’s rapid CO₂ rise is so alarming.” 4/ Today is fundamentally different: humans are raising CO₂ *first* and *fast* (280 → 425+ ppm in 150 years — 100× faster than anything in the Allan Hills record). The 4 panels above show the mechanism: extra CO₂ traps heat → oceans take ~90% → ice melts → albedo drops → more warming. 5/ The paper does **not** say “CO₂ doesn’t drive temperatures.” It says CO₂ was stable during *natural* slow cooling. That stability helped the ice ages deepen via feedbacks — exactly why rapid human-driven CO₂ rise is a new and powerful forcing. 6/ Accusing scientists (and me) of flipping facts ignores the paper’s own conclusions and the broader paleoclimate record. Earlier 800k-year cores already showed CO₂ and temperature tightly coupled through feedbacks. This extends the picture — it doesn’t break it. 7/ Bottom line: Stable ancient CO₂ during natural cooling doesn’t prove CO₂ is irrelevant. It proves how powerful CO₂ + feedbacks are. Today we’re the ones rapidly changing CO₂ — and the physics (plus every major dataset) says that’s driving the current energy imbalance. 8/ Sources (read the actual paper, not just the headline): • Nature 2025: “Broadly stable atmospheric CO₂ and CH₄ levels over the past three million years” (Marks-Peterson et al.) • NASA/NOAA paleoclimate summaries • IPCC AR6 on paleoclimate feedbacks

Shock New Evidence Showing No Link Between CO2 and Temperature Over Last Three Million Years Stumps Net Zero Activists | Chris Morrison, Watts Up With That? The climate science world (‘settled’ division) is in shock following the discovery in ancient ice cores that levels of carbon dioxide remained stable as the world plunged into an ice age around 2.7 million years ago. Levels of CO2 at around 250 parts per million (ppm) were said to be lower than often assumed with just a 20 ppm movement recorded for the following near three million-year period. In addition, no changes in methane levels were seen in the entire period. Massive decreases in temperature with occasional interglacial rises appear to have occurred without troubling ‘greenhouse’ gas levels, and this revelation has caused near panic in activist circles. The assumed level three million years ago of CO2 was around 400 ppm, a convenient mark that has been used to explain the subsequent ice age and a drop to 250 ppm. Due to the recently published paper, this explanation has become more problematic and natural climate variation is correctly noted to have occurred with the temperature changes. Alas, similar explanations are mostly ignored in discussing today’s climate changes in the interests of promoting the Net Zero fantasy. Some cling desperately to a dominant CO2 role, including one of the authors of the findings published in Nature. The co-author states that the results suggest even greater climate sensitivity to the warming effect of CO2. In short, there is a great deal of applying the laws of physics and chemistry to one era, but failing to extend the same courtesy to another. The title of the paper, produced by 17 America-based scientists, was enough to set alarm bells ringing in the ‘settled’ science, Net Zero-obsessed community: ‘Broadly stable atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels over the past three million years.’ A related paper examining ocean heat content derived from the ice core record was also published. Carrie Lear, Professor of Past Climates and Earth System Changes at Cardiff University, claimed that the papers “don’t rewrite the role of CO2, they underline how sensitive the climate system is… that is why today’s rapid CO2 rise is so alarming”. Ah, yes. Even if CO2 movements are minimal, probably within a margin of potential error, they are still responsible for large variations in temperature. The laws of climate science are ‘settled’ – if the trace atmospheric gas CO2 is rising, falling or generally stable, it is almost wholly responsible for large movements in global temperature. Under this rather shaky assumption, humans must stop burning hydrocarbons and return to a neo-Malthusian pre-industrial age. Study lead author Julia Marks-Peterson noted: “We definitely were a bit surprised. If correct, the findings may suggest that even small changes in greenhouse gas levels could trigger major shifts in climate.” That’s a little bit of a scary thought, she added, possibly with an eye on future grant funding. “May suggest” is doing a lot of the work here, and it may also be suggested that more plausible opinions are available. Quoted in New Scientist magazine, Tim Naish, Professor of Earth Science at Victoria University in New Zealand, said it was “way too early to thrown the baby out with the bathwater”. Perish the thought that baby should be given its marching orders, ending a science-lite 40-year demonisation of CO2 and related promotion of a hard-Left Net Zero dream. The latest Nature-published research gives a snapshot from ancient Antarctica ‘blue’ ice drilled in the Allan Hills area. It looks back further in time past the usual 800,000 ice core records. The key finding is that over the last three million years, when sea levels fell and ice periods intensified, the level of the main ‘greenhouse’ gases remained remarkably stable. For the first time, the work has pushed the direct gas measurements back into the late Pliocene era. Over the last three million years moving into the Pleistocene, global temperatures showed a long-term cooling trend of several degrees Celsius, interrupted by increasingly large interglacial oscillations. Interglacial temperature swings, as in the current Holocene, often see temperatures rise by 5°C and more. Critics seeking to downplay ice core evidence often suggest it is too imprecise to provide a wholly accurate record of gas levels and temperature. But it is accurate enough to give a broad cyclical insight. It remains the source of some of the best data we have on the past climate. It is undoubtedly more accurate than most proxy evidence from millions of years ago. But whatever the evidence used, it is hard to detect any obvious and continuous link between CO2 and temperature across the entire geological record going back 600 million years to the start of abundant life on Earth. Certainly none to justify the political notion that humans control the climate thermostat by burning hydrocarbons. In fact the evidence is so slim that Les Hatton, Emeritus Professor in Computer Science at Kingston University, was recently able to determine from ice core records that 100-year rises of 1.1°C in the current interglacial, which started 20,000 years ago, have occurred in one in six centuries. Going back 150,000 years, the frequency was around one in six to one in 20 centuries. None of these findings suggest that current warming is either unusual or primarily caused by human activity. Needless to say, none of these findings trouble the headline writers in narrative-addicted mainstream media. wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/28/sho…

