🇺🇸 Last Conservative in Hawaii ✞

Christian, Patriot, Unvaxxed.

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled."

[MAZE @mazemoore]

2022. Unvaccinated migrants walk into the country by the thousands each day while Covid restrictions prevent Novak Djokovic from playing in the U.S. Open.

Doocy asked Karine Jean-Pierre about it. She read some gibberish in response.

Joe Concha discussed the insanity and hypocrisy. Wild times.

[Bridgett Fertig @LightOnLiberty]

During the 2020 election, "you went to bed and then THIS happened!"

In Pennsylvania alone, live CNN coverage captured a precise switch of 19,958 votes from President Trump to Biden in SECONDS!

Georgia showed the exact same flip.

"How can you drop literally half the amount of votes that you had when all voting is done in an additive process? Votes do not go down!"

"How many errors are okay to have in an election? How many votes were changed by these errors? And who is claiming responsibility for these errors?!"

[Dr. Dawn Michael @DawnsMission]

Reflecting on Scott Adams' viral bombshell: "The anti-vaxxers clearly won, you're the winners"? Dropped three years ago, it hits deeper now after his passing from prostate cancer. Deeply grateful for his courage in speaking out.

[truthache @truthache68]

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

[🇺🇸 Last Conservative in Hawaii ✞ @JeffDudeMan_]

@JackStr42679640 Woodrow Wilson was the President that year. His administration caused irreparable harm to our country.

[Michele Tafoya @Michele_Tafoya]

Bill Maher recently broke down the difference between capitalism and socialism better than most politicians ever have. Reality matters more than rhetoric.

#Politics #Economics #Socialism #Capitalism #Venezuela #Poland

[Don Keith @RealDonKeith]

The difference between a white liberal and a white conservative…

[MJTruthUltra @MJTruthUltra]

Check this shit out…

Michael Wolff — the journalist who we just learned was coaching Epstein on how to gain leverage over a presidential candidate — said in an interview that Epstein was growing suspicious that Donald Trump was the one who informed on him and set the stage for when his legal troubles truly began.

Well… Epstein’s legal troubles truly began in March 2005. And Wolff was pointing to a 2004 real estate dispute over a Palm Beach mansion.

🔻 In these newly released emails, we get this line: “the dog that hasn’t barked is Trump…”

That stuck with me… and then VOILA, it clicked!

The phrase “the dog that hasn’t barked” comes from Sherlock Holmes’ story called Silver Blaze. In the story:
—— “The stable had a guard dog. On the night of the crime, the dog did not bark. Which meant — the intruder must have been someone the dog knew. Otherwise, it would’ve barked.”

So… who was redacted in that email? Virginia Giuffre. Whose name democrats redacted.

Epstein wrote he was “75% there” — meaning 75% sure it was Trump as the silent informant, with Giuffre as the likely conduit for the tip-off knowledge.

This email tells me Epstein was trying to find the leak after a British tabloid started exposing his network — and he was emailing associates to hunt down the source.

🔻 THEN, we have Attorney Bradley Edwards — who, in 2009, praised Donald Trump for being the ONLY subpoenaed person to willingly provide helpful information in the
— “Donald Trump was the only person who would pick up the phone…”
— “He gave very good information that checked out and was very helpful.”

🔻 THEN, just a few months ago, we heard Mike Johnson say Trump was an FBI informant trying to take Epstein down. Oopsie…

🔻 Epstein and Maxwell were finally arrested — under the Trump administration.

🔻 In summary…
In Epstein’s own words, the timeline, the motive, the silence, the cooperation, the arrests — everything points to one conclusion:

Donald Trump was the informant who helped take down one of the most prolific pedophile and blackmail operations in history.

A lot of people are gonna owe him an apology when this is done.

https://t.co/l6NeAIVuhk

[🇺🇸Steve2A🇺🇸God🇺🇸Family🇺🇸Country🇺🇸 @lakemonstercl1]

I'll never forget! Will you?

