GretaHellOuttaHere 🇺🇸🥩

@liz_churchill10 Isn’t he considered too crazy and dangerous to be allowed to exist yet?

Incredible. Bill Gates followed through with this. “If people would cut down on their meat consumption, we could really help the planet” “So possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case that we’re intolerant to certain types of meat”

@SamanthaFlom @LifeNewsHQ Ironically, it’s usually government failures (nutrition standards, mental health care systems, environmental protection standards, etc) that makes people a drain on the system.

@LifeNewsHQ This is where the slippery slope takes us. It’s not a far leap from here to a place where the government has a “right” to kill anyone who is perceived as a drain on the public health system. ewtnnews.com/world/us/84-ye…

AWFUL: A Quebec physician says parents should be able to euthanize disabled newborn babies. He says parents “should have the opportunity” to have their newborn killed under Canada’s MAiD euthanasia regime. This is absolutely insane.

@EndTribalism Avoid the medical profession like the plague that it’s become.

RFK Jr. gets emotional sharing a story about a family member’s struggle coming off SSRIs. He says it is harder than getting off heroin. “I happen to be an actual expert on this because I was addicted to heroin for 14 years.” “I went through cold turkey withdrawal probably over 100 times.” “After 72 hours, it’s over.” “But I’ve watched people come off of SSRIs, and it is not even comparable.” “I watched a family member get off of them after a couple of years on them, and she was suicidal literally every day.” “She woke up every morning and said, ‘I don't want to live.’” “And she said, ‘The only reason I'm staying alive is for you guys.’” “That's heartbreaking to hear from a family member.” “And I've heard that from hundreds and hundreds of people, the same story again and again.”

@Cernovich Your comment section is overrun with Democrats posing as conservatives. Daily Wire is awesome, I wish some rich patron would make it 100% free so Liberals might get exposed to it.

Politics is down. People are checked out. Everyone can debate why. That's another subject. Not surprised by the Daily Wire layoffs. It's a structural issue.

@ScottJenningsKY They have no idea what they would unleash, should they succeed.

"Just die." – Wajahat Ali This deep cultural pathology has consumed the Democratic Party. When they show you who they are, believe them.

@thehealthb0t Ketogenic diet, especially combined with intermittent fasting, which promotes autophagy, is the solution for most chronic illnesses.

Why hasn’t nattokinase replaced statins? Joe Rogan discussed a study where 1,062 people took it for a year. Ultrasound showed their arterial plaque shrank 36%. This enzyme stops new blockages and reverses existing plaque. Why not mainstream yet?

All I ever hear the media talk about is right wing violence. All I ever see are left wing shooters.

@DissidentClint @Cernovich @TheAtlantic Why are you talking about the Atlantic as if it were any kind of credible source of information? It’s a completely irrelevant propaganda machine for the left.

Further expanding on this, once you see what the confirmation process was like, you’ll understand how I absolutely know @TheAtlantic piece is BS: First, an average day running Kash’s confirmation process: We’d have our first meeting usually around 730am to prepare for the day. He never missed. First meeting in the Senate around 9am. Would have back-to-back until around 6pm. Head back to debrief often until late maybe 8-10ish many days. Then, I’d get to work preparing briefing materials for the next day and send to Kash in the early hours of the morning. He would then study them until the day started. And, somehow he still found time to hit the gym before our meetings. Insane discipline. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner together everyday for months. We were on such a tight schedule that I knew when he went to bed and got up. You would think if any of the allegations in the hit piece are true, I would have seen it? The stakes were high and the margin for error was 0. One missed meeting or one briefing not studied, and the whole project would have failed. Here’s the key point: anonymous sources, many who have never met him or maybe briefed him once or twice, don’t know anything about him. You would think @TheAtlantic might have asked a guy who spent every waking minute with the FBI director if any of this rang true? Second, I have seen every piece of dirt that the opposition could dig up to throw at Kash. I had to know any liabilities in order to ensure no surprises. I saw what former coworkers said about him. I saw all of the cases he worked on as a lawyer. If he had a traffic violation or an overdue library book, I saw it. I also worked with his lawyers to ensure we covered every bit of his financial disclosures. There’s not a speck of dirt on this man. That’s why they had to make up stories about drinking too much? lol. I also talked to many of his former coworkers to ask for details on his previous work. EVERY SINGLE ONE spoke highly of his unmatched work ethic and fidelity to mission. Some of these were even elite US military special operators who are kinda known for their hard work and fidelity, and they praised these qualities in Kash. Again, you’d think @TheAtlantic would ask someone with this much background whether any of this checks out. I would have spoken on the record. But, they went with anonymous disgruntled sources who were reporting on rumors.

