John Campbell 🇨🇦 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Living through the global PSYWAR as a conscientious objector.

[HeCheated.org @hecheateddotorg]

Justin Dennis is a man who calls himself "Riley," a "woman," and a "lesbian."

He is a sociopath who has made videos attempting to coerce women into having sex with him.

He then moved to Australia where he joined a women's soccer team and proceeded to sue a woman, who has lost her court case and now must pay him over $90,000 for pointing out that he's a man.

He is a fetishistic, vindictive man who sees women as prey who exist entirely for his benefit, and any rejection to his ego is met with narcissistic rage.

Spread the word.

[Tamara Lich 🇨🇦 @LichTamara]

Never forget…

[John Campbell 🇨🇦 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 @jpaulcampbell]

No amount of money spent by our governments on "climate change" will have any impact on global or even local climate. It's a scam. This thread isn't too long and is bilingual.

[Stefan Marquis @nonmecensorem]

Hey @grok. Dis-nous donc, toi qui calcule vite : combien de milliards de dollars, au total, le Canada a-t-il investi jusqu’à maintenant en vue de combattre le changement climatique, et quand ces engagements ont-ils commencés ?

—-

In this thread, for every question asked in French, make sure you provide first an answer in French, but that you also provide below it a translation of your answer in English so that we may reach as many Canadian citizens as possible. Place a « —- » between French and English answers.

So, for the reader’s sake, here is the English version of the question.

Hey GROK, tell us, you who can add so quickly, how many billions of dollars, in total, has Canada invested up until now to fight climate change and when did the ‘commitments’ begin?

[Mike McMullen 🇮🇪 🇨🇦 @truthtrain101]

Here are headlines from the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.

Simultaneously, they all want a social media ban. "To protect the children".

Our governments aren't calling the shots; they're following orders.

This is just one example. Every law passed happens in the exact same way in all for 4 countries. This cannot be possible unless each leader of each country works for the exact same people.

Our leaders are not elected; they are installed.

#UK #NewZealand #Canada #Austrailia

[Vesper @vesperdigital]

🚨𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗗 𝗜𝗧... 𝟮 𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗛𝗦!!!🚨

Carney admits on tape: When voters blocked his ESG plans, "We" Central Bankers acted like "Regulators" going around the voters through the BACK DOOR!

Manipulating fossil fuel prices by withholding lending.

Now he's PM!🙃

[Jimmy Dore @jimmy_dore]

This is “environmentalist” Mark Zuckerberg’s yacht. It’s 87 feet longer than a football field. It burns over 1100 gallons of fuel per hour.

In a college commencement speech he urged students to help “stop climate change before we destroy the planet” as one of the defining issues for their generation.

Either he doesn’t really think man made Climate Change is a problem, or he’s one of the biggest selfish narcissistic assholes the world has ever produced.

These are the same people who say we should live in 15 minute cites, use electric stoves, drive electric scooters & eat bugs.

Whatever these Billionaires say, I’m doing the opposite.,

[Denis Rancourt @denisrancourt]

BREAKING: Now that all the harm has been done and everyone has been paid off and promoted and the judges are aligned... Canadian mainstream media @globalnews reports about serious COVID vaccine injuries, and there is an avenue for "reconciliation". Like saying "sorry for the genocide".

[Matt Strauss @strauss_matt]

Canadians have fought to protect their privacy before and they're doing it again.

In 2003, public pressure stopped a proposal that would have allowed law enforcement to read Canadians' mail without a warrant.

Now, as Parliament studies Bill C-22, one question stands out:

Why would the Public Safety Committee try to stop the Privacy Commissioner from testifying?

Privacy rights aren't Liberal or Conservative. They're Canadian.

Canadians deserve to hear the evidence and make up their own minds!

[Signal @signalapp]

Our statement on the UK government’s demand that all content on all devices sold or used in the country be scanned, on the presumption of nudity, using a dystopian combination of age verification and content scanning. This proposal will not safeguard children. It endangers us all.

https://t.co/VdWe9uhi8p

[FEAR NO MORE @SHEEPSLIVE]

ARE YOU TAKING
OZEMPIC
OR WEGOVY

DID THEY TELL YOU
WHAT’S INSIDE IT?

[TruthSeeker01011 @TruthSeek01011]

Canadian man gets MAID after parking lot assessment and people wonder why everyone is reacting to a mental health order ‘kidnapping’ yesterday

[Alan @A1an_M]

I spent a large part of yesterday trying to explain to people who supposedly are proponents of science what a "confounding variable" is.

Rather than say the same thing again today to about 100 people in about 100 different replies, I'm going to write it all in one place, here.

When scientists do science, in the form of an experiment or study, they will ultimately write it up in a standard report format containing the same sections:

Abstract
Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
References

One of the most important aspects of the Discussion is a critical analysis of what was done. What went well, what could have been done better, what should be done next time. In particular, the authors attempt to identify if there are any "confounders" which may have influenced the results and rendered them invalid.

