Shelly Lowenthal

[HonestReporting @HonestReporting]

🚨 $100 billion in undocumented Qatari money.
Muslim Brotherhood ideology in university and K-12 classrooms.
300% more antisemitism on funded campuses.

Dr. Charles A. Small of @ISGAP drops the receipts on how Qatar rewired American education.

Watch the full Honest Take👇

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

2004-2024 Total election spending in the United States = 76 billion dollars.

AIPAC lobbying and pac money total = 250 million dollars

If you believe 0.3% of the total money spent in elections is all it takes to buy America and its politicians you are so brainwashed and so gullible that there’s nothing you can’t be made to believe.

You are the biggest sucker ever and the people who profit off your lack of discernment found the easiest marks in human history.

[Bill Melugin @BillMelugin_]

Maureen Galindo, a Democrat running for Congress in TX-35, says in an Instagram post that she would turn an ICE detention center near San Antonio “into a prison for American Zionists”, and will also use it as a castration processing center for pedophiles, “which will probably be most of the Zionists”.

Yes, it’s real, and yes the post is still up. She has a runoff election next week.

In other posts on her Instagram, Galindo claims that her runoff opponent, Johnny Garcia, was part of a human trafficking conspiracy orchestrated by “billionaire Zionist Jews.”

[🇺🇸 Edward T. Winslow @EdwardTWinz]

The UK just deployed a political weapon it's only used once before in modern history.

And nobody is talking about what it just backfired into.

🚨 🚨 🚨 KEIR STARMER BANNED FOREIGN JOURNALISTS FROM ENGLAND TO STOP A RALLY → IT PRODUCED THE LARGEST ANTI-GOVERNMENT MARCH IN YEARS 🚨 🚨 🚨

The Home Office issued entry bans on 11 foreign nationals ahead of the 16 May 'Unite the Kingdom' rally in central London. Rebel News founder Ezra Levant. Multiple journalists. Commentators. Banned from the country. To stop a march.

Metropolitan Police deployed 4,000+ officers. Live facial recognition. Drones. Dogs. Horses.

The result: tens of thousands — some estimates reaching hundreds of thousands — flooding the streets of London anyway.

THE WEAPON:
→ UK Home Office entry bans — 11 foreign nationals barred from the country
→ Prime Minister publicly labeled the rally "extremist" and "hatred and division"
→ Starmer framed it as "a battle for the soul of our nation" in direct pre-rally statements
→ Police mobilized at a scale typically reserved for state visits or terror threats
→ Live facial recognition deployed across central London
→ Rival pro-Palestine march simultaneously permitted on the same day
→ Metropolitan Police prepared for 50,000 — the actual crowd exceeded preparation
→ Government rhetoric amplified international media attention across the US and Europe

THE TARGET:
→ A march organized around "national unity, free speech, and Christian values"
→ Organized weeks after Reform UK seized 1,350+ council seats and control of 13 councils in the 8 May local elections
→ Reform's gains came primarily at Labour's direct expense — Essex, Sunderland, council after council

THE MATH:
→ Reform UK: 1,350+ seats gained in a single election cycle
→ 13 councils flipped — including Essex with 42 seats
→ Starmer's response: ban journalists, deploy 4,000 officers, call the march extremist
→ Outcome: the bans became the story, the march became a symbol, and the streets filled anyway

Read that again.

💀 Every ban Starmer issued handed organizers a government-censorship narrative
💀 Every officer deployed turned a political rally into a national confrontation
💀 The suppression didn't shrink the movement — it advertised it

⚠️ Reform just proved it can win elections. The march proved it can also fill streets.
⚠️ Starmer called it "a battle for the soul of our nation" — and then lost the visual battle on live television
⚠️ This isn't a fringe moment. This is what a political realignment looks like in the streets.

They're showing you the arrests and the police lines.
They're NOT showing you what this sequence actually means — a government that just lost 1,350 council seats in one night responded to the aftermath by banning journalists and calling a march extremist, and the streets answered with the largest visible opposition mobilization in years.