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

The reason government programs are so inefficient is that, unlike a commercial company, the feedback loop for improvement is broken, because they have a state-mandated monopoly and can’t go out of business if customers are unhappy.

No matter how bad the service is at your DMV (sorry to pick on DMVs), you still have to use your DMV, because it’s a monopoly.

[Clown Wars Down Under 🤡 @clowndownunder]

Climate change has caused sea levels at Botany Bay to rise approximately 0.00 cm over the past 255 years

[🇺🇸 𝓓𝓪𝓻 🇨🇦 @DameScorpio]

THIS! What this former hostage of the Hamas terrorist savages has to say about the 2024 election…is not surprising. Despots, dictators and terrorists fear President Trump. 💯 👇👀👂

[MrSneakySean @MrSneakySean]

@JackPosobiec

[MAZE @mazemoore]

@JackPosobiec Young Democrats

[Wall Street Mav @WallStreetMav]

Obamacare (ACA) explained …

Democrats passed Obamacare which made deductibles so high that you rarely ever reach them, so you pay for insurance plus out of pocket for insurance you rarely use.

Designed to hurt working class to fund healthcare for deadbeats and illegal aliens.

From 2014 to 2021 it was getting worse. Then Biden and the Democrats passed temporary subsidies to hide how crazy expensive ACA insurance had become. Those subsidies expire Dec 31, 2025.

Now Democrats want to extend those subsidies. If they could, they would even expand the subsidies more to further hide the disaster of Obamacare.

Before Obamacare health insurance companies could offer cheaper plans with certain things excluded. But Obamacare banned those cheaper plans.

[Robert Sterling @RobertMSterling]

(Warning: long rant)

My liberal friends are completely oblivious about how radicalizing the last week has been for tens of millions of normal Americans. Zero clue.

I’m not talking about people who are “online”; I mean regular, everyday Americans. “Normies.” People who scroll through Facebook posts and Instagram reels from the Dutch Bros drive thru line. Political moderates who have water cooler chats about Mahomes touchdowns and Bon Jovi concerts, not Twitter threads or Rachel Maddow monologues.

Millions of them. Tens of millions. They’re logging on, they’re engaging, and they’re furious.

And I’ll be candid: They blame you guys. They blame the left.

Regardless of whether you believe it to be justified, they think you’re the bad guys here. And they are reacting accordingly.

I can already hear some of you racing toward the comments to start screeching in moral indignation, so I’m going to be blunt: Shut up and listen to what I’m telling you. Your movement will lose any semblance of relevance if you don’t develop some small measure of self-awareness, and—absent someone force-feeding you bitter medicine—you guys collectively lack the humility to do this on your own.

Here are the facts:

Fact 1. Tens of millions of Americans started the week seeing a 23-year-old blonde woman—a young woman in whom virtually every parent watching pictured their own daughter—stabbed in the neck by a career criminal. These people then found out the murderer had been released from jail 14 times over.

Fact 2. Two days later, tens of millions of Americans watched a video of Charlie Kirk get murdered speaking to college students. Millions of these people knew who Charlie was; millions of them didn’t. Upon seeing the video, however, these normal Americans from across the land and across the political spectrum agreed that he was the victim of a terrible, fundamentally unjustifiable crime, and their hearts broke in sympathy for his family. Good people who had never even heard the name Charlie Kirk before wept.

Fact 3. Immediately after seeing the footage of a peaceful young man get shot in the neck, these same people logged onto Facebook and Instagram (remember, we are talking about regular Americans, not perpetually online Twitter or Bluesky users) and saw some of their local nurses, school teachers, college administrators, and retail workers celebrating this horrific crime. Not just defending it, but cheering it.

