
Mike Shower
2.4K posts

Mike Shower
@RealMikeShower
Veteran, fighter pilot, airline captain, former state senator, small business owner.
United States Entrou em Ağustos 2018
440 Seguindo847 Seguidores

@grey4626 I served 24 years including multiple times in combat and to be honest I am a little scared of you reading your absolute brutal takedowns…😎
You do with words what our military must do with swords. Thank you. It means more to us than you know.
English


Mike Shower retweetou

@piersmorgan England is on its way to being a part of a muslim caliphate. You should be concerned about nothing else.
English
Mike Shower retweetou

Dear Fellow Americans Who Love Calling Trump "Literally Hitler,"
So you want to play the Hitler comparison game? Alright, let's do this. But fair warning, you're probably not gonna like where this goes.
I find it fascinating that folks throw around "literally Hitler" like confetti at a parade without ever cracking open a history book. So let me walk you through how Hitler ACTUALLY rose to power, and then we can compare notes on which American president's rise looks more like that playbook. Buckle up.
Hitler's rise depended on a few key things. First, media control and propaganda. Goebbels created a machine that flooded Germany with pro-Nazi messaging while crushing opposition voices. They used newspapers, radio, and film to build the "Hitler Myth" where he was portrayed as some kind of messiah who would save Germany. Second, Hitler demonized his political opponents. He didn't just say "I disagree with you." No, he called them ENEMIES of the German people who needed to be destroyed. The rhetoric escalated from "political opponent" to "existential threat to the nation." Third, he weaponized government agencies against his political enemies. And fourth, he exploited a grassroots movement during economic disaster, the Great Depression, with promises to fundamentally transform the country. Sound familiar yet?
Now let's talk about Obama's rise. In 2008, Pew Research found that 37% of Americans believed media coverage was biased IN FAVOR of Obama. Only 8% thought it favored his opponents. That's not me saying it, that's Pew Research. The 2008 election got dubbed "The Facebook Election" because Obama's team revolutionized how to manipulate media and bypass traditional journalism entirely. One strategist bragged about it. They created celebrity endorsements, will.i.am's "Yes We Can" video, murals... Chris Matthews said he got "a thrill going up my leg" listening to Obama speak. That's not political coverage, that's worship.
And about demonizing opponents? Obama LITERALLY called Republicans "ENEMIES" in a 2010 Univision interview. His exact words were telling Latino voters to "punish our enemies." Not opponents. ENEMIES. When he got called out, he backtracked and said he meant "opponents." Sure you did, buddy. This was the FIRST time a modern president used "enemies" to describe fellow Americans who disagreed with him. You have to go back to the Civil War to find that kind of language from a president.
Here's the kicker though. Under Obama, the IRS systematically targeted Tea Party groups and conservative organizations. Anyone with "patriot" or "9/12" or "Tea Party" in their name got flagged for extra scrutiny. Their applications got delayed for YEARS while liberal groups sailed through. The IRS later APOLOGIZED and settled lawsuits admitting they wrongly used "heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays." A Harvard Kennedy School study concluded this targeting cost Romney between 5 and 8.5 million votes in 2012. Obama won by about 5 million. You do the math. Weaponizing the IRS against political opponents during an election year? Gee, where have I heard that tactic before...
Now compare that to Trump. The media didn't carry water for Trump. They attacked him relentlessly. Studies showed 90%+ negative coverage. That's the OPPOSITE of what happened with Hitler's propaganda machine. The FBI was weaponized against HIM, not by him. Remember Crossfire Hurricane? The Russia hoax? These weren't Trump weaponizing agencies against opponents. This was agencies being weaponized against Trump.
And here's where your Hitler comparison really falls apart. Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews. Trump has Jewish grandchildren. Trump moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Trump created the Abraham Accords bringing peace between Israel and Arab nations. Trump made expanding Israeli peace deals his "personal legacy issue." Trump threatens Iran to PROTECT Israel. Real Hitler move there, right? Brokering peace for the Jewish state and having your daughter convert to Judaism.
Let me spell it out real simple. The ACTUAL Hitler targeted Jews, destroyed Jewish businesses, built concentration camps, started World War II, and murdered millions. Trump pressures Arab nations to recognize Israel, makes Israeli peace deals his personal legacy, threatens Iran over their nuclear program because of Israel's security, and has Jewish grandchildren he adores. Which one sounds more like Hitler to you?
Quinn's Third Law says "Liberalism must always conceal its true purpose." You don't call Trump "Hitler" because the comparison makes any historical sense. You do it because it dehumanizes your political opponent and justifies treating him and his supporters as subhuman threats who deserve whatever happens to them. That's LITERALLY the tactic Hitler used against Jews. You've become the thing you claim to hate.
But what do I know? I'm just someone who actually studied history instead of getting my political analysis from TikTok and late-night comedy shows. The 6 million victims of the ACTUAL Hitler deserve better than your lazy political hyperbole used to score cheap points against a guy who champions the Jewish state.
English

