“… the Democrat radicals in the Senate have shown zero interest in reopening the government… I think they’re kamikaze pilots… They’ll take down the country if they have to.” –President Trump
“Zohran Mamdani being elected as NYC Mayor isn’t just a New Yorker issue. Islamists plotted back in 2014 to push him into this race. He became a citizen in 2018. Islamists are using our elections and Constitution against us…”– @BreannaMorello
Meet the people who will have Mamdani’s ear — and who he could owe favors to as mayor. Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour has been described as a mentor and friend to Mamdani… Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and CAIR Action… Democratic Socialists of America… United Federation of Teachers…Working Families Party… Since 2016, the party has pocketed $23.7 million from Soros through its nonprofit fundraising arm, Working Families Organization Inc. The party advocates for free healthcare for all, criminal justice reform and “environmental justice.”… Mahmood Mamdani… A radical socialist and emeritus professor at Columbia University’s Department of Anthropology, Mahmood in 1981 founded the Uganda-Korea Friendship Society, a group connected to North Korea… Patrick Gaspard… former president of Soros’ Open Society Foundations… https://nypost.com/2025/11/05/us-news/mamdani-to-be-accountable-to-radical-activists-groups/
Bud’s comments:
It is alarming that President Trump does not know or is unwilling to say that Dems are intentionally destroying America. It is not like Trump. Why?
Kamikaze pilots of Japan in WWII were generally from the best families, the Samurai, the elite warriors who protected the emperors and royal family, and following orders were willing to die for the emperor and Japan in WWII. But President Trump has inadvertently insulted proud Japanese families who sacrificed their sons for emperor and country. This is very different if not opposite what the Dems are doing in America; Dems are intentionally destroying America, the Constitution, and national and individual sovereignty, and of course attempting to stop all things Trump. For what reason? I do not know. But I can guess.
At the same time Dems are aiding and abetting islamists, who have almost no common behaviors or morality with Dem “coastal progressives”, a moniker self-proclaimed by Hawai’i U.S. Senator Schatz.
When islamists become majority they will line up and behead these Dems just as Bolsheviks shot the liberal intelligencia, the so called “White Russians”, who aided and abetted the so-called “Red Russians” and Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolutions. White Russians, equivalent to todays academic, influencer, political, “karens” persuaded and manipulated the Russian people to reject Russian royalty, which led to the death of most Russian royalty, and adopt the sophomoric, miscreant disaster that is Marxism/socialism/communism. The supposed brightest minds, the academics, intellectuals, poets, writers, etc. led the Russian people to an economic ideology wherein resulting in millions of deaths of their own Russian people, not including war deaths. Same story in China. Same story in Cambodia. Same story in North Viet Nam. The same history of massive struggle and deaths happened and is still happening with the cultural ideology called islam.
Islam was established to take advantage of the soft, forgiving cultures surrounding theirs. Islam was not established to help muslims. This point is made absolutely clear by 1000 plus years of muslim violent indoctrination into their cult of conversion by the sword, by their policy of threat of death, by their policy of death for apostates, by their enforcement of sharia by physical violence and death even of family members by family members. These barbarian atrocities and more have been going on for more than 1000 years. More deaths according to historians than all other ideologies. Accoring to multiple historians, the bloodiest period of history is the slaughter of Hindu and other Indians by the muslim caliphate, documented as by the method of their prophet Muhammad. Yes, they claim that Christianity, Judaism, and other religions did the same. That critique is true but omits the critical point. Christianity, Judaism, and other religions reformed their behavior hundreds of years ago. Islam has not reformed and today still fights and kills their own brothers and sisters to prevent reform. This is happening today in Gaza.
Bottom line for me: America’s enemy is already inside our gates and intentionally holding the gates open for barbarians intent on destroying us. Same happened in the Roman Empire.
U.S., Trump, Congress and all citizens for now should forget about Ukraine, Nigeria, NATO, UN, etc as painful as that is to our natural empathy. Instead, the country must unite and focus on our enemy that is now within our gates. There are many examples: The corrupt election system, the corrupt courts, corrupt academia and government agencies, and the enemies both live persons and fictional corporations and NGOs and foundations who paid for corruption of those systems. Our country must figure out how to deal with ideologically indoctrinated anti-Americans.
No, a tariff is not a tax on consumers who do not buy the imported product—but it is effectively a tax on the consumers who do buy it.Here’s the precise economic breakdown:
What a tariff actually is A tariff is a tax levied by a government on imports, paid by the importer of record (usually the U.S. company bringing the goods in) at the border.
Who ultimately bears the cost? Economic studies (using what’s called “tax incidence” or “burden sharing”) show the tariff gets passed on through the supply chain:
Importer pays the tariff → raises their costs
Importer charges wholesalers more → wholesalers charge retailers more
Retailers raise shelf prices → American consumers pay higher prices for that imported good or for domestic substitutes that now face less competition.
Consumers who never buy the product If you don’t purchase the tariffed item (or a domestic alternative whose price rose because of reduced competition), you pay $0 extra. You are unaffected directly.
Real-world numbers (Trump-era 2018–2019 tariffs as the most studied example)
Federal Reserve, NBER, and IMF studies found that U.S. consumers and businesses bore over 90% of the cost of the China tariffs.
For every $1 in tariffs collected, American households paid roughly $0.93–$1.20 in higher prices (the range varies by study and product).
Example: Washing machines → tariffs caused price increases of ~12% or $86 per unit; total cost to U.S. consumers ~$1.5 billion.
The “it’s a tax on foreigners” claim Politicians sometimes say “China pays the tariffs.” That’s false. Chinese exporters lowered their prices a little (5–20% of the tariff, depending on the product), but the overwhelming majority was passed on to U.S. buyers.
Bottom line A tariff is a tax on American purchasers of the affected goods—paid indirectly through higher prices. If you don’t buy the stuff, you’re in the clear. If you do, you’re the one footing the bill. It is the buyer’s decision to buy the product and thus pay the tax.
Human emissions of CO2 do not increase the concentration of CO2 in air except momentarily, locally. Any increase in concentration of a trace gas in air is offset by an equal increase in solubility of that trace gas by all liquids in contact with that gas. Any decrease in concentration of a trace gas in air is offset by an equal decrease in solubility of that trace gas by all liquids in contact with that gas.
Ocean surface, about 71% of Earth’s surface, is the largest absorber and emitter of trace gases like CO2. When ocean surface warms it emits relatively more CO2 than it absorbs per unit of time. When it cools it absorbs relatively more than it emits per unit of time. Emission and absorption of trace gases by liquids occurs continuously and simultaneously; the ratio is a function of temperature of the surface.
A trace gas is defined as less than 1%. Today, CO2 concentration in air is only about 0.04%. Millions of years ago, CO2 concentration was 0.6% and life was abundant, and as low as 0.018% and life was near extinction in an ice age. Other trace gases in air (for example methane, nitrous oxide, etc.) are far lower concentration than CO2. CO2 has been very slowly increasing (~2.5 ppm/yr) mostly because temperature of ocean surface has been slowly increasing due to various circumstances, but the amount of human-produced CO2 is not one of those circumstances. The Ocean is a huge sink or repository for CO2.
The amount of human-produced CO2 from all sources which is emitted to air is too small to be measured with acceptable accuracy and precision against ~160 times larger background CO2 flux being absorbed and emitted into and out of the environment.
“The unifying element between Islam and the Left — they both view themselves as the oppressed & they both want revolution… the left just fails to realise that the Muslim monsters will “eat the left alive” after the revolution is done.” ~ reformedapologist @reformed_ap
This statement reflects a complex and controversial perspective that simplifies both Islam and the political Left. It’s important to recognize that:
Islam is a diverse religion with a wide range of interpretations, beliefs, and practices. Not all Muslims share the same political views or aspirations.