No, that is categorically false. Read below. The story we have all been told Carbon comes in two stable forms: ordinary carbon-12 and a slightly heavier cousin, carbon-13. About 99% of carbon in nature is the light kind, 1% the heavy kind. The exact ratio shifts a little depending on where the carbon came from. Plants prefer the lighter version when they photosynthesize, so plant matter — and the fossil fuels made from ancient plant matter — runs "lighter" than the air around it. Scientists measure this with a quantity called δ¹³C, expressed in parts per thousand. A more negative number means more of the light isotope, less of the heavy. Here is the observation everyone agrees on: the atmosphere’s δ¹³C has been drifting downward for decades. The air is getting isotopically lighter at the same time CO₂ levels are rising. Here is the inference that has been treated as obvious: fossil fuels are isotopically light, we are burning lots of them, the air is getting lighter, therefore the lightness must be coming from us. This was first proposed (not proven) by Hans Suess in 1955 and has been repeated in every textbook, every IPCC report, and every news article ever since. It is called the "Suess effect," and it is the pillar on which the attribution of rising CO₂ to human activity rests. Notice something about this argument: it has the form of a guess, not a proof. Two things are happening at once — emissions rising, isotopes drifting — and one is asserted to cause the other because the mechanism is plausible. Plausible is not the same as demonstrated. Two trends moving together is correlation. A mechanism that could produce the observed effect is not evidence that it did. Yet for seven decades this guess was treated as established fact and built into every climate model, every policy framework, every diplomatic agreement. Nobody, in seventy years, did the obvious thing: solve the mass-balance equation backward and ask what the data actually require. What Koutsoyiannis (2024) actually did Imagine the atmosphere as a large tank containing a mixture of CO₂ molecules. Some of those molecules are heavy, some are light. New CO₂ flows into the tank from various sources — plant respiration, soil decay, the oceans, volcanoes, and yes, fossil-fuel combustion. CO₂ also leaves the tank — absorbed by plants during photosynthesis, dissolved into the oceans. The δ¹³C of the air at any moment is just the running average of what's gone in, minus what's gone out, weighted by the amounts. This is not climate science. This is the kind of arithmetic engineers do every day to keep track of what's in a chemical reactor or a water reservoir. It is governed by an equation so basic it has no name beyond "mass balance." If you put a cup of cream into a bowl of milk, the resulting mixture has a fat content that is exactly the weighted average of the two. There is no mystery about this and no room for opinion. What Koutsoyiannis did was take that equation and run it in reverse. Instead of guessing what the inputs to the atmosphere were and predicting δ¹³C, he took the measured δ¹³C and the measured CO₂ concentrations and solved for the only unknown: the average isotopic signature of whatever was flowing in. He called this quantity δ¹³C_I — the "I" stands for input. If the Suess story is right, δ¹³C_I must have been getting steadily lighter for decades, in lockstep with the growing flood of fossil emissions. Cumulative human emissions roughly tripled between 1978 and 2022. The input signature should have shifted downward by a measurable, predictable amount. This is a sharp, falsifiable prediction. It is the central testable claim of the entire fossil-fuel attribution. Koutsoyiannis ran the calculation four different ways, on four different observation sites scattered across the globe — Barrow in Alaska, Mauna Loa in Hawaii, American Samoa in the South Pacific, and the South Pole — using the canonical data from the Scripps CO₂ Program founded by Charles Keeling himself. Then he extended the analysis backward five centuries using ice-core and coralline-sponge proxy records. The answer, in every case, by every method, at every site, across every period: the input signature has not changed. It sits at about −13 parts per thousand and has stayed there, within the noise, for as far back as we can measure it. The Little Ice Age. The Industrial Revolution. The post-war economic boom. The doubling of annual human emissions. None of it shows up. The atmosphere has been receiving carbon with the same isotopic fingerprint the entire time. The biosphere explains everything — fossil fuels explain nothing There is one more result from Koutsoyiannis' analysis that deserves its own discussion, because it is the most direct demonstration of what "no detectable human fingerprint" actually means in practice. After recovering the constant input signature from the data, Koutsoyiannis built a simple model to test whether the observed δ¹³C record could be reproduced without any fossil fuel term at all. The model has exactly two parameters: one representing the isotopic signature of carbon entering the atmosphere during the months when CO₂ is rising (dominated by the respiration of plants, soils, and oceans, which release isotopically light carbon), and another representing the signature during the months when CO₂ is falling (dominated by photosynthesis, which preferentially removes the lighter isotope and thereby enriches what remains in the air). These are the two halves of the biosphere's seasonal breathing — the exhale and the inhale of the living Earth. One value turns out to be the same worldwide (reflecting the universal chemistry of photosynthesis), and the other varies by latitude (reflecting the fact that seasonal respiration is strongest in the north, where most of the world's land mass is, and weakest near the South Pole, where there is almost no vegetation). With these two numbers and nothing else — no fossil fuel emissions, no Bern model, no "anthropogenic" term of any kind — the model reproduces the full monthly δ¹³C record at all four observation stations with explained variance of 98 to 99 percent. That is not a rough approximation. That is near-perfect reconstruction. And it has a consequence that cannot be argued away: if a model containing only biospheric terms explains 99% of the variance, then any additional term — including fossil fuels — can account for at most 1% of what remains. But that remaining 1% is already consumed by measurement noise, seasonal irregularities, volcanic perturbations like Pinatubo, and the ordinary variability of El Niño. There is no unexplained variance left over that needs a fossil fuel term to fill. This does not mean fossil fuel combustion releases no CO₂. It obviously does. But human emissions are approximately 4% of total annual CO₂ turnover — the other 96% comes from natural respiration and ocean exchange. The biosphere's own emissions are not only far larger than ours; they are also isotopically lighter. C3 plants, which include most of the world's trees and crops, have δ¹³C values of −26 to −28 parts per thousand — as depleted or more depleted than most fossil fuels. When these plants and soils