#TravelTip Bringing pets into the U.S. has specific requirements. Also, not all animals that you may consider a pet qualifies as a pet in this country. It is important to note that the @CDCgov prohibits the importation of African rodents, bats, and nonhuman primates, as pets under any circumstances. More: go.dhs.gov/Zdd

"1789 Capital -- a venture capital firm that lists Donald Trump Jr. as one of six partners along with three founders -- claimed a major stake in Anduril in June 2025 from a $2.5 billion investment into the company." This is not true. You are lying. Please correct your lies.

I am a 58-year-old white woman who will be voting Republican up and down the ballot in Minnesota!! ♥️🇺🇸♥️

I'm a 58 year old American citizen living California who used to support democrats. I will be voting Republican up and down the ballot in California because democrats have lost their god damn minds!

THE ONE THING NEARLY EVERY CLIMATE SCIENTIST GETS WRONG There is a number at the center of climate science. Everyone fights about it. The IPCC says it is going up because of CO2. The skeptics say it is going up because of the sun, or clouds, or ocean cycles, or pressure. Nikolov and Zeller say pressure explains it entirely. They are all wrong. Not about the cause. About the number. The number has no physical meaning. Global Mean Surface Temperature. GMST. Global temperature anomaly. Whatever you call it. It is not a physical quantity. It is an arithmetic average of readings whose average has no physical meaning. The result is a number. The number does not measure anything in the physical world. This is not an opinion. It is a proven theorem. An absolute, eternal mathematical truth. The proof is at papers.jcohler.com/ptt. The Math That Nobody Reads Temperature is an intensive property. The sum of intensive properties across a system has no physical meaning. The arithmetic mean of intensive properties across a non-equilibrium system has no physical meaning. The operations run. The results mean nothing. Mass adds. Volume adds. Energy adds. These are extensive. You can sum them across a planet and get a meaningful total. Temperature does not. Pressure does not. Density does not. Take the arithmetic mean of the temperature in Riyadh and the temperature in Antarctica. You get a number. There is no body, no system, no region whose temperature that number represents. The averaging operation ran. The result has no physical meaning. This is first-year thermodynamics. It is not controversial. It is not debatable. It is not a "climate" question at all. It is pure math applied to a defined physical property. Yet every climate paper, every IPCC report, every skeptic rebuttal, every "warmest year on record" headline treats this number as if it were a temperature. They attach units of Kelvin or Celsius to it. They compute trends in it. They attribute causes to it. They build entire theories to explain its behavior. They are explaining a ghost. THE NIKOLOV-ZELLER GARBAGE Nikolov and Zeller are a useful case because they are wrong three times. Their mechanism is physical nonsense. Their fit is to a quantity with no physical meaning. Their planetary data is not data. Three independent kills. Their "Unified Theory of Climate" derives planetary surface temperature from atmospheric pressure and solar insolation. They fit it across Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan, Triton. They present the fit as proof that CO2 does nothing and that pressure explains everything. A fit proves nothing. A fit is coefficients chosen to minimize residuals against a chosen functional form across a chosen sample. It is a statistical operation. Causation is not among its outputs. Kill one: the mechanism is physical nonsense. Pressure does not create temperature. Compression work raises temperature during compression. Once compression stops, no further heating occurs. A static atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium is not being compressed. It is sitting there. Its weight on the surface is a force. Force is not heat. The lapse rate they lean on exists because convective motion carries parcels through pressure gradients, doing work on them as they descend and extracting work from them as they rise. That is dynamics. It is not a steady-state pressure-driven heating of the surface. Removing the solar input shuts the whole thing down. The atmosphere does not maintain surface temperature by its weight. Their equation gives pressure the role of a heat source. Thermodynamics does not. The first law is explicit about what adds energy to a system and what does not. Static pressure is not on the list. The mechanism they propose contradicts the energy accounting that any undergraduate physics student learns in the first semester. Kill two: the quantity they fit to has no physical meaning. The quantity on the left side of their equation is physically meaningless. The "mean surface temperature of Venus" is not a temperature. The "mean surface temperature of Mars" is not a temperature. Neither is Earth's. Each of these numbers is an arithmetic mean of readings taken across wildly non-equilibrium systems with enormous spatial gradients. None of them has a thermodynamic meaning. All of them are physically meaningless. Their equation predicts