Milo Sanderz

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

Back in 2009, the newly appointed director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Mark Serreze, warned that Arctic sea ice was in a death spiral.

He predicted the Arctic could be ice-free by the summer of 2030, likely even earlier.

Nearly two decades later, the data tell a very different story. According to the NSIDC's own records, September sea ice has shown no downward trend since 2007 - 18 years of stability.

Despite rising CO2 levels and every claimed feedback mechanism, the ice is not budging. It remains right where it was in the mid-2000s.

As climate researcher Javier Vinos put it, "Clearly the models on which these predictions are based do not accurately reflect the actual climate."

The Arctic death spiral never happened, yet Serreze remains director of the NSIDC. There is zero accountability.

[Mor Edge Insight @MorEdge_Insight]

1/ 🧵

The West Bank isn’t “occupied Palestinian land.” It’s the ancient Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria, and it was stolen by Jordan in 1948, ethnically cleansed of Jews, and now rightfully back in Jewish hands after a defensive war.

Here are the facts the mainstream narrative ignores and deliberately hides.

Bookmark and share. The next time you see anyone telling you about “occupation”, “stolen land”, “ethnic cleansing”, “settlers” or international law, remind them of this truth.

[Milo Sanderz @MiloSanderz]

https://t.co/S0r9Qqrqr0

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

Australia's Bureau of Meteorology has been audited station by station. The report reveals that the agency has systematically erased cooling trends from the historical record, replacing them with synthetic warming.

At Rutherglen, Victoria for example, raw data from 1913 to 2006 showed a cooling trend. But the Bureau's adjusted chart flips this into warming. No physical justification, just statistical sleight of hand.

Comparisons at Deniliquin also reveals the tactic - how past highs have been lowered to fit the narrative. Minimums from 1910 onward here are reduced by as much as 1.8C. These edits weren't based on new evidence. They were applied decades later by opaque homogenization models.

The report's author calls it the rewriting of Australia's temperature history. But it's not just happening in Australia. Climate agencies in the UK and US have also cooled the past so as to exaggerate or even fabricate modern warming trends.

This manipulated data is then paraded as truth by politicians and the media with the original measurements buried.

[Milo Sanderz @MiloSanderz]

https://t.co/UFOztOun87

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

Today, NASA satellites confirm Earth is greening dramatically. CO₂ fertilisation has added biomass equivalent to two continents of new forest in recent decades, boosting crop yields and ecosystems alike.

Oceans, holding around 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere, continue their ancient dance of absorption, circulation and outgassing under Henry’s Law.

The natural world keeps working its wonders. The real question isn’t whether CO₂ is 'pollution', but how we pursue genuine abundance and resilience while staying humble before these vast systems.

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

In the 1920s, two British scientists accidentally ran the perfect diet experiment, and the answer was so inconvenient it was quietly buried for a hundred years.

John Boyd Orr, later the first head of the United Nations food agency, and John Gilks, head of the Kenyan medical service, studied two peoples living side by side on the same land.

The Kikuyu were farmers. Millet, maize, sweet potato, beans. Meat only on ceremonial days. The exact plant based diet a modern nutritionist would frame and put on the wall.

The Maasai next door lived on cattle. Meat, milk, and blood drawn from the living animal. Almost nothing from the ground at all.

Then they measured them.

The Maasai men stood around five inches taller. They were heavier, and the extra weight was muscle. Their grip was roughly half again as strong. More bone, broader shoulders, and none of the swellings, ulcers and rotten teeth that ran through the farmers.

The Kikuyu, on the diet we are told is ideal, were riddled with bone disease, anaemia and chronic infection. The Maasai, on meat and milk and blood, were not.

Orr and Gilks wrote it down plainly and published it in the Lancet in 1927. The people eating animals were bigger, stronger and healthier than the people eating plants. Same land, same era, everything else held equal.

A hundred years later, it has never made it into a single dietary guideline.

The two peoples ran the experiment cleanly. They just gave the wrong answer.

[Davide Scifo @strange_days_82]

5 Minuti che Distruggono 30 Anni di Propaganda Climatica.
(Richard Lindzen, Professore emerito di Meteorologia al MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), uno dei massimi esperti mondiali di dinamica atmosferica, onde planetarie, monsoni e fisica dell’atmosfera.
Ha pubblicato centinaia di articoli scientifici peer-reviewed ed è stato per decenni una delle figure più autorevoli nel campo.)
#cambiamentoclimatico #CambioClimático #caldo #clima #meteo #Lindzen

[Vivid.🇮🇱 @VividProwess]

The amazing @lalshareef explains how Israel removed Jews from Gaza in 2005 to get peace, leaving behind greenhouses worth millions of dollars.