@KonstantinKisin Read last night and agree it’s a very well thought out position on the “why”.
English


@ChrisMartzWX I enjoy your responses. Well explained, plenty of academic research and sources, and yet you still acknowledge, like any “real” scientist would, what you don’t know or that the answer may be different or change as we learn more. Keep it up Chris.
English

Oh, I understand “the science.”
You do not. 🫵😉
First, yes, the planet has warmed up by ~1.2°C since 1850, although nobody knows precisely how much because of poor data quality (e.g., uneven station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) issues that have not been accurately corrected for.
But, I have no doubt that the Earth is slightly warmer than it was 175 years ago or that 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 warming is due to carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. 🌡️📈
SO WHAT? 🤷♂️
Second, contrary to what the army of alarmist foot soldiers have been 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑑 to believe by academics, there are not really any so-called “fingerprints” of human-caused global warming.
That is, there is no meaningful pattern to differentiate warming caused by forcing (i.e., a perturbation that causes Earth’s energy balance to change) from CO₂ to that of either internal variability (e.g., a change, even a very tiny change, in low- and mid-level cloud cover) or a shift in solar forcing.
Numerous peer-reviewed papers claim to have found a human “fingerprint,” but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ anthropogenic warming, but they fail to note that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.
A reduction in cloud cover, for example, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer ocean—all else being equal—increases the rate of evaporation, which raises the vapor pressure (humidity) contributing to polar amplification and faster land warming than the ocean (e.g., Compo & Sardeshmukh, 2008). ✅☁️
🔗link.springer.com/article/10.100… / open-access: psl.noaa.gov/people/gilbert…
All warming, natural or man-made, results in:
1⃣ The higher latitudes warming faster than the mid-latitudes and tropics.
2⃣ Land heating up faster than the oceans.
An increase in solar forcing would have essentially the same material effect, although we can probably rule that out as the cause since sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. 🚫☀️
However, there are other ways in which solar activity exerts influence on the climate system that remain very poorly understood (e.g., solar wind) because very little research has been funded to investigate it.
In any case, the 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there probably is at least some anthropogenic “fingerprint” on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling. 🌡️📉
First, understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as the power—measured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)—standardized per square meter of surface area.
Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ± 3.3 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order to maintain a constant surface air temperature the Earth's surface must emit 239.7 ± 3.3 W/m² back to outer space.
🔗nature.com/articles/ngeo1… / open-access: researchgate.net/publication/26…
Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing of doubling atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (RF 2×CO₂) is 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m² (IPCC TAR, 2007). That means the net outgoing longwave radiation to space is reduced by 3.7 W/m², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI) leading to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).
🔗ipcc.ch/site/assets/up… (p. 357)
In the stratosphere (~13-50 km altitude), this causes a cooling tendency because less infrared radiation (IR) flux is moving up from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).
🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/…
NASA satellite measurements indicate that cooling in the stratosphere has been observed since the late 1970s, although there has been very little cooling over the last 25 years, all the while the troposphere has continued to warm. 🛰️
🔗nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/…
That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, in part an artifact of stricter pollution regulations in recent years.
But, yes, I would agree with most scientists that the cooling observed in the stratosphere, at least that from the 1970s to 2000, is most likely a result of CO₂ forcing. ✅
Again, SO WHAT? 🤷♂️
What happens in the troposphere in response to CO₂ forcing is a lot more nuanced. Why? Because in the lower atmosphere, we have feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the radiation budget a lot more than CO₂. And, just how clouds respond to tropospheric warming, if at all, is not very well understood (and by extension, it is not modeled well).
What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of doubling atmospheric CO₂ (RF 2×CO₂) is actually very small; it is on the order of <1°C (Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).
🔗arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098
However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to forcing mean that the real-world value—the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—will be higher (lower) than the ~1°C figure that you derive from radiative transfer calculations.
Three pieces of critical information remain unknown:
1⃣ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, let's say, 1950). We still don't know the answer to this because the coefficients that are used to ascribe anthropogenic versus natural forcings are all computed from computer modeling, not physical measurements.
2⃣ What the exact value of ECS is.
3⃣ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization?
To break it down:
🔹If ECS is <3°C, the climate system is largely insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.
🔹If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate system is very sensitive to GHGs, and the warming could be a concern.
The IPCC’s “best estimate” of Earth's ECS is 3.0°C with a range of 2-5°C.
🔗ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1… (pp. 44-45)
In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, Drs. John Christy and Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) calculated the climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El Niño / La Niña and volcanic aerosol injection (e.g., El Chichón, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991). They found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09°C / decade (lower than observations of actual temperature increase). This, by the way, came with the stipulation that unknown mechanisms of internal variability or external forcing remain zero.
🔗nature.com/articles/36732…
The authors then affirmed their 1994 findings more recently in 2017 (McNider & Christy, 2017). They found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 ± 0.26°K.
🔗 link.springer.com/article/10.100… / open-access: sealevel.info/christymcnider…
Many other recent studies (e.g., Lewis & Curry, 2018; Scafetta, 2021; Spencer & Christy, 2023; Lewis, 2025) have all estimated ECS to be far lower than the IPCC AR6's “best estimate”
🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/…
🔗mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/11…
🔗link.springer.com/article/10.100…
🔗acp.copernicus.org/articles/25/88…
The jury is still out. 🤷♂️
What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, the EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/m² (e.g., Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).
🔗nature.com/articles/nclim… / open-access: nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/5127…
🔗annualreviews.org/content/journa…
However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And, the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/m² margin of error, which is 66 times larger than the detection limits.
This range of uncertainty remains in newer estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates EEI to be 1.12 ± 0.48 W/m².
🔗agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20…
This means that 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 (not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain. Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made, but, even if that happens to be the case, SO WHAT? That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis.
The big unknown here are CLOUDS. ☁️
This is because (a) cloud albedo has far more impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than CO₂, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to the CO₂ forcing is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without our assistance for any number of chaotic reasons (e.g., El Niño / La Niña activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.).
Case in point, even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by CO₂. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,
🗨️ “[𝐴]𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑑𝑠. 𝐼𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡.”
🔗nature.com/articles/srep3…
While it is politically popular for people to splinter into one of the two tribalistic camps that either (a) increasing CO₂ has zero effect on the climate, or (b) that it will lead to Al Gore's Armageddon, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of those extremes.
How's that for some real science? 🧪




