Dr Johnstone F Macpherson-Stewart

Retired non-medical academic. Want Scottish Independence but there’s more important stuff right now! #GreatReset Reposting doesn’t necessarily mean agreement.

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

We think we understand the fine machinery of world climate, yet we are asked to bet the global economy on a single variable.

CO₂ makes up roughly four-hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere, playing its priceless role in photosynthesis and the green web of life.

Meanwhile, water vapor varies up to 4% of the atmosphere, with cloud cover shading nearly 70% of the globe at any given moment — a fluid system orders of magnitude larger in thermal volume.

Combine that with the vast thermal inertia of the ocean abyss and the slow, relentless clockwork of the Milankovitch cycles, and the real geometry of the planet falls into place.

Earth's climate has always been in this state of endless change, imbalance, flux and readjustment — yet never because of a single trace gas.

Consider our ocean world: covering 72% of the surface to an average depth of 2.3 miles, holding 91% of the planet's heat and carbon reservoirs. The top three meters of the oceans hold as much heat energy as the entire atmosphere above it. When evaluating the planetary thermostat, the oceans are the engine; the atmosphere is merely the exhaust gas.

Water vapor, clouds, storms, winds and solar cycles all combine to endlessly redistribute heat. Water vapor isn't a static blanket — it's a massive, continuous phase-change engine, moving heat from surface to sky through evaporation, condensation, and cloud cover that reflects sunlight back into space before it even hits the deck.

Our planet rebalances itself without our permission or help.

How much time does Homo sapiens have left to get it right? Most species last roughly a million years before the lights go out. Scientists estimate there are around 8.7 million multicellular species on Earth, yet the vast majority — 86% on land, 91% in the sea — remain undiscovered, to say nothing of the trillions of microbes driving the foundational cycles underneath our feet.

Deep biological time, species diversity, the might of the sun-moon system, and the orbital clockwork of the Milankovitch cycles tell the hard back story of Earth's epic trek across the millennia.

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

To say humans are adding carbon to the Earth is a physical impossibility.

What is actually happening is a change in 'where' the carbon is stored. We are told humanity is inflating the Earth's carbon budget, but geology tells us this kitchen cupboard has been sealed shut for billions of years.

We're not baking a 'bigger cake' by adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere; the planet is simply shifting its ingredients from the subterranean vault back into the biological engine — a state the Earth has vibrantly occupied for the vast majority of its history.

The attempt to regulate the breath of cattle and the outputs of agriculture is an attempt to regulate the eternal nature of the cake recipe itself.

Think of Earth's carbon reservoir as being split into distinct pantries: the atmosphere, the oceans, the soil plus every living thing (ants, antelopes, humans and forests). Carbon moves between these constantly. When you exhale, or a tree rots, it stays in this active loop. It is not adding a crumb.

Carbon that was taken out of active circulation millions of years ago and locked away in rock — is lithified in limestone, oil, coal and shale. When we use hydrocarbon fuels, we aren't creating any 'new' carbon; we're digging up carbon from the Deep Vault of time and throwing it back into the biological mix.

The hothouse worlds of the Miocene (and the Eocene and Cambrian) are the ultimate geological anchor. During the Miocene (roughly 5 to 23 million years ago), CO₂ levels were significantly higher than today, and the planet didn't experience runaway greenhouse death. Instead, lush ecosystems and massive biodiversity flourished.

Why? Because the cake was just being distributed differently. The atmosphere held a larger slice of the total carbon, driving a warmer, wetter, hyper-productive biosphere. The rocks prove that the system can handle vastly higher atmospheric carbon loads because that is the baseline state of a vibrant Earth. We treat global carbon accounting like a corporate ledger, but the largest active reservoir on Earth — the deep ocean — is virtually a black box. It's invisible to us.

The deep ocean holds roughly 45 times more carbon than the atmosphere. A microscopic shift in ocean temperature, deep-sea currents, or upwelling zones can release or absorb more CO₂ than humanity could ever dream of emitting.

