Blog

Another Faulty ‘Climate Change’ Study Gets Busted

This time of year, it’s not unusual for parents of younger elementary school kids to start having discussions of when their son or daughter will get wise to the reality of Santa Claus. At some point, one parent may say to another, “How old were you when you quit believing?” 

That brings me to the same question, different myth. How old were you when you quit believing in man-made climate change? Or man-made global warming? Or man-made global cooling? 

Before going any further, since we do have our share of lib readers, I want to make one thing absolutely clear to them before the fake misinterpretations happen. Conservatives don’t dispute that the client shifts day to day. That’s called “the weather.” And we don’t dispute that the planet’s climate isn’t constantly evolving. We are not Ice Age deniers. 

But when you come out every presidential cycle and predict the end of the world in the next ten years (conveniently the time it takes for a run-up campaign and two presidential terms), we’re skeptical. Not because we’re scientists or science experts. Rather, it’s because we are used to being lied to, and we know how that goes. The tip-off for us, usually, is when all of your climate solutions focus on raising taxes and increasing government restrictions on American citizens. Then later, when we see all this money going to NGOs and a whole “climate change” economy, it kinda feels like a massive grift. 

So excuse us if we’re nonplussed when we see that the journal Nature has had to retract a 2024 study that sought to estimate the amount of harm global warming will do to the global economy in the decades to come. I mean, the very premise of the study already raises a red flag. Did the study seek to estimate actual climate impacts on the economy, and how do you do that? Or did it seek to estimate the impact climate alarmists would have on the global economy through their own push for increased regulation and higher taxes? 

That’s like when people talk about how the pandemic impacted the economy, when in fact it was government’s overreaction to a novel cold virus that actually devastated the economy. 

As for Nature, here’s what happened. Researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) contributed a paper to Nature, and it was published April 17, 2024 under the title “The Economic Commitment of Climate Change.” The paper projected the economic costs of climate change by the middle of this century by relying on historical temperature, precipitation and economic data. 

On Dec. 3 of this year, not even two weeks ago, Nature officially announced the paper was retracted, because “post-publication reviews” found the results were so off-target that a simple correction of the paper’s errors wouldn’t suffice. 

In other words, the paper was a joke, and once it saw the light of day, some smart people caught some glaring errors, and Nature couldn’t cover for it. 

Keep reading

Orbital Data Centers Will “Bypass Earth-Based” Constraints

Last week, readers were briefed on the emerging theme of data centers in low Earth orbit, a concept now openly discussed by Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, Jeff Bezos, and Sam Altman, as energy availability and infrastructure constraints on land increasingly emerge as major bottlenecks to data center buildouts through the end of this decade and well into the 2030s.

Nvidia-backed startup Starcloud has released a white paper outlining a case for operating a constellation of artificial intelligence data centers in space as a practical solution to Earth’s looming power crunch, cooling woes, and permitting land constraints.

Terrestrial data center projects will reach capacity limits as AI workloads scale to multi-gigawatt levels, while electricity demand and grid bottlenecks worsen over the next several years. Orbital data centers aim to bypass these constraints by using near-continuous, high-intensity solar power, passive radiative cooling to deep space, and modular designs that scale quickly, launched into orbit via SpaceX rockets.

“Orbital data centers can leverage lower cooling costs using passive radiative cooling in space to directly achieve low coolant temperatures. Perhaps most importantly, they can be scaled almost indefinitely without the physical or permitting constraints faced on Earth, using modularity to deploy them rapidly,” Starcloud wrote in the report.

Starcloud continued, “With new, reusable, cost-effective heavy-lift launch vehicles set to enter service, combined with the proliferation of in-orbit networking, the timing for this opportunity is ideal.”

Already, the startup has launched its Starcloud-1 satellite carrying an Nvidia H100 GPU, the most powerful compute chip ever sent into space. Using the H100, Starcloud successfully trained NanoGPT, a lightweight language model, on the complete works of Shakespeare, making it the first AI model trained in space.

Keep reading

Europol Pinpoints When Skynet-Like Human Resistance To AI Could Emerge

If Goldman’s estimates of a partial or full displacement of up to 300 million jobs across the Western world due to the proliferation of artificial intelligence and automation are even remotely correct, a new report suggests that by 2035, society could face widespread public resentment, protests, and even acts of sabotage directed at robotic systems.

