reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @Electroversenet

Electroversenet
Posted - April 20, 2026 at 8:00 PM
Saved - April 21, 2026 at 5:37 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Denmark is held up as proof a fossil grid can be replaced, yet electricity prices have more than doubled since 2000. Much so-called renewable energy is biomass—wood. Trees are cut, shipped as pellets, burned. CO2 is emitted, but not counted at the plant; it's assigned to the country of origin and deemed reabsorbed by regrowth. Cut, burn, emit, call it clean. Laughably, 64% of Denmark’s renewable energy comes from this.

@Electroversenet - Electroverse

Denmark is held up as proof a fossil grid can be replaced. But electricity prices have more than doubled since 2000. Moreover, the majority of what is labelled "renewable" is actually biomass. That is, wood. Trees are cut, often abroad, compressed into pellets, shipped in and then burnt for power. At the smokestack, more CO2 is released than just simply burning gas. But it is labelled as "green" because the emissions are not counted at the power plant - they are 1) assigned to the country where the trees were cut, and 2) assumed to be reabsorbed by future regrowth. So the system works like this: Cut trees. Burn them. Emit CO2. Call it clean. Laughably, 64% of Denmark's renewable energy comes from this process.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Denmark is cited as proof that a fossil-based electrical grid can be replaced, yet electricity prices have more than doubled since 2000 and now sit among the highest in the world. Moreover, the majority of what is labeled renewable in Denmark is actually biomass, specifically wood. Trees are cut, often abroad, compressed into pellets, shipped in, and then burned for power. At the smokestack, more CO2 is released than simply burning gas. But this biomass is labeled as green because the emissions are not counted at the power plant, and are not assigned to the country where the trees were cut, and are assumed to be reabsorbed by future regrowth. The resulting system works like this: cut trees, burn them, emit CO2, call it clean. Laughably, 64% of Denmark's renewable energy comes from this process.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Denmark is held up as proof a fossil grid can be replaced. But electricity prices have more than doubled since 2000 to now sit amongst the highest in the world. Moreover, the majority of what is labeled renewable is actually biomass, that is wood. Trees are cut, often abroad, compressed into pellets, shipped in, and then burnt for power. At the smokestack, more CO2 is released than just simply burning gas. But it is labeled as green because the emissions are not counted at the power plant assigned to the country where the trees were cut and assumed to be reabsorbed by future regrowth. So the system works like this: cut trees, burn them, emit CO2, call it clean. Laughably, 64% of Denmark's renewable energy comes from this process.
Electroversenet
Posted - February 26, 2026 at 4:00 PM
Saved - February 27, 2026 at 8:55 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
If emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear would already dominate. It’s the safest energy per unit of power, has the lowest life-cycle CO2 emissions—lower than coal, gas, and even wind and solar. It runs 93% of the time, while wind and solar are ~33% and 23%. A 1 GW plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes; wind/solar require far more land, materials, and backups. Climate alarmism aside, nuclear is the answer; the rest is theater.

@Electroversenet - Electroverse

If emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear would already dominate. First off, it is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. Secondly, it has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions. Lower than coal, gas and even wind and solar. Thirdly, nuclear runs 93% of the time. Wind and solar don't come anywhere near that, just 33% and 23% respectively. And on top of all that, a one-gigawatt nuclear plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes. Wind and solar require vastly more land, materials and backup batteries for the same power. If climate alarmism were serious, the answer would be nuclear. The rest is just theater.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript argues that if emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear energy would dominate the market today. It contends that nuclear is the safest energy source per unit of power produced, and it has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions, being lower than coal, gas, and even wind and solar. It also asserts that nuclear plants operate at a high capacity factor, running 93% of the time, and claims that wind and solar do not approach that level of reliability. Additionally, the speaker provides a comparative land-use claim: a one gigawatt nuclear plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes, whereas wind and solar require vastly more land, materials, and backup batteries for the same amount of power. Based on these points, the speaker argues that, if climate alarmism were serious, the answer would be nuclear, and that the rest is merely theater. Specific points highlighted include: - Nuclear is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. - Nuclear has the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions, lower than coal, gas, wind, and solar. - Nuclear runs 93% of the time, implying a higher reliability or capacity factor compared to wind and solar, which are described as not coming anywhere near that level. - Land-use efficiency is cited in favor of nuclear: a 1 GW plant on about one square mile powering 750,000 homes. - In contrast, wind and solar are said to require vastly more land, materials, and backup batteries for the same power output. - The overarching claim is that, for climate goals, nuclear should be the primary answer; the remainder is characterized as theater. In sum, the speaker presents nuclear energy as superior in safety, emissions, reliability, and land-use efficiency relative to wind and solar, positing nuclear as the logically preferred solution for emissions reduction and energy provision if climate discussions were sincere.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If emissions reduction were the real goal, nuclear would already dominate. First off, it is the safest energy source per unit of power produced. Secondly, it has the lowest life cycle c o two emissions, lower than coal, gas, and even wind and solar. Thirdly, nuclear runs 93% of the time. Wind and solar don't come anywhere near that, just 3323% respectively. And on top of all that, a one gigawatt nuclear plant fits on about one square mile and powers 750,000 homes. Wind and solar require vastly more land, materials, and backup batteries for the same power. If climate alarmism were serious, the answer would be nuclear. The rest is just theater.
Electroversenet
Posted - February 1, 2026 at 4:00 PM
Saved - February 2, 2026 at 11:19 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I read a paper arguing GMST is physically meaningless. The study says temperature is an intensive property, so averaging Mount Everest with the Sahara or seawater with Arctic air is invalid. It’s like averaging phone numbers—meaningless—and changing the averaging method alters the trend, showing no physical reality. ISO won’t define GMST; the UN/IPCC use a circular definition. Yet governments treat this number as the foundation of trillions in climate spending. It’s all statistical theater.

