Since the 1980s, the Sahara has shrunk by roughly 8%. Satellite data show widespread greening, a pattern that is playing out across the planet. Around 50% of Earth's vegetated land has become significantly greener, an area roughly three times the size of the United States. The dominant driver is not rainfall or land use change, it is rising atmospheric CO2. Higher CO2 lets plants photosynthesize more efficiently, they lose less water, they tolerate heat and dryness better. The effect is strongest along desert margins - across the Sahel, the Middle East, Australia's interior and the southern edge of the Sahara. Rising CO2 is making the deserts, and the planet as a whole, greener.

UK Teen Arrested For Making Local Politician Look Like A Rabbit zerohedge.com/political/uk-t…

Correct. Using Starlink, a civilian commercial service, for offensive drone strikes to kill people has never been allowed, nor should it be. Starshield, a different system, is controlled by the US government. What they decide to do is up to them. Ukraine military violated Starlink terms of service and used it for offensive drone strikes to kill people. That loophole was closed last week. Starlink remains critical to the defense of Ukraine, as it is the only system that cannot be jammed or blown up, at least for now. Were Starlink to be turned off, the Ukrainian front line would collapse immediately. This is NOT a threat, it is simply a statement of fact. Starlink was also crucial to preventing Russia from overrunning Ukraine in the early days of the war, as all other means of communication were destroyed or jammed by Russia. SpaceX has done more to defend Ukraine than any private company on Earth BY FAR. That said, I have nothing but UTTER CONTEMPT for the virtue-signaling evil warmongers who push for endless slaughter and offer no realistic solution to the conflict. May you burn in hell. End of story.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established 38 years ago, ostensibly as a neutral agency to gather objective scientific information on climate. Instead, it became the focused, driving force behind the greatest environmental and social upheaval in modern history. From day one, the IPCC was a highly politicised body. Founded entirely by United Nations agencies - the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Programme - it gave the UN complete administrative control over the climate agenda. The sheer complexity of the machinery combined with the aura of technical secrecy is precisely what insulates it from scrutiny. The WMO bridges the gap between raw meteorological data, international political agendas and the media. By linking thousands of land stations, ocean buoys, aircraft and satellites, its role is to share critical weather and water data. However, this infrastructure was co-opted into a public relations framework. Consequently, the world has been bombarded with overhyped weather hysteria for almost 40 years. Mainstream news outlets routinely prioritise speculative, worst-case climate models over empirical observations, maintaining a permanent state of crisis designed to shape public compliance. Climate management bears no relation to the UN’s foundational charter of resolving international conflict; this is a textbook case of bureaucratic mission creep. Nor are UN agencies passive coordinators. Through the WMO, they ensured a crisis framework became the baseline for all weather reporting. Local weather outlets and national agencies now operate inside an ecosystem heavily influenced by overarching, high-alarm targets, broadcasting continuous warnings of global boiling, sea level rises, and a 'Code Red for Mankind' - with UN leadership acting as the chief amplifier. The IPCC did not recruit independent scientific staff; instead, its administrative apparatus became active in sponsoring and selecting studies that supported the carbon dioxide hypothesis. Research raising questions or doubts was minimised or discarded. Critics found their work starved of publishers, and in some cases, university tenures were threatened. This environment birthed foundational, highly charged studies designed to lock in future warming projections. Among the earliest was the 1999 'hockey stick' graph by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, which erased historical temperature variations to present a sharp, unprecedented upward spike in the twentieth century. For decades, the institution promoted worst-case scenarios. A prime example is the IPCC's 2011 report warning of a 5.5-degree temperature rise - a prediction so extreme that mainstream scientists have finally conceded it was implausible and quietly withdrawn it. Yet the pattern of reliance on flawed models over real-world observation had already been set. Armed with this manufactured crisis, the UN called for the rapid dismantling of hydrocarbon fuels - coal, oil and natural gas - which had lifted humanity out of stagnation and powered the Industrial Revolution. Almost every aspect of modern civilisation, from transport networks to manufacturing plants, relies entirely on these dense, inexpensive, and reliable energy sources. The proposed replacements - intermittent wind and solar - have proven fundamentally incapable of providing raw baseload power. Yet the push to phase out hydrocarbons has marched forward regardless, driving the planned decline of heavy industrial production, severe economic downturns, and widespread job losses across Western nations. By establishing the IPCC, the UN created a centralised machinery that successfully synthesised climate science into a global political weapon - sacrificing empirical reality on the altar of bureaucratic expansion.