A new report by Europol, the EU’s central intelligence and coordination hub for serious crime and terrorism, identifies around 2035 as a potential inflection point at which a human resistance movement against AI could begin to take shape, in a scenario that echoes the resistance to Skynet in the Terminator film franchise.

Europol warned of “bot-bashing” incidents and acts of sabotage against robotic systems in the middle of the next decade, as the spread of AI and robotics could fuel a populist backlash against technologies that have hollowed out parts of the Western economy and left millions unemployed.

Keep reading

Revealed: Sensitive NHS documents on royals, aristocrats and tycoons leaked after Russian hackers target health service

Hundreds of thousands of sensitive NHS documents, some relating to British and foreign Royals, senior judges and members of the House of Lords, have been stolen by Russian hackers, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The unprecedented data breach, one of the largest to hit the health service, has seen 169,000 confidential documents dumped on the dark web after the ransomware gang exploited a bug in software provided to NHS bodies by US tech giant Oracle.

Many of those affected by the leak are high-profile NHS private patients – with some invoicing details from Barts NHS Health Trust in London linked to unnamed patients from royal residences including King Charles’s official home Clarence House, Buckingham Palace, Sandringham and Windsor Castle.

It is unclear which Royals were treated and for what purpose but the leak raises serious concerns about the security of medical details of the Royal Household as the King continues to be treated for an undisclosed form of cancer.

The grave incident also casts doubt over controversial plans to introduce digital ID systems in the UK as Oracle’s billionaire owner, Larry Ellison, is the biggest donor to the Tony Blair Institute, which is lobbying for such systems to be introduced. Others affected by the breach include the BBC, Premier League football clubs, British aristocrats, a member of the Bahraini Royal Family and billionaire business moguls.

The files, which have been seen by the MoS, also include data linked to children being treated at NHS hospitals, women undergoing fertility treatment and patients receiving kidney dialysis.

The extraordinary breach comes after cybersecurity experts warned in October that the Oracle software used by the NHS and the Treasury – which provides financial management and HR support to organisations – was vulnerable to Russian hackers, and that attempts at ‘exploitation’ were ‘highly likely’.

Researchers at Google said hackers from a gang known as Clop had sent emails to executives at ‘numerous organisations… alleging the theft of sensitive data’ and demanding money for its safe return.

Keep reading

Decades of Global Drone War Made Trump’s Caribbean Killing Spree Possible

On September 2, 2025, a small fishing boat carrying 11 people was targeted by a U.S. Reaper drone off the coast of Venezuela. Hellfire missiles were fired. Two survivors clung to the wreckage. Their identities and motives were unknown. Their behavior showed no hostility. Moments later, the drone operator launched a second strike — the so-called “double tap” — killing the final survivors. This scene is shocking, but it should not be surprising to anyone who has followed the trajectory of the U.S.’s drone wars. This tactic is familiar from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and, most recently, Gaza, where the Israeli military has used much worse violence to conduct genocide.

The U.S.’s first drone strike in the Caribbean, and the footage of the incident, reignited a debate about a conflict that Washington refuses to call a war — because it isn’t one. Instead, the Trump administration is using sheer violence to terrorize non-white populations and, as usual, has normalized lethal force far from declared battlefields and without any legal mandate.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has approved at least 21 additional strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific since September, killing at least 87 people. He has aggressively defended the very first operation, insisting he would have authorized the second strike as well — despite claiming he did not see it. Hegseth even misinterpreted the visible smoke on the video as the “fog of war,” seemingly unaware that the term refers to uncertainty in conflict, not the physical aftermath of a missile strike.

The details matter because they reveal something essential: the senior leadership overseeing these operations does not appear interested in the law, accuracy, or the basic meaning of proportionality. Instead, it has embraced escalation and mass murder as official policy.

Keep reading

Bill On Ohio Governor’s Desk Will Put Hemp Companies Out Of Business, Owners Say

Ohioans in the intoxicating hemp industry fear a bill heading to Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine’s (R) desk will put them out of business.

Ohio Senate Bill 56 is on its way to DeWine after Ohio Senate Republicans passed the bill Tuesday. The Ohio House passed the bill last month after it went to conference committee.

Ohio’s bill complies with recent federal changes by banning intoxicating hemp products from being sold outside of a licensed marijuana dispensary. If DeWine signs the bill into law before the new year, the ban could take effect as soon as March.