You don't ban foreign journalists to stop a fringe event. You ban foreign journalists when you're afraid of what the footage will show. And you only deploy 4,000 officers with drones and facial recognition when you already know the crowd is going to be too large to ignore.

Process that.

Most people won't see this. RT to change that. 🔥

I'll keep you updated as this unfolds, turn on notifications this is EXTREMELY important.

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

https://t.co/2UJt3pLW21

[Shelly Lowenthal @shellylowen]

@VividProwess Please keep your reporting

[Aaron Siri @AaronSiriSG]

RFK Jr. is correct. Hep B vaccines given to infants (Recombivax HB and Engerix B) were not proven safe before licensure and have not been proven safe thereafter. The proof is unassailable.

Recombivax HB was licensed based on a clinical trial with 147 children monitored for 5 days after injection and no control group.* Engerix B had only 4 days of monitoring after injection with no control group.**

Fun fact: trials to license vaccines for chickens require “daily observation records [] for at least 21 days after vaccination.”***

As for post licensure safety, CDC and HRSA commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review (what these agencies said were) 25 serious commonly-claimed injuries from Hep B vaccines, and the IOM concluded that for 24 of them, neither CDC nor the medical community had done the studies needed for them to reach a conclusion on whether Hep B vaccines caused these conditions.**** Meaning, at best, the serious harms reported from Hep B vaccines were never taken seriously and properly studied.

Here is another fun fact: Hep B mortality has gone upsince the introduction of the Hep B vaccine. The first Hep B vaccine was introduced in 1981 and was made with human blood plasma from donors who were chronically infected with the Hep B virus. In 1986, a new Hep B vaccine using recombinant DNA technology (without human blood) was licensed. Mortality from Hep B climbed after introduction of the 1981 vaccine, continued to climb after the introduction of the 1986 vaccine, and has never returned to pre-vaccination levels. In 1980, there were 294 deaths in the United States from Hep B. Today, there are around 1,700 deaths per year.*

Here is another inconvenient data point: in the only study comparing children who received Hep B vaccines in the first month of life to those who did not, researchers from Stony Brook University Medical Center found that the vaccinated children had three times the risk of autism. As the study explained: "Result was significant for the risk of autism in children who received their first dose of Hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life (OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.11, 8.13), compared with those who received the vaccination after the first month of life or not at all."***** Other studies finding statistically significant elevated risk for various neurological and other harms from these products abound.

The hard cold reality is that if Hep B vaccines were safe, they would not need immunity to liability for the injuries they won’t cause. They need this immunity because the reality is, after 40 years of use, they know what would happen if the immunity were lifted…

Below is a short video discussing these points and see Vaccines, Amen for a full discussion, including discussion of my deposition of the principal investigator of the childhood Hep B trial for Recombivax HB, or see: https://t.co/YmwhyJkNJY

* https://t.co/zYoMJ2p2x7** https://t.co/GAU63T5jZj*** https://t.co/MaMPU9Uk9c**** https://t.co/K2V7ZPg7hD***** https://t.co/txDiFen9Or breaking down some of the above: https://t.co/dh0jSa69mw

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

All good and true.

But the much simpler critical empirical fact is

There is NO detectable isotopic signature of human CO2 emissions going IN to the atmosphere either over the last 40 years (using instrumental data) or the last 500 years (using proxy data).

This is truly foundational / totally empirical, a complete falsification of AGW, and little-known recent finding from Koutsoyiannis (2024). We really need to educate the world about this.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

No, that is categorically false. Read below.

The story we have all been told
Carbon comes in two stable forms: ordinary carbon-12 and a slightly heavier cousin, carbon-13. About 99% of carbon in nature is the light kind, 1% the heavy kind. The exact ratio shifts a little depending on where the carbon came from. Plants prefer the lighter version when they photosynthesize, so plant matter — and the fossil fuels made from ancient plant matter — runs "lighter" than the air around it. Scientists measure this with a quantity called δ¹³C, expressed in parts per thousand. A more negative number means more of the light isotope, less of the heavy.

Here is the observation everyone agrees on: the atmosphere’s δ¹³C has been drifting downward for decades. The air is getting isotopically lighter at the same time CO₂ levels are rising.