Yet, we pretend we can calculate the global budget down to the decimal point based on surface surmising.

By the laws of the 'single cake' of CO₂, livestock and agriculture are completely carbon-neutral cycles.
A blade of grass plucks CO₂ out of the air. The cow eats the grass, processes the carbon, then releases it.

Within years, that carbon is right back in the atmosphere to grow more grass. It's a closed loop. No carbon leaves the vault.

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

The heat capacity of the entire atmosphere is equal to just the top 3.5 meters of the world's oceans.

Below this surface lies Earth’s true thermal vault. Earth is a water planet, and the oceans cover 71% of the surface to an average depth of 2.3 miles. Global ocean currents carry warm waters from the deep tropics to the northern hemisphere, before returning after a round trip of 1,000 years.

Without these currents, northern Europe would be a glacial wilderness, just like Greenland.

The scale is colossal. Warm waters from the Roman warm period (240 BC to 400 AD) are still returning to the mid-latitudes. The atmosphere, by comparison, is a gaseous envelope that retains almost no thermal energy, holds a tiny fraction of the planet's carbon, and is largely controlled by ocean dynamics.

The deep Pacific itself is so massive that only now it is receiving the cold waters from the Little Ice Age. We aren't starting from scratch; we are mid-cycle in a 4.6-billion-year-old time machine.

We’ve also reinvented 'climate'. Once, it was a word for the local weather of robins and sparrows. Now it's a global ideological abstraction. We’ve lost our admiration for the natural world. We count CO₂ in parts per million while ignoring the satellite-proven greening of the Sahel.

It’s time to move past the light breezes and offshore winds and look into the ocean depths for answers. Ask yourself, is the 1.4°C warming since 1850 really an unprecedented crisis?

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

Digitization of Mexico not going well as Mexicans reject Government mandate to register phones and the Government just keeps extending the deadline
Just say No to digital ID or you will never be able to say No to your Government ever again

https://t.co/6LyHzW5LNM

[Concerned Citizen @BGatesIsaPyscho]

The State of this Sky is absolutely horrendous.

It’s Incredible that the Sun is being blocked out with chemicals falling to Earth every day - and barely anyone still talks about it.

[Neil Oliver @thecoastguy]

A person might ask why we are not part of decisions to adulterate the stuff of life - fluoride in water, folic acid in food - adulterations with measurable negative impacts on health and potential.

[Orwell2024 @orwell2022]

Was this station simply lucky?
The global boiling crisis decided to spare Alert. Some locations are just lucky, it seems. Why? “Science.”
The more accurately we measure, the less we see. Did better measurements destroy the signal?

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

Svalbard, a remote Arctic archipelago, holds inconvenient secrets about our climate history.

A new study reveals it was up to 9C warmer around 10,000 years ago when CO2 was just 260 parts per million. Despite this warmth, glaciers didn't vanish. They survived, supported by increased snowfall.

Svalbard then cooled for the next 8,000 years while CO2 kept rising. No tipping points, no runaway melt.

Yet today's climate models project the same 8 to 9C of warming by the year 2100 (using the discredited RCP8.5 scenario), and predict widespread glacier loss.

That directly contradicts the historical record. Even the study's authors admit the future may follow the past. Warmer, wetter conditions could bring more snowfall, stabilizing or even growing glaciers.

The fatal flaw in climate modeling has raised its ugly head once again. It can't replicate history. And when the past contradicts your theory, it's the theory that's broken, not the past.

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

During the Holocene Climate Optimum (9,500 to 5,500 years ago), enhanced summer solar radiation created a sustained period of ecological vitality.

Many significant periods in human and geological history have experienced temperatures that exceed modern levels—entirely independent of human activity.

Roman-era summer averages reached heights that provided the agricultural stability necessary for imperial expansion. Life thrived across the Northern Hemisphere, where temperatures reached 1°C to 2°C higher than today.

Similar regional warm currents during the Roman Warm Period (250 BC to AD 400) - and Medieval Warm Period (1,100 to 1,300 AD) - allowed agriculture to flourish in the Mediterranean and enabled Norse settlements in green Greenland.

