MyBody MyChoice 🌸

I believe in the right to freedom of choice and to critically evaluate opportunities or threats that may be presented to me and make my decisions accordingly.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

What is my stance on climate change?

Well, I'll lay it out for all of you newcomers. Grab some popcorn! 🍿

First, I do not deny the fact that the Earth has warmed up by ~1.2°C since 1850. However, nobody knows precisely how much because of data quality issues (e.g., uneven surface station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) that have not been (and likely cannot be) removed from the record.

But, I have no doubt that the Earth is [slightly] warmer than it was 175 years ago or that 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 of that warming might be due to carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

Second, contrary to what the online army of alarmist foot soldiers have 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑑 people to believe, there are not really any so-called “fingerprints” that distinguish human-caused global warming from warming caused by other forcings / variability.

Numerous scientific papers claim to have found such a “fingerprint,” but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ anthropogenic warming. But these authors fail to mention that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.

Case in point, a reduction in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover, for instance, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer ocean—all else being equal—increases the rate of evaporation, which raises the vapor pressure (humidity) contributing to polar amplification and faster land warming than the ocean (e.g., Compo & Sardeshmukh, 2008).

🔗https://t.co/sQurHsN80P / open-access: https://t.co/WVKvLrSV7k

All warming, natural or man-made, results in:

1⃣ Higher latitudes warming faster than both the mid-latitudes and tropics.

2⃣ Land heating up faster than the oceans.

This is just basic physics; look up heat capacity.

Also, an increase in, say, solar forcing would have the same material effect, though we can admittedly likely rule that out as the cause of modern trends because sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. But the sun does affect our climate in ways that have not really been thoroughly researched because little, if any funding, is ever allocated for such projects by the funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF).

In any case, the 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there is probably [at least some] anthropogenic “fingerprint” on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling.

First, you need to understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as power—measured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)—standardized per square meter of surface area. This is written as W/m².

Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ± 3.3 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order for the Earth's surface to maintain a constant temperature, the surface must emit 239.7 ± 3.3 W/m² back to outer space.

🔗https://t.co/5z5iMdazRB / open-access: https://t.co/51Ys5w8BWj

Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing from doubling atmospheric CO₂ levels (often noted as RF 2×CO₂) is 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m² (e.g., IPCC TAR, 2007). That means that the net outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to outer space is reduced by 3.7 W/m², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI), which leads to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).

🔗https://t.co/0JkXIQRGDH (p. 357)

In the stratosphere (~13-50 km altitude), this causes a cooling tendency because less infrared radiation (IR) flux is moving upward from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).

🔗https://t.co/JNaXP7nUC9

NASA satellite measurements indicate that cooling in the stratosphere has been observed since the late 1970s, although there has been very little cooling over the last 25 years, all the while the troposphere has continued to warm.

🔗https://t.co/hT0Oxwm2Io

That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps partly caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, an artifact of particulate aerosol pollution regulations in recent years.

But, yes, I would agree with most scientists that the cooling observed in the stratosphere, at least that from the 1970s to 2000, is most likely a result of CO₂ forcing.

So what?

What happens down here in the lower atmosphere in response to CO₂ forcing is a lot more nuanced.

Why?

Because here in the troposphere, there are feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the atmospheric radiation budget far more than CO₂. And how exactly clouds respond to warming in the troposphere, if at all, is not very well understood, and by extension, not well-modeled.

What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of RF 2×CO₂ is actually very small. Specifically, it is on the order of ~1°C (e.g., Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).

🔗https://t.co/y5szlGBmjd

However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to radiative forcing mean that the real-world value—that is, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—will be higher (lower) than the ~1°C figure derived from radiative transfer calculations.

So, three critical pieces information are unknown:

1⃣ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, let's say, 1950). We still don't know the answer to this because the coefficients that are used to ascribe anthropogenic versus natural forcings are all estimated from computer modeling, not real physical in-situ measurements.

2⃣ The exact value of ECS.

3⃣ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization? Is it a crisis? Is it a problem in the slightest?

To break it down:

• If ECS is <3°C, the climate is insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.

• If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate is sensitive to GHGs, and warming could be a concern.

The IPCC’s “best estimate” of ECS is 3°C with a range of 2-5°C.

🔗https://t.co/8Ntgszr1dC (pp. 44-45)

In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, one of my mentors, Dr. John Christy and his co-worker, Dr. Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), calculated climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El Niño / La Niña and volcanic stratospheric aerosol injection (e.g., El Chichón, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991).