Here is the inference that has been treated as obvious: fossil fuels are isotopically light, we are burning lots of them, the air is getting lighter, therefore the lightness must be coming from us. This was first proposed (not proven) by Hans Suess in 1955 and has been repeated in every textbook, every IPCC report, and every news article ever since. It is called the "Suess effect," and it is the pillar on which the attribution of rising CO₂ to human activity rests.

Notice something about this argument: it has the form of a guess, not a proof. Two things are happening at once — emissions rising, isotopes drifting — and one is asserted to cause the other because the mechanism is plausible. Plausible is not the same as demonstrated. Two trends moving together is correlation. A mechanism that could produce the observed effect is not evidence that it did. Yet for seven decades this guess was treated as established fact and built into every climate model, every policy framework, every diplomatic agreement.

Nobody, in seventy years, did the obvious thing: solve the mass-balance equation backward and ask what the data actually require.

What Koutsoyiannis (2024) actually did
Imagine the atmosphere as a large tank containing a mixture of CO₂ molecules. Some of those molecules are heavy, some are light. New CO₂ flows into the tank from various sources — plant respiration, soil decay, the oceans, volcanoes, and yes, fossil-fuel combustion.

CO₂ also leaves the tank — absorbed by plants during photosynthesis, dissolved into the oceans. The δ¹³C of the air at any moment is just the running average of what's gone in, minus what's gone out, weighted by the amounts.

This is not climate science. This is the kind of arithmetic engineers do every day to keep track of what's in a chemical reactor or a water reservoir. It is governed by an equation so basic it has no name beyond "mass balance." If you put a cup of cream into a bowl of milk, the resulting mixture has a fat content that is exactly the weighted average of the two. There is no mystery about this and no room for opinion.

What Koutsoyiannis did was take that equation and run it in reverse. Instead of guessing what the inputs to the atmosphere were and predicting δ¹³C, he took the measured δ¹³C and the measured CO₂ concentrations and solved for the only unknown: the average isotopic signature of whatever was flowing in. He called this quantity δ¹³C_I — the "I" stands for input.

If the Suess story is right, δ¹³C_I must have been getting steadily lighter for decades, in lockstep with the growing flood of fossil emissions. Cumulative human emissions roughly tripled between 1978 and 2022. The input signature should have shifted downward by a measurable, predictable amount. This is a sharp, falsifiable prediction. It is the central testable claim of the entire fossil-fuel attribution.

Koutsoyiannis ran the calculation four different ways, on four different observation sites scattered across the globe — Barrow in Alaska, Mauna Loa in Hawaii, American Samoa in the South Pacific, and the South Pole — using the canonical data from the Scripps CO₂ Program founded by Charles Keeling himself. Then he extended the analysis backward five centuries using ice-core and coralline-sponge proxy records.

The answer, in every case, by every method, at every site, across every period: the input signature has not changed. It sits at about −13 parts per thousand and has stayed there, within the noise, for as far back as we can measure it. The Little Ice Age. The Industrial Revolution. The post-war economic boom. The doubling of annual human emissions. None of it shows up. The atmosphere has been receiving carbon with the same isotopic fingerprint the entire time.

The biosphere explains everything — fossil fuels explain nothing
There is one more result from Koutsoyiannis' analysis that deserves its own discussion, because it is the most direct demonstration of what "no detectable human fingerprint" actually means in practice.

After recovering the constant input signature from the data, Koutsoyiannis built a simple model to test whether the observed δ¹³C record could be reproduced without any fossil fuel term at all. The model has exactly two parameters: one representing the isotopic signature of carbon entering the atmosphere during the months when CO₂ is rising (dominated by the respiration of plants, soils, and oceans, which release isotopically light carbon), and another representing the signature during the months when CO₂ is falling (dominated by photosynthesis, which preferentially removes the lighter isotope and thereby enriches what remains in the air).

These are the two halves of the biosphere's seasonal breathing — the exhale and the inhale of the living Earth. One value turns out to be the same worldwide (reflecting the universal chemistry of photosynthesis), and the other varies by latitude (reflecting the fact that seasonal respiration is strongest in the north, where most of the world's land mass is, and weakest near the South Pole, where there is almost no vegetation).