These eras contrast sharply with the Little Ice Age (1,300 to 1,850 AD), a period of severe polar cooling and glacial expansion triggered by volcanic clusters and solar minimums, demonstrating that cold—not warmth—historically brought hardship.

Looking further back to the Eemian Interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago), global averages were also roughly 1°C to 2°C warmer than today, with high-latitude spikes of 4°C to 8°C. This natural warmth caused significant polar melt and raised sea levels by 6 to 9 metres. Crucially, Eemian atmospheric CO₂ remained stable at roughly 285 ppm.

The planet’s most profound warming intervals were driven by natural orbital mechanics, while CO₂ remained low and stable. These periods occurred under lower atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and driven primarily by Milankovitch orbital cycles.

The current warm Holocene interglacial period, beginning roughly 11,700 years ago, features many prominent climate fluctuations.

IMAGE: The stone ruins of Hvalsey Church in southern Greenland from around 1300 AD.

[Rand Paul @RandPaul]

USAID funded it. Fauci approved it. The CIA buried it. I subpoenaed Fauci because someone has to be held accountable. The cover-up of COVID's origins is the biggest scandal in modern medical history.

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

Rapeseed oil lubricated the steam engines of the Industrial Revolution.

It lit the lighthouses. It kept the train lamps burning before gas arrived. It was burned in the early Canadian lighthouses, cheaper than whale oil.

Then petrochemicals arrived and the machinery moved on. Nobody needed it anymore. Rapeseed had done its industrial duty.

The FDA formally banned it for human consumption in 1956. Erucic acid. Toxic to the heart in animal studies. The scientists were fairly clear about this.

In the 1970s, Canadian plant breeders reduced the erucic acid content and needed a new name, because "rapeseed" was both unglamorous and commercially lethal. They called it "canola." Can-ada. O-il. L-ow-acid. A portmanteau built in a marketing meeting. In Britain they sidestep the problem by calling it "vegetable oil" and printing a picture of a sunflower on the bottle.

So where are we now. On the supermarket shelf, the oil that greased the Industrial Revolution is bottled in amber plastic with a green leaf on the label and a "heart healthy" claim on the front.

The machinery it once lubricated has been replaced by diesel engines and electric motors. The stuff itself has been replaced on your dinner plate by nothing, because apparently once you're in, you're in.

Lamp oil. Machine lubricant. Banned by regulators. Rebranded. Repositioned. Drizzled on salads and baked into supermarket bread and ladled into hospital canteen fryers.

Someone at some point made a series of decisions about what belongs on a dinner table and what belongs in an engine room, and got them completely the wrong way round.

The lighthouse still stands. You can visit it. It runs on electricity now.

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

Climate has been utterly hijacked by enraged and misleading media sensationalism.

The world may be getting warmer in places, cooler in others - but its also getting greener. The expansion of plant life and global agriculture confirms it—exactly what we should expect to see in the fertile stages of a late interglacial warm period.

Local variations across regional climate zones worldwide are part of Earth’s natural variability, not symbols of a runaway crisis. Yet, you wouldn't know it. The media has become a babbling talkfest machine, droning on with messages of doom.

Look at the visuals they feed us: media headlines overlaying background maps smeared with blood reds and bright oranges, look at this image of France. Every report screams extreme. No wonder the public is tuning out.

The core science has a more balanced story. For example, rising CO₂ does not mean soaring temperatures. As mapped in this image, atmospheric CO₂ is strictly logarithmic. Each additional molecule has less impact than the one before it—a reality the scientific community itself acknowledges in its core equations. It means every doubling of CO₂ delivers a constantly diminishing increment of energy.

There are dangers along the way. CO₂ plunged to near-asphyxiation levels of 190 ppm during the Last Glacial Maximum 20,000 years ago—dangerously close to the 150 ppm floor where plant life dies.

Nature itself restored the biosphere—and we are seeing that inbuilt resilience in action once again.