@Electroversenet - Electroverse

A new paper argues the global mean surface temperature (GMST) is physically meaningless. The study shows that GMST has no thermodynamic validity, with temperature an intensive property. You cannot average Mount Everest with the Sahara, for example; or seawater with Arctic air. It's like averaging phone numbers. It's meaningless. Also, any changes to the averaging method will completely change the trend, again showing the number has no physical reality. The International Standards Organisation refuses to define GMST. The UN and IPCC use a circular definition. Yet governments treat this number as the foundation of trillions in climate spending. "It all statistical theater." Today's $100 trillion climate boondoggle is anchored to a number that doesn't exist.

Video Transcript AI Summary
A new peer-reviewed paper by Jonathan Kohler argues that the global mean surface temperature (GMST) is physically meaningless and lacks thermodynamic validity. Kohler states that temperature is an intensive property, making it inappropriate to average quantities that are not commensurate—such as Mount Everest with the Sahara, or seawater with Arctic air—and likens the averaging process to averaging phone numbers. He contends that GMST is therefore meaningless, and that any change to the averaging method would completely change the trend, indicating that the number has no physical reality. The discussion notes that the International Standards Organization refuses to define GMST, and that the United Nations and the IPCC use a circular definition. Despite these ambiguities, governments treat GMST as the foundation of trillions in climate spending. Kohler characterizes this situation as “statistical theater.” The transcript also mentions that advanced AI systems, when presented with the mathematical arguments, label GMST as a delusion. Kohler claims that today’s climate boondoggle—worth trillions of dollars—remains anchored to a number that, according to his argument, does not exist. Key points highlighted include: - GMST is claimed to be without thermodynamic validity because temperature is an intensive property and cannot be meaningfully averaged across inherently dissimilar systems (e.g., mountains vs. deserts, seawater vs. air masses). - Any alteration in the averaging method would alter the observed trend, implying that GMST has no fixed physical reality. - ISSO refuses to define GMST; the UN and IPCC use a circular definition; governments rely on this number for large-scale climate funding and policy. - Kohler describes the situation as “statistical theater.” - AI systems reportedly identify GMST as a delusion when confronted with the underlying math. - The current scale of climate spending is described as a “climate boondoggle” anchored to a number that Kohler argues does not exist.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A new peer reviewed paper argues the global mean surface temperature, the GMST, is physically meaningless. Author Jonathan Kohler shows that GMST has no thermodynamic validity. Temperature is an intensive property, he explains. You cannot average Mount Everest with the Sahara, for example, or seawater with Arctic air. It's like averaging phone numbers. It's meaningless. Any changes to the averaging method will completely change the trend, again, showing the number has no physical reality. The International Standards Organization refuses to define GMST. The UN and IPCC use a circular definition, yet governments treat this number as the foundation of trillions in climate spending. Kohler calls it all statistical theater. While advanced AI systems, when shown the math, label GMST a delusion, today's a $100,000,000,000,000 climate boondoggle is anchored to a number that doesn't exist.
Electroversenet
Posted - January 31, 2026 at 9:00 PM
Saved - February 1, 2026 at 1:37 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Long-running climate stations are being retired or downgraded worldwide, even as officials insist monitoring is urgent. Trillions are available for subsidies, schemes, and slogans, yet not enough to maintain basic weather networks to measure the climate itself. The contrast tells you everything: trillions flow, not to stations or data or reliable quantification, but to lining bureaucratic pockets.