With these two numbers and nothing else — no fossil fuel emissions, no Bern model, no "anthropogenic" term of any kind — the model reproduces the full monthly δ¹³C record at all four observation stations with explained variance of 98 to 99 percent.

That is not a rough approximation. That is near-perfect reconstruction. And it has a consequence that cannot be argued away: if a model containing only biospheric terms explains 99% of the variance, then any additional term — including fossil fuels — can account for at most 1% of what remains. But that remaining 1% is already consumed by measurement noise, seasonal irregularities, volcanic perturbations like Pinatubo, and the ordinary variability of El Niño. There is no unexplained variance left over that needs a fossil fuel term to fill.

This does not mean fossil fuel combustion releases no CO₂. It obviously does. But human emissions are approximately 4% of total annual CO₂ turnover — the other 96% comes from natural respiration and ocean exchange. The biosphere's own emissions are not only far larger than ours; they are also isotopically lighter. C3 plants, which include most of the world's trees and crops, have δ¹³C values of −26 to −28 parts per thousand — as depleted or more depleted than most fossil fuels. When these plants and soils respire, they release CO₂ with the same "light" isotopic signature that has always been attributed to coal and oil. Our 4% contribution, carrying a similar signature, is not distinguishable from the 96% natural flux it is mixed into. It is a candle lit in a forest fire.

It is worth pausing on what Suess himself actually wrote in 1955. His exact words were:

"The decrease can be attributed to the introduction of a certain amount of C14-free CO₂ into the atmosphere by artificial coal and oil combustion and to the rate of isotopic exchange between atmospheric CO₂ and the bicarbonate dissolved in the oceans."

He posited two mechanisms — fossil combustion and natural oceanic exchange — joined by "and," with no claim about which one dominated. The subsequent literature took this sentence, deleted the second mechanism, promoted the first from "can be attributed to" to "is caused by," and called the result "the Suess effect." What Koutsoyiannis' model shows is that the mechanism Suess's successors deleted — natural exchange — is not merely a contributor. It is the entire explanation. And the mechanism they promoted — fossil fuels — is not merely uncertain in magnitude. It is superfluous. The data do not even detect it. The 99% fit does not need it.

Where, then, is all that fossil carbon going?
The answer was in front of us all along, and Koutsoyiannis is not the first to point it out. Of the roughly 200 billion tonnes of carbon (in CO2) that flow into the atmosphere each year, human emissions account for about 4 percent. The other 96 percent comes from natural processes — primarily the breathing of soils and plants, and exchange with the oceans. The biosphere is not some quiet bystander while humans rearrange the carbon cycle. It is the carbon cycle. Human emissions are a rounding error added to a vastly larger natural flux that swamps them and homogenizes them into the background.

And here is the part that has been hiding in plain sight: the biosphere is more isotopically light than fossil fuels. Plant matter, soil organic matter, freshwater and ocean organic matter — all of these have δ¹³C values more negative than coal, oil, or natural gas. So the qualitative argument that "the atmosphere is getting lighter, therefore fossil fuels did it" applies with even greater force to natural respiration. Suess’ plausibility argument does not single out fossil fuels at all. It points more strongly somewhere else. Nobody noticed because nobody looked.

The mass-balance inversion confirms quantitatively what the qualitative reasoning, properly applied, already suggests: the atmospheric δ¹³C decline is driven by the natural biosphere, which is expanding and respiring more vigorously as the planet has warmed and as CO₂ has risen — the well-documented "greening of the Earth" visible from satellites. The fossil-fuel contribution is too small to detect against the background of natural exchange.

Why this changes everything
Stay with the implication. Given that the isotopic fingerprint of fossil carbon is not detectable in the atmospheric input, then THE central evidence that rising CO₂ is of human origin fails. The rise in CO₂ is real. It is measured every day at Mauna Loa. But the attribution of that rise to human emissions has always rested on the Suess’ flawed isotopic argument. That argument is now refuted by the very isotopes invoked to prove it.