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

The mainstream media and scientific bodies chose to ignore a climate declaration, signed by over 1,100 (and later, even more) scientists.

The 'World Climate Declaration' was published in September, 2019, by CLINTEL (Climate Intelligence), a Netherlands-based group. It argued there is no climate crisis or emergency and criticised overreliance on worst-case scenarios based on computer modelling.

The declaration pointed to empirical data of biomass expansion, noting that 'CO2 is plant food'—a reality now backed by verified NASA satellite data showing significant global greening over recent decades. They emphasised the biological benefits of CO2 for global greening, and argued that climate policies must respect economic realities and national sovereignty.

However, critics of this paper were more focussed on who signed it, saying only a small percentage were publishing climate scientists or paleoclimatologists. Many were engineers, geologists, or professionals from unrelated fields.

This was a collision between an entrenched, centrally coordinated climate machine and a bloc of independent professionals, drawn from engineering, economic and industrial backgrounds, arguing the practical, physical constraints and costs of such an all-encompassing global energy transition.

The declaration said climate models had serious flaws. But the climate campaigners were on a roll, and said they alone represented mainstream science. They had built a body of evidence on the calibrated data of satellite and ocean temperatures. The 'short-term pain of transitioning to net zero was preferable to the long-term instability and economic damage from uncontrolled climate change.

This posture allowed them to freely portray the 'rate of warming' as unprecedented in modern human history. The mainstream media backed them. The declaration was labeled 'fringe' overnight by major academic journals.

The economic fallout from dismantling the global energy infrastructure has in fact been colossal, now estimated at $275 trillion and counting. The 1,100 strong declaration did not break through into this entrenched policy circle because of its institutional barriers to outsiders. These doors were permanently closed.

The UN, major central banks and Western governments were already colluding clandestinely with each other, plus global asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard. They owned the science. They owned the carbon cash fallout. Now they owned the sovereignty as well.

The climate narrative is high-stakes rhetoric, slick propaganda that downplays the gradual collapse of western economies, once based on cheap coal, oil and gas. This mainstream narrative is what captured the public's attention with its high-stakes rhetoric, bypassing the need for a professionally structured, data-driven approach that would be much harder for independent critics to dismiss.

The campaign was spearheaded by claims of 'global boiling' - 'code red for humanity' rhetoric filled the news pages and dominated politicised shouting matches. The UN and associated bodies shifted their position from 'advisory' scientific panels to becoming the world's global economic managers.

The conversation wasn't about atmospheric physics. It was about rusted-on, centralised, top-down control and ownership. But when policies move faster than engineering realities, like grid stability and battery storage limits, then economic hardship becomesss the inevitable price.

That is exactly how it has turned out.

[Sonia Elijah @sonia_elijah]

Let’s cut through the emotive rhetoric. This is not primarily about child safety. This is the accelerated rollout of mandatory digital identity infrastructure under the cover of the most emotionally charged issue possible: “Think of the children.”

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

This censorship law is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The real goal is to enable the UK government to track everyone.

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

Great to talk with @frankwrighter in Makerfield.

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

From the WEF website

DIGITAL
IDENTITY
TO CONTROL
THEM ALL!

Without Digital ID the agenda 2030 targets are unachievable. We must say NO to Digital ID, then we buy ourselves time for the truth to emerge and it’s game over for the globalist plans to control humanity.

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

The biggest scandal of our lifetime Sen. Ron Johnson “the Covid shot adverse event cover up”
The Government knew and the US media didn’t report it.
In the UK the BBC, ITV, Sky, GB news and C4 all knew. The Times, Telegraph, Mail, Sun and Guardian knew.
Because I told them in 2022

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

Wind and solar are not viable as the world's primary energy source, not without endless backup from the dense baseload power of hydrocarbons.

Because renewable components face a strict 20-year operating life, we have inadvertently created an economic monster: a continuous loop of decommissioning, ransacking rare earth mines, and rebuilding the entire global fleet just to maintain the status quo - a material dead end.