respire, they release CO₂ with the same "light" isotopic signature that has always been attributed to coal and oil. Our 4% contribution, carrying a similar signature, is not distinguishable from the 96% natural flux it is mixed into. It is a candle lit in a forest fire. It is worth pausing on what Suess himself actually wrote in 1955. His exact words were: "The decrease can be attributed to the introduction of a certain amount of C14-free CO₂ into the atmosphere by artificial coal and oil combustion and to the rate of isotopic exchange between atmospheric CO₂ and the bicarbonate dissolved in the oceans." He posited two mechanisms — fossil combustion and natural oceanic exchange — joined by "and," with no claim about which one dominated. The subsequent literature took this sentence, deleted the second mechanism, promoted the first from "can be attributed to" to "is caused by," and called the result "the Suess effect." What Koutsoyiannis' model shows is that the mechanism Suess's successors deleted — natural exchange — is not merely a contributor. It is the entire explanation. And the mechanism they promoted — fossil fuels — is not merely uncertain in magnitude. It is superfluous. The data do not even detect it. The 99% fit does not need it. Where, then, is all that fossil carbon going? The answer was in front of us all along, and Koutsoyiannis is not the first to point it out. Of the roughly 200 billion tonnes of carbon (in CO2) that flow into the atmosphere each year, human emissions account for about 4 percent. The other 96 percent comes from natural processes — primarily the breathing of soils and plants, and exchange with the oceans. The biosphere is not some quiet bystander while humans rearrange the carbon cycle. It is the carbon cycle. Human emissions are a rounding error added to a vastly larger natural flux that swamps them and homogenizes them into the background. And here is the part that has been hiding in plain sight: the biosphere is more isotopically light than fossil fuels. Plant matter, soil organic matter, freshwater and ocean organic matter — all of these have δ¹³C values more negative than coal, oil, or natural gas. So the qualitative argument that "the atmosphere is getting lighter, therefore fossil fuels did it" applies with even greater force to natural respiration. Suess’ plausibility argument does not single out fossil fuels at all. It points more strongly somewhere else. Nobody noticed because nobody looked. The mass-balance inversion confirms quantitatively what the qualitative reasoning, properly applied, already suggests: the atmospheric δ¹³C decline is driven by the natural biosphere, which is expanding and respiring more vigorously as the planet has warmed and as CO₂ has risen — the well-documented "greening of the Earth" visible from satellites. The fossil-fuel contribution is too small to detect against the background of natural exchange. Why this changes everything Stay with the implication. Given that the isotopic fingerprint of fossil carbon is not detectable in the atmospheric input, then THE central evidence that rising CO₂ is of human origin fails. The rise in CO₂ is real. It is measured every day at Mauna Loa. But the attribution of that rise to human emissions has always rested on the Suess’ flawed isotopic argument. That argument is now refuted by the very isotopes invoked to prove it. This does not mean humans emit no CO₂. We obviously do (~10 GtC/yr). It means the natural carbon cycle is so much larger than our contribution, and so vigorously responsive to temperature, that our additions are quickly absorbed and overwhelmed. The atmosphere does what the atmosphere has always done in response to a warming planet: it accumulates more CO₂, because warmer oceans hold less dissolved gas and warmer biospheres respire more vigorously. This is the same pattern visible in every ice-core record going back hundreds of thousands of years, where temperature leads CO₂ by hundreds to thousands of years — warming first, CO₂ later. The post-Little-Ice-Age warming, which began in the early 1800s before any meaningful fossil emissions, fits this ancient pattern exactly. We did not cause the warming. The warming caused the CO₂. Now follow the dominoes. If we did not cause the CO₂ rise, then the CO₂ rise cannot be the proof that we are warming the planet. If the CO₂ rise is itself a response to natural warming, then attributing the warming to the CO₂ is circular — you cannot use a temperature-driven effect as the cause of the temperature change that drove it. If the warming is not anthropogenic, then "net zero" achieves nothing. Cutting human emissions to zero leaves 96 percent of the carbon flux untouched and addresses none of the natural processes actually driving the observed changes. The trillions of dollars committed to decarbonization, the dismantling of reliable energy infrastructure, the impoverishment of developing nations to keep them from burning the same fuels that lifted the West out of poverty — all of it is built on an attribution that does not survive an elementary mass-balance check. If the entire scientific establishment, including very intelligent and very honest individuals, propagated this attribution for seven decades without testing it, then "consensus" is revealed as what it always was: a sociological phenomenon, not an epistemological one. Scientists cite each other. The first paper asserted. Later papers cited the first. Textbooks cited the later papers. By the third generation of citation, nobody remembered that the original claim had never been demonstrated — it had only been assumed. This is how a guess becomes a fact in a field where nobody is incentivized to check the foundations. What honest science looks like Koutsoyiannis did not bring opinions to this problem. He did not invoke consensus, authority, or political stakes. He took the conservation of mass — which nobody disputes — applied it to the data the establishment itself produced, and reported what the equations gave back. When a critic, Arno Kleber, attempted to refute him in the same journal months later, Koutsoyiannis answered every substantive point in detail, showing that Kleber had misread the original paper, cherry-picked his data, used the wrong time period, and misapplied the philosophy of science he claimed to be invoking. The reader does not need to take anyone's word for any of this. Koutsoyiannis' paper is open access. The mathematics requires only high-school algebra and the recognition that a tank cannot contain more or less of something than what was put into it minus what was taken out. The data are public. The calculation can be reproduced on a spreadsheet in an afternoon. What is required is the willingness to run the calculation and accept what it shows, even if what it shows undoes a story that powerful institutions have spent decades telling, billions of dollars defending, and trillions of dollars implementing. The Suess effect was an assumption from 1955. It was repeated for seventy years. It was never proven. It is now FALSIFIED — not by opinion, not by an alternative theory, but by the data themselves answering a question nobody had bothered to ask them.