This does not mean humans emit no CO₂. We obviously do (~10 GtC/yr). It means the natural carbon cycle is so much larger than our contribution, and so vigorously responsive to temperature, that our additions are quickly absorbed and overwhelmed. The atmosphere does what the atmosphere has always done in response to a warming planet: it accumulates more CO₂, because warmer oceans hold less dissolved gas and warmer biospheres respire more vigorously. This is the same pattern visible in every ice-core record going back hundreds of thousands of years, where temperature leads CO₂ by hundreds to thousands of years — warming first, CO₂ later. The post-Little-Ice-Age warming, which began in the early 1800s before any meaningful fossil emissions, fits this ancient pattern exactly. We did not cause the warming. The warming caused the CO₂.

Now follow the dominoes.

If we did not cause the CO₂ rise, then the CO₂ rise cannot be the proof that we are warming the planet. If the CO₂ rise is itself a response to natural warming, then attributing the warming to the CO₂ is circular — you cannot use a temperature-driven effect as the cause of the temperature change that drove it.

If the warming is not anthropogenic, then "net zero" achieves nothing. Cutting human emissions to zero leaves 96 percent of the carbon flux untouched and addresses none of the natural processes actually driving the observed changes. The trillions of dollars committed to decarbonization, the dismantling of reliable energy infrastructure, the impoverishment of developing nations to keep them from burning the same fuels that lifted the West out of poverty — all of it is built on an attribution that does not survive an elementary mass-balance check.

If the entire scientific establishment, including very intelligent and very honest individuals, propagated this attribution for seven decades without testing it, then "consensus" is revealed as what it always was: a sociological phenomenon, not an epistemological one. Scientists cite each other. The first paper asserted. Later papers cited the first. Textbooks cited the later papers. By the third generation of citation, nobody remembered that the original claim had never been demonstrated — it had only been assumed. This is how a guess becomes a fact in a field where nobody is incentivized to check the foundations.

What honest science looks like
Koutsoyiannis did not bring opinions to this problem. He did not invoke consensus, authority, or political stakes. He took the conservation of mass — which nobody disputes — applied it to the data the establishment itself produced, and reported what the equations gave back. When a critic, Arno Kleber, attempted to refute him in the same journal months later, Koutsoyiannis answered every substantive point in detail, showing that Kleber had misread the original paper, cherry-picked his data, used the wrong time period, and misapplied the philosophy of science he claimed to be invoking.

The reader does not need to take anyone's word for any of this. Koutsoyiannis' paper is open access. The mathematics requires only high-school algebra and the recognition that a tank cannot contain more or less of something than what was put into it minus what was taken out. The data are public. The calculation can be reproduced on a spreadsheet in an afternoon.

What is required is the willingness to run the calculation and accept what it shows, even if what it shows undoes a story that powerful institutions have spent decades telling, billions of dollars defending, and trillions of dollars implementing.

The Suess effect was an assumption from 1955. It was repeated for seventy years. It was never proven. It is now FALSIFIED — not by opinion, not by an alternative theory, but by the data themselves answering a question nobody had bothered to ask them.

[Shelly Lowenthal @shellylowen]

@VividProwess Iran for supporting Hamas

[Wall Street Apes @WallStreetApes]

Maine Governor candidate Ben Midgley reveals “140 Maine healthcare companies have now shown up to have Minnesota phone numbers”

“It's pretty clear that at least on some level, there's a connection between the fraud that's happening in Maine and the fraud that's happening in Minnesota”⠀

This is a very clear indication of cross-state fraud schemes

Both Minnesota and Maine have reported

- “Ghost” empty office providers billing Medicaid
- Rapid spikes in certain service claims, autism related ‘behavior analysis services’ in Maine audits found at least $45.6 million in improper payments
- Providers are appearing interconnected across state lines

[Shelly Lowenthal @shellylowen]

@EYakoby @elonmusk Account is great!

[The Jewish Idea @TheJewishIdea]

These 40 Democrats voted against giving arms to Israel. Shameful.