These are all facts. You may not like the implications of these facts, and we can certainly debate the underlying causes thereof, but, indisputably, they are nevertheless factual statements.

Here’s what it means for you, the Democrats reading this:

These normal, middle-of-the-road, non-political citizens just become politically active. They realized that politics cares about them, even if they don’t particularly care about politics. After watching Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk both bleed out from the neck, they think their lives and the physical safety of their families—the bedrock of human society, the foundation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—depend on political activation, whether they desire it or not.

These people are now sprinting—not jogging, not walking, but racing—to the right. Because they blame you guys for everything that just happened.

When they see footage of Decarlos Brown stabbing a Ukrainian refugee to death, they don’t see just one demon-possessed man. They picture every university administrator, HR bureaucrat, and DEI apparatchik that ever lectured them about systemic racism, the “carceral state,” or the need to release violent crime suspects without bail in the name of social justice.

They then think back to conversations they’ve had with their cop friends—their buddy from high school who quit the force after getting tired of being called a racist, their friend at the local YMCA who vents about having to release career criminals because Soros-funded prosecutors aren’t willing to file charges—and they realize everything the left has told them over the last five years has been utter bullshit.

And they blame you. Because, even if you count yourself as a moderate Democrat, your party supported the district attorneys, city council members, and mayors that let fictitious concerns about mental health and racial justice supersede very real concerns for their family’s safety.

When these Americans see blood erupt from the side of Charlie Kirk’s neck, they don’t see just a martyred political activist. They think of every extreme leftist they’ve ever met who (1) calls anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton a fascist and (2) constantly jokes—“jokes”—about punching Nazis and “bashing the fash.”

They realize that there really do exist people who wish to see them dead for their moderately conservative political beliefs, their Christian faith, and even the color of their skin. They ask themselves if the violence visited upon Charlie might one day show up on their own doorstep.

And they blame you. Because, even if you’re just a center-of-the-road liberal, you lacked the courage to police your own ranks. You let modern-day Maoist red guards run loose across every facet of society, and what started with social-media struggle sessions has now turned to 30-06 bullet holes.

When these Americans log onto social media and see their neighbors justifying, celebrating, glorifying murder, they realize that some who walk among them are soulless ghouls at best, literally demon-possessed at worst. These people—whether they faithfully attend church every Sunday or only attend with relatives once a year, on Christmas Eve—start talking about things like spiritual warfare. They implicitly understand that no normal human casually celebrates the mortal demise of a peaceful person.

And they blame you. Because, even if you condemned Charlie Kirk’s murder, they probably haven’t seen you condemn those in your own movement who cheered it on. They view you as complicit in allowing heartless fellow travelers to celebrate death, and it repulses them.

For all of these situations, what has your response been? Nothing but bullshit.

In response to Iryna Zarutska bleeding out on the floor of a train, you post bullshit statistics about reductions in reported crime, when everyone who’s ever been to a major urban center in the last decade knows that actual crime has skyrocketed, only for victims not to waste their time reporting it to cops that don’t have the manpower to respond and prosecutors that seek to downgrade as many felonies as possible to misdemeanor citations.

In response to a 31-year-old man taking a bullet to the neck in front of his family, you post nothing but bullshit whataboutism.

> “What about January 6th?” (Honest answer: After you let Liz Cheney spend two years operating a star chamber in the House, combined with countless other failed attempts at “lawfare” against Trump, no one cares anymore.)

> “What about Mike Lee making a dumb joke on Twitter about some guy in a mask in Minnesota?” (No one outside of Utah, DC, or Twitter knows who Mike Lee even is.)

> “What about Paul Pelosi?” (That’s not comparable to Charlie Kirk getting shot, and we all know it. And, again, Paul who?)

> “What about regulations on assault rifles?” (That’s not going to get you very far when one of these killers used a knife and the other one used a common hunting rifle.)