The political Left is also a broad spectrum of ideologies, and not all Leftists advocate for revolution or share the same goals.
Such generalizations can be misleading and may contribute to harmful stereotypes.
However, in this case, this is exactly what will happen. This is no different than the Bolsheviks murdering the White Russians, the Red Russians, and the Russian military command to take power after the two Russian revolutions. This process is not concerned with religion or ideology or specifics of Marxist/communist/socialist ideology. This is not different than a British king, or French king, or Chinese emperor, or Hawai’ian king, taking over from their predecessor. In many if not most cases the predecessor ruler was their bloodline relative if not their father or uncle.
For example, King John I of England, the fortunate heir of generations, was forced to sign the famous Magna Carta – the conceptual predecessor of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights – by a group of 23 or so barons with the support of their knights and arms to guarantee the Magna Carta against King John. Almost all of those barons were cousins or uncles of King John I. After this great meeting in what could have been a field of battle, when everyone was home, King John had almost all of them murdered and the Magna Carta renounced. John’s son re-instated the Magna Carta. Seldom mentioned is that John had also strongly opposed his father Henry, tearing is family apart.
Full disclosure: King John I, and 13 or more of the barons signing the Magna Carta, and John’s top knight (Sir William Marshal) who was one his so-called “illustrious” at that event, are all my direct blood line ancestors. In other words, I am not prejudging either side.
Power corrupts absolutely.
If you have read the Bible, imagine Judas (whom Jesus trusted with the finances of his apostles and mission) at the moment Judas realizes he can change history and be known forever.
Multiple Democratic officials were quick to point to climate change after the devastating Pacific Palisades fires ravished California earlier this year, though the Trump administration announced Wednesday that the fires were lit by an arsonist.
Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli announced Wednesday that a suspect was arrested in connection with the criminal investigation into the January Palisades fire that burned for 24 days, eviscerated acres of land, destroyed homes and killed a dozen people. Several Democratic officials almost immediately posted about how climate change caused or worsened the fire in January, long before the cause of arson was discovered.
Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey wrote that the wildfires in Los Angeles were “climate change-induced” on Jan. 30, as well as Democratic California Sen. Alex Padilla on Jan. 24. Democratic Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse also called out President Donald Trump over the fires and climate change in January.
“Nice to see Time magazine calling out the Trump lies and putting accountability where it belongs: on climate change driven by decades of fossil fuel false propaganda and political corruption,” Whitehouse wrote Jan. 10.
Democratic California Rep. Jared Huffman wrote on Jan. 10 that “right now, our priority is immediate aid and safety for those affected. Once relief is secured, it’s time to demand real action. The GOP majority can no longer ignore the climate crisis or the solutions that will actually make meaningful change.”
Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted that the conditions were “unprecedented,” with Bass branding the fire as a “natural disaster” and Newsom stressing that “climate change is here and it is real” in January.
Emergency management and policy experts told the DCNF previously that the January Palisades and Eaton fires were exacerbated by a key reservoir sitting empty for months in the lead-up to the fires and fire extinguishers running dry due to water infrastructure issues.
“We saw this coming, and we have said, ‘I told you so’ every time there’s been a super fire. This time, the super fire happens to be even more catastrophic, because it’s happening in one of the most densely populated areas in the United States,” Edward Ring, director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center, told the DCNF previously. “It’s the same message, which is that we have neglected our water infrastructure. We have mismanaged our forests and chaparral in the name of environmentalism, and we’re paying the price.”
Newsom announced at the time that he would call for an investigation probing the factors that led up to fire hydrant failure and the reported unavailability of the reservoir.
Notably, several legacy media outlets were also quick to attribute the Palisades fire damage to climate change.
Staff for Bass, Markey, Padilla, Whitehouse, Huffman and Sanders did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Katie Hopkins says UK has been “overrun in every way” by Muslims, “The time of crusades must come again” She says the UK is so overrun with Islam, UK citizens will soon be forced to flee. Saying their taxes are going to building new Mosques everywhere, “This is about a takeover” “We are already overrun, power sits with the Muslim religion, power sits with Muslim leaders” “We are overrun in every way, in every sense, demographically, all births, Muslim births, outnumber births to every and all other religion. This is no commentary on anyone’s religion. I’m just, this is just pure fact. Our mayors who are control funding in our capital cities are Muslim. Mosques are not churches. A mosque is being built at the outermost tippy-tippy most end of Scotland and at the furthermost reaches at the end of the other side of our tiny country. This is about a takeover.” “I believe there will come a time not too far from now when the British people, true British people, will have to make very difficult choices. Either they will flee eastwards to Eastern Europe with our much more stronger Christian neighbors, Poland, Hungary, those countries, or they will seek asylum, flee, try to come to America, or they will stand their ground. But certainly, the time of the Crusades will need to come again if we are to return” “And of course America understands because you have Minneapolis, because you have Dearborn, Michigan, and I see it all the time, these blue centers where they absolutely load it up with multiple occupancy.”
Katie Hopkins says UK has been "overrun in every way" by Muslims, “The time of crusades must come again"
She says the UK is so overrun with Islam, UK citizens will soon be forced to flee. Saying their taxes are going to building new Mosques everywhere, “This is about a takeover”… pic.twitter.com/wjzhnnDEU8
“When a man does not know what harbor he is making for, no wind is the right wind.” ~ Seneca the Younger. Lucius Annaeus Seneca(a.k.a. Seneca the Younger, 4 BC–65 AD)
This quote applies perfectly to those attempting to derive reality based on vague and uncertain theories about gas bubbles in ice and tree rings: ships’ captains attempting to coordinate the knee jerks of their disillusioned oarsmen so as to make headway rather than have their ship spinning in circles.
In long term ice core records where the statistical smoothing period is 1000 years or more, cross correlation studies leave no doubt that temperature change leads CO2 change, and not the reverse, although there is a long time lag between the two changes.
Based on ice core data, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) proponents such as Pieter Tan manage to publish work including this below of a somewhat flat line of CO2 concentration around 280 ppm beginning from around 1000 years ago up to the pre-industrial era.
There are of course data such as the graph immediately above which contradict the hypothesis based on ice core samples that atmospheric CO2 concentration was stable prior to the industrial revolution. But this contradicts the narrative of orthodox climatology so it is rarely or never discussed.
The first graph above is nonsense and non-science. Yet the myth of a stable pre-industrial global CO2 concentration infamously lives on in climatology. It is not possible to compare or connect the data as shown above, that is to connect ice core CO2 data (which is sampled and measured in ppmv from wet samples) with NOAA Mauna Loa data (which is sampled and measured in micromoles of CO2 per mole of freeze dried air i.e. ppm.) Full stop.
The ice core laboratories have no records of the water vapor content of their samples and variability over a thousands years. The amount of water vapor (1% or usually more) directly affects the volumetric analysis (ppmv) of trace gases like CO2. The change in CO2 concentration due solely to change in water vapor content is more than the annual variation in CO2, as will be shown below.
The NOAA Global Monitoring Labs such as Mauna Loa freeze dry their air samples before measuring to remove all water vapor and water droplets. They also have no record of how much water was removed or the sample to sample variability in water content. Removing quantities of 1% to 4% of water vapor from the NOAA air samples results in a very large increase of CO2, that is a very large increase in micromoles of CO2 per mole of dried air. The total number of moles of all air molecules in the dried air sample (i.e., the denominator in micromoles of CO2 per mole of dried air) has been greatly reduced by removal of the moles of water vapor, with the result that the numerator of the ratio, which is micromoles of CO2, is greatly increased as a proportion of total moles in the sample. In 2020 NOAA Mauna Loa measured the difference between a wet air sample and a freeze dried air sample.
