CO2

CO2 is Winning (Mitigation fail)

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“The future of rational climate policy is adaptation, not mitigation that works against adaptation. Social justice demands that climate policy not increase energy prices and restrict consumer sovereignty.”

Want to prosper in the energy/climate arena? Avoid wasteful, futile climate ‘mitigation’ policy. Want to ruin your economy for no effect on climate? Rush ahead with wind, solar, batteries, EVs, and forced conservation. The UK/EU experience speaks for itself.

Examine the graph below, and ask yourself which economies are prospering and which are retrogressing. The jumps between 2014 and 2024 would be magnified today.

The future of rational climate policy is adaptation, not mitigation that works against adaptation. Social justice demands that climate policy not increase energy prices and restrict consumer sovereignty.

Appendix: Prior Adaptation Articles

Adaptation Momentum, Mitigation Fatigue (August 5, 2026)

Global Air Conditioning: Adaptation in Action (July 21, 2026)

Adaptation: Think about It (July 2, 2026)

The Argument for Adaptation and Resilience (Part I: Theory) July 14, 2025

Examples of Adaptation and Resilience (Part II: Examples) July 15, 2025

Climate Adaptation vs. Mitigation Fail (June 12, 2025)

“Resilience and Adaptation”: Mitigation Demotion Ahead? (October 9, 2024)

Adaptation to Heat: Then and Now (May 3, 2024)

On the Climate Train to Destruction? Another View (adaptation, not futile mitigation) August 2, 2023

Adaptation: The Hidden Climate Strategy (May 3, 2021)

Taming Climate Change: Capitalism at Work (market adaptation, not government mitigation) January 5, 2021

4.6 10 votes

Article Rating

86 Comments

Bob

August 14, 2026 2:20 pm

The most important thing to keep in mind is that we need plentiful, affordable, constant, safe and clean power. The only sources able to provide this currently are fossil fuel, hydro and nuclear. Everybody knows this.

2hotel9

Reply to Bob

August 15, 2026 5:16 am

THIS right here is what pisses leftists off the most, facts and reality. 😉

John XB

Reply to Bob

August 15, 2026 5:33 am

If nuclear is “affordable” why do all nuclear projects require taxpayer funded capital investment and guaranteed above wholesale market rates – because otherwise private investors would not carry the risk and accept poor return on investment?

ferdberple

Reply to John XB

August 15, 2026 8:56 am

Every nuclear plant provides steady employment for thousands of lawyers.

Alejandro

Reply to John XB

August 15, 2026 11:21 pm

Not all nuclear projects require state funding. In Finland, since the late 1960s, the Mankala model has financed the majority of nuclear power stations.
The Mankala capitalisation model involves a consortium of companies sharing the risks and costs of construction and operation by contributing capital as partners, without the distribution of dividends. It is private yet collective funding, and very long-term in nature. This is something that works in a society with a collective mindset, such as Finland’s, despite the difficulties, but it is not easy to transfer to a traditional capitalist system.
The problem with investing in nuclear power stations can be summed up by Ferdberple’s comment. Or, if a more detailed explanation is required, it can be summarised as follows: these are enormous investments with a very long payback period, requiring long-term stability in cash flow, yet they are subject to government decisions that can bring the project to an end overnight (as happened in Germany following the Fukushima incident) or are gradually doing so in Spain. In short, it is difficult to make large investments that are only profitable in the long term in a country where a significant proportion of the electorate has been brought up to harbour an irrational fear of nuclear power and may elect a government that will scrap the project before it begins to turn a profit.

conrad ziefle

Reply to John XB

August 18, 2026 4:09 pm

It’s affordable if government doesn’t make unreasonable demands on construction. If you want to know what unreasonble demands are, just ask anyone who supervised the construction of a nuclear plant.

wilpost

Reply to Bob

August 15, 2026 7:58 am

The CO2 from fossil fuels is a blessing.

From 280 ppm in 1850 to 425 ppm, has added huge amounts of green flora and lots of fauna to better feed 8 billion people.

