patrick.net

Newly leaked documents reveal that billionaire George Soros bribed former Vice President Al Gore with millions of dollars in order to fabricate data about global warming.

According to a document published by DC Leaks, Soros used his Open Society Institute to pay Al Gore $10 million dollars per year in order to make Gore exaggerate claims about man-made climate change to the public.
http://yournewswire.com/george-soros-paid-al-gore-millions-to-lie-about-global-warming/

#whatifthatsagoodthing

Record freezing temperatures across all continental US states. If we'll be facing a maunder minimum in the not so distant future the usual suspects will be begging for globull warming to come back. The end is nigh for the carbon credit extortion.

https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/what-lies-ahead-grand-solar-minimum

But but leftoid globull warming!! Manbearpig! Manbearpig! Those freezing to death in the coming harsh winters may haunt the globull warmers in their afterlife. Stick a fork into globull warming, it's done.

"
Submitted by Luke Eastwood

We are all aware of the environnmental crisis that humanity (and all life on Earth) faces, characterised by the term ‘climate change’. Much of the current thinking in the scientific community is promoting the idea that our planet is rapidly warming due to excess CO2 (carbon dioxide) gas produced by humans in the last few centuries, and the last 70 years in particular.

While there is a very strong and hard to deny case to suggest that human activity is the main cause of environmental destruction, the premise that it is due primarily to CO2 emissions is beginning to look somewhat flawed. I am well aware that the previous sentence is likely to draw a lot of negative attention and criticism, with accusations of ‘climate denier’ being thrown at me. However, the situation is not that simple as to be a case of ‘global warming’ being the main influence or no influence at all.


The reality of the situation is complex. In my opinion the main drivers of the environmental crisis are many, but put in simple terms – destruction of wild habitats, pollution due to industrialisation, over-use of soils, over-population, erosion of soils leading to desertification or barren, infertile landscapes, monoculture agriculture and climate fluctuations. Notice that I did not use the term ‘climate change’ which in the current scientific norm implies warming.

While the planet has undoubtedly warmed up, in part due to human activity and CO2 production, the current popular thinking completely ignores historical CO2 levels beyond the last millennium and also the primary input on temperatures on this planet and all eight of the planets in this solar system. That input, although largely ignored at the moment, is of course our sun, which on average generates 3.8 x 1026 Joules (energy) per second. Human energy usage per year is around 5 x 1020 Joules, which is about 1 million times less than the Sun produces during 1 second! In fact, in the whole of human history we have used less energy that the Sun produces in that 1 second.

So, given the above, it stand to reason that the energy of the Sun must have a significant effect on the energy available on this planet and the heat energy (temperature) that is captured by it, as it rotates around the Sun. If we look at the history of Earth, particularly through the use of ice-core samples, we can see that the temperatures on our planet follow a very distinct pattern. On a macro level this can be observed as a huge cycle of glacials (ice-ages) and interglacials, with the ice ages lasting many times longer than the interglacial (warm) periods. We are currently in an interglacial, which began approximately 11,500 years ago and it is estimated that it will end some time within the next 50,000 years.

On a micro level, the Sun undergoes cycles of around 11 years known as the solar magnetic activity cycle, which has been studied and recorded by humans for approximately 400 years. During each cycle the number of sunspots peaks and falls in a recognisable pattern. However, this pattern of approx. 11 years is itself part of a much longer solar pattern of solar minimums and solar maximums. For instance the Medieval maximum (grand solar maximum) lasted from 1100-1250 (warm period) and the famous Maunder Minimum (grand solar minimum) lasted from 1645-1715 (cold period). The later was known as a mini ice age due the particularly drastic drop in global temperatures that affected crop-growth and led to bitter winters for a period of 70 years.



Scientists that study the sun are well aware of these periodic cycles both on the 11 year scale and on the larger scale of 70–100 years, known as the Gleissberg cycle. We have just finished a solar maximum cycle of around 70 years and are now heading into a both a new 11 year cycle and a new grand solar minimum cycle that will reach its lowest (coldest) point some time between 2030 and 2040. You don’t need to take my word for it – this has been confirmed by NASA and by the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA). NOAA predictions of sunspot and radio flux appears to show a ‘full-blown’ grand solar minimum (GSM) which will last from the late-2020s to at least the 2040s.