In practice, if Mauna Loa and the other NOAA labs used volumetric units like ppmv and did not remove the water from the air samples, then the variability in their data would be so large that accurate and precise routine net CO2 measurements would not be possible; the number of calibrations required would be impractical. This is but one reason the NOAA labs use a molar fraction measurement (micromoles of CO2 per mole of dry air, which is precisely ppm) instead of a volume measurement such as micrograms CO2 per liter of air (or ppmv), or moles of CO2 per liter of air (which is also ppmv); ppm and ppmv are not equivalent units and in this case cannot be converted with reasonable certainty.
Here is high school arithmetic and data from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory on Mauna Loa. No expensive computer models. No statistics. No estimates. No assumptions. Just data and arithmetic.
414 ppm is 414 molecules of CO2 and 999,586 other air molecules.
Measured average net CO2 in air for 2020 was 414.24 ppm.*
Measured average net CO2 in air for 2019 was 411.66 ppm.*
414.24 minus 411.66 = 2.58 ppm
Thus, increase in CO2 for 2020 was 2.58 ppm, that’s 0.000258% of air. The net CO2 increase due to all sources & sinks, human and natural, for year 2020 was 2.58 ppm or 0.000258%. (That’s 2.58 ppm divided by 1,000,000 ppm = 0.00000258. Multiplied by 100 = 0.000258%)
Thus, increase for 2020 in net human CO2 cannot exceed 2.58. And 2.58/414 = 0.0062 = 0.62%. The 2020 annual increase in total net CO2 due to sources was 0.62%. The human component of the annual increase did not exceed 0.62%.
So, 0.000258% of atmosphere is the maximum possible net human CO2 increase for 2020. That annual increase from 2019 to 2020 (i.e., 2.58 ppm), includes the increase in CO2 due to all CO2 sources, natural and human, minus all CO2 sinks, natural and human, for 2020. This trivial amount is what all the climate fear is about and what climate alarmist want the public to spend trillions of dollars each year to reduce. By the way, we do not know the net human CO2 increase for any year; it is not measured and probably cannot be measured with scientific accuracy and precision, but it is only estimated.
As mentioned, in 2020 NOAA Mauna Loa measured the difference the amount of gases in a wet air sample and in a freeze-dried air sample. (Shown in the table below from their website.) The dried air sample contained 413 ppm CO2 and the wet sample contained 400.6 ppm CO2. The dried air sample contained 12.4 ppm more CO2 than the wet sample. The annual average increase in CO2 for 2020 over 2019 was only 2.58 ppm. Thus, for this one sample at one single humidity condition the difference between a dry versus a wet air sample was 480% larger than the average annual increase in CO2 for that year. ((12.4 ppm/2.58 ppm)*100 = ~480%)
When there is such a large difference between wet and dry sample methods, and since the humidity records were not kept and are not available, then it is not practical but incompetent to adjust or calibrate ppm and ppmv, and not practical but incompetent to connect CO2 ppmv data from wet ice cores to ppm data from dried air samples at NOAA GML laboratories. In other words, the well-worn claim that CO2 has grown from a pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv to 420 ppm today is incorrect. As physics Professor Richard Feynman famously said, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” This principle is the bedrock of the scientific method—reality trumps narrative every time. It is wrong to extrapolate a CO2 growth rate from an assumed pre-industrial CO2 level based on ice core measurements to today’s measured CO2 levels. The following graphic illustrates in another way the incorrect comparison.
In conclusion, climate alarmists not only have the cause-effect sequence reversed – that is, temperature change leads CO2 change, and not the reverse, but their method of connecting ice core measurements with NOAA measurement, well both are “wrong” as Feynman would say.
*Tans, P. CO2 annual means 1959 -2020. NOAA and Scripps. Global Monitoring Laboratory. File Creation: Fri Mar 5 08:40:06 2021. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Apparently, in order to be able to work in the UK, we will all be forced to adopt digital ID—the mandatory so-called BritCard. There is absolutely no public appetite for this, as the more than 2 million and rising (at the time of writing) signatures to the online petition to stop it demonstrates.
Of course, online petitions don’t make any difference to governments, but at least they illustrate to us that government propaganda, such as the IPSOS poll that alleges 57% of the UK public want digital ID, is garbage. Though given IPSOS enormous number of government contracts, including its contract to assist in the design of the BritCard, willingly fulfilling its propaganda role is understandable.
Iain Davis Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Proudly announcing mandatory digital ID at the Global Progress Action Summit, Keir Starmer said:
Let me spell that out. You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have Digital ID. It’s as simple as that.
This all sounds very “authoritarian,” but if we decide we are not going to adopt the BritCard, and if the UK government insists on enforcing it, the entire UK economy and the government will collapse. If government issued digital ID is “mandatory” to work in the UK, and millions, perhaps tens of millions, of people decide they are not going along with it, then that means mass unemployment, a vanishing government tax take, and economic destruction on a cataclysmic scale.
The government can be as tough as it likes, but if we tell it to do one there is sweet FA it can do about it. The government only has power while we comply, if we don’t it has absolutely none at all. It’s a paper tiger. We have all the power, we just have to realise it by not complying.
Clearly, there is no need for a UK digital ID. In a moment of stupidity, the UK Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, told the BBC that the national ID card would be the same as a national insurance number (NIN), insofar as you won’t be able to work without one. It didn’t occur to her that having a NIN is indeed a prerequisite for employment in the UK and, therefore, no one needs a government digital ID. Assuming, that is, the government’s claimed justification is remotely plausible. Which it isn’t
The government has exploited illegal immigration as an excuse to supposedly introduce digital ID:
[Digital ID] will [. . .] be required for right to work checks to stop those with no right to be in the country from finding work. This is to send a clear message that if you come here illegally, you will not be able to work, deterring people from making dangerous journeys.
There are few glaring problems with this ludicrous argument.
For a start, you can’t get a NIN if you are in the UK illegally. Those who employ people illegally couldn’t care less whether you have a NIN or not, just as they won’t care if a slave labourer has a BritCard or not. No “message” will be sent because those who come here illegally do so knowing it is illegal and the BritCard won’t make any difference to them either. Nor will trafficked illegal immigrants be deterred because they don’t have a choice and the traffickers show no signs of giving up on their multi-billion dollar industry which, in any event, digital ID will do nothing to hinder.
In addition, if they receive leave to remain, refugees and asylum seekers can secure a NIN for themselves and work here legally. So, all in all, the government’s argument for introducing digital ID is total codswallop.
It is obvious that tackling illegal migration has nothing to do with the UK governments alleged hope of foisting digital ID on us all. It is equally obvious that the restricting the right to work is not really the purpose of digital ID:
A new digital ID scheme will make it easier for people across the UK to use vital government services. The roll-out will in time make it easier to apply for government and private sector services, such as helping renters to quickly prove their identity to landlords, improving access to welfare and other benefits, and making it easier for parents to apply for free childcare.
So, “in time,” we will supposedly need digital ID to access services like child care, to receive “welfare and other benefits,” and to rent a home. But that’s not all. We will also need it to access “private sector services” such as those offered by banks. You’ll need your government approved digital ID to buy a home too, in time.
In short, a state issued digital ID gives the state total control over your life and, to a great extent, the economy.
Currently migrants given leave to stay, either permanently or temporarily, can use government issued biometric ID—digital identity that contains biological information—to “open a bank account.” Starmer’s biometric BritCard, and all digital ID, merely extends that government mandated “privilege” to the rest of us.