If we had no fossil fuels, we could support less than 1.5 billion people.

The IPCC, etc., has endowed CO2 gas as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., at one point denied the Little Ice Age, used fraudulent computer temperature projections.
.
Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
Net-zero by any date to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive plant/crop destruction pact to:
1) increase command/control by governments, and
2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 50 years.
.
If CO2 warms the planet by 1 C, the air holds 7% more water vapor. That extra water vapor has a feedback factor, f. In Earth’s climate system, factor f is about 0.5, but other factors also increased temps from 1900 to the present., such as urbanization, changes in land use, etc.

CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the available, absorbable, low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.
CO2 is a life-giving molecule. Greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an essential ingredient to:
1) increase green plants and for animals and reduce desert areas, such as the Sahara, and
2) increase crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.

RickWill

August 14, 2026 3:00 pm

The Climate Change™ hoax, perpetrated by the United Nations, has created a cargo cult mentality. Knowledge deprived individuals actually believe that stopping carbon combustion will stop climate change.

Anyone with the slightest historical perspective knows that the climate has always changed. And the current rate of change is tiny compared with historical changes.

It is a con job of the highest order and the UN needs to be abolished for their key role in this crime.

Nigel King

Reply to RickWill

August 14, 2026 3:25 pm

Also we now know that the temperature rise comes from clouds not CO2. Decreasing clouds leads to more solar energy reaching the planet and less reflected. The cloud density is reduced by the solar magnetism shielding the planets from gamma radiation coming from the Milky Way.

Kpar

Reply to Nigel King

August 14, 2026 3:35 pm

Yes, I’ve been saying that for well over a decade.

Try getting that through to the greenies!

Phillip Chalmers

Reply to Nigel King

August 14, 2026 5:36 pm

That is a mechanism of change, there have been many other periodic and one-off other mechanisms that we know of.
Carbon dioxide along with all the other gasses in the atmosphere were all part of establishing a baseline warmer than if all earth had been bare rock.

mkelly

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

August 15, 2026 3:57 am

Nope.

bnice2000

Reply to Nigel King

August 14, 2026 6:23 pm

And yet we are still in a cooler period of the Holocene.

Let’s all hope that the cloud fraction doesn’t come back up and cool the planet down again.

2hotel9

Reply to bnice2000

August 15, 2026 5:17 am

Cold kills far more than hot.

Kpar

Reply to RickWill

August 14, 2026 3:34 pm

“cargo cult”

EXACTLY!

2hotel9

Reply to Kpar

August 15, 2026 5:18 am

Why work and produce when you can just steal, the underlying framework of leftist political ideology.

Gums

Reply to RickWill

August 14, 2026 3:48 pm

Salute!
And do not forget the decrease in SO2 and particulants, CFC, etc…we are opening up for more radiation, huh?
Gums sends…

Scissor

Reply to RickWill

August 14, 2026 4:39 pm

The silence is deafening. Warren must be back on his meds.

Warren Beeton

Reply to Scissor

August 14, 2026 6:05 pm

blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/e8445027-0bdd-468d-8071-e02855b9c701

-11

Scissor

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 14, 2026 7:32 pm

Apparently they wore off.

2hotel9

Reply to Scissor

August 15, 2026 5:20 am

Comes to, pounds ineffectually at keyboard, passes back out.

Mr.

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 14, 2026 8:48 pm

Oops! That page can’t be found.

Yay!
The gods are watching out for us. 🙂

Scissor

Reply to Mr.

August 15, 2026 4:30 am

He can’t help but show how smart he is.

karlomonte

Reply to Scissor

August 15, 2026 6:49 am

Oh you are just a DENIER!

Phillip Chalmers

Reply to RickWill

August 14, 2026 5:32 pm

A fine point of objection. Do we really know who commenced this hoax?
A story tip. Anyone who has hard evidence might enlighten us with what they know and the times they first became aware of it.