Without fossil fuels to power the underlying mining, manufacturing and transport infrastructure, these wind and solar systems wouldn't even exist. Once installed, their intermittent energy cannot be integrated on a national scale without a completely new, parallel global power grid—an infrastructure sinkhole estimated to cost $21 trillion.

This massive building spree was only enabled by generous, ongoing subsidies from compliant governments, drawn into the vortex by a carefully engineered narrative of guilt over human progress. That narrative has struck home. Today, the Western nations that bought into it are in visible economic decline, with heavy industry vanishing and productive jobs being hollowed out.

Wind and solar gained traction as a boutique alternative based on the naive premise that because wind and sunlight are 'free', the infrastructure to capture them must be too. In reality, they are intensely material-heavy, placing unprecedented pressure on mining capabilities for ever-diminishing metals and rare earths.

To put the scale of this replacement loop into perspective, the global fleet represents the equivalent of 1.3 billion wind turbine units and 7 to 8 billion solar panels—all ticking down toward a 20-year shelf life.

According to McKinsey estimates, the total net-zero transition is currently costing an estimated $9.2 trillion every year, projecting to a staggering $275 trillion by 2050—the equivalent of two full years of global GDP. Yet, after 37 years of this non-stop narrative, hydrocarbons still provide roughly 81% of the world's primary energy.

We are chasing butterflies at the expense of industrial sovereignty. Was it only about rising globalism? Already, communities are pushing back, seeking to ban massive turbine blade graveyards and toxic solar panel e-waste from local landfill sites.

Ultimately, an energy strategy detached from physical and economic reality is destined to fail, leaving these imperfect technologies scattered as rusted wreckage across once-pristine landscapes and coastal horizons.

Without reliable energy, a modern world simply wouldn't exist.

Image: We should not take the majesty of these natural landscapes for granted.

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

The world's clean energy transition represents a colossal expansion of the world's mining industry.

To catch a diffuse energy source like sunlight or wind needs an unprecedented volume of physical machinery. A single solar farm requires roughly 30 times more total metal infrastructure than a conventional gas plant. We aren't moving away from mining; we're swapping enormous oceanic drilling rigs for vast open-cut metal mines.

The demand for heavy mining and rare earths is just as compelling as the downstream e-waste crisis, but the numbers are even more staggering. While solar cells rely heavily on high-purity silicon, silver, and copper, the broader 'green infrastructure' ecosystem demands far more.

The EV motors, wind turbines and massive national grids required to tie intermittent solar together are entirely dependent on an unprecedented surge in heavy mining and rare earth extraction.

This physical mining demand has simply exploded with the shift from conventional fossil fuel energy generation to wind and solar. Because wind and sunshine are so diluted and diffused, harvesting them requires a massive physical footprint, necessitating endless extra acres of complex machinery.

This translates into heavily vandalised landscapes and grotesque coastal settings. According to the IEA, replacing them world's fossil-fuel system with renewables increases the total volume of materials requiring extraction and handling by a factor of 10.

Solar alone is exceptionally copper-intensive, using roughly 850 kg per megawatt for intricate grid connections, inverters and cabling. Renewable energy is projected to drive 45% of total global copper demand by 2030. Yet, developing a new major copper mine takes an average of 16 years from initial discovery to first production.

The world faces a massive demand spike for a metal where the supply chain is notoriously slow, costly, and inflexible.

Solar panels don't use much in the way of rare earths, but wind turbines and the electric vehicle motors that back up the low-carbon shift are hungry for permanent magnets made from neodymium, praseodymium and dysprosium. Processing these elements involves intensive chemical leaching that produces vast amounts of toxic and radioactive wastewater.

Compounding the problem, China controls roughly 60–70% of the extraction and up to 90% of the refining for these specific elements.

This has created a massive geopolitical bottleneck.

Image: this massive chasm is the Bingham Canyon Mine (also called the Kennecott Copper Mine) just outside Salt Lake City, Utah. It is one of the largest man-made excavations on Earth and the deepest open-pit mine in the world, stretching 4 kilometres wide and more than a kilometre deep.