Starmer is a globalist member of numerous policy think tanks, including the Trilateral Commission. The policy to enforce digital ID on everyone has nothing to do with his government. That Policy emanated from globalist think tanks, like the Trilateral Commission, and was set by the United Nations as SDG 16.9 in 2016.
Starmer and the UK government are seemingly doing what they are told. But something doesn’t quite add up.
The global digital ID systems and networks that have been put into place, to date, do not require the issuance of any single biometric digital ID card or app. Rather, a smorgasbord of “vendor agnostic” digital ID products can be made “interoperable” and share data in a uniform machine readable format. If the SDG 16.9 plans for data interoperability proceed as envisaged, the data from your UK biometric digital ID driving licence—which you probably already possess—and your biometric digital ID passport, for instance, could be linked to all your purchases through your interoperable digital bank card.
The data from all these “vendor agnostic” digital ID products, because they each use interoperable machine readable data exchange formats, can then be hoovered up to the global digital ID database. At present, the World Bank’s ID4D looks like the most likely candidate. The UN’s World Bank has set the interoperability data standards that the digital ID database requires and has divided them into five categories:
Major standards to facilitate the technical quality and interoperability of the ID system related to: (1) biometrics, (2) cards, (3) 2D barcodes, (4) digital signatures, and (5) federation protocols.
For example, the Indian government’s Aadhaar unique digital ID card (or app) uses “the ISO/IEC 19794 Series and ISO/IEC 19785 for biometric data interchange formats.” These are approved World Bank ID4D interoperability standards. In this case, Indian’s biometric data can be exported in a “machine-readable format enabling ease of import into” the SDG 16.9 compliant global ID4D database.
In July 2022, the ID2020 Alliance—the group tasked with fulfilling SDG 16.9—appointed Clive Smith as its new executive director. Clive was the former Director of Global Operations at the United Nations Foundation Mobile Health Alliance. Speaking about his new role, Clive said:
ID2020 can play a pivotal role, helping ensure that the appropriately interoperable solutions – and related financial, legal, and regulatory guardrails – are in place, and become the foundation of digital ID in the decades ahead.
The interoperable digital infrastructure is the key to constructing our digital IDs from interlinked vendor agnostic digital ID products. In effect, our digital ID can be manufactured by the system, as we interact with it, without us having any one, designated digital ID app or card. That is the point of digital ID-linked product interoperability.
The UK government already has an SDG 16.9 compatible biometric digital ID platform called One Login. It is part of the Government Digital Service (GDS) and provides users with access to government services via their GOV.UK digital wallets. The system is hopelessly insecure and the risk of identity theft is high, but all digital ID systems are prone to criminal misuse, so there’s nothing unusual there.
In India R.S. Sharma, Chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), decided to demonstrate that claims of digital ID security flaws were all “conspiracy theories.” He published his Aadhaar number on, what was then, Twitter to prove the system was secure. Within hours, hackers had released his mobile number(s), personal Gmail and Yahoo addresses, his home address, date of birth, frequent flyer number, private photographs and bank account details to which—for a laugh but making their point—they sent some small payments.
Nevertheless, the interoperable digital ID infrastructure that is being installed globally means there are no technological reasons to account for the UK government’s attempt to introduce an extremely unpopular single, government issued digital ID. Especially seeing as it already has a digital ID system (One Login) that uses existing ID, such as driving licenses, to essentially achieve the same thing that the BritCard is supposed to deliver.
Compounding this unfathomable government strategy, the British have a long history of objecting to government issued ID. To expect us to go along with it this time is nonsensical.
Government issued ID was introduced in the First World War and abolished by public demand in 1919. They were reintroduced shortly after the start of the Second World War and withdrawn in 1952, again due to public opposition. The Blair Labour government tried again in 2010 and, though it was cost and election defeat, rather than unpopularity, that saw that attempt fail, government issued ID was widely opposed nonetheless. The government knows such national ID projects are extremely unpopular and it must have anticipated a political backlash.
Not only that, Starmer’s government decided to formally announce another government issued ID at a time when its popularity has never been lower. Notably, leading voices in the UK Reform Party have already taken a stance against the BritCard, as have those in the Conservative Party. Nor does the announcement do anything to assuage Labour’s alleged concerns about the so-called “far-right” as its supposed leaders have also come out against the BritCard move.
There is no realistic prospect that the government is going to get people to adopt its ridiculous BritCards. From Starmer’s and the Labour government’s perspective, this looks like political suicide. What’s going on?
After its initial leaky debacle, the contract for the cyber security for the government’s One Login was given to the US multinational Accenture led by Julie Sweet who sits on the Board of Trustees for both the World Economic Forum and the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Accenture is partnered with Peter Thiel’s Palantir and Thiel sits on the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group. Both Accenture and Palantir are strategic partners with Larry Elllison’s Oracle. Ellison, like Thiel, is currently highly influential within the US government. All three companies have close links to the intelligence agencies, but Palantir’s and Oracle’s are very close.
Palantir is deeply embedded within the UK government and its defence and health sector. Oracle is similarly central to the digital transformation of UK government and, as we have just discussed, so is Accenture. These US Tech giants, led by people close to the centre of global power, all want to see digital ID succeed in the UK and fully back UN SDG 16.9.
Ellison is known to be a close associate of former UK prime minister Tony Blair and reportedly the money-man behind the Tony Blair Institute (TBI). The TBI has been pushing for digital ID in the UK for years. But what is digital ID really about for think tanks and policy setting groups like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group and the TBI?
It is all about using the harvested data to control our lives. Lest you have any doubt, in September 2024, Ellison told Oracle investors:
Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.
In February this year, the TBI published a blueprint for what it calls the UK’s National Data Library (NDL). The TBI wants the data from all corners of the society and the economy, all public and private services, all industry, all business and all of us, to be stored in one unified central database: the NDL.
However, in order for the NDL to work, the TBI noted:
Harmonised personal identifiers, using a consistent number to refer to the same entity in different places, should be introduced to improve interoperability. [. . .] None of this would be possible without efforts to improve the broader data infrastructure, including efforts around interoperability and digital identity. [. . .] This allows the NDL to focus on closing a critical gap by addressing the legal, operational and structural barriers that prevent effective data use. Interoperability and even linkage efforts, welcome as they are, do not guarantee access or usability.
Clearly, the TBI is acutely aware of the interoperability that lies at the heart of the global digital transformation. The One Login GDS system is prepped for the completion of the necessary digital infrastructure. Digital ID is the linchpin that sets the entire system in motion. Therefore, it is essential to the government and its partners—Palantir, Accenture, and Oracle, etc.,—that we can somehow be cajoled into accepting digital ID.
Starmer’s BritCard is not intended to convince us to adopt digital ID. Its announcement is spectacularly ill-timed, the arguments offered to justify it are absurd and there is no reason to think the British public will ever buy in to it.
It is not unreasonable to speculate that BritCard is a bait-and-switch psyop.
The BritCard has stimulated debate about digital ID. I’m sure Newsnight and Question Time will cover it. We can argue the pros and cons and consider if we want digital ID. Then we will either accept or reject the BritCard, imagining that it is the totality of digital ID, and the issue will be resolved. Which I think is the point of BritCard.
The most likely outcome is that as anger is stoked and resentment swells, the completely unnecessary BritCard will be flung out along with the Labour government: again.
The door will then be open for the political saviours, be they the Tories, Reform or whomever, to come to power promising never to subject us to any more of these idiotic government issued ID schemes.
However, to keep pace with the digital revolution, our digital infrastructure, our cards and licenses, will need to be upgraded to facilitate the necessary interoperability.