RickWill

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

August 14, 2026 10:01 pm

Maybe the word scam is better because the UNIPCC has been trying to profit from this scam for decades now.

It has been clear since AR5 that the models were obviously wrong. And the recent omission of SSP5 – 8.5 is a slow dawning that they got it wrong.

Still a long way to go but AI and its ability to digest and analyse data is accelerating the realisation it is all garbage.

It took me a while to convince MS Copilot that downwelling long-wave radiation is unphysical claptrap but it eventually saw reality and offered this condensed version.
Downwelling radiation from cold clouds to a warmer surface is not a physical flux—it’s a bookkeeping illusion. In Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnet field there is one energy transport only: the time‑averaged Poynting vector, always hot → cold. Pyrgeometers don’t discover a second “downwelling” flux; they just register absorption along their optical path and RTT mistakenly rebrands that as energy flowing from cold to warm.

bnice2000

Reply to RickWill

August 14, 2026 11:06 pm

I looked closely at Feldman’s work…. he actually used cooled sensors…

.. thereby creating the very thing he was trying to measure…

ie… a flow from the nearby atmosphere to a colder sensor.

Tim Gorman

Reply to RickWill

August 15, 2026 2:19 am

“Reflected heat has already been list. Even with perfect reflection the original radiator would not go back up the temp gradient. It would just equilibrate with itself. And CO2 is not a perfect reflector.

Time averaged *are* the operative wirds.

hiskorr

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

August 15, 2026 5:20 am

I first ran across GAT back in the nineties, and tried to explain to my granddaughters that “averaging” temperatures was a fool’s errand!

Warren Beeton

Reply to RickWill

August 14, 2026 6:03 pm

blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/4047c516-86d1-4d71-96a1-24eee292271c

-15

Harold Pierce

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 14, 2026 7:54 pm

Your link is broken. Can you fix it? When was the text in the box published?

RickWill

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 14, 2026 8:17 pm

I do not need to provide anything to make the point climate science is not science. Maxwell provided the proof in 1862:
A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field

The speed of light in a vacuum is derived and shown in equation (71), proof of its fundamental electromagnetic property.

So ONE unified electromagnetic field simply means radiance is an outdated concept as Michael Mischenko takes great pains to point out in this brief excerpt of his full paper with the same title:
IRS2012-1-1.pdf

It also turns out that in many cases the reading of a directional radiometer must be modeled using a more sophisticated approach than RTT and that the use of directional radiometers in quantifying the energy budget of the Earth’s climate system can be problematic and requires a detailed first-principle analysis

The real physics of EMR transmission condemns core beliefs of climate science like Trenberth’s radiation budget diagram to nothing more than a cartoon based on unphysical notions. There is no downwelling long wave radiation from cold to hot. There is no two-way radiant energy flow and no netting out of those energy flows because there can only be one energy flow at any point in time and space in a single electro-magnetic field. The field the matter exists in equilibrates at the speed of light.

Boltzmann used Maxwell’s equations to confirm the Stefan empirical equation for so-called radiant energy but it only applies to very well defined boundary conditions, which are not applicable in Earth’s atmosphere.

2hotel9

Reply to RickWill

August 15, 2026 5:27 am

You have the patience of a saint, I long ago went to default setting of heaping derision and ridicule on climatards and environtards because arguing with them is pointless, they are eternally stuck on stupid.

Mr.

Reply to 2hotel9

August 15, 2026 2:06 pm

Once ideology takes hold as a person’s position on any matter, that person’s mind cannot accommodate reason / logic / rationality on the topic.

Ideology blankets what the human mind has evolved to accomplish (logic / rationality), which is what positioned us at the top of the species survival ladder.

So I think that ideology is nature’s way of putting lead in the saddlebags of some groups of humans, so that they eventually self-eliminate due to their inability to sensibly deal with / adapt to survival challenges.

I just wish they weren’t around with their mental incapacities to hold the rest of us down with their levels of imbecility.

Warren Beeton

Reply to Mr.