This means that the coming solar minimum is going to be not only a grand solar minimum, but perhaps the worst one since the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s. One would expert this to have been front-page news, but outside of the scientific community this information is virtually unheard of and little understood. One must ask – why is this the case? The simple answer to this question is that the solar predictions destroy the current scientific and cultural narrative of ‘Climate Change’ in the form of warming.


There will indeed be climate change in the coming decades, but for the next 10 to 40 years it is going to get colder, not warmer! The same thing will happen on the 7 other planets in this solar system, because the main factor affecting planetary temperatures is the activity of the Sun. Given that so much time, effort and money has been invested in ‘global warming’ as a premise for change in how human society is run, it is very much an “inconvenient truth” that is beginning to arrive just at the time when we are beginning to take more affirmative action on environmental issues.

The controversial news that the Earth (and all 7 other planets) will cool down in the next 10-40 years is politically highly inconvenient and that is why it is being kept quiet. Getting rid of fossil fuels, caring for our environment, lowering industrial output, ending industrial farming and reducing livestock, plus a gradual reduction in the human population are all excellent goals. Unfortunately the rationale for doing this, that has been sold to the public, is most likely entirely misguided. The net effect of this false premise may well be that environmentalists and main-stream public scientists will look like fools by the end of this decade. The cooling of planet Earth may well be seen as justification to abandon environmental concerns and reform of our economic systems, which would be a terrible tragedy.

In order to avoid this highly likely total embarrassment, world governments and the scientific community need to admit that the coming dip in solar energy output is going to lead to the cooling of our planet for at least 2 decades, possibly 4 or 5 or even 7 decades! This is not conspiracy, this is not mis-information or propaganda – this is proven, verifiable fact which can be validated by current solar observation, previous observation of sun cycles for 400 years and ice-core samples stretching back millions of years.

As someone who has been involved in the environmental movement since I was 16, when I joined a conservation group at college, I am very concerned about how this plays out. If the public feels that they have been lied to it may lead to a backlash and a disinterest in environmental issues. The reasons I outlined at the beginning of this article are more than sufficient for humanity to change its modus operandi. One does not need to concoct highly improbable narratives about the world ‘burning up’ within decades to justify environmental activism. In fact the coming GSM is likely to produce similar negative effects to predicted ‘global warming’, such as habitat loss, loss of farming land, a drop in food availability, migration, social unrest and possibly other problems too.

It is time that the whole ‘climate change’ theory was re-assessed and the known solar activity cycle as observed by NOAA and NASA taken into account. To fail to do so is total folly and only creates another problem, that will come back to haunt us if the grand solar minimum is ignored. We do need to take better care of our world and learn to live far more harmoniously within it, but we need to base our actions on good science and not on misleading or inaccurate information.
"

Of course, BlackRock is involved...

https://www.coreysdigs.com/u-s/take-action-financial-takeover-your-bank-account-blackrock-envestnet-yodlee-and-the-federal-reserve/

All of those Pseudo Scientist that was here on Patnet from 2007 - 2015 assuring us all that Global warming was real and we were stupid for not following the science.
They all have the intelligence level of a gold fish sandwich.

Great Barrier Reef experiencing ‘record high’ levels of coral coverage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znOidiyUnq8

Manbearpig!

Remember when this winter started with good rains in.the west all these articles by climate "scientists" and globahomo agitprop "news" corporations about how this will be a dry winter for the drought stricken west despite initial rains. Fuck you moron sell-outs, this will go down as one of the wettest winters in recent history in the west. Reservoirs should be full to the brim but I'm sure politicians made sure there is enough drainage and poor planning so they can keep promoting state of emergencies and fuck over their constituents.

And, indeed, in one particular article we learned that there is a whole new category of mental illness stalking young people in particular, leading to despair, loneliness, and a sense of impending mortality. Its title: “What To Do With Climate Emotions?: "If the goal is to insure [sic] that the planet remains habitable, what is the right degree of panic, and how do you bear it?” It turns out, according to author Jia Tolentino, that the highly ideological "climate change" narrative has taken a serious toll on them, plunging them into a deep depression over the putative impending death of our planet.