Christy and McNider found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09°C / decade (lower than observations of actual temperature increase). This, by the way, came with the stipulation that unknown mechanisms of internal variability or external forcing are assumed to be zero. I attended a lecture where he talked about this paper in detail.

🔗https://t.co/S2GEmUftKo

They then validated their 1994 findings in McNider & Christy (2017). Specifically, they found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 ± 0.26°K.

🔗https://t.co/zueJLn8V8w / open-access: https://t.co/eLcqeizbRh

Many other recent studies (e.g., Lewis & Curry, 2018; Scafetta, 2021; Spencer & Christy, 2023; Lewis, 2025) have all estimated ECS to be far lower than the IPCC AR6's “best estimate.”

🔗https://t.co/8G0sF8gy2p

🔗https://t.co/5TgNX7c1JN

🔗https://t.co/BxyO1XIbNP

🔗https://t.co/YNQhNajrrO

The jury on ECS is still out. 🤷‍♂️

What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/m² (Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).

🔗https://t.co/T7SKxidZ4N / open-access: https://t.co/GD45cbhxIT

🔗https://t.co/L6vZKVVpXg

However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/m² margin of error, which is 66 times larger than the detection limits. This range of uncertainty remains in newer estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates EEI to be 1.12 ± 0.48 W/m².

🔗https://t.co/ynRTFd3LWZ

This means that 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 (but not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain (nor would most be humble enough to admit it because the vast majority of academics have high egos). Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made like alarmists claim, but, even if that is the case, I'll ask again. . .

SO WHAT?

That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis or urgent problem.

The big unknown are CLOUDS. ☁️

Why?

Because (a) cloud albedo has a far greater impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than does CO₂, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to CO₂ is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without mankind's assistance for any number of reasons (e.g., El Niño / La Niña activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.). Even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by CO₂. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,

🗨️ “[𝐴]𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑑𝑠. 𝐼𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠��� 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡.”

🔗https://t.co/NHkmfOc08y

I don't deny that global warming is occurring. I never have. I don't even deny an anthropogenic influence on it either. I never have. What I do reject, however, is unchecked alarmism and climate activism, particularly from fellow scientists.

Activism is not science and has no place in science. If you are an activist, you cannot call yourself a scientist because you are not dispassionate and objective. This goes for the vast majority of self-described “climate scientists” who actively use social media and are well-known in the debate. Two notable exceptions on the other side of the spectrum from me, in my opinion, are Drs. Robert Rohde and Paul Williams, both of whom I have always had pleasant interactions with.

I also reject the idea that every weather event needs to be blamed on climate change with a rushed, half-baked attribution study (namely the ones done by the clowns at World Weather Attribution that are often not scientifically rigorous, but get plenty of news media attention by the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post). Attribution “science” is fraudulent anyway because one of the architects behind it admitted to Politico in 2021 that it was designed with the intention of using it in litigation against oil and gas companies.

🔗https://t.co/ETUBune0A8

Conflict of interest much?

It should also be abundantly clear that climate is just a statistical description of the mean and variability of the climate system, including long-term weather. So, a change in climate is just a change in statistics. That is an outcome, not a force or accelerant that causes an extreme weather event to occur.

For what it's worth, I used to be a climate alarmist well before I got my degree in meteorology.

Now that I know a great deal (but not everything and never will) about atmospheric science, my position has evolved to a cooler heads point of view. Perhaps it is not my judgement that's clouded, but rather that of the alarmist arm-wavers who have high trust in both academic institutions and their government officials who spoon-feed them pre-canned talking points on the daily.

[Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education @craigkellyAFEE]

Covid was one giant, blood-soaked money-making scam.

🔴They lied about everything to ram their experimental "vaccines" down the world's throat and cash in.

🔴They lied about the origin of the virus to cover up their own criminal gain-of-function experiments in a Chinese lab.

🔴They lied about case numbers by cranking PCR cycle thresholds into the stratosphere, deliberately manufacturing a tsunami of false positives.

🔴They lied about deaths, cynically counting anyone who died with COVID — even if they had no symptoms and were hit by a bus — as a COVID death.

🔴They lied about the effectiveness of lockdowns while willfully ignoring the devastating human cost: destroyed businesses, wrecked mental health, delayed cancer treatments, and suicides.

🔴They lied about masks. The data proved they were worse than useless — the virus particles sailed straight through them — yet they pushed the rags anyway to create a climate of fear and submission.