@elonmusk maybe you would like to support this group with free Starlink? lauradekkerworldsailingfoundation.com/world-sailing-…

@dr_ericberg 🥩🥚🥓🧈

Which three foods make you feel your best?

CIA Director John Ratcliffe: “Adam Schiff covertly conspired with the fake whistleblower Eric Ciaramella in an attempt to overthrow the sitting President.” (2025) The Inspector General CONFIRMED it. Tulsi declassified the memos TODAY. THIS COVER UP IS OVER

@P_McCulloughMD @McCulloughFund ADHD is just another medical hoax to sell drugs to gullible, shitty parents.

@RNCResearch Christ he’s stupid.

Democrat Senator Mark Kelly slanders “white” service members. KELLY: “The last thing I would want in a Space Shuttle crew would be seven white-guy U.S. navy test pilots like me.”

@Cernovich I’m catholic, I haven’t respected most Popes. Trump can feud with this twerp all he wants.

Unless you are reading it backwards. The Pope is a Chicago Democrat using his office to lead voters astray.

@LauraLoomer @TuckerCarlson @POTUS @TuckerCarlson is your family being held hostage by Islamic terrorists? You sound nuts.

Another day of @TuckerCarlson disrespecting President Trump by calling him a “slave to Israel”. Totally disrespectful to @POTUS. Also a total lie.

@CesewskiJean @Defundmedianow @libsoftiktok @elonmusk Liberals + foreign $$$ influence

@Defundmedianow @libsoftiktok @elonmusk What the hell happened to our country?

This monster was magically competent to stand trial the first 14 times but suddenly this time he isn’t competent when he’s facing the death penalty ABSOLUTELY INFURIATING We shouldn’t have to live like this

@OffBayMedia @NASA @NASAArtemis Yawn 🥱

@NASA @NASAArtemis The Orientale Basin is a 930km wide impact crater on the far side of the Moon.. formed 3.8 billion years ago when an asteroid roughly 64km wide slammed into the lunar surface. It's the youngest and best preserved large impact basin on the Moon

History in the making In this new image from our @NASAArtemis II crew, you can see Orientale basin on the right edge of the lunar disk. This mission marks the first time the entire basin has been seen with human eyes.

@alexnitzberg @bouldersoundguy @NASA @NASAArtemis They will extract your money for their purposes, one way or another.