In response to teachers, healthcare workers, and thousands of other liberals cheering on Charlie’s murder, it’s nothing but more bullshit and misdirection.

> “It’s not THAT many people celebrating!” (Yes, it is. Everyone has seen it on their Facebook and Instagram feeds.)

> “I thought you guys didn’t support cancel culture.” (We don’t cancel people over their opinions; we’re more than happy to see people lose their jobs—especially their taxpayer-funded jobs—for actively cheering on murder, though. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your own shortcoming.)

All bullshit. Not even smart bullshit, but stale, mid-grade, low-IQ bullshit. Ordinary Americans see right through it, and they don’t like how it smells.

You probably don’t like hearing this. But you need to hear it.

Because I’m right, and, as you reflect on this, you know I’m right. The ranks of my political movement gained millions of righteously angry new members this week. We have a mandate to ensure these crimes never happen again, and that’s exactly what we are now going to do.

If you want to keep a seat at the table as we do so, you’d better clean house and start policing your own.

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

Britain's leading ocean physics academics, Professor Peter Wardhams, said in 2012 that sea ice at the poles would collapse within 4 years. Yet polar sea ice extent is unchanged 13 years later. Academics like Wardhams who abuse their positions should be exposed for supporting a climate swindle. Science is meant to be about the truth. Wadhams was emeritus professor of Ocean Physics & head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. He is best known for his work on sea ice. How could he get it so wrong?

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

lol. No.

You don't understand.

There has been no increase in either the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, river floods and drought at the global scale over the last several decades. Extreme heat has not increased in every region. And, hundreds of “100-year storms” can occur every year; you (and a large percentage of the public) just don't understand what these return periods actually mean.

Here are the facts:

🌀 𝐇𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐄𝐒 🌀

First, let's define some useful terms.

A tropical cyclone (TC) is a warm-core, non-frontal, synoptic-scale cyclone that originates over tropical or subtropical waters and has both organized, deep convection and a closed surface wind circulation that rotates about a well-defined center.

Hurricanes (HUs) are a subset of TCs which have a maximum sustained wind speed (Vₘₐₓ) of ≥74 mph. A typhoon is the same thing, but is a name exclusively reserved for HUs in the West Pacific Ocean basin. To be classified as a major hurricane (MH), Vₘₐₓ must be ≥111 mph.

🔗https://t.co/aoImnNGo8a

HU seasons are typically rated by the accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) index. Developed by Dr. William Gray, this metric takes into account both HU Vₘₐₓ and duration. Specifically, it sums the square of each TC's Vₘₐₓ every six-hour period:

𝐴𝐶𝐸 = 10⁻⁴ Σ 𝑣²ₘₐₓ (for Vₘₐₓ ≥39 mph, tropical storm requirement)

🔗https://t.co/B3Gizp8ApA

🔗https://t.co/troINVmtsO

With that out of the way, let's take a look to see what the data says on observed trends in TCs. 🔎

Prior to the satellite era (1966-present), comprehensive records of TC activity at a global scale are essentially nonexistent. If a storm did not landfall in a populated area or pass by the ship-based “observation network of opportunity,” it was missed and unaccounted for.

Satellite monitoring of TCs began in 1966 with NASA's launch of ESSA-1 and ESSA-2. 🛰️

🔗https://t.co/wePiOFHp9l

But, it wasn't until 1980 that we finally had sufficient coverage across both hemispheres. Prior to that date, coverage over the Southern Hemisphere was spotty. Therefore, TC tallies between 1966 and 1979 are likely underestimated.

🔗https://t.co/XDTYYBpHAf

Based on the available data, we know that,

🔹There has been 𝒏𝒐 𝒅𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆 in annual global HU count since 1980 (Knutson et al., 2019). In fact, since 1990, HUs have 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 in frequency (Klotzbach et al., 2022).