The Palestinians looted the greenhouses, and Gaza was turned into a terror fortress.

This must go viral.

[Steve Milloy @JunkScience]

130 years of climate lying down the drain: May 2026 was almost 0.75°F cooler than May 1896, despite much urban heat island bias, temperature manipulation and other falsification by NOAA.

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

Hunga Tonga is still affecting the atmosphere.

On Jan 15, 2022, the underwater volcano erupted in the South Pacific. It blasted roughly 160 million metric tons of water vapor into the stratosphere, increasing levels by an unprecedented 10%.

Most major eruptions cool the planet by injecting reflective aerosols. Hunga Tonga erupted underwater and punched seawater high into the atmosphere.

Water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas.

NASA warned the eruption could have a temporary warming effect.

Then global temperatures spiked in 2023 and 2024. Predictably, the spike was sold as proof of accelerating CO2-driven warming, with activist-scientists downplayed any influence from the record Hunga Tonga eruption.

But now comes the next test. The excess water vapor is now declining, slowly, and with it, global temperatures are also falling. The accelerating crisis looks a lot like a temporary atmospheric pulse, now fading on schedule.

Here again, we have a natural driver dominating Earth's climate.

[Imtiaz Mahmood @ImtiazMadmood]

The Dangerous Lie of “Religion of Peace”

How polite apologetics helped blind Europe to the religious system moving against it.

The most destructive phrase in the modern discussion of Islam may be this: “Islam is a religion of peace.”
It sounds tolerant. It sounds civilized. It sounds like something decent people say to keep ordinary Muslims from being treated unfairly. Fine. If the subject is personal conduct, individual Muslims can be judged as individuals.

But this is not the discussion Europe needs to have.
Europe is not facing a problem because one Muslim neighbor is polite, one Muslim doctor is skilled, or one Muslim shopkeeper is friendly. Europe is facing a civilizational problem because Islam, as doctrine, does not present itself as one private faith among many. It presents itself as final revelation, final prophet, final law, and the rightful spiritual order of mankind.
That is the subject.

Not anecdotes. Not exceptions. Not cafeteria believers. Not sentimental stories designed to make the doctrine vanish behind someone’s pleasant manners.

Islam rests on one God, one final prophet, one revealed book, one divine law, and one claim of supremacy over unbelief. The Qur’an is not treated as a suggestion box. Muhammad is not treated as one teacher among many. Islamic law is not presented as morally equal to secular constitutional liberty. The unbeliever is not understood as an equal spiritual authority standing beside Islam with equal legitimacy.
This is what polite Western people keep refusing to say.

Instead, they reach for the softest Muslim they know and use him as a human shield for the hardest parts of the religion. “But my Muslim friend doesn’t believe this.” “Most Muslims just want peace.” “That isn’t the Islam I know.”
Wonderful. Irrelevant.

A man can ignore his doctrine. A culture cannot survive by pretending the doctrine does not exist.
Europe was not built by Islam. Europe was shaped by Christianity, classical inheritance, national memory, law, sacrifice, borders, cathedrals, kings, martyrs, and blood. Islam entered Europe historically as conquest, siege, occupation, raiding, tribute, and pressure.

Spain had to reclaim itself. Vienna had to be defended. The Balkans still remember Ottoman rule in their bones.

Rome is not a casual location in this story. It is a symbol. To Islamists, it is not merely an old city with beautiful stone. It is the heart of the Christian inheritance they intend to surpass.

This is why “religion of peace” is not merely wrong. It is dangerous.

It trains Europeans to misidentify the threat. It tells them to look at personalities instead of doctrine, feelings instead of law, slogans instead of scripture, integration stories instead of institutional power. It turns a hard religious-political system into a customer-service brochure.

And once the public has been trained this way, every serious warning sounds rude.

Mention sharia, and they point to a friendly neighbor. Mention jihad doctrine, and they point to a peaceful coworker. Mention the status of unbelievers under classical Islamic law, and they start reciting diversity pamphlets as if history can be bored into submission.
This is how a civilization teaches itself not to notice the knife.