Fozzy Ⓐ 🏴🏴☠️ Migrant Shagging Insurrectionist@FozzTheMozz
@ChrisMartzWX No its the same science that says you cant read
English

@AdamShame3 @ChrisMartzWX You definitely needed that sarcasm emoji…!
English

@ChrisMartzWX The truth is that the world is divided into Good guys and Bad guys. People who believe in global warming are the Good ones. Politicians who represent them are professionals and would never destabilise the economy or anything like that. And they will never make you poorer.
English

Dan genuine question. I was happy to see you in this administration and the mindset you brought, so disappointed you left. I know sometimes you can “do” more outside than inside depending on the circumstances. What really drove you to leave? Even vague responses appreciated since I understand NDAs.
English
Mike Shower retweetou

These are the words of the first 16 scientists of 46 that have left the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) due to the corruption of science within the organisation.
Dr Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
English
Mike Shower retweetou

The most ironic outcome is capitalists paying for their own destruction.
Fate loves irony.
JOSH DUNLAP@JDunlap1974
The No Kings financial records have been released and here are the top financier's : ⚫ Arabella: $79M ⚫ Warren Buffet: $16M ⚫Ford: $51M ⚫Rockefeller: $26M ⚫Soros: $72M ⚫Tides: $45M For a total of : $294,487,641 MILLION
English
Mike Shower retweetou