🔴They lied about hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, suppressing cheap, safe, early treatments so their rushed, experimental shots could grab emergency use authorization.

🔴They lied about the vaccines, promising "if you get vaccinated, you won’t catch it and you won’t get sick" — even as the data showed the exact opposite.

🔴They lied about vaccine injuries and deaths, burying and gaslighting victims while the body count climbed.

🔴They lied about the need for endless "boosters" — pure repeat-business marketing for pharmaceutical profit.

🔴They lied about the mandates, which were brazen violations of international human rights law and basic medical ethics.

🔴They lied about the "unvaccinated" flooding hospitals.

🔴They lied about their pathetic anti-viral pills Paxlovid and Molnupiravir.

And to protect this mountain of lies, they censored dissent, destroyed careers, and persecuted any doctor or scientist brave enough to tell the truth.

They even paid the media to spread their propaganda.

And they enlisted an army of gullible, useful idiot leftists to peddle their lies.

This was criminal fraud on a global scale.

We need a Royal Commission with real teeth — one that drags every single person who peddled these lies into the light, strips them of their ill-gotten billions, and throws them in prison for the rest of their miserable lives.

No mercy. No excuses. Justice demands it.

[Rand Paul @RandPaul]

The biggest scandal isn't just what happened during COVID.

It's that six years later, the evidence continues to emerge while many in government and the media still refuse to confront it.

I've spent years following the money and exposing the truth. The American people deserve answers and accountability.

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

The year is 1949.

The Nobel Prize in Medicine has just gone to the man who invented the lobotomy. Your doctor suggests one for your sister, who has not been herself since the baby came. It is the most celebrated advance in psychiatry of the age, and he is simply current. By the time the prize curdles into an embarrassment, close to twenty thousand Americans have had the operation, and proportionally more here in Britain.

The year is 1956.

Lay the baby down on his front, the doctor says. So does the most trusted childcare book ever written, the one on every new mother's shelf. On his back he might choke, the reasoning goes. Millions obey. The advice holds for nearly thirty years, long after the evidence has quietly turned, and a generation of cot deaths is counted before anyone thinks to roll the babies over.

The year is 1966.

A bestselling book informs your wife that menopause is a disease, that she is, in the author's word, a castrate, and that a small daily pill will keep her youthful and tolerable to live with. Her doctor agrees. The drug becomes one of the most prescribed in the country. Nobody mentions that the author sat on the payroll of the company that made it. That detail surfaces decades later, in the same year the landmark trial is halted early for raising rates of breast cancer, stroke and clots.

The year is 1979.

Your ulcer is caused by stress and sharp food, the doctor explains. Calm down, drink milk, take the antacid that happens to be the best-selling medicine on earth. Two Australians are about to prove that most ulcers are caused by a bacterium and cured by a fortnight of antibiotics. The profession laughs. One of them eventually drinks a beaker of the stuff to settle the matter. The establishment takes the better part of twenty years to stop laughing. The Nobel lands in 2005.

The year is 1985.

Butter is dangerous, the doctor says. Switch to margarine, it is modern, it is heart-healthy, the experts are united. The spread he nudges you toward is loaded with trans fats, which the next decade will identify as the genuinely dangerous one, and which will eventually be banned outright. The butter goes quietly back in the fridge. No correction is ever printed at the volume of the original warning.

The year is 1992.

There is a pyramid on the surgery wall, and the very same one in your grandchild's classroom. Bread, cereal, rice and pasta form the broad virtuous base, up to eleven servings a day. Fat is exiled to the tiny tip. The chart was reportedly held back a year while the relevant industries had their say. It is wrong at the bottom and wrong at the top.

Now it is today.

Your doctor has new guidelines, new studies, a fresh consensus, delivered with precisely the steady confidence of every guideline above. He believes it, and he has good reason to. So did every doctor in this thread. None of them were villains. Each was sincere, most were kind, and all were certain, reading from a map that somebody else had drawn and handed them. That is the part worth sitting with.

So when the man in the white coat tells you what to eat, what to fear, and what to swallow every morning for the rest of your life, you are allowed to ask. Who paid for the study. What the evidence says beneath the headline. What he was just as certain about thirty years ago, and where that advice sits now.

Then make up your own mind. Call it scepticism, or call it whatever your grandmother called it when she ignored the advert, kept the butter where it was, and lived to ninety-one.

It has outlasted every consensus on this list. It will outlast this one too.