Voila! We will rejoice in our victory and accept digital ID without even knowing it.
Note that re-blogging Iain blog does not imply that I agree with other posts on his blog. I am re-blogging this to possibly prevent it disappearing. There is truth here, especially the bait and switch or false flag. Most of us already have a digital drivers license, a digital social security and health care card, digital tax ID numbers, etc. Big Brother’s control matrix is tightening around us.
It’s one of the biggest questions in modern pediatrics: Has the CDC ever studied the full 72-dose vaccine schedule given to children? The shocking answer, no, is now the basis of a federal lawsuit demanding that the agency finally do so.
Host Dr. Liz Mumper, IMA Senior Fellow and pediatrician, sits down with Rick Jaffe, Esq., the lead attorney representing two physician plaintiffs, Dr. Paul Thomas and Dr. Ken Stoller, who argue that the CDC has failed in its legal and scientific duty to ensure the safety of its own recommended schedule.
Whether you’re a parent, policymaker, or practitioner, this case raises questions that cut to the core of public health and parental rights.
**Registering once opts you in to the entire series. Reminder: Use the same link each week.
You can submit your questions live online to be answered at end of the presentation. Or, later submit any questions to: support@flccc.net
Thank you!
WAYS TO JOIN THIS WEBINAR
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android
Join via audio
Or, dial:
US: +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 305 224 1968 or +1 309 205 3325 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 360 209 5623 or +1 386 347 5053 or +1 507 473 4847 or +1 564 217 2000 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 646 931 3860 or +1 669 444 9171 or +1 689 278 1000 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 720 707 2699 More International numbers
The recent work titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” by the Department of Energy-sponsored Climate Working Group including John Christy, Ph.D., Judith Curry, Ph.D., Steven Koonin, Ph.D., Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., Roy Spencer, Ph.D., has obviously stirred up the nest at National Science Foundation (NSF), a non-government organization founded around the time of Abraham Lincoln. The nest’s response is conveniently advertised by the New York Times (NYT). This is expected and can be ignored. There is no substantive criticism by the NSF. This NYT advertisement and NSF puff follows other pieces such as the American Meteorological Association piece. Their funding is being rightly challenged.
As the late Charlie Kirk famously repeated to his crowds, “Go ahead and try to prove me wrong.”
Almost everything written here in my blog, as well as at https://climatecite.com/ and https://henryslaw.org/ about CO2 also applies to CH4, N2O and other trace gases. CO2 and CH4 are just two of many trace gases in air and Henry’s Law applies to all of them. “Trace” gas is defined as less than 1%. CH4 is methane or natural gas. Henry’s Law applies to trace gases, and only the portion of the trace gas which is not reacted. Henry’s Law, Fick’s Law, Ideal Gas Law, le Chatelier’s principle, Law of Mass Action all apply.
CH4 concentration in air is much less than CO2. Thus the amount of warming that can be attributed to CH4 is much less than CO2. Only on a molecule-by-molecule comparison of CH4 and CO2 does methane contribute more “greenhouse” warming; that is a useless comparison since CH4 is so much less concentrated (far fewer molecules) than CO2 and that fact will remain the case in perpetuity as I will now explain, unless there is some huge astronomic or geotectonic event. In other words, the temporarily, relatively small perturbations in net atmospheric concentrations of trace gases like CO2, CH4, N2O which are caused by human emissions of those gases are statistically negligible within the overall net fluxes of those gases into and out of the atmosphere and are not subject to either positive or negative human interventions. Also, the effects of these trace gases are negligible in comparison to the much larger effects of water vapor, water droplets and clouds. NSF, UN IPCC etc ignore water vapor, water and clouds and the sun and combinations of these two by contrived arguments as will be explained here by examining in detail the arguments of orthodox climatology today.
We could probably find examples of very large natural CH4 emission and absorption events which have occurred historically and then analyze them identically to our analyses of CO2 in the “Pinatubo study” Bromley & Tamarkin 2022.
The key point is that the net amounts of these trace gases contributed by humans are statistically irrelevant and negligible with regard to the net flux of those gases into and out of the atmosphere and with regard to variations (i.e., derivatives with respect to time) in those net fluxes. Net flux is defined by Fick’s law. (Flux is not the same as flow or flow rate.) It follows and can be shown that the radiative emissions and warming due to human-contributed trace gases is statistically irrelevant and negligible. When trends over time have been examined by many scientists competent in statistics, then the statistical signal of the trend (also perturbations in the trend) due to the human-contributed gases cannot be distinguished from random noise signals among the variations in the much larger natural fluxes of the trace gases.
NSF, IPCC, etc disingenuously argue the case for human-caused global warming/climate change by artificially defining warming/climate change due to atmospheric water vapor, water and clouds as feedback rather than as a direct cause. At the same time, the trace gases CO2, CH4, N2O etc are considered direct causes of global warming/climate change and then by this creative hypothesis the warming created by these trace gases increases the warming effect of water vapor, etc. It is disingenuous because their unscientific method of ignoring the ‘elephant in the room’ and their political objective have always been to find examples (polar bears, ice melting, social justice, etc.) and attribute these as evidence of warming and climate change to humans without ever demonstrating a causal connection. And they know that. Rather than to objectively study all causes of warming and climate changes, theirs is a sin of omission. They do the same with the sun, absurdly demoting the sun to less than human-produced CO2 as a cause of warming and climate change. It is politics rather than science. They want grant dollars to flow.
We can expect NSF, IPCC, etc to ignore us and people like us as they always have because their arguments and publications are a source and often the major source of their funding and egos. If skeptics are mentioned at all (including people like Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, Dick Lindzen, Will Happer, Clintel, and many others far more well know than us, it is via ad hominem attack and appeal to authority and consensus and other logical fallacies. Global warming proponents believe and have said that they own the science, believe being the key concept. It is a cult.
Now, with that lengthy introduction, I will describe first how trivial CH4 is and why from an orthodox prospective. Just keep in mind that the same study we did with CO2 and Mauna Loa data around the period of the Pinatubo eruption, as well as the two CO2 experiments that I have suggested which we can prepare and present to judges, juries and scientists can also be done for CH4, N2O and the other trace gases. The scientific principles are the same for all of the trace gases. As Clint Eastwood popularized talking to criminals, “Go ahead, makemyday“.
CH₄ (hereinafter CH4 for simplicity in typing) emitted from Earth’s surface—primarily from wetlands (soil and plants), livestock (animals), rice paddies, and natural gas/oil operations, with smaller contributions from humans and oceans—oxidizes in the atmosphere to carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water vapor (H₂O). I would guess that less than 1 in 100,000 people realize that simple chemistry fact. This conversion from CH4 to CO2 occurs mainly via gas-phase reactions in the troposphere, driven by hydroxyl radicals (OH), which are abundant due to sunlight-driven photolysis of ozone and water vapor (detailed below). The process is gradual, with CH4’s atmospheric lifetime around 9–12 years, per IPCC AR6 (2021) and NASA data. Also another though smaller amount of the CH4 emission total is continuously converted to CO2 via a chlorine-catalyzed reaction immediately over seawater surface.
Dominant Reactions and Stoichiometry:
The primary but continuous reaction pathway from CH4 to CO2 is initiated by abstraction (pulling away) of a hydrogen atom by OH, followed by a chain of reactions producing CO₂. Here’s the simplified sequence (full mechanism involves intermediates like methylperoxy radicals, CH₃O₂, and formaldehyde, CH₂O, but the net stoichiometry is shown):
Initiation (rate-limiting step): CH₄ + OH → CH₃ + H₂O (This occurs ~80–90% of the time; the rest is minor attack by reaction with Cl atoms in marine boundary layers, 70% of Earth’s surface.)
