bookmark_borderPSA: Killing Humor Isn’t Funny

by C. Moore
September 20, 2025

The Death of the First Amendment: Trump’s War on Free Speech

As an investigative journalist with decades of experience defending the First Amendment, I’ve endured more than my share of danger. My life has been threatened, my family targeted. I’ve been assaulted by both criminals and police, fined, arrested, jailed, and dragged through years of court battles. But never — not once — have I seen anything as alarming as what is happening today.

On September 18, 2025, Donald Trump declared that any television network critical of him would risk having its broadcast license revoked. This came just one day after ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! was suspended, following the earlier cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Trump’s message is clear: dissenting voices will not be tolerated.

Let’s be perfectly honest: this isn’t about “bias in the media.” This is about censorship. This is about silencing opposition. This is about killing comedy before it can mock power — and make no mistake, satire has always been the sharpest blade in democracy’s arsenal.

The Palin–Trump Paradox

When asked why he doesn’t care if Russia invades EU countries, Trump said the U.S. isn’t “geographically close” to Russia, and that Europeans should shoulder the burden for Ukraine’s defense.

“They’re our next-door neighbors — you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska,” Sarah Palin once said.

And I always thought Sarah wasn’t that swift. Turns out, compared to Trump, she’s Einstein — with a side of cottage cheese.

A Call to Arms — Through Laughter

In protest of this ongoing assault on free speech — and in solidarity with Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and the many journalists slaughtered around the globe this year — I am returning to my roots: satirical wit. Words are swords, and right now, satire is our shield.

Comedy has always been democracy’s secret weapon. That’s why tyrants fear it, that’s why dictators ban it, and that’s why Trump is trying to kill it. Humor exposes lies. Humor punctures egos. Humor topples emperors who think they wear clothes.

Long live comedy. Long live satire. It’s time for all of us to pick up the torch and rise. Sharpen your wit, wield your words, and refuse to be silenced.

PSA: “Killing humor isn’t funny. Kill humor, kill freedom. Not so funny now, is it?”

Trumpenomics: The Decline of America

bookmark_borderThe Death of the First Amendment: Trump’s War on Free Speech

As an investigative journalist with decades of experience defending the First Amendment, I’ve faced more than my share of danger. My life has been threatened, my family targeted, I’ve been assaulted by both criminals and police. I’ve been fined, arrested, jailed, and dragged through years of court battles. But I have never seen anything as alarming as what is happening today.

On September 18, 2025, Donald Trump declared that any television network critical of him would risk having its broadcast license revoked. These words came the day after ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! was suspended, following the earlier cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Trump’s message is unmistakable: dissenting voices will be silenced.

Since his return to power, Trump has wasted no time weaponizing the legal system against his perceived enemies — especially the press. Major networks like ABC, CBS, and even independent journalists are drowning under an endless barrage of lawsuits. These suits are not designed to win in court; they are designed to financially cripple media organizations, bury them in legal fees, and intimidate others into silence. A Justice Department that now resembles a political death squad is carrying out these vendettas. The question is no longer “will someone stop him?” but “is there anyone left who can?”

Access to the White House briefing room has also become a weapon. Critical outlets — including Reuters, once considered the gold standard of global journalism — have been barred from daily briefings, their press credentials revoked without explanation. Independent reporters are routinely denied access, while hand-picked pro-Trump media figures are given front-row seats and unlimited opportunities to lob softball questions. By choking off access to information, Trump has turned what was once the people’s press room into a propaganda stage.

And the assault extends beyond the newsroom. Across the country, state and federal authorities are escalating their crackdowns on peaceful protests. Ordinary Americans exercising their constitutional rights to assembly and free speech are being arrested and charged. Their “crime”? Opposing war, genocide, or environmental destruction. At the recent Hands Off! protests, chants weren’t just against military aggression — they demanded the release of political prisoners currently held inside the United States.

Disturbingly, several activists have been detained without due process. Others have been deported, in open violation of constitutional protections. This is not the America our founders envisioned.

It’s no longer a matter of speculation whether your First Amendment rights are under attack. They are. And as someone who has dedicated a career to protecting those rights, I can report — without hesitation — that the First Amendment has already been compromised. The only question now is whether Americans will recognize it in time to fight back.

The Growing Threat to Press Freedom: How Trump’s Influence Is Reaching Beyond U.S. Borders

The Battle for Free Speech: Jimmy Kimmel vs. MAGA Media Monopoly

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderSubjectivism 101: Why Charlie Kirk’s “Opinions” Aren’t Opinions

by Daniel Brouse
September 15, 2025

Subjectivism is the philosophical stance that reality, knowledge, or morality is dependent on the individual subject’s perception, consciousness, or experience, rather than on an objective, independent external reality. In essence, “truth” is seen as subjective and varies from person to person or culture to culture. There are different forms, such as metaphysical subjectivism, which holds that reality depends on consciousness, and ethical subjectivism, which claims that moral truth is determined by personal attitudes or societal feelings, not universal facts.

At first glance, subjectivism can sound appealing — after all, it seems tolerant to say “everyone has their own truth.” But the problem becomes clear when we confuse two very different categories: preferences and moral claims.