“This bill is going to put businesses like me and families like me out of business,” said Ahmad Khalil, one of the owners of Hippie Hut Smoke Shop, with locations in Ohio and Washington.

“Overnight, we’re going to see tens of thousands of people directly impacted, which will ripple effect into 50,000 of families that are also dependent on this person.”

Khalil has been in the hemp industry for nine years.

“This was my American dream, so to see it get taken away from you, kind of hurts,” he said.

Jason Friedman, owner of Ohio CBD Guy in Cincinnati, said this is extremely frustrating.

“My tentative plan will involve eventually closing my East Walnut Hills location resulting in less hours and likely loss of jobs for some of my employees,” he said.

Instead of a ban, Friedman wants regulations for the hemp industry such as age-gating, packaging restrictions, and testing requirements.

“For the state to say that they are changing their stance to banning from regulating because of what the federal government has done in banning intoxicating hemp in the recent spending bill, makes no sense because marijuana has been illegal federally the whole time,” he said.

Mark Fashian, president of hemp product wholesaler Midwest Analytical Solutions in Delaware, Ohio, said this will put him, and hundreds of others out of business, if this becomes law.

He works with more than 500 stores around Ohio that sell intoxicating hemp products.

Keep reading

The Case Against American Intervention in Venezuela

As the USS Gerald R. Ford—the largest aircraft carrier afloat—casts its shadow along the Venezuelan coast, the United States must confront an uncomfortable question: What national interest is being protected by threatening a country that poses no military, territorial, or existential danger to the American republic?

The answer, made clear by an array of respected American scholars, former officials, and ex-military insiders, has nothing to do with security. Instead, it arises from a familiar mixture of ideology, geopolitical control, and the old reflex of imperial overreach. This is not defense. This is theater—one part provocation, one part political opportunism, and no part necessity.

Among the clearest voices cutting through the rhetoric is professor John Mearsheimer, perhaps the most prominent American realist in international relations. He does not mince words: Venezuela is not a threat to the United States. Its military lacks both the capacity and the intention to project power beyond its borders. Suggesting otherwise is “laughable,” he notes, because the true irritant is ideological. Venezuela’s Bolivarian model—imperfect and embattled as it is—represents a deviation from Washington’s preferred political order, a deviation the US has repeatedly sought to crush in Latin America for decades. For Mearsheimer, even if one entertained the fantasy of using force to change the regime, the idea collapses immediately under logistical absurdity and moral bankruptcy. Invading a nation of 28 million people, and then attempting to occupy and “stabilize” it, would be catastrophic in cost, chaotic in outcome, and impossible to justify.

The national security pretext collapses further under the testimony of Sheriff David Hathaway, a former Drug Enforcement Administration supervisory agent with firsthand experience in Latin America. He dismisses the drug-trafficking narrative not just as false, but as deliberately false. Cocaine originates in Colombia and Peru, not Venezuela, and the US fentanyl crisis has nothing to do with Caracas. There is no vast Maduro-led drug conspiracy, Hathaway explains, only a political fiction designed to mimic past excuses for intervention. He is blunt in stating that Washington has repeatedly used narcotics accusations as camouflage for intrusion, sabotage, and coercion. This is not about drugs. It is about dominance.

Keep reading

The Evidence is Clear: Masks Don’t Do Anything.

We’re being hit with the “Super Flu” (allegedly), and that means everyone wants us to wear masks again.

We went over this (a lot) in 2020. Then we went over it again in 2023. Masks don’t work, they never worked, and – prior to 2020 – the academic literature was very clear on this.

In a 2016 literature review, infection control expert Dr John Hardie found [emphasis added]:

Between 2004 and 2016 at least a dozen research or review articles have been published on the inadequacies of face masks. All agree that the poor facial fit and limited filtration characteristics of face masks make them unable to prevent the wearer inhaling airborne particles. In their well-referenced 2011 article on respiratory protection for healthcare workers, Drs. Harriman and Brosseau conclude that, “facemasks will not protect against the inhalation of aerosols.”

[…]

Health care workers have long relied heavily on surgical masks to provide protection against influenza and other infections. Yet there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection.