The discussion Europe needs is not whether every Muslim behaves like an Islamist. That was never the argument. The discussion is whether Islam itself, through its texts, authorities, legal tradition, and modern political movements, is compatible with Europe remaining Europe.

The answer is not comforting.
A tolerant society can absorb private faith. It cannot survive a rival civilization that enters through tolerance, arms itself with grievance, hides behind censorship demands, builds leverage through numbers, and points everything toward religious supremacy.

The individual-Muslim detour has gone on long enough.
We are discussing Islam as Islam.

Doctrine. Authority. History. Power. Consequences.
What, then, is Islam’s blueprint for Europe?

It is not coexistence as Europe understands the word. It is not equal citizenship under secular law. It is not churches, synagogues, unbelievers, homosexuals, apostates, artists, satirists, feminists, and free citizens standing safely under one neutral legal order.
Islam’s blueprint, when taken seriously as doctrine and law, is supremacy.

For Europe, this means the old liberal arrangement dies first. Speech goes under supervision. Blasphemy returns under different names. Criticism of Islam becomes dangerous, then punishable, then culturally unthinkable. Churches survive only on sufferance. Jews live behind more guards. Women’s rights become negotiable wherever Islamic pressure becomes strong enough.

The unbeliever under Islamic rule is not an equal citizen. He is an obstacle to be converted, subordinated, silenced, expelled, fought, or killed according to his classification, his resistance, and Islam’s power to enforce its law.

The unconverted Christian does not remain a free European with different beliefs. He is placed under a coercive religious hierarchy. He must convert, submit under humiliation, pay jizya as a sign of subordination, or become marked for death.

This is not tolerance. Tolerance does not mean being forced to purchase your survival from a conquering religious power. It does not mean living beneath another man’s revelation by permission. It does not mean keeping your church, your family, your speech, and your life only so long as you accept inferiority under threat of capital punishment.

This is domination enforced by the sword, with paperwork for those permitted to survive beneath it.

The Jew is handed the same coercive bargain. The ex-Muslim becomes an apostate, and in the hadith and classical legal tradition, apostasy is a death-penalty offense.

The homosexual does not merely lose approval. Civilized Europe does not require approval. It requires legal tolerance and protection from punishment. Under hard sharia, this tolerance dies. Same-sex conduct becomes a punishable crime against divine order, carrying prison, flogging, execution, or public terror wherever Islamic law is enforced with sufficient force.

The satirist becomes a blasphemer. The woman who insists on Western liberty becomes a rebellion waiting to be disciplined.

This is what Islamic conquest means when the poetry is stripped away.

Not multicultural food festivals. Not “diversity.” Not a friendly neighbor with a prayer rug. A different civilization with a different law, a different hierarchy, a different moral universe, and a different answer to the question: who rules?

Europe’s answer was hard won: law, nation, conscience, citizenship, inherited Christian memory, secular government, free inquiry, and the dignity of the person.

Islam’s answer is submission.
That is why “religion of peace” is such a poisonous lie. It does not merely misdescribe Islam. It disables Europe’s survival instinct. It teaches Europeans to look away from the death penalties, the humiliation system, the blasphemy taboos, the apostasy laws, the sexual punishments, the hatred of unbelief, and the declared ambition to make Islam prevail over all other religions.

The future under Islamic dominance is not Europe with halal restaurants added.
It is Europe with its spine removed.

A continent that cannot insult Muhammad will not remain free. A continent that cannot defend churches will not remain Christian even in memory. A continent that treats sharia as a protected identity rather than a rival legal order will eventually discover that tolerance was only demanded from one side.

The question is not whether every Muslim wants this. That discussion is over.
The question is what Islam demands when it has power.

And the answer is written plainly enough for anyone still brave enough to read it.
And this is where the gaslighting begins.

The moment Islam is discussed as doctrine, someone will drag the conversation sideways into individual Muslims.

“My Muslim friend doesn’t believe this.”
“My neighbor is Muslim and he’s peaceful.”
“Most Muslims just want to live their lives.”
Fine. That may all be true. It also proves nothing.

You do not disprove a doctrine by producing a pleasant acquaintance. You do not refute Islamic law by pointing to a coworker who ignores it. You do not erase Qur’anic supremacy, jihad doctrine, jizya, apostasy penalties, blasphemy enforcement, or the legal humiliation of unbelievers by telling me someone down the street makes good tea and never caused trouble.