a physically meaningless quantity from real inputs. Regress a manufactured number against pressure and insolation across a small sample of bodies and you can find coefficients that work. You could do the same with any smoothly varying planetary summary statistic. Shoe size would give you coefficients too, if shoe size varied smoothly across the sample. Fitting is not evidence of mechanism. It never has been. This is not a critique of their arithmetic. The arithmetic ran. It is a critique of what they fit, and what a fit means. They built a theory on a quantity that is physically meaningless, and claimed a statistical operation as proof. Neither move is valid. Kill three: the planetary data is not data. Four of their five bodies have no meaningful surface temperature measurements. Venus: a handful of Soviet Venera landers between 1970 and 1982, each surviving minutes to two hours at a single low-latitude daytime point. No night-side surface data exists. Mars: a dozen landers and rovers, most within about 25 degrees of the equator, none in the southern mid-to-high latitudes. Titan: Huygens landed once in 2005. Triton: never landed. One Voyager flyby in 1989. The numbers Nikolov and Zeller use for the "mean surface temperature" of these bodies are model outputs. Radiative-transfer models, atmospheric circulation models, extrapolations from sparse point samples under modeling assumptions. The regression fits their equation to other people's model outputs and calls the result validation. It is not validation. It is one model agreeing with another model, nothing more. The IPCC does the same thing with CO2 as the regressor instead of pressure. Same errors. Different villain. WHY EVERYONE DOES THIS Most scientists have never faced the math. They were taught GMST as a given. They inherited it from their advisors, who inherited it from theirs. It is the water they swim in. Nobody asks whether the water is real. Ask any climate scientist, warmist or skeptic, to defend the physical meaning of GMST from first principles. Watch what happens. They will reach for "well, it correlates with" or "it is a useful proxy for" or "it is standard practice." None of these is a defense. Correlation is not physical meaning. Utility is not physical meaning. Convention is not physics. The honest answer is that they have never thought about it. The dishonest answer is that they have thought about it and chose to proceed anyway because their careers depend on the number being real. Both answers end at the same place. GMST is treated as a physical quantity by people who cannot demonstrate that it is one. Because it is not one. It is physically meaningless. WHAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE Temperature exists. It exists at a point, at an instant, in a system near local equilibrium. You can measure the temperature of a thermometer bulb. You can measure the temperature of a cubic meter of air if the gradients across it are small enough. You cannot measure the temperature of a planet because a planet is not a system in equilibrium. Energy exists. The energy content of the Earth system is a real extensive quantity. It can in principle be measured. It is not what GMST measures. GMST is an area-weighted arithmetic mean that blends near-surface air temperature over land and sea ice with sea-surface temperature over ice-free ocean. It is not energy. It is not proportional to energy. The relationship between GMST changes and actual energy changes is not even monotonic in general. Local climate exists. The climate of Boston is a real thing. The climate of the Sahara is a real thing. These are statistical descriptions of local physical systems that are coherent enough to describe. Adding them produces a number. The number has no physical meaning. There is no "global climate" that the number refers to. The honest science is local, physical, and heterogeneous. The dishonest science is global, statistical, and homogenized. The entire climate debate, warmist and skeptic alike, is conducted in the dishonest frame. THE ONLY WAY OUT Stop defending the number. Stop attacking the number. Stop explaining the number. The number has no physical meaning. Argue about energy if you want to argue about energy. Argue about local climates if you want to argue about local climates. Argue about CO2 physics at the molecular level if you want to argue about CO2 physics. All of these are real arguments about real quantities. GMST is not. Neither is global temperature anomaly. Neither is any other area-weighted arithmetic mean of intensive surface readings. These are physically meaningless numbers. Building a science on them is building a science on nothing. The IPCC built on nothing. Nikolov and Zeller built on nothing. Most scientists built on nothing. They are all defending different causes for the same physically meaningless effect. There is only one truth here. It is in the math. The math has been proven. It is not debatable. It is not controversial within thermodynamics. It is only controversial within climate science, and only because climate science has refused to read it. papers.jcohler.com/ptt Read it. Face it. Stop defending a meaningless number.

I am a 29 year old gay man who will be voting Republican up and down the ballot in Florida!