August 15, 2026 2:12 pm

Not a bad description of the Denier-Denizens of WUWT.

-4

2hotel9

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 16, 2026 4:07 am

And you continue to earn derision and ridicule, idiot.

Warren Beeton

Reply to RickWill

August 15, 2026 5:48 am

What a load of gibberish. It’s not worth trying to refute such nonsensical reasoning. It would earn you an “F” and a seat in the corner in sixth grade science.

-7

2hotel9

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 16, 2026 4:08 am

Clearly you were thrown out of elementary school.

michel

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 15, 2026 1:27 am

1) Its not the skeptics who have to convince the academic climate establishment that their hypotheses and programs are not proven.. Its them who have to prove their hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt. This is how science works, and it should be in particular how science works when its being used to defend hugely expensive and radical policy programs.

2) The people in the West who need convincing, and haven’t been convinced, are the voters. The voters don’t have to convince the activists!

3) The people globally who need convincing are the Chinese, Indians, Indonesians etc. They have not bought into the idea of global warming or the net zero policy agenda, and are not going to. As long as they don’t buy in, it makes no difference what the climate establishment in the West thinks or gets adopted as policy. Emissions are going to continue to rise.

4) The real and important question is one you never address. It is that all the measures so far proposed by activists in the West are both impractical and useless both in themselves and as remedies to the alleged problem. You cannot run modern industrial economies on wind and solar. Its impossible as an energy policy. Whether there is a climate crisis or not, the program is not delivering and cannot deliver on energy generation because of costs and intermittency.

Warren Beeton

Reply to michel

August 15, 2026 5:45 am

You have a lot wrong.
1) The so-called “skeptics” are not true skeptics (rather, they are Deniers) because they a) are ignorant of science, and b) reach conclusions and then try to make the data fit their conclusions– the reverse of the scientific method. Also, Scientific hypotheses are not ‘proven’ (proofs are for math, evidence is for science), but rather become accepted after sufficient confirming evidence is accumulated. Human-caused climate change has been a well accepted scientific theory for decades for that reason.
2) Voters are not scientists, and their opinions have nothing to do with the Scientific Method or the validity of the science.
3) Its the population of the USA that needs convincing. Acceptance of human-caused climate change is far greater in Europe, Japan and Asia than in the Western Hemisphere.
4)Wind and solar are impractical? This last mistake by you is monumental, and a testament to your lack of knowledge. 90% of new power generation plants added in recent years around the world have been solar and wind.

-10

Dave Andrews

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 15, 2026 7:25 am

” Fossil fuels continued to expand in absolute terms and retained their dominant position accounting for 86% of Total Energy Supply (TES)”

Energy Institute ‘2026 Statistical Review of World Energy’ (June 2026)

bnice2000

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 15, 2026 1:53 pm

You have everything wrong.

You accuse realists of doing everything that the climate cultists do…. they change and manipulate the data to try and make it fit their mantra… but still fail. AGW started as baseless conjecture, and has never progressed any further.
You are not a scientist, and know basically nothing of the scientific method or validity of science. Consensus is not part of the scientific method.
USA are on the right path, they know they need solid reliable electricity, something that wind and solar can never provide.
Wind and solar actually provide very little energy compared to the energy needs of the world, and destroy electrical grids whenever their infection spread too deep push up electricity prices and destroying economies.. The two largest populations in the world are relying almost totally on fossil fuels with a bit of hydro.

Mr.

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 15, 2026 2:12 pm

So you’re saying that all that’s needed for adoption of conjecture is “consensus” that the conjecture is reality?

Well oil beef hooked!

I didn’t realize that “the science” was that simple and easy.
(wot a silly bunt 🙂 )

Warren Beeton

Reply to Mr.

August 15, 2026 2:14 pm

It’s not a surprise that you think science is conjecture, while Deniers wallow in conjecture without any science.

-6

2hotel9

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 15, 2026 5:25 am

When all you got is a bucket full of wrong, well, that’s all you got.