That is not argument. That is misdirection.
If someone wants to defend Islam, then defend Islam. Bring the Qur’an. Bring the hadith. Bring the classical jurists. Bring the recognized authorities. Bring the official voices. Bring the doctrine itself and prove the charge false.

But do not insult Europe’s intelligence by hiding the religion behind the nicest individual Muslim you happen to know.

This is the coward’s method of debate: replace doctrine with anecdote, replace law with personality, replace theology with manners, then accuse the person examining Islam honestly of being cruel for refusing to play along.
No.

The subject is Islam as a civilizational doctrine. The subject is Europe under pressure. The subject is what happens when a religious system built on submission gains numbers, institutions, political leverage, and legal confidence inside societies too ashamed to defend themselves.

When someone responds to this with “but not every Muslim,” understand what is happening.
You are being gaslighted.

Tell them to put the doctrine on the table. Tell them to prove the texts do not say what they say. Tell them to show where Islam has formally renounced sharia supremacy, the subordination of unbelievers, the death penalty for apostasy in classical law, and the punishment of blasphemy. Then ask where it renounced the ambition to make Islam prevail.

A friendly Muslim is not a rebuttal.
A peaceful neighbor is not a reformation.
A personal anecdote is not a civilization’s survival plan.
Europe is being asked to confuse kindness with truth, manners with reality, and individual exceptions with doctrinal innocence.
That confusion is how civilizations are walked into the dark.

[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.

[Lewis Miles @Maga4liberty]

Why does the media give nonstop coverage to a 16-year-old reading from a script, but completely ignore a real climatologist with over 140 scientific papers who calls climate change a hoax? This is media manipulation. 😡🤡
#MediaBias

[Milo Sanderz @MiloSanderz]

Breaking Views: Ivan Barnett: A Government That Has Turned Its Ba... https://t.co/9dmdQbpD9G

[Black Bond PTV @BlackBondPtv]

🚨LA BONNE NOUVELLE QUE LES ÉCOLOS NE VEULENT PAS ENTENDRE

Depuis les années 80, le Sahara a rétréci de 8 % et verdit à vue d’œil.
50 % des terres végétalisées de la planète sont devenues nettement plus vertes… soit 3 fois la surface des États-Unis!

Et le principal responsable ? L’augmentation du CO₂ dans l’atmosphère.

Grâce à lui, les plantes font plus de photosynthèse, consomment moins d’eau et résistent mieux à la sécheresse et à la chaleur.
Résultat : le Sahel verdit, le Moyen-Orient verdit, l’Australie verdit… la planète entière verdit.

Le CO₂ rend la Terre plus verte.

Et si tout ce qu’on nous répète depuis des années sur le « CO₂ = poison mortel » n’était qu’un énorme mensonge ? 🤥

Source: @Electroversenet

[Milo Sanderz @MiloSanderz]

Breaking Views: Dark Jester: The Case for Nuclear Energy https://t.co/DAyq5RVLSF

[Robin Monotti @robinmonotti]

TWO LEADING PRINCETON, MIT SCIENTISTS SAY EPA CLIMATE REGULATIONS BASED ON A ‘HOAX’:

"William Happer, Professor Emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of atmospheric science at MIT:

“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule.

All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.

Climate models such as the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes.

To illustrate his point, he presented the EPA with a table showing the difference between those models’ predictions and the observed data."

The Epoch Times

[Liza Rosen @LizaRosen0000]

Flashback: A senior Palestinian Islamic leader at Al-Aqsa Mosque openly vowed to execute every gay person as a human sacrifice to Allah’s sake: “The Palestinian people will not allow a single homosexual on our land.”
-
Happy Pride Month to all the “Queers for Palestine” and “Gays for Gaza” activists.

May you never actually meet the people you’re cheering for.

Because the moment you do, it will be the last thing you ever do.

[Traveling israel @travelingisrae1]

Why are the Palestinians hiding their 1948 leaders?

[Penny Marie NZ @pennymarienz]

Wakey wakey NEW ZEALAND.
If a politician in NZ is campaigning on ‘climate alarmism’… go look into who funds the party.
And think about how our entire financial landscape looks as we’re forced to bow to the climate cult.
And use your vote to get it gone