Propagation and oxidation chain: CH₃ + O₂ → CH₃O₂ (methylperoxy radical) CH₃O₂ + NO → CH₃O + NO₂ CH₃O + O₂ → HO₂ + HCHO (formaldehyde) HCHO + OH → HCO + H₂O HCO + O₂ → HO₂ + CO CO + OH → CO₂ + H (which quickly forms H₂O via other steps)
Net stoichiometry: CH₄ + 2O₂ → CO₂ + 2H₂O (This balances: 1C, 4H, 4O on left; 1C, 4H, 4O on right. NOx radicals like NO catalyze the cycle without net consumption.) Other minor sinks include soil microbial uptake (10–30 Tg/yr) and stratospheric oxidation (5%), but tropospheric OH dominates, removing ~500–600 Tg CH₄/yr globally (per EDGAR v8.0 and NOAA data, 2023).
All of the above is standard atmospheric chemistry.
Despite massive CH4 emissions (~570 Tg/yr from sources like wetlands ~40%, agriculture ~40%, fossil fuels ~20%, per Global Carbon Project 2023), atmospheric CH₄ remains low at ~1.9 ppm (1,920 ppb as of 2024, per NOAA ESRL). This is due to efficient atmospheric oxidation by OH radicals as detailed above, which act as the “detergent” of the troposphere. OH concentration is ~10⁶–10⁷ molecules/cm³, sustained by UV photolysis: O₃ + hν → O(¹D) + O₂, then O(¹D) + H₂O → 2OH. [See footnote (1) below if needed for spectroscopy nomenclature e.g. O(¹D)] The extremely low and persistent concentration of CH4 is also due to Henry’s Law, but orthodox climatology sources are not likely to ever admit this point because it enables their arguments to be defeated.
According to orthodox climatology, CH4 emissions have risen ~150% since pre-industrial levels due to human activity, but the atmospheric OH sink (as explained above) scales with CH4 (negative feedback) and keeps steady-state CH4 levels low, or so goes their argument. Without this, CH4 would equilibrate at a much higher amount, per modeling in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (2022). Again, this orthodox explanation ignores Henry’s Law and the established facts that:
(a) the Earth’s surface has warmed since the end of the Ice Age (~10,000 years ago) and the end of the Little Ice Age (~1850), and
b) those warming trends cause increased net atmospheric concentrations (i.e. net emissions minus net absorptions) of all trace gases by reducing solubility of those trace gases in all liquids.
Estimate of Infrared Light Absorbed by Atmospheric CH₄ :
Earth’s upwelling infrared (IR) flux at the surface is ~390 W/m² (blackbody at 288 K, per Trenberth et al., 2014 diagram, updated in 2023). Atmospheric CH4 absorbs primarily in the 7.7 µm ν₄ band (strong) and weaker 3.3 µm and 6.5 µm bands, overlapping with H₂O and CO₂ but distinct enough for ~20–30% of its total “forcing” by their models.
Total absorption by CH4: 0.5–0.6 W/m² instantaneous (direct radiative forcing, per Myhre et al., 2013, and IPCC AR6). This is ~0.13–0.15% of surface upwelling IR.
Derivation: CH4’s absorption cross-section integrates to ~10–15% of the 7–8 µm window flux (30–40 W/m² escaping to space without absorbers), scaled by mixing ratio (~1.9 ppm) and vertical profile (concentrated in troposphere). Line-by-line models (HITRAN database) confirm this for clear-sky conditions.
Residence Time of Absorbed Energy in a CH₄ Molecule:
A CH4 molecule absorbs an IR photon in ~10⁻¹⁰ to 10⁻⁹ s (inverse of Einstein A coefficient for vibrational bands, ~10⁸–10⁹ s⁻¹). It then undergoes intramolecular vibrational relaxation (IVR), redistributing energy to other modes in ~10⁻¹² to 10⁻¹¹ s, followed by collisional deactivation with air molecules (dominantly N₂ and O₂) in ~1–10 ns (10⁻⁹ to 10⁻⁸ s) at 1 atm pressure. Re-emission as a photon is negligible (<1%) due to rapid collisions; instead, energy thermalizes, randomly heating the local air parcel. Net “hold time” before effective re-radiation (by the warmed atmosphere) is thus ~10⁻⁹ s per molecule, per quantum chemistry simulations in Journal of Chemical Physics (2020) and HITRAN documentation.
Longwave emission at 288 K effective temperature (Trenberth et al., 2009/2014).
Insolation received at surface
1,450–1,460 (absorbed solar)
3,720%
100%
Total downward solar minus reflection/albedo ~0.3; TOA insolation is ~1,360 W/m² (NASA CERES, 2023).
CH4’s IR absorption is tiny compared to Earth surface’s total IR emission or to solar IR input (at higher frequency), but its potency as a greenhouse gas stems from spectral overlap in IR windows with water vapor and CO2, as mentioned, “trapping” heat efficiently on a per molecule basis (GWP 28–34 over 100 years). Proponents claim total greenhouse “trapping” is ~150–160 W/m², with CH4 contributing ~0.5 W/m² directly, i.e., CH4 contributing only 0.33% of the proponent’s orthodox claim of total greenhouse trapping. Despite their own data, climate alarmists insist people of the Earth should fear CH4/methane/natural gas as part of an existential climate crisis.
How do orthodox proponents claim “trapping” works?
At sea-level pressure (~1 atm, 10¹⁹ molecules/cm³), the mean free path for collisions is only ~0.06 µm (60 nm), but each molecule is isolated in a ~10 nm “space” (cubic root of 1/density), surrounded by ~99.999% empty volume. This doesn’t prevent rapid energy sharing; it’s the collisions that matter.
I will break down the concept of “thermalization” physically, step by step, in the context of a CH4 molecule absorbing IR and then interacting with N₂ or O₂.
What Happens Physically During Absorption and Deactivation:
Absorption: A CH₄ molecule absorbs an IR photon (e.g., in the 7.7 µm ν₄ bending mode), exciting a vibrational state. This adds 0.16 eV (2,500 K equivalent temperature) of energy to that bond, but the molecule as a whole remains translationally cool—it’s now “hot” internally with internal vibrations.
Intramolecular Redistribution (IVR): Within ~10⁻¹² s (picoseconds), the excess vibrational energy spreads across all 3N-6=9 vibrational modes of CH₄ via quantum mechanical coupling (anharmonicities in the potential energy surface). No collisions needed yet; this is like internal sloshing of waves or vibrations inside a molecule. The molecule’s average vibrational temperature rises, but it’s still isolated momentarily by empty space from other molecules.
Collisional Deactivation (Thermalization): Here’s where the major air gases N₂ and O₂ come in. The excited CH₄ molecule collides with a nearby N₂ or O₂ molecule (collision rate 10⁹ s⁻¹ at 1 atm, or every ~1 ns). During the brief contact (10⁻¹³ s, governed by Lennard-Jones potential), energy transfers via:
Vibrational-to-Translational (V-T) Coupling: Part of the vibrational energy converts to kinetic energy (translation) of the CH₄ and/or N₂. This is inelastic scattering—molecules bounce with slightly different speeds.
Resonant Energy Transfer (V-V): If energies match (e.g., CH₄’s ν₃ mode ~3,000 cm⁻¹ overlaps with N₂’s, but less so here), vibrations swap between molecules.
I will not cover “imperfect” (off axis) collisions which are the most common. I am presenting the best orthodox case here.
Outcome: The “hot” vibrational energy in CH4 is diluted into translational kinetic energy across the colliding pair of CH4 and an air molecule like N2 or O2. Per the equipartition theorem, this kinetic energy represents random, isotropic motion (heat, as opposed to radiation) statistically distributed over all translational and rotational degrees of freedom in the local gas parcel.