[Jaylene🐰 @playmatejaylene]

The first trillionaire in human history

- Elon Musk
- Born in South Africa
- Bullied relentlessly as a kid
- Immigrated to North America
- Arrived with a backpack and a dream
- Built Zip2 with his brother
- Sold it 4 years later for $300 million
- Co-founded PayPal with the profits
- Revolutionised digital payments
- Sold PayPal to eBay for $1.5 billion
- Bet everything on Tesla and SpaceX
- Got mocked for electric cars
- Got laughed at for reusable rockets
- Nearly went bankrupt in 2008
- Kept building anyway
- Turned Tesla into the world’s most valuable automaker
- Made EVs mainstream and transformed the automotive industry
- Made reusable rockets a reality
- Reduced the cost of reaching space by 95%
- Sparked the modern commercial space race
- Built Starlink and connected millions around the world to high-speed internet
- Turned SpaceX into the most valuable private company in history
- Bought Twitter for $44 billion
- The world said he overpaid
- He was called reckless, stupid & crazy
- Advertisers fled, media declared it dead
- Critics called it the worst acquisition in tech history
- Renamed it 𝕏
- Rebuilt the platform anyway
- Turned it into one of the most influential platforms on Earth
- Launched xAI and accelerated the global AI race
- Sent astronauts to space
- Is trying to get humans to mars
- Created millions of jobs
- Generated hundreds of billions in value
- Inspired an entire generation of builders

Before:
- Failed repeatedly
- Worked insane hours
- Slept in factories and offices
- Got bullied, laughed at and mocked
- Constantly told “it’s impossible”
- Kept building anyway
- Made it possible

Today:
- Richest person on Earth
- First trillionaire in human history
- Largest IPO in history $1.77 trillion

Most people quit when the world laughs at them.

Elon Musk built the future instead.

Love him or hate him…

Nobody has changed more industries in a single lifetime.

Payments. Cars. Energy. Space. Social Media. Communications. AI.

History won’t remember the people who said it couldn’t be done.

It will remember the people who did it anyway.

Congratulations Elon.
The first trillionaire. 🚀

[Bernie @Artemisfornow]

Institutions and governments keep telling me Net Zero policies are part of the 4th industrial revolution. I argue it isn't a revolution at all, it's tyranny.

Here's why... You threw away your Blackberry because the iphone was better, you weren't forced or taxed to do so. Same with whale oil, when kerosine came along no government had to mandate its use. It was simply better than whale oil (and fewer whales died, bonus)

Voting with your wallet is democratic. But being forced to part with your money for something you don't want, and which isn't as good or as cheap as you already have, is not.

[Kenny Carmody @KennyCarmody]

COVID changed my worldview permanently.

Nearly six years after COVID began, not one world leader has seriously examined what the vaccines did to the people they harmed.

Not one investigation. Not one parliamentary inquiry with genuine teeth. Not one head of state who has stood at a podium and said, we owe the injured an honest accounting and we are going to provide it.

The silence is universal. And it is coordinated in a way that individual negligence cannot explain.

This is the observation that matters most to me, more than any document, more than any leaked communication, more than any specific piece of evidence. Because the behaviour of every major government simultaneously tells you something that the individual pieces cannot tell you alone.

Genuine public health emergencies produce genuine review. What worked. What did not. Who was harmed and how. That is what accountable institutions do.

What we have instead is a wall.

And on the other side of that wall, the vaccine injured, still without diagnostic codes, still without compensation, still without the basic acknowledgment that what happened to them was real.

While Long COVID is promoted heavily by the same governments and the same media that will not ask a single honest question about the injections. The parallel presentations. The overlapping symptoms. The convenient framing that points everywhere except at the product.

The universal silence of world leaders on vaccine injury is not the behaviour of people who have nothing to hide.

It is the behaviour of people who have collectively decided that the cost of honesty exceeds the cost of continued silence.

That decision is itself the answer.