Tolentino begins the piece with a smug little dig at conservatives. A young man named Tim Wehage grew up in South Florida. The family television was usually on Fox News. But in college he studied as a mechanical engineer and began learning climate science. The suggestion is, of course, if you're to the right of center, you're not smart enough to "follow the science." Of course the opposite is the truth -- constantly assaulted by Leftist narratives, we on the Right have generally had to seek out the truth ourselves to avoid falling into their traps.

Eventually Tim moved to Seattle for a job. He didn’t have a car. He walked a lot. He became a vegan. (One begins feeling sorry for his parents, who tried…) He visited a bunch of Second and Third World cities with bad air and learned that “orangutans were going extinct in Indonesia." He was horrified to learn that their habitat, among palm oil trees, had been cut down for food. When he got home, he spent too much time alone in his undecorated apartment, "dazed by grief." He took garbage bags with him to clean up the streets when he went for walks. He doom-scrolled the internet for climate stories and felt powerless.

Tim decided he needed help. He found the Climate Psychiatry Alliance, part of the growing field of therapy for people dealing with the emotional effects of the climate crisis. It connects patients with "climate aware" psychiatrists. But none of the therapists he contacted had room. Which is to say, these climate shrinks were too busy with others whose emotions were similarly wracked by the state of the planet. In Seattle, who would doubt it? Finally, Tim found someone. When he told her what his problem was, she assured him that “she talked about the climate crisis with most of her clients.” Tim cried tears of joy to know he was not alone.

To make a long story short, the therapist told Tim to stop scrolling Reddit for climate stories and to get off social media. He decorated his apartment. He started doing fun things in nature. He got over thinking it was all up to him to fix the planet and acknowledged that there were policies in place to deal with these issues. But Tolentino is not happy with Tim. She notes:

It may be impossible to seriously consider the reality of climate change for longer than ninety seconds without feeling depressed, angry, guilty, grief-stricken, or simply insane. The earth has warmed about 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit since pre-industrial times, and the damage is irreparable. Vast zones of hypoxic water expand in the oceans; wild bees, fireflies, and birds are disappearing; one study suggests that around half of trees currently alive will be dead in forty years.

"Should we change the subject before we get too despondent?” she asks. She doesn't think so. She describes her own "frenetic wheel spinning” and late-night hysteria about climate doom and her role as a consumer of things for her baby. “Every day, I felt like a self-serving piece of shit.”

Tolentino doesn't want therapy for her own climate emotions because she doesn’t want her panic dispelled. She is sure that the world is on fire. She cites one "climate aware" therapist named Leslie Davenport, who “pushes her clients to aim for a middle ground of sustainable distress.” Davenport wants people to be rational and yet work to solve the problem. Contain your distress, but be accountable. That’s as close to rational as the article comes.

The author does not think even this is enough. She wants to cling to her misery and hopelessness. She's skeptical that the "problem" even can be fixed, an idea echoed by two radical activist sisters in Manila she speaks to, who sneer at the Western idea that there is still time to avert the "climate crisis." Tolentino ends up favoring radical activism, because "tomorrow will not be like today."

There is an answer to this misery that the New Yorker and its hysterical writer do not consider. That would be: Tell people the truth. Yes, some animal habitats are being destroyed in the Third World. But no, the climate is not spiraling into death-inducing heat and flooding. The climate is changing, yes, as it always does. Perhaps some of that has to do with human activity -- smart people disagree. But whatever the case may be, there are reasonable things we can do. For instance, increasing our reliance on nuclear power, which is safe and sustainable, and has a fine track record in Western Europe. Meanwhile, transitioning from coal to natural gas has had a dramatic impact on America's carbon emissions over the past quarter century.