What “Thermalizes” Means Precisely:
In physical terms, “thermalization” is the irreversible conversion of a photon’s directed, coherent energy (vibrational excitation in one molecule) into random thermal motion of the gas molecules—specifically, increased translational kinetic energy that equilibrates to the local temperature via the ideal gas law (½mv² = 3/2 kT). [See footnote 2 re version of Ideal Gas Law] It’s not re-emission or radiative emission of a photon, instead:
The air parcel (thousands of molecules in a 1 µm³ otherwise empty volume) warms by a tiny fraction (10⁻⁶ K per absorption event) by collisions.
This heat diffuses via subsequent collisions, maintaining the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution.
Quantum mechanically, it’s described by Fermi’s Golden Rule for transition rates, with cross-sections 10⁻¹⁶ cm² for V-T processes (from molecular dynamics simulations, e.g., in J. Chem. Phys. 2018). In the sparse atmosphere (99.99% empty space around air molecules), collisions are frequent enough to quench radiative emission from the gas molecule before radiative decay (ms timescale). This thermalization process (i.e., collisions rather than radiative emissions) is why greenhouse gases like CH4 warm the atmosphere ever so slightly rather than just reflecting IR. That is, according to their AGW proponents’ arguments, energy gets trapped as thermalized heat delaying escape of that heat to space. If collisions were rarer (e.g., upper atmosphere), more re-emission would occur, cooling the parcel.
The high school science student might ask here why air temperature in the desert typically drops rapidly after sunset compared to the air temperature on a tropical island? After all the CO2 and other trace gases are about the same concentration day and night in desert or on oceanic island. But water vapor, water droplets and cloud prevalence are usually very different above deserts and oceanic islands, thus cooling at night by radiation from Earth’s surface are very different in deserts compared to oceanic islands. Is the NSF smarter than a high school student?
It is important to understand the definition of “forcing” in orthodox climatology. Radiative forcing (usually just called “forcing”) refers to the change in the balance of incoming versus outgoing radiation in Earth’s atmosphere-radiation system caused by a specific factor, such as a “greenhouse” gas like CH4. It’s measured in watts per square meter (W/m²) and quantifies how much that factor perturbs the planet’s energy budget—typically by “trapping” additional outgoing infrared (IR) radiation that would otherwise escape to space. This is a computer modelled algorithm supporting another computer modelled algorithm to support the orthodox argument (originally expressed by former NASA GISS administrator James Hanson if I recall) that water vapor, water drops and clouds in atmosphere do not directly cause warming but are instead feedback which has been forced by increases in “greenhouse” gases like CO2. This contrivance enables AGW proponents to eliminate water vapor, water droplets, clouds from the list of greenhouse gases, though they are the largest contributor by more than ten times. The trace “greenhouse gases” such as CO2, CH4, N2O by this contrivance are rendered statistically significant, the dominant variables. The water components are ignored. Thus human contributions to net greenhouse gases become statistically significant in their hypothesis, when in fact they are scientifically, statistically insignificant and indistinguishable from noise.
Instantaneous Forcing: The direct absorption of upwelling IR by the gas (e.g., CH4’s bands at 7.7 µm, etc.), without accounting for rapid atmospheric adjustments like temperature changes.
Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF): A more comprehensive metric that includes quick feedbacks, like stratospheric cooling, but still isolates the gas’s net impact.
Positive vs. Negative: Positive forcing (like from CH₄) warms the planet by reducing outgoing longwave radiation; it’s the driver behind concepts like global warming potential (GWP).
In the orthodox statement above: “20–30% of its forcing” means that the distinct portions of CH₄’s absorption spectrum (i.e., not overlapped by H₂O or CO₂) account for about a fifth to a third of CH₄’s total radiative forcing contribution (0.5 W/m² globally). The rest comes from overlapped regions, where CH₄ adds incrementally to the absorption already dominated by other gases. This is derived from line-by-line radiative transfer models (e.g., HITRAN database) used in IPCC assessments, ensuring we don’t double-count spectral saturation.
In orthodox climate science, “net warming” is quantified via a contrived concept called effective radiative forcing (ERF), the perturbation to Earth’s top-of-atmosphere energy balance (in W/m²) that drives surface and atmospheric temperature changes. Positive ERF inevitably leads to net warming of the system (surface ~70–80%, atmosphere ~20–30%, per energy budget models like Trenberth et al., 2014). Climate is not measured or experienced at the top of the atmosphere!
Insolation: Natural variations (e.g., 11-year solar cycles) contribute negligible ERF (0.05 W/m² max since 1750). Baseline insolation (340 W/m² at TOA) enables the greenhouse effect but isn’t a “forcing” perturbation.
Water vapor: Not a forcing agent; it’s a feedback amplifying CO₂/CH₄ effects by ~50–100% (IPCC AR6). Included here as a natural amplifier.
CO₂ and CH₄ from all sources: Total atmospheric concentrations drive ERF, but natural emissions alone would maintain pre-industrial levels (no net change, ERF ≈ 0). The observed ERF is due to the full concentration, where human additions dominate the increase.
CO₂ and CH₄ from human sources: ERF from anthropogenic concentration increases (nearly 100% of current forcing for these gases).
ERF Breakdown (1750–2019, per IPCC AR6 Ch. 7)
Component
Best Estimate ERF (W/m²)
Notes
Insolation (natural solar variability)
+0.05
Small, cyclic; no long-term trend.
Water vapor (total, incl. stratospheric)
+0.00 (direct); +1.0–2.0 (feedback)
Natural baseline; human-induced via warming (not independent forcing).
CO₂ (total conc., all sources)
+2.16
Pre-industrial (natural): 280* ppm; current: 410 ppm; human added ~130 ppm (47% increase). *This is the orthodox pre-industrial value. Should be ppmv and should not be used to compare to modern Mauna Loa 410 ppm. Will cause large errors.
CH₄ (total conc., all sources)
+0.54
Pre-industrial: 0.73 ppm; current: 1.87 ppm; human ~60–70% of increase.
CO₂ + CH₄ human only
+2.34
Full anthropogenic ERF for these gases; ~86% of total GHG forcing.
The ratio of net warming is approximately 1.18:1 (or 118%). This reflects that:
Human CO₂/CH₄ account for ~85% of total GHG ERF.
Natural factors (insolation variability, water vapor feedback) contribute the remaining ~15% amplification.
If interpreting “all sources” as total system forcing (including feedbacks), the ratio rises to ~1.5:1, as water vapor doubles the direct GHG effect in equilibrium warming.
This above is the orthodox perturbation-based estimate; absolute natural fluxes (e.g., ~750 GtC/yr CO₂ cycle) balance without net warming, per carbon cycle analyses. Uncertainties: ±20% on individual ERFs, but ratio robust (high confidence, per IPCC AR6).
I hope you can see from this long explanation of the orthodoxy how proponents created an argument for their hypothesis by removing water vapor, water and clouds from the list of greenhouse gases (even though it is the dominant greenhouse gas). Thereby they have promoted the trace gases artificially into the position of the primary causes (in their minds, but falsely) of global warming/climate change. By removing water vapor, water drops, clouds they conveniently and hugely diminish the role of the sun’s insolation at the surface and the huge variability in insolation at the surface due to water vapor (humidity), clouds and rain.