[Tock @yvan_theriault]

A la caisse d’un super marché, une vieille femme choisit un sac en plastique pour ranger ses achats. La caissière lui reproche alors de ne pas se mettre à « l’écologie » et lui dit:
« Votre génération ne comprend tout simplement pas le mouvement écologique. Seuls les jeunes vont payer pour la vieille génération qui a gaspillé toutes les ressources! »

Alors qu’elle quittait le magasin, la mine déconfite, la caissière en rajouta:
« Ce sont des gens comme vous qui ont ruiné toutes les ressources à notre dépens.
C’est vrai, vous ne considériez absolument pas la protection de l’environnement dans votre temps! »

La vieille dame se retournant admît qu’à l’époque, on retournait les bouteilles de lait, les bouteilles de limonade et de bière au magasin qui les renvoyait à l’usine pour être lavées, stérilisées et remplies à nouveau ; on utilisait les mêmes bouteilles à plusieurs reprises.
À cette époque, les bouteilles étaient réellement recyclées,
mais on ne connaissait pas le mouvement écologique.
On marchait jusqu’à l’épicerie du coin aussi. On ne prenait pas sa voiture à chaque fois qu’il fallait se déplacer de deux rues.
Mais, c’est vrai, on ne connaissait pas le mouvement écologique.

À l’époque, on lavait les couches de bébé avec du savon ; on ne connaissait pas les couches jetables ni les lingettes.
On faisait sécher les vêtements dehors sur une corde à linge; pas dans un machine avalant 3000 watts à l’heure.

On utilisait l’énergie éolienne et solaire pour vraiment sécher les vêtements.
À l’époque, on recyclait systématiquement les vêtements qui passaient d’un frère ou d’une soeur à l’autre.

C’est vrai ! on ne connaissait pas le mouvement écologique

À l’époque, on n’avait qu’une TV ou une radio dans la maison ; pas une télé dans chaque chambre. Et la télévision avait un petit écran de la taille d’une boîte de pizza, pas un écran de la taille de l’État du Texas.

Dans la cuisine, on s’activait pour fouetter les préparations culinaires et pour préparer les repas ; on ne disposait pas de tous ces gadgets électriques spécialisés pour tout préparer sans efforts et qui bouffent des watts autant qu’EDF en produit.

Quand on emballait des éléments fragiles à envoyer par la poste, on utilisait comme rembourrage du papier journal ou de la ouate, dans des boites ayant déjà servi, pas des bulles en mousse de polystyrène ou en plastique.

À l’époque, on utilisait l’huile de coude pour tondre le gazon ; on n’avait pas de tondeuses à essence auto-propulsées ou auto portées.

À l’époque, on travaillait physiquement; on n’avait pas besoin d’aller dans un club de gym pour courir sur des tapis roulants qui fonctionnent à l’électricité.
Mais, vous avez raison : on ne connaissait pas le mouvement écologique.

À l’époque, on buvait de l’eau à la fontaine quand on avait soif ; on n’utilisait pas de tasses ou de bouteilles en plastique à jeter à chaque fois qu’on voulait prendre de l’eau.
On remplissait les stylos plumes dans une bouteille d’encre au lieu d’acheter un nouveau stylo ; on remplaçait les lames de rasoir au lieu de jeter le rasoir après chaque rasage.
Mais, c’est vrai, on ne connaissait pas le mouvement écologique.

À l’époque, les gens prenaient le bus, le métro et les enfants prenaient leur vélo pour se rendre à l’école au lieu d’utiliser la voiture familiale et maman comme un service de taxi de 24 heures sur 24.

À l’époque, les enfants gardaient le même cartable durant plusieurs années, les cahiers continuaient d’une année sur l’autre, les crayons de couleurs, gommes, taille crayon et autres accessoires duraient tant qu’ils pouvaient, pas un cartable tous les ans et des cahiers à jeter fin juin, de nouveaux crayons et gommes avec un nouveau slogan à chaque rentrée.
Mais, c’est vrai, on ne connaissait pas le mouvement écologique.

ALORS NE VIENS PAS ME FAIRE CHIER AVEC TON SAC PLASTIQUE ET TON MOUVEMENT ÉCOLOGIQUE !!!!!!

[MyBody MyChoice 🌸 @NoConsentPerth]

@elonmusk Agree with @VigilantFox, how would you feel Elon if you were told you don't need to work or innovate any more. Forget about space, mars, or statlink AI has that all covered.
Just stay in your 2x1 or whatever and the govt "will look after you"

[MyBody MyChoice 🌸 @NoConsentPerth]

@Rose__2210 Tarot

[MyBody MyChoice 🌸 @NoConsentPerth]

@callmeMizuko 17

[The Vigilant Fox 🦊 @VigilantFox]

A bombshell vax vs. unvax study is now seeing the light of day — and the results are staggering.

Dr. Marcus Zervos led the study, but he decided not to publish it because “publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.”

Here’s what the study revealed:

• Vaccinated children were 4.29 times more likely to have asthma.