@Kenneth72712993 This is more evidence stacked on top of reams of already existing evidence that CO2 saves lives. People should be encouraged to live extravagant lives. You only live once. Make the most of it. Don't pay heed do the doomsayers and false prophets. They want you to live in misery.

New study: Since 2000 cold-related deaths have been rising by 9% per year in the USA. Cold-related mortality is 12x greater (72,361 deaths/yr) than heat-related mortality (6,129 deaths/yr). A hypothetical 0.5°C warming could save 10,000+ lives per year. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

Wet Weather is only evidence of Wet Weather Wet Weather is not evidence of Woke Pseudoscience

@thematrixb0t Unfortunately, these studies are small scale, nonrandom, based on VAERS data, which filters the samples to only reported injuries, as per Grok As expected,none are acknowledged by the CDC, because they'd implicate themselves JFK need to commission a large-scale population study

The awful truth about the Covid jabs are coming out... they don't just devastate your immune system but also your brain and mental health

@thehealthb0t With less the exaggeration and hype:

The FDA just admitted that the Covid jabs have killed more children than they saved.

@ChipZig32 @NaomiSeibt Yes, and something else, many don't realize, is that after 2029, it's pretty doubtful Trump will retire, he will be a bigly influence, he could be a top advisor to the President's cabinet. He could even be Vice President. But certainly MAGA will live on in full-force,a free Earth

@ClimatePoet @NaomiSeibt Then JD Vance for four years

Every time President Trump talks about the decline of Europe, it breaks my heart. The greatest civilization in the world is being replaced by barbarians. I promise, the MEGA movement will revive Europe, Mr President! 🇩🇪 🤝🇺🇸🤝🇬🇧

@NaomiSeibt @elonmusk ArcAngela Mad #Merkin is the second worst evildoer to ruin the great country of Germany after the National Socialist Workers' Party

I posted this video of Angela Merkel admitting that she wants migrants to out-vote the AfD with English subtitles. It went viral. Now it is making international headlines. This is why I started posting in English years ago which caught @elonmusk’s attention. Today, our global REMIGRATION movement is unstoppable thanks to 𝕏.

@NASA @EPA @epaleezeldin NASA, remove this page from your website. It is peddling pseudoscience and propaganda to kids. A serious offense! eg: "trap" does not exist in physics GHE does not work like a real greenhouse There are many more falsehoods science.nasa.gov/kids/earth/wha…

@ChrisMartzWX Good analysis of the "co2 is a pollutant" canard. But this is a false statement: "Sure, it contributes to “global warming,”

Okay. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t want clean air and clean water. We have the Clean Air Act on the books, and that has reduced most air pollution since the 1970s. But carbon dioxide (CO₂) does not pollute the air at the concentrations that are encountered in Earth’s atmosphere. It doesn’t cause respiratory problems. It isn’t a throat, eye, or skin irritant. It’s inert. Sure, it contributes to “global warming,” but that isn’t necessary bad. The Clean Air Act, as written, does not explicitly classify CO₂ as a “pollutant.” The Obama administration’s 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding has also been overturned. Only the legal precedent, Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), is on the books, and even the Supreme Court decision in that case didn’t classify CO₂ as “pollution.” It ruled, under the Chevron framework, that the EPA had the authority to regulate CO₂ and other “greenhouse gases” should the agency “find” that they endanger public health. That was decided under Obama, and purely a political move to advance climate agenda items along because he didn’t consult with Congress to get them to amend the Clean Air Act.

@NaomiSeibt @mattvanswol Hey Naomi Actually they used to before Trump because of student skin color (DEI) I agree with 90-95% of what Trump has done so far. Three more years left. Let's give him time I'm more concerned of those who went soft, like Bondi, Patel, Bongino What are your critiques of Trump?

@ClimatePoet @mattvanswol Those are too many VERY important points. Do they give out As like candy in America?