Let's take the example of a medicine in a clinical trial. We might, if we are ethical scientists, want to study whether a particular medicine causes adverse effects to those taking it before letting it loose in the wild. So we might recruit some people for a trial, and divide them into two groups. The first receives the actual medicine, the second receives a placebo. We might then monitor the recruits for a few months (or, preferably, a much longer period) on a daily basis and note any illnesses suffered in both groups.

We would then do a statistical analysis on the results from the two groups. If the results of that analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in the levels and types of illness suffered in the two groups, we might then conclude that no adverse effects were caused by the medicine. If, on the other hand, there was a significant difference between the two groups, that would point towards the need for further study and might lead us to conclude that the medicine was the cause of the difference.

The key thing here with our experimental design is that we want to make sure that the two groups in the study - the experimental group who receive the medicine and the control group who do not - are, in every other way, identical. Because if they're not, those differences might have caused the effect we observed, rather than the differences we created in our experiment.

What factors might make these two groups different?

1. Age differences. If one group was older, we might expect they might suffer more illness than the younger group.
2. Gender. Dependent on the medicine, males or females might be more affected. If the groups weren't balanced for gender, this might distort the reported illness results.
3. Health differences. If one group had poorer general health than the other at the beginning of the trial, we might expect them to report more illness during the trial.

These are all examples of "confounding variables". Factors which we did not control but which might influence the outcome and render our results invalid.

So in our experimental design we would want to make sure the experimental group and the control group are closely matched for age, gender and health status.

Which brings me onto climate change.

Climate scientists contend that Carbon Dioxide created by human activity in the industrial age is causing global atmospheric temperatures to increase.

As evidence, they point to an increase in global atmospheric temperatures over the last 200 years or so.

So far so good. Temperatures have, broadly, risen during that time. There are plenty of other things to criticise about this hypothesis and about climate "science" in general but that is for another time.

Yesterday we saw, all over the media, headlines about new record May temperatures of 35 degrees at Kew and Heathrow, and below the headlines was text saying that experts were saying this was another example of evidence of how the climate is warming.

Now I don't deny that it's been hot the last couple of days - where I am it has been around 32 degrees - so I don't doubt that the May record may have been broken somewhere in the country.

But the specific problem I have is with the temperatures at Heathrow and Kew, or indeed anywhere close to London or a big urban area being used as the evidence that the May record has been broken,or that they are evidence of atmospheric warming.

Why? Because of a confounding variable.

When we say a temperature record has been broken, we need to make sure we are comparing apples with apples. So not only do we need to compare temperatures that were measured in the same site using the same type of equipment in both instances - we need to make sure that the sites themselves have not changed.

We know that modern urban areas create a "heat island" effect. The expanses of heat-retaining materials like concrete, asphalt and cement retain heat during the day and release it slowly overnight, leading to higher daytime and nighttime temperatures. Added to which are the many buildings and vehicles in urban areas generating their own heat. All of this means that temperatures in, or close to, an urban area are typically several degrees warmer than in countryside some distance away.

Given the expansion and urbanisation of London over the last century, this effect will only have grown over time.

Arup measured this effect in London and concluded that temperatures there are often 4.5 degrees hotter than in the surrounding countryside (see first comment for link).

This effect obviously varies between different parts of London, as shown on the heat map, and reduces as you move away from central London, but even at Kew, the effect is estimated to cause temperatures to be 0.9 degrees higher than would be the case if Kew was sited in the countryside.

And Heathrow clearly creates its own heat island effect given the scale of the airport and the big expanses of heat absorbing materials there.

So if we are going to use temperatures measured in, or close to, London as evidence of atmospheric warming, we have a problem. We have a significant confounding variable. The warming caused by the heat island effect is going to add to any warming in the atmosphere, and give us an exaggerated result.

You can perhaps forgive tabloid newspapers for running headlines about this, just quoting the raw temperatures measured. They want to make money and it being very hot outside is a great news story. And urban areas becoming increasingly hot in summer is an issue in its own right.

But what is unforgiveable is people who claim to be scientists using these measurements as evidence of atmospheric warming, when there's such a glaring confounding variable influencing the data.

How would a proper scientist deal with this confounder?

Well, they might say "from now on, we will only use temperatures from rural weather stations which are not subject to urban heat island effects, and we will only declare records on the basis of those measurements"

And they might say "we will not use temperature measurements from areas subject to urban heat island effects as evidence of atmospheric warming".

But the Met Office and the climate science people aren't saying that. They're going with the artificially inflated temperatures. Because they have an agenda to push, a vast Net Zero industry to sustain, research grants to chase, and any evidence, however shonky, which backs up the global warming narrative is welcome.

This isn't science!

[Alex Veremeyenko @alex_verem]

Let me trace the timeline here because nobody's connecting it.

Step 1: Scrape the entire internet. Every book, every article, every conversation, every piece of art, every forum post. Do it without asking. Do it without paying.

Step 2: Train a model on all of it. Call it "artificial intelligence."