@Electroversenet - Electroverse

Long-running climate stations are being retired or downgraded across the world, even as officials insist "monitoring has never been more urgent". There are trillions of dollars available for climate subsidies, schemes and slogans, yet somehow there's not enough in the pot to maintain even the most basic weather networks to measure the climate itself. That contrast tells you everything. Trillions are flowing, though not to stations, not to data, not to reliably quantifying the problem, but instead to lining bureaucratic pockets.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Alaska's weather network is in decline. In 2013, 74 stations reported reliably; today that number has fallen to 43, reflecting a global trend where long-running climate stations are retired or downgraded even as officials insist monitoring is more urgent than ever. There are trillions of dollars available for climate subsidies, schemes, and slogans, yet not enough to maintain even the most basic weather networks to measure the climate itself. That contrast tells you everything: Trillions are flowing, though not to stations, not to data, not to reliably quantifying the problem, but instead to lining bureaucratic pockets.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alaska's weather network is in decline. Back in 2013, 74 stations reported reliably. Today, that number has fallen to just 43, and it mirrors the global trend. Long running climate stations are being retired or downgraded across the world even as officials insist monitoring has never been more urgent. There are trillions of dollars available for climate subsidies, schemes, and slogans, yet somehow there's not enough in the pot to maintain even the most basic weather networks to measure the climate itself. That contrast tells you everything. Trillions are flowing, though not to stations, not to data, not to reliably quantifying the problem, but instead to lining bureaucratic pockets.
Electroversenet
Posted - January 27, 2026 at 9:00 PM
Saved - January 29, 2026 at 4:26 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
As temperatures dropped below zero in Texas, renewables slid to 7% of electricity. Solar faded first under clouds and low sun; wind fell as cold intensified; outages rose. The grid held thanks to dispatchable power: coal ramped, nuclear steady, natural gas carried most of the load. Across the nation, fossil fuels plus nuclear supplied 82% of electricity, keeping heating on when it’s most needed.

@Electroversenet - Electroverse

As temperatures collapsed below zero across Texas this week, so too did the state's renewable power generation. Wind, solar and batteries supplied just 7% of electricity as the storm hit. Solar output dropped first, cut by heavy cloud cover and low winter sun angles. Wind generation followed as the cold intensified. Renewable outages surged. The grid held on for one reason: dispatchable power. Coal generation ramped. Nuclear output stayed steady, while natural gas carried the bulk of the load. Texas avoided a humanitarian crisis because firm generation replaced failing renewables. The nationwide picture is the same. On Sunday, January 25, fossil fuels (plus nuclear) supplied 82% of U.S. electricity. This is what keeps the heating on when Americans need it most. Not ideology.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 reports that as temperatures dropped below zero across Texas, renewable power generation also collapsed. Wind, solar, and batteries supplied just 7% of electricity as the storm hit. Solar output dropped first due to heavy cloud cover and low winter sun angles; wind generation followed as the cold intensified; renewable outages surged. The grid stayed intact because dispatchable power was available: coal generation ramped sharply; nuclear output stayed steady; natural gas carried the bulk of the load. Texas avoided a humanitarian crisis because firm generation replaced failing renewables. The nationwide picture is the same: on Sunday, January 25, fossil fuels plus nuclear supplied 82% of electricity. This is what keeps the heating on when Americans need it most, not ideology.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As temperatures collapsed below zero across Texas this week, so too did the state's renewable power generation. Wind, solar, and batteries supplied just 7% of electricity as the storm hit. Solar output dropped first, cut by heavy cloud cover and low winter sun angles. Wind generation followed as the cold intensified. Renewable outages surged. The grid held on for one reason, dispatchable power. Coal generation ramped sharply. Nuclear output stayed steady, while natural gas carried the bulk of the load. Texas avoided a humanitarian crisis because firm generation replaced failing renewables. The nationwide picture is the same. On Sunday, January 25, fossil fuels plus nuclear supplied 82% of electricity. This is what keeps the heating on when Americans need it most, not ideology.
Electroversenet
Posted - January 20, 2026 at 12:00 PM
Saved - January 21, 2026 at 3:49 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I read this peer‑reviewed paper, viewed nearly 2M times, and it claims to overturn modern climate foundations. I see it arguing human CO2 is only 4% of the carbon cycle, natural variability overwhelms models, and IPCC projections fall apart without adjustments. I conclude: models don’t match reality; natural drivers dominate.