Herman Pope

August 14, 2026 3:29 pm

Emissions Change of the Worlds Top 20 Polluters, should be changed to “EMISSIONS CHANGE OF THE WORLD’S TOP 20 PLANT GROWTH ENHANSERS”
The endangerment finding has been repealed, there has never been any proof of harm from increasing CO2 emissions, there has been much proof of plants growing better and using water more efficiently due to increased CO2.
CO2 is not pollution, CO2 is a GAS of Better Life. People who raise plants in Greenhouses, increase the CO2 in the Greenhouses to above a thousand parts per million because get better plant growth and the plants use water more efficiently. There are no experiments that prove any harm from more CO2.
Too much CO2 can cause harm, we must try: Putting It in Context

Today’s Earth atmosphere: ~420 ppm CO₂
A stuffy meeting room: ~1,000–2,000 ppm
OSHA 8-hour exposure limit: 5,000 ppm
OSHA 15-minute ceiling: 30,000 ppm
Apollo 13 peak: ~50,000–58,000 ppm

Kpar

Reply to Herman Pope

August 14, 2026 3:36 pm

Hard to argue with that.

Mr.

Reply to Kpar

August 14, 2026 5:06 pm

yes, it would be a very bold move

Kpar

August 14, 2026 3:33 pm

I would have placed a couple more columns on that chart.
1) Population numbers
2) Tons per person

Harold Pierce

Reply to Kpar

August 14, 2026 7:02 pm

8 billion human exhale ca. 2,920 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

Warren Beeton

August 14, 2026 4:57 pm

blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/633e5d2a-9b64-4430-ae5e-0528029744f7
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/0a2204da-4fbb-43f5-9a6a-c431e5880c70

-14

bnice2000

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 14, 2026 5:08 pm

YAWN.. Totally bogus, totally anti-science, and not resembling any reality !

2hotel9

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 15, 2026 5:30 am

MAD Magazine called, they want you to come back to work.

Sunsettommy

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 15, 2026 10:33 am

Wow you sure fall for a doctored chart that is well out of scale and based on several bad papers that have been exposed as JUNK SCIENCE which was discovered a decade ago right here.

You need to get out of the basement.

Warren Beeton

Reply to Sunsettommy

August 15, 2026 11:04 am

When you find a contradictory chart from a peer reviewed source, you may let us know. Since that will not occur, we can rest easy.

-6

bnice2000

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 15, 2026 1:30 pm

I posted several the other day from peer reviewed sources, all showing that the Holocene optimum and even the MWP were warmer than today.

Stop your climate denial.

Warren Beeton

Reply to bnice2000

August 15, 2026 3:01 pm

No you didn’t. You are lying. They were not warmer.

-3

bnice2000

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 16, 2026 1:43 pm

[you exceeded your three-reply limit to another commenter per thread. ~ctm]

bnice2000

Reply to bnice2000

August 16, 2026 2:36 pm

You really have sunk to a level of extreme PETTINESS, haven’t you.

Protecting scum like Beeton!!

Charles Rotter

Admin

Reply to bnice2000

August 16, 2026 3:38 pm

Rules are rules.

0perator

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 15, 2026 3:25 pm

You mean stay mad.

Warren Beeton

Reply to 0perator

August 15, 2026 3:36 pm

Not mad, just appalled, by the lying (or ignorance) of Bnice.

-4

bnice2000

Reply to Sunsettommy

August 16, 2026 2:41 pm

So true, tommy… There is so many proxies from all around the world that reinforce the FACT that the Holocene optimum was considerably warmer than now.

Here are just 3.. I have over 150 available, charts and excerpts from peer reviewed papers.

Warren Beeton

Reply to bnice2000

August 16, 2026 3:43 pm

No global temperatures, nothing but 3 local measurements . The only question is whether you are deceptive or just ignorant , bnice.

mkelly

Reply to Warren Beeton

August 16, 2026 2:28 am

A longer look.

bnice2000

Reply to mkelly

August 16, 2026 2:53 pm

Yep the GISP ice data tells it as it was in Greenland , and in fact, the whole Arctic region…

… but the the same evidence of a warmer Holocene Optimum shows up all around the world.