Moreover: stop repeating overwrought tales of doom to an impressionable young people. Do not let your contributors write things like, “The ice sheets keep melting, the permafrost keeps releasing its methane, and the future continues to harden into a psychic zone of suffering and dread. By mid-century, hundreds of millions of people will be displaced because of global warming." No wonder "a 2021 survey of Gen Z-ers [found that] fifty-six percent agreed that 'humanity is doomed'.” That's what they've been taught since early childhood! The blame for their depression falls squarely on their teachers and the media for propagating this deception. It's deeply irresponsible.

Refutations of this narrative are easily found, if you know where to look. Not, however, in the pages of the New Yorker. Read Drs. Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry. Read Alex Epstein or Bjorn Lomborg. Read other serious energy experts at (mostly conservative) think tanks and organizations. And don't stop reading The Pipeline, where we don't charge you a fortune to increase your fears and worries.

That will expose the real rationale for all of this: the desire by some to control resources for all. Those invested in the “green economy” of wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles want to justify banning their competitors for long-term profits. Rational answers also expose their cynicism. And they have the added advantage of being true.

https://the-pipeline.org/welcome-to-the-climate-nut-house/

https://fackel.substack.com/p/the-quite-unknown-story-of-co2-measurements-f6b

To sum up this long quote: in the late 1820s, Nicolas Théodore de Saussure conducted more than 200 measurements of ambient carbon dioxide in and near Geneva, Switzerland. These yielded the following results:

437, 468, 460, 439, 489, 443, 454, 369, 360, 422, 395, 414, 415, 337, 322, 355, 315, 489; the average of these 18 data points is approx. 410 ppm.

Today, we stand at around 425 ppm. Isn’t that interesting?

You know what else is very interesting? That his (English) Wikipedia page does not mention these CO2 measurements at all ...

Climate "Science" is still very compromised

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-southern-ocean-massive-burp.html

As soon as I saw a reference to the IPCC, my antennae were raised. So, maybe, in 70 years, the oceans will "burp" a bolus of CO2? Puh-leeze.

Modeling any chaotic system (like climate) is nearly a complete waste of CPU cycles. Best result is a vague blob of potential outcomes, possibly indicating the system boundaries. The three body problem (not the book) is the simplest example: take three planetary masses in relative motion. Predict the outcome after 10,000 orbits. Can't do it. Outcomes include collapse into a single mass, all the way to complete mass ejection from the system. Tiny changes (<1%) to initial conditions lead to wildly variable outcomes.

Another "test" of system climate modeling accuracy would be to take best-guess data from 100-200 years ago, use your model, predict current climate. Hmm, why has no one done these tests? Because the results would be laughable.

Go back and read the book by Michael Crichton "State of Fear", a readable novel debunking Climate Change from 2014. Still valid today.

Diming the Sun:
"Controversial experiments exploring the science around reflecting sunlight with an aim to bring about global cooling have been announced. The Advanced Research and Innovation Agency (ARIA) - a government backed body - is funding nearly £60m that could allow real-world experiments, including in the UK." - BBC News















Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change of the United Kingdom.

Rules for thee, but not for me . . .

https://t.me/chaosentangled/14412

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/green-old-scam-tuesday-october-28

In the wee hours of this morning, the alert overnight team at the New York Times ran an astonishing article headlined, “Bill Gates Says Climate Change ‘Will Not Lead to Humanity’s Demise.’” He’s changed his mind, evolved his position— pivoted. “Climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — but it will not lead to humanity’s demise,” the Clippy software billionaire admitted in a newly published article.

Thus, the progressive purity spiral is now spinning up. For progressives, the only group that deserves more hatred than MAGA fascists is deserters. The Times’ liberal readers seethed with impotent rage in the article’s comments. ...

Bill’s memo was not linked by the Times; they were probably afraid of what its easily triggered regulars might do if they got a gander at the whole thing. It wasn’t hard to find though. The vaccine-pushing philanthropist has his own vanity news site called GatesNotes, upon which he disgorges his various late-night theories and ruminations. ...

In short (which does not do the voluminous about-face any justice), Gates said the best way to measure progress on climate is through human flourishing. “It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate strategies,” Gates wrote, “which includes reducing the Green Premium to zero.”

