Gringo6739L

[Catturd ™ @catturd2]

lol - AI is getting ridiculous.

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@RightScopee All I see is jealousy from life’s losers.

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@RNCResearch Too much hot air in him to contain…..

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@GavinNewsom Crime is down for 2 reasons: the way you report it and the fact that many illegal alien criminals have been deported.

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@WHLeavitt No humans involved. 🤠

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@GavinNewsom Fucking communist bullshit Newscum.

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@joncoopertweets A pile of shit right there!

[Emma @Avabelly__]

I honestly couldn’t believe a business would put a sign like that right on their front door. 😐
I walked up with my kid today and was immediately hit with this big message that basically made it sound like children aren’t welcome unless they’re perfectly quiet, perfectly still, and basically invisible. 😩

And honestly, it wasn’t even just what the sign *said*—it was the tone of it.

It came off pretty harsh, almost like families with kids are seen as a problem before they even step inside.

Don’t get me wrong, I totally understand expecting kids to be respectful and parents to be responsible—that’s fair anywhere you go. But there’s a big difference between setting expectations and making people feel unwelcome before they’ve even opened the door.

Families are just part of everyday life in public spaces. Most parents are already doing their best, and most kids are just… kids. A sign that assumes the worst from the start doesn’t exactly feel very inviting. 😂

The whole thing kind of gave off:

**“We want your business… just not if you brought children.”**

Maybe it’s just me, but if your first interaction with potential customers makes them feel judged or unwanted, that seems like a pretty strange way to run a business.

Am I overreacting, or would that sign rub you the wrong way too?

I honestly couldn’t believe a business would put a sign like that right on their front door. 😐🙂

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@Avabelly__ Lincoln Logs.

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@WorkElizab The skin

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@MichaelARothman https://t.co/yZqnlsw7jR

[Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives @dom_lucre]

🔥🚨HARD NEWS: Here is lost footage of Donald Trump’s 2004 SNl Sketch titled “Donald Trump’s House of Wings.” This sketch is still missing from all SNL DVDs and streams.

[M.A. Rothman @MichaelARothman]

𝗣𝗘𝗘𝗥-𝗥𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗘𝗪𝗘𝗗 𝗦𝗧𝗨𝗗𝗬 𝗜𝗡 𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘: 𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗖 𝗜𝗖𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗥𝗘𝗦 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗪 𝗖𝗢𝟮 𝗟𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗦 𝗕𝗥𝗢𝗔𝗗𝗟𝗬 𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗘 𝗠𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗬𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗦

A study just published in 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 — one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed science journals on earth — is causing significant discomfort for Net Zero advocates. The findings come from ancient "blue" ice cores drilled in the Allan Hills region of Antarctica, which provide a climate record stretching back approximately three million years.

The research found that CO2 and methane levels have been broadly stable over the past three million years — while global temperatures experienced significant shifts during that same period, including major ice ages and warming cycles. In other words, the data shows temperature swings happening independently of CO2 levels — which is not what the standard climate narrative predicts.

Study lead author Julia Marks-Peterson acknowledged the findings were unexpected: "We definitely were a bit surprised." She added cautiously that the findings "may suggest that even small changes in greenhouse gas levels could trigger major shifts in climate." That last sentence is worth reading carefully. The study found CO2 was stable while temperatures changed significantly — and the researcher's response was to suggest that maybe tiny CO2 changes still caused big temperature swings. The data pointed one direction; the interpretation strained to point another.

𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦's own commentary noted that the ice cores hint that "changes in the ocean might have played a larger part than greenhouse gases in key climate shifts of the past three million years."

To be clear about what this study does and does not say. It does not prove that CO2 has no effect on climate. It does show that over a three-million-year record, CO2 levels remained broadly stable while temperatures varied dramatically — suggesting other factors, including ocean circulation changes, drove major climate shifts. That is a significant finding that complicates the simplified narrative that CO2 is the primary control knob of global temperature.

The Net Zero agenda has cost Western economies trillions of dollars, driven up energy prices for working families, and pushed industrial production to countries with far lower environmental standards. When peer-reviewed research published in 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 itself raises serious questions about the foundational assumptions underlying that agenda — the response should be inquiry, not dismissal.

𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗱. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗽𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴.

https://t.co/iTzhCKYjso

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@Darkdarling00 A

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@Bookofkings27 @JoJoFromJerz Fuck that and fuck them. Let the goat fuckers drown!

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@AquarianAgeNews @BarronTNews_ Fuck the Geneva Convention.

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@SaltyGoat17 I

[Gringo6739L @Gringo6739L]

@MichaelARothman Could have fooled me.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Grok Imagine