One from North Africa…

One from China

And the heat content of the Pacific ocean

bnice2000

Reply to mkelly

August 16, 2026 3:11 pm

Oh and before someone says that tiny uptick at the end is just the start of the slight warming out of the LIA and wants to add hi-resolution instrumental measurements …

… Mickey Mann shows very clearly that the start of that uptick is the year 1900, so the end point is around the 1940s…

… and most raw data shows the 1940’s similar to now.

Phillip Chalmers

August 14, 2026 5:29 pm

Adaptation.
Like naked, shoeless forest fringe dwellers with two hands and two feet and omnivorous teeth developing clothes and shelter and shoes and adopting fire to cook food and measures to store and preserve excess food across seasons or for travel?
A new idea?
Sheesh!

Len Werner

August 14, 2026 5:46 pm

“Social justice demands that climate policy not increase energy prices and restrict consumer sovereignty.”

What if the actual goal is to eliminate social justice, increase energy (and all other) prices, and to restrict consumer sovereignty?–then what? What happens when the number times someone forgets that that goal has been stated exceeds the number of times they’ve been told that it was spoken/written?

bnice2000

Reply to Len Werner

August 14, 2026 6:26 pm

“What if the actual goal is to eliminate social justice, increase energy (and all other) prices, and to restrict consumer sovereignty?”

Ah…. the left’s agenda, writ large. !!

ResourceGuy

August 14, 2026 5:57 pm

Adaptation as in somehow get in the face of Europeans with photos and guilt trips about the ethnic cleansing in the gulags of western China making their solar panel supply chain with a massive array of coal fired power plants and mines to dominate the energy intensive silicon ingot production. And no, I don’t mean tours of highly automated panel assembly lines in the east for naive western academic visitors. I don’t think they will look up otherwise.

Harold Pierce

August 14, 2026 7:45 pm

Harold The Organic Says:
RE: Status Of CO2 In The Atmosphere.

At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 429 pmmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 grams and contains a mere 0.84 grams of CO2. The reason there such small amount of CO2 in the air is that most all of it is absorbed by the oceans and land surface waters. There is just too little CO2 in the air to have any effect on the earth’s weather and climate.

The claims by the corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists that this trace amount of CO2 in the air causes “global warming” and is the “control knob” of climate change are fabrications and lies, the purpose of which is to provide the justification for the continued maintenance and generous funding of this UN organization and the collaborating scientist (aka, the welfare queens in white coats).

Look what these claims by the IPCC has done to the economies of UK, Germany, and Australia, for example. The IPCC people should be arrested for scientific fraud and thrown in jail.

Anthony Banton

Reply to Harold Pierce

August 15, 2026 1:02 am

Harold – see how light is blocked by even 280ppm concentration never mind 429 or 560 ppm.
And of course LWIR is EM radiation as is visible light.
A seeming small quantity can have an outsized effect ….

-7

2hotel9

Reply to Harold Pierce

August 15, 2026 5:36 am

Arrested for fraud, period. It is in excess of $1000 so it is prosecutable.

claysanborn

August 14, 2026 9:28 pm

Iran: Up 23%. Who knew that detonating TNT gave off so much wonderful, clean CO2.

michel

August 15, 2026 1:48 am

I came back to see if anything had changed. And it has, its got worse. You have destroyed what used to be a very nice and valuable site with these incessant pop-ups and gross and insulting advertisements. I don’t know any other site which does this, on this scale and with this degree of offensiveness, to its readers. Ads are fine. Occasional offers are fine. These are not ads, Heaven knows what they are. Is there any other site polluted by them? If so I have not seen it.

You doubt this. Well, here is a list of what you have to scroll through to get to the discussion.