I have been monitoring the Venezuela issue all day long, and there are so many questions yet to be answered (thanks to great Pentagon OPSEC), but the strategic reason for bringing down Maduro has become abundantly clear.
While we ostensibly captured Maduro based on legitimate, outstanding US drug charges from 2020, the real reason for the military operations early this morning is that neutralizing Maduro's Venezuela had become a strategic imperative for the USA.
Under Maduro, Venezuela had become the Latin American crossroads for all of the USA's principal enemies. Maduro was nurturing relationships with Russia, Hezbollah and Iran. Worst of all, Venezuela was eagerly becoming a part of Red China's Belt & Road initiative.
As America's enemies were lining up Venezuela as their base of operations in the Western Hemisphere to cause mischief and destruction for the USA, Maduro was at the same time making Venezuela a crossroads, safe haven and enabler for all manner of narcoterrorist operations, ranging from Colombia's FARC to Mexico's Sinaloa cartel.
On top of all that, Venezuela had become a key player in the illegal alien invasion of the USA, shipping its very worst to the USA in a deliberate and comprehensive destabilizing operation that might have worked had Donald Trump not won in 2024.
Next in importance: oil. The global and regional ambitions of both China and Russia are in large part dependent on the politics of petroleum, and the USA just deprived both of the cudgel afforded by friendly Venezuelan oil. Trump opponents say "It's about oil" as if that was a bad thing. Yeah, it's about oil.
Finally, all of this was in keeping with the most essential and fundamental foreign policy mandate of the USA almost since the nation's inception: the Monroe Doctrine. Operations like what Maduro was running simply cannot be allowed in the Western Hemisphere. Trump was right for falling back on this most basic of doctrines that protects the USA's sovereignty.
So was Maduro seized because of some five year-old drug charges? Yes. Legally--yes. However, like so many strategic issues in the world today, an action needed to be backed by the fine points of law, and it was. But the reality is that the Maduro takedown was a Monroe Doctrine-driven necessity that has greatly enhanced the power and national security of the USA.
Congratulations, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth and the rest of the Trump national security team: you boldly took the steps necessary to defend the USA.
Well done.
English

Not theoretical I imagine. They’re just good at the game. The west “had” a watchdog in the free press but they no longer chase the truth. Only information which supports their benefactors. When it takes a 23 year old to break what should have been rookie red meat for real reporters? You know the games rigged.
English

Theory that @wcdispatch and I came up with:
1. USAID money goes to foreign NGOs
2. Foreign NGOs donate to American nonprofits
3. These American umbrella nonprofits (such as Somali Education Resource Center) in turn own many smaller LLCs such as child care or food service
4. These LLCs donate back to the Democratic Party
History’s biggest money laundering operation?
Beaver 🦁@beaverd
Daycares in Minnesota donated a combined $35 million to political campaigns in the last two years They didnt even try to hide the money trail. somaliscan.com
English

@AutismCapital The world will hate you for His sake. He said that clearly.
English

It's the Christmas season, and I would like to reflect on one of the most joyous aspects of Christianity.
"God is no respecter of persons."
-Acts 10:34
This means God does not care about your social status, or your wealth, or your background. He only cares if you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and that you repent from your sins.
You can come from 20 generations of the holiest Christian saints imaginable, but if you yourself reject Jesus and are an unrepentant sinner, you're going to Hell.
Conversely, you can be one of the most awful, evil heathens ever to live, but if on your deathbed you genuinely repent and genuinely accept Jesus, you will go to Heaven.
God is no respecter of persons.
In this regard, being a Christian is quite like being an American.
English

I’m going to be blunt for a moment. Ever since I started speaking publicly against the WEF, COVID policies, globalism, mass immigration, vaccines, and everything else tied to this agenda, I’ve watched friends and even family distance themselves from me.
Thank you to those who actually talk to me. I’m not even all the way down the rabbit hole, not yet, but the more I learn, the heavier it gets.
So here’s my question to everyone who’s been awake longer than I have: how do you deal with the weight of this knowledge without completely freaking out? How do you stay grounded while watching the world slide into something darker?

English