• Three times higher risk for atopic diseases (like eczema).

• Nearly six times higher risk for autoimmune disorders — a category that includes over 80 different diseases.

• 5.5 times higher risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

• 2.9 times more motor disabilities.

• 4.5 times more speech disorders.

• Three times more developmental delays.

• Six times more acute and chronic ear infections.

• In nearly 2,000 unvaccinated children, there were zero cases of ADHD, diabetes, behavioral problems, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, tics, or other psychological disorders.

• The study’s conclusion is devastating. It states: “[I]n contrast to our expectations, we found that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold INCREASE in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition when compared to children unexposed to vaccination.”

If this study could be sidelined for producing inconvenient results, how many others have met the same fate?

But the truth is, you don’t need a study to notice the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. 🧵

[armygirl @armygir36701799]

Here’s to the civilized and feral generations that grew up in a pre-digital era!

[MyBody MyChoice 🌸 @NoConsentPerth]

@Mrcryptoxwhale Done

[MyBody MyChoice 🌸 @NoConsentPerth]

@Jindo_1307979 50091

[Melanie In Saskatchewan @saskatchewan_in]

🎤 I Am Not Woke

I am a woman.
I am Gen X.
Which means I was raised on hot hose water, unsupervised bike riding, and the understanding that if you’re bleeding but still conscious, you’re probably fine.

I am not emotionally injured by words.
I have survived mall bangs, dial-up internet, and New Coke.
You are not going to take me out with a tweet.

I believe in equality.
Not the Oppression Olympics, where everyone shows up with a clipboard and a backstory.

I am a strong woman.
I pay my bills.
I change my tire.
I handle my life.

But yes, I still want a man who opens jars, kills spiders, checks the noise in the basement, and says,
“Relax. I’ve got this,”
while holding a flashlight he definitely does not know how to use properly.

That is not patriarchy.
That is foreplay.
That is chemistry.

Somewhere in the last decade, feminism stopped being about opportunity and turned into a poorly dubbed workplace orientation video that never ends.

Now everything is “toxic.”
Except the people screaming it on social media at 10 a.m. on a Tuesday with 14 pronouns and a coffee addiction.

We turned “live and let live” into
“live exactly like me or prepare for a 37-tweet thread.”

Disagreement is now violence.
Silence is now violence.
Looking at someone wrong is probably violence.

Everyone has a label, a trigger, a diagnosis, and a podcast.
No one has a sense of humor.
Personal grace is rarer than Sasquatch.

We replaced confidence with outrage.
Facts with feelings.
And actual problems with performance art.

I do not need a seminar to exist.
I do not need a warning label on jokes.
I do not need a committee to approve my opinions.

I am a woman.
I am independent.
I am emotionally stable.
I like men who act like men.
I like women who do not hate them for it.
And I would like to enjoy my coffee without being educated.

My wish for 2026 is simple:
May woke finally go to sleep.
Put on its little eye mask.
Take a melatonin.
Log off the internet.
And let the rest of us get back to living.

I am not woke.
I am awake.
And I would like my culture back,
preferably without a training session.

Happy New Year friends!
May this be the year we shed the cloak of woke for good and start living our lives as intended... Free.

[MyBody MyChoice 🌸 @NoConsentPerth]

@FefeDemeny Watching closely and acting, thanks @FefeDemeny

[MyBody MyChoice 🌸 @NoConsentPerth]

@VigilantFox Points 24 and 26 mins in, worth a listen https://t.co/JxbEXlcL5E

[Fefe Demeny @FefeDemeny]

CHRISTMAS STREAM WITH $500.000 USD GIVEAWAY — DEC 23rd.

Make sure you book yourself out for December 23rd for the legendary Special Edition Christmas Live Show!

As every year, I am hosting a 3-4 hour long special Christmas live stream on the 100XCLub YouTube channel, having fun with special guests and giving away $500.000 worth of products & services + some cash – LIVE.

Subscribe to the 100XClub YouTube (link below) and make sure to turn notifications on for more details!

Special shoutout to some of our partners who make this happen every year:
@bitfunded
@Ledger
@pionex
@BloFin_Official

If you want me to give away some of your products/services to the community, shoot me a dm.

[MyBody MyChoice 🌸 @NoConsentPerth]

@JaneCaro Well maybe you and your cohorts should focus on the root cause of the 14Bt/yr growth in annual emissions since 2000, or doesn't that suit your narrative?