Zero! What Gates meant by “Green Premium” was the extra cost of green tech over things like coal plants and gas engines. So, in other words, the suddenly parsimonious Gates argued we shouldn’t use any climate solution that isn’t downright cheaper than the traditional alternative. Needless to say, if COP30 accepted this advice, it would wipe out 99% of the purpose for the stupid summit in the first place.

Gates next suggested climate worshippers stop being such negative ninnies and look at the long term, maybe like improving peoples’ lives —not with windmills and solar farms— but through genetically engineered food and vaccines and stuff:

Unfortunately, the doomsday outlook is causing much of the
climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions
goals, and it's diverting resources from the most effective things
we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.

It would be impolite to point out that, until about ten minutes ago, Bill Gates was one of the biggest doomcryers on the warming planet. Now, apparently, he’s decided that he is out. ...

None of this redeems Bill from his satanic excesses, like buying billions in Moderna stock right before the pandemic, then selling it all just before admitting the shots don’t work. The point is that something or someone yanked Bill’s leash— and he’s gotten right in line. Good doggie. ...

But why? And, why now? We can only speculate. USAID money isn’t flowing to Gates’ foundations and climate companies anymore, so now he must fund them with his own money. That’s one. He also has a great big Epstein problem that he’d prefer stay buried along with the International Mystery Man. That’s two. Chemtrail experiments will soon be shuttered for good. That’s three. And Gates can easily see Republicans holding the White House for 11 more years, so climate won’t be nearly as profitable as the old days, not if you count “profits” as free money extracted from taxpayers by witless progressive politicians and then laundered back to them through climate CEOs, ad infinitum.

Bill Gates is a great big canary in the lithium mine.

Patrick says

Bill Gates is a great big canary in the lithium mine.

Yup.

Patrick says

But why? And, why now? We can only speculate. USAID money isn’t flowing to Gates’ foundations and climate companies anymore, so now he must fund them with his own money. That’s one. He also has a great big Epstein problem that he’d prefer stay buried along with the International Mystery Man. That’s two. Chemtrail experiments will soon be shuttered for good. That’s three. And Gates can easily see Republicans holding the White House for 11 more years, so climate won’t be nearly as profitable as the old days, not if you count “profits” as free money extracted from taxpayers by witless progressive politicians and then laundered back to them through climate CEOs, ad infinitum.

Also Gates is into AI, which has very high power requirements. Would not want a data center refused because local greenies were able to stop any new power plants from being built. AI is the "human welfare" he does not want environmentalism to deter.

AP Busted for depending on a source that manufactures plant-based pet food - but not mentioning that in the article.

rocketjoe79 says

Go back and read the book by Michael Crichton "State of Fear", a readable novel debunking Climate Change from 2014. Still valid today.

From 2004, but a great book.

I take back what I said about Global Warming. Green measures are not only designed to fail, they are designed to pollute, toxify, poison and blow up on command. I retract my previous position that they were only designed to fail.

MolotovCocktail says

Nero Newscum is the new Pied Piper (with bizarre zombie Edmund Muskie) of the International Globalist Communist Feudalism Movement known as 'Global Warming'.

Enlist the stupids to agree with virtue signaling that they should become fertilizer because of a massive guilt trip that they consume resources. All of the Globalist crimes are described as Global Warming phenomena (problem, reaction, solution).

The psychopaths don't have guilt trips. They indoctrinate guilt in the susceptible and weaponize it. They get the stupid sheeples to yoga waltz into their crematoriums.

With military high level HAARP and DEW, they can turn any city into WWII Dresden in a matter of days. We are in the era of undeclared space wars disguised as weather.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/12/supply-boom-in-cheaper-renewables-will-seal-end-of-fossil-fuel-era-says-iea

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-outlook-2025-free-dataset

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2025

Ice Age Catastrophism iz back in biz, bitches!



https://youtu.be/NQSBn50o_8M?si=ALToN7RPSBtzpkc6

https://x.com/RonDeSantis/status/1991989205086736781

MolotovCocktail says

A couple of thoughts:
1. CO2 is not warming anything because the Earth is not emitting heat energy at the frequency that CO2 absorbs - about 18 microns.
2. CO2 is the gas of life. Without CO2 there is no photosynthesis, no plants, no animals and this is a dead planet.