🔗https://t.co/1xfQyxmMIz

🔹Since 1980 or 1990, there has been 𝒏𝒐 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒅 in annual global MH count (Klotzbach et al., 2022). The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), however, misleads people by framing this data in a manner that suggests that there has been a significant increase.

In Chapter 11 of their sixth scientific assessment report (AR6), Working Group I (WG1), they say,

🗨️ “𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑦 3-5 𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠... 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡 40 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠.”

🔗https://t.co/kF3DUrRKft (p. 1587)

The reason this is misleading is because the increase in the ratio of MHs to total HUs is a result of a decline in total HU count (Jewson & Lewis, 2020). The actual tally of MHs have not gone up since 1990, but the proportion of them has because total HUs decreased.

🔗https://t.co/uJIpXwzbbJ

🔹There has been 𝒏𝒐 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆 in global TC intensity, as measured by the ACE index, since at least 1980. ACE has actually 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 since 1990 (Klotzbach et al., 2022), which weakens the argument that TCs are physically becoming more intense.

🔹TCs are 𝒏𝒐𝒕 intensifying more rapidly. Rapid intensification (RI) events are defined as a ≥30-knot (35 mph) increase in TC Vₘₐₓ in ≤24 hours. Since 1990, there has been 𝒏𝒐 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒅 in RI event count globally (see supporting information in Klotzbach et al., 2022).

For completeness, the study did find a global-scale increase in extreme RI events where Vₘₐₓ increases by ≥50 knots (58 mph) in ≤24 hours, which may be due to more favorable thermodynamics (warmer oceans), and that may be due to global warming. However, again, there is no increase in total RI events over the last three and a half decades.

In summary:

❌ Hurricanes have 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 in frequency since at least 1980.

❌ Major hurricanes show 𝒏𝒐 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒖𝒑𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒅 since at least 1980 and 𝒏𝒐 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒅 since 1990.

❌ There is little evidence that tropical cyclones are becoming stronger at the global scale, although there exists some trend variation between ocean basins.

🌧️ 𝐑𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐅𝐋𝐎𝐎𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 🌧️

Floods are typically measured by river discharge—that is, the flux of water (volume per unit of time) flowing through a river channel, measured by a gauge placed at a fixed point.

With respect to fluvial (river) flood trends, IPCC AR6 WG1 states in Chapter 11 of their assessment,

🗨️ “𝑷𝒆𝒂𝒌 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒓 𝒂𝒏 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒆 𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝒘𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒆. 𝑂𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 3500 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑈𝑆𝐴, 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑛 𝐸𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒, 𝐴𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎, 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑧𝑖𝑙, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐴𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑎, 7.1% 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 11.9% 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 1961–2005.”

🔗https://t.co/kF3DUrRKft (p. 1568)

In regards to attributing any trends to anthropogenic influence, they state,

🗨️ “𝐼𝑛 𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒. 𝐼𝑛 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒...”

🔗https://t.co/kF3DUrRKft (p. 1569)

Streamflow measurements from USGS river gauges (and compiled by the EPA) show that river flooding across the U.S. has neither increased nor decreased over the last 60 years.

🔗https://t.co/VExeuVNHSG

In summary:

❌ There is 𝒏𝒐 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 to suggest that river flooding has become more frequent or intense.

🏜️ 𝐃𝐑𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐇𝐓𝐒 🏜️

Changes in drought frequency and intensity over the last several decades are more nuanced.

Here's what IPCC AR6 WG1 says on detection,

🗨️ “𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠... 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝒎𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒖𝒎 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡... 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔... 𝐻𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛-𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙-𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝒉𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅-𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒅𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔.”

🔗https://t.co/kF3DUrRKft (p. 1579)

A more recent analysis, Vicente-Serrano et al. (2022), concluded similarly, saying,

🗨️ “𝑨 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒍 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒔𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑠, 𝑎𝑠 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑎 𝑓𝑒𝑤 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠.”