Alsobrooks,
Baldwin,
Bennet,
Blunt Rochester,
Booker,
Cantwell,
Duckworth,
Durbin,
Gallego,
Hassan,
Heinrich,
Hirono,
Hickenlooper,
Luján,
Markey,
Merkley,
Murphy,
Murray,
Ossoff,
Padilla,
Peters,
Kaine,
Kelly,
Klobuchar,
Kim,
King,
Reed,
Sanders,
Schiff,
Schatz,
Shaheen,
Slotkin,
Smith,
Warnock,
Warren,
Warner,
Wyden,
Whitehouse,
Welch,
Van Hollen

[Shelly Lowenthal @shellylowen]

@LA_Abe6626 @DefiyantlyFree How many mosques were Hamas Terrorist armories? -100%

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

The people promoting IRGC propaganda are not just Jew haters they are something much more sinister. They are operatives.

Their purpose in the media landscape is to take a legitimate grievance (failed foreign policy) and tell you the reason it exists is because of Israel and the Jews. They take every attribute the average person would assign to Iran and assign it to Israel.

And these supposed conservatives are using the sectarian framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it exists in the Arab world and on the European left, and introducing it into conservative spaces. Western aggression, imperialism, the greater Israel project, colonizers. This is the dialectic of the left.

Israel is the aggressor, Zionism is fanaticism, and Western support for Israel is a form of complicity is the red-brown-green alliance in action. It’s foreign to America and has to be imported through people like Dugin, RT Today, the IRGC, Hinkle and the “maga communists”

They take every attribute of Iran and paste it on Israel, with no evidence, so the audience stops being able to tell the difference between a liberal democracy and a theocratic terror-sponsoring regime.

Everything is then run through the additional lens of religious fanaticism because these people flooding conservative media with Eurasianist slop aren’t targeting Israel. They are trying to convert and erode the evangelical Christian conservative base in America.

You are their enemy. Their content is curated for you. To separate you from your theology, your worldview and I would argue objective reality.

Don’t cal these people Jew haters even though they are.

Call them operatives.

Call them Eurasian slop peddlers.

Call them malign foreign influence ops.

But calling them Jew haters misses the danger. This is not just low IQ pathetic rotting hatred and bigotry.

This is a well funded, well planned operation.

And it’s accelerating to merge the woke left and the woke right. Not just in ideology but in the press. Liberal media is starting to work with the woke right hand in hand.

You really think that’s a coincidence?

[Joel Mowbray @joelmowbray]

Tucker Carlson: It's "evil" for Jews to warn their children about anti-Semitism.

To grasp just how evil Tucker's rhetoric has become, PLEASE WATCH this video.

I've spent weeks editing this, for you to see reality side-by-side vs Tucker's words.

A Jewish preschool was targeted less than a week later, outside Detroit, when a Hezbollah operative slammed his explosive-filled truck into the preschool — with 140 Jewish kids right inside.

But on that day, March 12, the only statement Tucker made was to condemn... @LauraLoomer.

He spoke about "violent attacks you believe are coming," as in FUTURE TENSE.

Mere hours after an attack on a Jewish preschool.

Quite simply, Tucker does not want Jews to be on guard.

Let alone to protect themselves.

In his monologue from March 6, he claimed that warning about anti-Semitism — or even discussing actual anti-Semitic violence — is an Israeli "propaganda campaign... telling Americans that they can be killed."

Tucker claimed this is part of Israel's supposed effort to take over neighboring countries, thus the Jewish state is trying to "terrify kids in order to silence criticism of [its] territorial expansion campaign."

Just to make sure that his audience blames — and thus harbors resentment for — not just Israel, but also ordinary American Jewish parents, he continued, "And imagine, moreover, playing along with it with your own kids, telling your own kids that people hate them and will always hate them no matter what they do because of how they were born."

Acting like it was some sort of mic drop statement, Tucker declared, "That is super dark. That is evil, completely evil."

The only truthful thing Tucker said, in fact, was a comment he clearly meant very differently:

"There is an organized campaign underway this moment to foment religious hatred in this country, hatred of American for American on the basis of religious identity."

Yes, Tucker, there is. Whether it comes from you, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, Carrie Prejean, Nick Fuentes, Theo Von, or any of your openly Nazi-loving, Holocaust-denying fanboys.