First there is the popups, See what they Don’t want You to Know is a new one, joining The Climate Data They Do Not Want You to See. Who is this ‘they’? Don’t ask. Vague paranoia. Then there are the ads:

Global Reporters what the media is hiding
This will remove constipation in just 7 seconds
A doctor from England shares how to remove a hanging belly
Sever joint pain do this the moment you wake up
Constipation will disappear and feces will fly at once
A teaspoon on an empty stomach burns 11 lbs of fat a week safely
Find out what is holding you back from being a star performer
Relieves constipation instantly. Go to the toilet like clockwork
Kate thought no one noticed but it was caught on tape
Morning Habit that can stop fat storage
How to lose 40.5 lbs in one month (Eat this once every day)
Video of giant anaconda going around the world
Bear approaches cat what happens next is pure magic
The Megan Markle rumour that just won’t go away
When news anchors showed a little too much on live TV
If you discover papilomas on your body do this immediately

This is wrecking the site, association with this stuff deprives the postings of all credibility. There must be some source of advertising revenue that does not insult readers and degrade the site in equal measure. Please!

Meanwhile I am off again, will check back in a few months. Won’t see any replies. And yes, you can block the ads and the popups, I know that. That’s not the point. The point is the editorial attitude that leads to this stuff. Think what you are doing!

mkelly

Reply to michel

August 15, 2026 4:35 am

Donate enough money to operate the site where ads are no longer necessary.

2hotel9

Reply to mkelly

August 15, 2026 5:34 am

Or use uBlock Origin, cleans it up nicely.

Len Werner

Reply to 2hotel9

August 15, 2026 8:14 am

Or simply scroll through fast enough that it’s all a blur and ignore it, everyone has that option and power.

John XB

August 15, 2026 5:30 am

“Social” justice is ideology based, arbitrary distribution of wealth. Also called Socialism.

2hotel9

August 15, 2026 5:37 am

CO2, is there nothing it can’t do?!?!? 😉

Sunsettommy

Reply to 2hotel9

August 15, 2026 10:34 am

Yeah, it makes some people stupid.

bnice2000

Reply to Sunsettommy

August 15, 2026 1:56 pm

Actually, pretty sure AGW cultist/believers have to be incredibly stupid to start with. !

Maybe CO2 just amplifies that stupidity. ?!

2hotel9

Reply to Sunsettommy

August 16, 2026 4:11 am

Beetboy is a clear example of that.

Sean Galbally

August 17, 2026 10:35 am

Net Zero advocates, particularly Red Ed Miliband and other left wing mainstream policy makers, just answer one question. Are you aware that 90% of atmospheric greenhouse gases are clouds and water vapour, over which we have no control. Even after many years burning fossil fuels, carbon dioxide is just 0.04%. it has a tiny effect on climate by comparison. Climate change is real and mainly caused by variation in the sun’s activity, it is not man-made and cannot be changed by him. Hence Net Zero (carbon dioxide) is a very very costly scam, perpetrated by people who do not understand the science or who have ulterior motives, – story tip

conrad ziefle

August 18, 2026 4:06 pm

The CO2 levels are now about the lowest in biological history. The levels have been 17x higher and life thrived on Earth. In fact, CO2 fuels life on Earth. During the last 500 million years, atmospheric CO2 has declined, mostly linearly, except for one short bump upward. The temperature during that period has gone up and down, mostly with no correlation to the CO2 levels. The modal temperature has been around 73 f. Currently, the global average temperature is about 60f, implying that we are living in an abnormally cold period, and one would expect that a return to the higher modal temperature is natural, whether man exists or not, because over the last 500 million years the global average has repeatedly returned to the modal temperture. This might be deadly to snow skiing but life has existed, and thrived, at that temperture for most of biological history.

wpDiscuz

Share this:

Related Posts

Endangerment Finding Litigation Update

Rice, CO₂, and the Climate Story the Media Keep Missing

India’s Record Crops Reject Food, Warming Alarmism

What’s Up With The Endangerment Finding Litigation?