🔗https://t.co/IwWv6qNE40

Additionally, changes in hydrological droughts were found not to be due to human-caused climate change, but instead were related to other man-made influences such as land use and poor water resource management,

🗨️ “𝑰𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝒉𝒚𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑠 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 (𝑒.𝑔., 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑀𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎, 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑧𝑖𝑙).”

In summary:

❌ Meteorological droughts (the most important as it relates to weather) have 𝒏𝒆𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒓 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 over the last several decades.

✅ There have been some 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒔 in agricultural, ecological and hydrological droughts, which are tied to anthropogenic influence, but most of this is due to land use change and water resource mismanagement.

🌡️ 𝐄𝐗𝐓𝐑𝐄𝐌𝐄 𝐇𝐄𝐀𝐓 🌡️

The standard definition of a “heatwave” is a three-to-six consecutive-day period where the daily maximum temperature (Tmax) at a particular station is >90th percentile (TX90p) relative to the 1961-1990 average Tmax for that location.

And, it would be 𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒍𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕 to state that heatwaves have increased at a global scale in terms of both their occurrence and magnitude, though regional exceptions exist, the Lower 48 being one of them.

Here's what Chapter 11 of IPCC AR6 WG1 says,

🗨️ “[𝐼]𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝒗𝒊𝒓𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑛 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒎 𝒅𝒂𝒚𝒔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠... 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 1950... 𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝒗𝒊𝒓𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏 that 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒔 [sic] 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒘𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒍 𝒔𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒆.”

🔗https://t.co/kF3DUrRKft (p. 1550)

However, there are regional exceptions to this global trend, and while IPCC AR6 WG1 failed to make note of this, AR5 (2013) did in Chapter 2, saying,

🗨️ “𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒆𝒙𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒-𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒆𝒙𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑵𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉 𝑨𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂, 𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏 𝑼𝑺𝑨 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒉 𝑨𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂... 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒐-𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒅 ‘𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒆’ 𝒊𝒏 𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑵𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉 𝑨𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏 𝑼𝑺𝑨, 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑙𝑠𝑒𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝒊𝒔 𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒐𝒃𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒅 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒉𝒚𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒚𝒄𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅–𝒂𝒕𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒑𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒅𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒊-𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒅𝒂𝒍 𝒗𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑂𝑐𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠.”

🔗https://t.co/NRkE9FjdID (p. 212)

These findings are echoed in Chapter 6 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4),

🗨️ “𝑯𝒆𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚 𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒊𝒅-𝟏𝟗𝟑𝟎𝒔, 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑦 𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑑-1960𝑠, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟. 𝐴𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠, 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒅𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒅 𝒂 𝒎𝒂𝒙𝒊𝒎𝒖𝒎 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝟏𝟗𝟑𝟎𝒔.”

🔗https://t.co/iv1JH3NN8L

While heatwave intensity is projected to increase throughout the 21st century due to thermodynamics, increases in frequency and duration may be partially offset or even negated by a reduction in the formation of atmospheric blocking highs that lead to them caused by reduced latitudinal baroclinity (i.e., north-to-south temperature gradient) (e.g., Woollings et al., 2018), but this remains a matter of intense scientific debate.

🔗https://t.co/M7h3vg232H

In summary:

✅ Heatwaves have increased in frequency, intensity and duration since 1950 at a global scale, and are projected to increase through 2100.

❌ However, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝑵𝑶𝑻 𝒚𝒆𝒕 𝒐𝒃𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 some regions, such as 𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒍 / 𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏 𝑵𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉 𝑨𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂 and in 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒉 𝑨𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂.

⚠️ Future increases in heatwave frequency and/or duration may be offset through reduced atmospheric blocking events, but this is debated.

[Clay Travis @ClayTravis]

Here’s three minutes of legacy media telling us how sharp Joe Biden was.

[Scott Jennings @ScottJenningsKY]

I can't believe it. They finally admitted it on live TV:

The prosecution of President Trump was an organized effort by the Democratic Party "resistance."

Lawfare is real. The justice system was weaponized against President Trump.