To quote Tucker himself, "That is totally wrong, morally, but more than that, it's completely destructive."

[Senator Eric Schmitt @SenEricSchmitt]

Did you know our Judiciary has its own taxpayer-funded “neutral training pipeline"?

Meet the USAID of Article III.

The Federal Judicial Center. What I've uncovered isn't "neutral" judicial training. It's ideological capture. Take a look at how it's infecting our judiciary. 🧵

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

🚨🚨🚨🚨
BREAKING NEWS:

🧵 Four peer-reviewed papers by @jcohler just dismantled the entire scientific foundation of the AGW hypothesis. Not chipped away at it. Dismantled it. Here’s what that actually means.
The IPCC’s case for dangerous human-caused warming rests on three empirical pillars:

1.The Earth is warming (GMST)
2.Warming is driven by elevated CO₂
3.The CO₂ rise is anthropogenic and permanent

All three are now gone.

Pillar 1 — GMST is physically meaningless.

Temperature is an intensive property. You cannot average the temperatures of disjoint physical systems and get a quantity that means anything. The result is a number, not a temperature. The Physical Tether Theorem (Cohler, 2026) proves this formally and rigorously, grounded in representational measurement theory, operationalism, and classical thermodynamics. Every canonical formalization of classical science leads to the same conclusion. GMST does not exist as a physical quantity.

Pillar 2 — The CO₂ rise is natural.

Cohler & Soon (2026) show that mass-balance analysis, isotopic data, and 500 million years of temperature-CO₂ precedence all point the same direction: natural processes explain the observed CO₂ rise with no detectable anthropogenic contribution. Temperature leads CO₂, not the other way around — at every timescale.

Pillar 3 — The Bern model is empirically falsified.

The IPCC claims CO₂ persists in the atmosphere for millennia, justifying permanent emissions restrictions. The actual CO₂ residence time is 3.5–4 years. The bomb-¹⁴C pulse from nuclear testing — a clean, real-world tracer experiment — decays as a single exponential over 55+ years, directly falsifying the Bern model’s multi-exponential structure and permanent airborne fraction. This isn’t a modeling dispute. It’s falsification by data.

Bonus: The energy accounting is also invalid.

Cohler et al. (2026) show that Argo-based ocean heat content estimates violate the scientific method at every step, and that true EEI uncertainty exceeds ±1 W/m² — an order of magnitude larger than IPCC reports — making the Earth Energy Imbalance statistically indistinguishable from zero.

The IPCC has no valid thermometer. No valid calorimeter. No valid CO₂ attribution model. No valid energy accounting.
Without valid metrics there is no measurement. Without measurement there is no empirical claim. Without an empirical claim, AGW is not a scientific hypothesis. It is a conjecture — built on physically meaningless constructs and a falsified model — on which the world has spent trillions of dollars.

That’s not a political statement. It’s a logical one.

Papers: https://t.co/TiXR6dk7Uk

[Shelly Lowenthal @shellylowen]

@MOSSADil @naomirwolf See you

[Wall Street Apes @WallStreetApes]

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey is as corrupt as they come. This needs National Coverage 🚨

Here is Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey with her longtime friend Elyse Cherry, CEO of NGO nonprofit BlueHub Capital

- Elyse Cherry tax documents show she’s been making over $1 million per year
- Elyse Cherry has donated to Massachusetts Governo Maura Healey every single year since 2013 maxing out her contributions
- Elyse Cherry has actually hosted fundraisers dating back to 2014 for Massachusetts Governo Maura Healey raking in thousands of dollars

Elyse Cherry’s company BlueHub Capital is currently facing huge amounts of big lawsuits for corruption, so guess what:

- Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey passed her economic development bill and stuffed in there, in section 269 essentially grants any kind of lending service like BlueHill Capital a shield from lawsuits in the state of Massachusetts

One extremely upset attorney representing the victims wrote: “We think the provision in the economic development bill that gives BlueHub Capital broad immunity from the consumer protection is extraordinary and frankly outrageous.”

“Who is she representing? Is she representing the people of Massachusetts, or is she just here to line the pockets of her friends?”

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey is corrupt to the core. Something must be done about this