Step 3: Go to BlackRock's Infrastructure Summit and announce: "We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter."

Step 3 is where you sell people's own knowledge back to them. On a meter.

They took the collective output of human thought, compressed it into a model, and now they want to charge you by the token to access a version of what you and everyone you know already created.

One Reddit user put it perfectly: "They stole all this data from us, the people, our life's work, creativity, art, by devouring the internet and blowing through all copyright laws. Now they want to sell it back to us in the form of a utility."

Imagine if someone photocopied every book in the public library, burned the library down, and then opened a subscription service for the copies.

That's the metered intelligence business model.

And they're pitching it to infrastructure investors as though they invented water.

[Mischa Paullin @mischapaullin]

How To DESTROY A Chemtrail Believer In 5 Easy Steps!

[Roman Baber @Roman_Baber]

C-22 will force telecoms & internet companies to store & file and all your metadata (call logs, message logs, geolocations etc.) for 365 days, without suggesting any crime was committed!

It's a violation of section 8 Charter protection against Arbitrary Search and Seizure!

[DonaldBest.CA * DO NOT COMPLY @DonaldBestCA]

Here is the link to @JayUnrau story...

CBC tries to shut down lawsuit by detective who probed infant vaccine deaths

Helen Grus’ lawsuit alleges CBC and others waged an “adverse campaign of publishing harmful, malicious, and harassing newspaper articles containing false statements."

https://t.co/r9ZZULyXFG

[David Peterson @davidgpeterson]

Regarding Canada's Bill C-22: @ProtonVPN is Swiss. Complying with foreign surveillance orders without Swiss legal process is a criminal offence. Not happening.

We'll defend our Canadian users and never compromise them. We will fight C-22's application by every means available.

[Michael Geist @mgeist]

The bad faith and misleading claims on lawful access from Public Safety are very disturbing. The Bill C-22 metadata demands are not in line with key allies and raise serious privacy and Charter concerns that the government ignores.
https://t.co/fC0ijYlLJA
https://t.co/GcUtlRi6rH

[katy 🌸 @KatyKray73]

Energy expert Dr. Lars Schernikau: It sounds simple… until you do the math.

• 1 GWh battery = 700,000 tons of mined materials
• Takes 450 GWh to build (450x its capacity)
• Stores as much as 400 tons of coal
Hours of storage. Massive mining, degradation & risks.

This doesn’t fix intermittency, it multiplies the destruction.

‘Batteries are an environmental nightmare’.

[HOSTIS @hostis_black]

The largest open library in human history, Anna's Archive, has been ordered to pay Spotify and the three largest record labels on the world $322 million.

The defendant has not appeared in court and is not going to. The site is still up with two backup domains standing by and there's nothing the censors can do.

Anna's Archive currently holds 63 million books, 95 million academic papers, and 1.1 petabytes of mirrored torrents. It is free. It is searchable. It is run by a pseudonymous person nobody has identified after four long years of searching.

In the four months since the music industry filed the first of three coordinated lawsuits, the library has lost six domain names and added two million books to the catalogue. The cartel is suing it faster every month, and it is growing faster every month.

In December, Spotify and the major labels filed. In January, OCLC, the company that runs WorldCat, won a default judgment of its own. On March 6th, thirteen of the largest book publishers in the United States, including HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, Simon and Schuster, Macmillan, Hachette, Elsevier, Wiley, and McGraw Hill, filed a third lawsuit in the same federal court.

The publishers' complaint runs to seventy-four pages. They call Anna's Archive a "brazen pirate operation." They call it "an illegal supplier of stolen content to the AI industry."

The same publishers are simultaneously suing Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, and NVIDIA for training their models on the same corpus the publishers want Anna to destroy. The cartel argues, in two parallel federal courts, that the corpus cannot be used by anyone. Not the pirate who built it. Not the AI company that downloaded from it. Not the graduate student who pulls a paywalled paper from it at two in the morning.

Anna did not respond to any of the three complaints. Anna has never responded to any complaint. Anna is a name on a blog and a public key on a server and a person, or maybe several people, in a jurisdiction nobody has identified after four years of searching.

The judgment is uncollectable. The permanent injunction binds Cloudflare, Public Interest Registry, Njalla, the Switch Foundation, Tucows, and nine other named intermediaries. The Greenland registry is not on the list. The Greenland registry has not complied.

The site currently lives at .gl, with .pk and .gd standing by. The corpus has always moved faster than the censor. The censor has always called the corpus piracy. The corpus has always survived the censor by becoming the readers themselves.

The publishers' lawsuit cannot reach the torrents. The torrents are already seeded across continents and IPFS nodes and personal NAS drives owned by people the publishers will never find. The default judgment is paper. The corpus is everywhere.

The cartel will win every lawsuit but they will lose the war. The publisher who walks into court next month with a fresh filing will be filing against a defendant who has, in the time since the last filing was sealed, mirrored another half million books to another seven hundred volunteers in another forty countries.

There is no defendant to find. There is only the next upload. It is already seeding.