Nevertheless, AGW proponents like NSF and UN IPCC fail empirical scientific experiments. Estimated trends of these trace gases which are produced by humans, (used extensively in their models, for example data from CDIAC/Oak Ridge Laboratories compiled of estimated CO2 emissions due to estimated fossil fuel use) are not correlated with the diligently measured trends of those same gases by NOAA GML labs such as Mauna Loa. This absence of correlation is shown in the works of Demetris Koutsoyiannis, Jamal Munshi, and others.
This is absolutely critical:
As we know, correlation does not prove that a causal relationship exists between two variables or trends. However, if a causal relationship is claimed to exist, as claimed by AGW proponents, then a positive correlation must exist between the two trends if the claim is true. This positive correlation does not exist in the observed empirical experimental data. Experiments override theory. As renowned physicist Feynman said (approximately), ‘if it does not agree with experiment, it is wrong.’ As far as I know, there are no exceptions to either examples of this logic. This is key to defeating the NSF arguments. The technical arguments above are for your understanding and probably will never be discussed. They would only be ignored by the NSF. It is this logic based on empirical evidence and the experiments they cannot ignore!
For avoidance of doubt about the general applicability of Henry’s Law to all trace unreacted gases, here is the page on the website of the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the U.S. Department of Commerce (NIST) which details Henry’s Law applied to N2O (nitrous oxide) which is more rare in atmosphere than CH4 which is yet again more rare than CO2. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C10024972&Mask=10#Solubility
Henry’s Law, Fick’s Law, Ideal Gas law, etc. apply to all trace gases, not only CO2. Henry’s Law, Fick’s Law etc are not mysterious or unknown, they are used professionally by thousands of scientists in their daily routines, but these laws are generally ignored in orthodox climatology which is mostly computer modelling.
Footnotes:
Footnote: Explanation of Nomenclature in the Photolysis Reactions
Molecular spectroscopy nomenclature: specifically describing electronic states during photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. These reactions are key to producing hydroxyl radicals (OH), which oxidize CH₄ as discussed earlier. Breaking it down step by step, focusing on O(¹D) and the context.
A. The Reaction Sequence
First step: O₃ + hν → O(¹D) + O₂ This is the photolysis (UV light-driven dissociation) of ozone (O₃). Here, hν represents a photon of ultraviolet (UV) light with energy hν (Planck’s constant × frequency, typically ~300–310 nm wavelength for this branch).
Second step: O(¹D) + H₂O → 2OH The excited oxygen atom reacts with water vapor to form two OH radicals. This is a fast, exothermic reaction (~200 kJ/mol release).
Together, they form the core of the “OH production cycle” in the troposphere, initiated by solar UV.2. Breaking Down O(¹D)
O: This denotes a single oxygen atom (neutral, not O₂ or O₃). Oxygen atoms are transient intermediates in atmospheric chemistry.
(¹D): This is the spectroscopic symbol for the atom’s electronic state. It specifies the atom’s energy configuration:
Superscript 1: Indicates singlet multiplicity (2S+1 = 1, so S=0). This means the atom’s total electron spin is zero—all electrons are paired (no unpaired spins). Singlets are often “forbidden” or higher-energy states compared to triplets.
Subscript D: Refers to the orbital angular momentum quantum number L=2 (D for the D subshell in atomic physics, like d-orbitals). Combined with spin, it describes the total angular momentum J via the Russell-Saunders coupling scheme: J = L + S, but for light atoms like oxygen, we often just use ²S+1L_J (here, it’s ground-state derived but excited).
In simpler terms: O(¹D) is the first electronically excited state of the oxygen atom, 1.97 eV (190 kJ/mol) above the ground state O(³P). It’s highly reactive because the excitation puts an electron in a higher orbital, making it prone to insertion reactions (like with H₂O to break bonds and form OH).3. Why This Notation Matters Physically
Ground vs. Excited States: Oxygen’s ground state is O(³P) (triplet, S=1, L=1), which is lower energy and less reactive—it mostly recombines or reacts slowly. O(¹D) is produced specifically by UV photolysis of O₃ in the Hartley band (200–310 nm), where the energy splits O₃ into O₂ (ground state, ³Σ_g^-) + O(¹D).
Quantum Selection Rules: The transition to O(¹D) is allowed because the photon’s spin doesn’t flip electrons oddly. Once formed, O(¹D) has a short lifetime (~10⁻⁷ s in air) before quenching (colliding with N₂/O₂ to relax to O(³P)) or reacting.
Notation Conventions:
For atoms: ²S+1L (e.g., O(³P), O(¹D), O(¹S) for higher states).
For molecules: Similar but with Greek letters for L (Σ, Π, Δ) and +/− for reflection symmetry (e.g., O₂(³Σ_g^-)).
This follows the Hund’s coupling cases in quantum chemistry, standardized in databases like NIST Atomic Spectra.
B. Broader Context
In the atmosphere, only 10–20% of O₃ photolysis yields O(¹D) (the rest produces O(³P)); the rest quenches quickly, but enough reacts with H₂O (1–2% of air) to sustain [OH] ~10⁶ molecules/cm³ daytime. Rate constants: k(O(¹D)+H₂O) ~2×10⁻¹⁰ cm³/s (JPL/NASA kinetics, 2023). If it were O(³P), the reaction with H₂O wouldn’t occur efficiently. This nomenclature ensures precise tracking of energy levels in models like MCM (Master Chemical Mechanism). For deeper dives, see Herzberg’s Atomic Spectra and Atomic Structure or HITRAN for transition data.
Footnote: Equivalent Forms of the Ideal Gas Law
The expression ½mv² = 3/2 kT is the kinetic theory derivation of the ideal gas law for translational motion in 3D—it equates the average kinetic energy per molecule (½mv², where m is molecular mass, v is root-mean-square speed) to 3/2 kT (3 degrees of freedom × ½kT each, with k = Boltzmann’s constant, T = temperature). This is microscopic and specific to monatomic gases, but it extends to polyatomics via equipartition.More Commonly Used Macroscopic Equivalents. The standard ideal gas law is the most familiar and ubiquitous form, used in engineering, meteorology, chemistry and thermodynamics. Here are its primary equivalents, all interconvertible:
PV = nRT (most common textbook/engineering form)
P: Pressure (e.g., Pa or atm)
V: Volume (e.g., m³ or L)
n: Moles of gas
R: Universal gas constant (8.314 J/mol·K)
T: Temperature (K) Usage: Predicts behavior for bulk gases, like air parcels in the atmosphere.
k: Boltzmann’s constant (1.381 × 10⁻²³ J/K) Usage: Bridges micro (your original equation) to macro; common in kinetic theory discussions.
P = ρ (kT / m) or P = ρ R_specific T (density-based, for fluids/gases)
ρ: Density (kg/m³)
R_specific: Specific gas constant (R / molar mass, e.g., 287 J/kg·K for dry air) Usage: Hydrostatics in atmospheres, e.g., pressure scale height H = R_specific T / g.
Quick Conversion ExampleFor 1 mole of ideal gas at 300 K and 1 atm:
From ½mv² = 3/2 kT → average KE = 3/2 RT = ~3.74 kJ/mol.
PV = nRT → V = (1 mol × 8.314 × 300) / 101325 Pa ≈ 0.0246 m³ (matches van der Waals corrections for real gases).
These are all equivalent under ideal assumptions (no interactions, point particles). For real atmospheric gases like N₂ and O₂, the kinetic form holds well at room T/P, but macroscopic PV=nRT is far more practical for calculations.
References in addition to those listed above in the text.
Grok AiX. September 19, 2025
Compilation of Henry’s law constants (version 5.0.0) for water as solvent By Rolf Sander, PhD. Air Chemistry Department, Max Planck Institute of Chemistry, P.O. Box 3060, 55020 Mainz, Germany. Published: 6 October 2023. http://www.henrys-law.org
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.