[…]

It should be concluded from these and similar studies that the filter material of face masks does not retain or filter out viruses

Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review

That study was removed from the website of the Journal of Oral Health in July 2020, because it was “no longer relevant in our current climate”. Which is perfectly normal, I’m sure.

Another study, conducted in 2019 and published in May 2020, concluded:

Disposable medical masks are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids. There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

In 2023, the Cochrane Report by Jefferson et al. found:

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks […] Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks…Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

None of this is new information; we’ve published it all before, but if they keep pitching the same lies, we’ll just have to keep batting with the same facts.

When it comes to preventing disease, masks are not effective. They never worked. The science backs this up. This is neither an ideological position nor a moral position. It is simply a rational, fact-based position.

Anyone saying otherwise is misinformed, ideologically captured, willfully dishonest or some combination of all three.

Keep reading

Government Unchained: The Year The Constitution Lost Its Guardrails

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”—Abraham Lincoln

We now live in a nation where constitutional rights exist in theory, not in practice.

Yet what good are rights on paper when every branch of government is allowed to ignore, circumvent, chip away at or hollow them out in practice?

Two hundred and thirty-four years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, the safeguards meant to shield “We the people” from government abuse are barely recognizable.

In ways the Founders could scarcely have imagined—and would never have tolerated—the safeguards meant to restrain government overreach have become little more than empty platitudes.

America’s founders understood that power corrupts and absolute power—especially when it comes to power-hungry governments fixated on amassing institutional power at the expense of individual freedoms—corrupts absolutely. That’s why they insisted on binding down the government “with the chains of the Constitution.”

In 2025, those chains have been cut link by link.

These links were not severed in secret. They snapped under the weight of executive orders issued without congressional authority, judicial doctrines that shield misconduct from accountability, and a Congress that no longer defends its own constitutional prerogatives.

If Americans are finally learning the true significance of constitutional limits, it is because the government keeps violating them—and daring anyone to stop it. Time and again, the message is being drummed into our heads that constitutional limits no longer apply when they inconvenience those in power.

Any government that treats rights as privileges—contingent on economic status, citizenship, race, orientation, religious beliefs, or political alignment—has already abandoned the Bill of Rights.

And a government that does so with the courts’ blessing is not a constitutional republic.

When rights become privileges, what we are left with is a two-tier system of freedom: those afforded the privilege of enjoying their constitutional rights vs. those targeted for exercising those same rights.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a bulwark. Each amendment was drafted as a barrier against a specific form of tyranny.

In 2025, every one of those barriers buckled under the weight of government corruption, political expediency, partisan politics, and institutional neglect.

The following is what it looked like to live without the protections of the Bill of Rights in the American police state.

Keep reading

Men who correct women over any disagreement could face disciplinary action under new Green party rules

Men who correct women over any disagreement could be hauled before disciplinarians under plans being weighed up by the Green Party.

Leaders are considering broadening the party’s definition of misogyny to the point that ‘any disagreement’ could lead to men facing sanction.

The proposals are set out in a leaked 53-page dossier on legal and reputational risk prepared by its own lawyers.

The report reveals deep internal concern about the Greens’ approach to misogyny, transgender policy and LGBT rights, warning that current guidance could expose the party to serious legal and financial risk. 

It says the Green Party Council was ‘very close’ to adopting a document titled Guidance on Identifying Misogyny and Sexism as part of its ethics framework. 

According to the report, seen by the Telegraph, the draft guidance listed ‘being corrected’ as an example of misogynistic behaviour experienced by women, a definition the lawyers warned was so expansive it could ‘justify any disagreement between a man and a woman as a sanctionable disciplinary offence’. 

The dossier also cautions that internal rules on identifying transphobia and ‘queerphobia’ risk unlawfully discriminating against members who question contested gender theory. 

The authors stress that the party cannot legally penalise members for holding gender-critical views, which are protected under the Equality Act 2010. 

The warning follows a costly legal defeat for the Greens last year, when the party paid £9,100 to former spokesman and deputy leader Dr Shahrar Ali after a court ruled he had been improperly dismissed over his belief that ‘biology is real and immutable’. 

The report says the process used to remove him was ‘procedurally unfair’.

Dr Ali is now suing the party for a second time, alleging ‘procedural abuse’ and continued discrimination over his views on biological sex. 

The Greens have since admitted to ‘procedural shortfalls’ in his dismissal.

Keep reading