@Electroversenet - Electroverse

This peer-reviewed paper has been viewed almost 2 million times. There's a reason for that. It blows a hole straight through the foundations of modern climate theory. The authors show that human CO2 is only 4% of the annual carbon cycle, that natural variability overwhelms the models, and that IPCC temperature projections fall apart when you remove their adjustments. The study's conclusion is simple: The models don't match reality. Natural drivers dominate.

Video Transcript AI Summary
A peer-reviewed paper, which has been viewed nearly 2,000,000 times since March, is highlighted as challenging foundational ideas in modern climate science. The authors claim that human CO2 accounts for only 4% of the annual carbon cycle, while natural variability overwhelms climate models. They assert that IPCC temperature projections deteriorate when you remove their adjustments, and they identify a fatal flaw in current methodologies. A central critique is that the IPCC relies on a single low-variability solar record, whereas dozens of other reconstructions that align more closely with observations are ignored. The study concludes that the models do not match reality and that natural drivers dominate.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This peer reviewed paper has been viewed almost 2,000,000 times since March. There's a reason for that. It blows a hole straight through the foundations of modern climate theory. The authors show that human c o two is only 4% of the annual carbon cycle, that natural variability overwhelms the models, and that IPCC temperature projections fall apart when you remove their adjustments. They also expose a fatal flaw. The IPCC uses a single low variability solar record while ignoring dozens of other reconstructions that track observations far better. The study's conclusion is simple. The models don't match reality. Natural drivers dominate.
Electroversenet
Posted - January 17, 2026 at 1:00 AM
Saved - January 18, 2026 at 10:25 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Twenty years ago, Gore warned of polar melt. Today Antarctic sea ice is greater than it was then. Satellite records show stability and even expansion. Antarctic wildlife tells the same story: penguin populations have expanded their range and numbers. Globally, extinction rates are lower today than a century ago, with most losses in the 19th and early 20th centuries from hunting and habitat destruction—not climate change. The ClimateCult got it entirely backwards.

@Electroversenet - Electroverse

Twenty years ago, Al Gore warned of imminent polar melt. Today however, Antarctic sea ice is greater than it was at the time Gore made that claim. Satellite records show long periods of stability and even overall expansion. Antarctic wildlife tells the same story. Penguins populations, for example, have expanded their range and increased in number. Globally too, extinction rates are lower today than a century ago, with most losses occurring in the 19th and early 20th centuries due to hunting, habitat destruction, and invasive species - not 'climate change'. The #ClimateCult got it entirely backwards.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Twenty years after Al Gore warned of imminent polar melt, the transcript argues that Antarctic sea ice extent is now greater than it was when that claim was made, with satellite records dating back to 1979 showing long periods of stability and even overall expansion. The same pattern is reported in Antarctic wildlife: Gentoo penguins have expanded their range and increased in number, and Adelie penguins also demonstrate long-term population growth. On a global scale, the text asserts that extinction rates are far lower today than a century ago, citing a recent biodiversity study that attributes most species losses to hunting, habitat destruction, and invasive species in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, rather than climate change. The narrative further points to temperature data that allegedly contradicts alarming climate claims: in December 2025, Antarctica was colder than average, and more recently, on January 15, 2026, Concordia Station recorded a low of minus 43.4°C, described as an exceptionally frigid midsummer value for the Antarctic Plateau. The speaker contends that the Doomsday Brigade was wrong in its predictions, asserting there is zero accountability for those forecasts. The overall message contrasts alarmist climate narratives with what the speaker characterizes as evidence of stability or even improvement in Antarctic ice, wildlife populations, and broader extinction trends, while noting unusually cold conditions in specific recent measurements.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Twenty years ago, Al Gore warned of imminent polar melt. Today, however, Antarctic sea ice extent is greater than it was when Gore made that claim, with satellite records since 1979 showing long periods of stability and even overall expansion. Antarctic wildlife tells the same story. Gentu penguins, for example, have expanded their range and increased in number. Adelie penguins also show long term population growth. Looking globally even, extinction rates are far lower today than a century ago, according to a recent biodiversity study, which found the majority of losses occurred in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries due to hunting, habitat destruction, and invasive species, not climate change. Even recent temperature data break the narrative. In December 2025, Antarctica ran colder than average. While more recently still, on 01/15/2026, Concordia Station recorded a low of minus 43.4 c, an exceptionally frigid midsummer value for the Antarctic Plateau. The Doomsday Brigade got things entirely backwards, but there remains zero accountability.
View Full Interactive Feed