  • Preferences are opinions. Liking or disliking broccoli, rooting for the Eagles or the Cowboys, or preferring jazz to rap — these are matters of taste. They’re subjective, and no one can be “right” or “wrong” about them. If broccoli tastes bad to you, that’s an opinion, nothing more.
  • Moral claims, on the other hand, are not opinions. They are universal. Saying “prostitution is bad” or “racism is wrong” isn’t just a statement of taste — it’s a moral judgment about human beings, their dignity, and society. Morality, unlike food or music preferences, carries consequences for how we treat each other and how we structure laws and institutions.

This is where subjectivism collapses. If morality is just a matter of opinion, then slavery, genocide, or racism can all be excused as “just someone’s perspective.” That’s why subjectivism is often used as a freshman-level philosophy example to show its failings.

Enter Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, often hides behind this exact confusion. He makes inflammatory statements — such as claiming Black women “don’t have the brain processing power” — and when challenged, his defenders insist he’s merely “sharing an opinion.” But this is not an opinion about broccoli or football. It’s a racist moral claim, one that demeans millions of people and perpetuates discrimination.

Kirk has also attacked feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, and higher education using the same rhetorical sleight of hand — reducing serious moral and social issues to mere “opinions.” By doing so, he disarms criticism: after all, how can you argue with an opinion? But this is precisely the trap of subjectivism. It pretends that harmful ideologies are as harmless as a preference in music, when in fact they inflict real damage.

Why It Matters

Words are not always harmless. The old saying “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” is comforting, but false. Words shape values, justify policies, and can incite violence. Racist, sexist, or bigoted statements are not trivial expressions of taste — they are moral claims with social consequences.

That’s the fundamental distinction many miss:

  • Taste is subjective.
  • Morality is universal.

When people like Charlie Kirk blur that line, they smuggle destructive moral claims into public discourse under the cover of “opinion.” And when his defenders repeat that excuse, they’re not being tolerant — they’re enabling harm.

If morality were truly just opinion, then nothing would be right or wrong, and the most horrific injustices in history could be justified. That’s the dead end of subjectivism.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of America

bookmark_borderU.S. Threatens Tariffs and Sanctions to Undermine U.N. Marine Fuel Emissions Deal

The United States has reportedly warned countries to reject a United Nations–brokered agreement aimed at reducing marine fuel emissions—or face punitive tariffs, visa restrictions, and additional port levies, according to U.S. and European officials familiar with the matter.

The U.N. initiative, designed to curb the shipping industry’s significant contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions, has broad international support. Shipping accounts for nearly 3% of total global emissions, and the deal represents one of the most ambitious multilateral efforts to regulate marine fuels in history.

Instead of cooperating, the Trump administration has chosen confrontation. By pressuring countries with the threat of economic and diplomatic retaliation, the White House is engaging in strong-arm tactics that not only undermine global climate action but also erode U.S. credibility on the world stage.

“This is exactly the type of bully-and-extort approach that permanently damages U.S. exceptionalism, trust, and reliability,” said one European trade official. The move has been described by analysts as a short-sighted attempt to shield U.S. shipping and oil interests from environmental standards—at the cost of international partnerships and long-term global stability.

Critics warn that the Trump administration’s actions jeopardize not just climate progress, but also America’s role as a trusted global leader. By rejecting cooperative frameworks in favor of coercion, the U.S. risks further isolating itself while ceding moral, economic, and environmental leadership to other nations.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderRunaway Climate Feedbacks and Systemic Collapse

Daniel Brouse and Sidd Mukherjee
September 3, 2025


Our probabilistic, ensemble-based climate model — incorporating complex socio-economic and ecological feedback loops within a dynamic, nonlinear system — projects that global temperatures could rise by as much as 9°C (16.2°F) within this century. This far exceeds earlier estimates, which predicted a 4°C rise over the next thousand years, and signals a dramatic acceleration of warming.

Sidd responded: “9°C this century is a stretch. Consensus so far is closer to ~3°C.”

I ask: What do you make of the physics given the observable data?
We’re already at 1.5°C, which makes 3°C this century seem almost unavoidable. I used to think 9°C was a worst-case scenario — now I fear it’s shifting toward the “highly likely” range. In just the last couple of years, I’ve seen at least nine tipping points trigger feedback loops with my own eyes.

What strikes me most is not just that each loop accelerates warming, but that they are now amplifying each other. The interactions are compounding in ways that exceed current models.

So my question is: What do you think about the physics of reaching 9°C this century, given the observed interactions of feedback loops and tipping points, including:

  • Greenland and East Antarctic ice sheet tipping
  • Slowing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)
  • Mountain glacier loss
  • Amazon rainforest dieback
  • Arctic sea ice loss
  • Boreal forest degradation and wildfire
  • Permafrost thawing and burning
  • Warm-water coral bleaching
  • West Antarctic Ice Sheet instability

Sidd replied: “I think ~3°C is likely this century, and that estimate already includes tipping points. But of course, I could be wrong. The oceans have the last word — and they take centuries to drive a 9°C+ shift.”


The Arctic as a Harbinger

The Arctic is warming far faster than the global average — ~2–3°C already, about 3–4 times faster than the planet as a whole. Projections vary:

  • Low emissions (~1.5–2°C global): Arctic warms 3–5°C by 2100.
  • High emissions (~3–4°C global): Arctic warms 7–10°C by 2100, with even higher local spikes.
  • Worst-case runaway: With reinforcing tipping points (permafrost, albedo collapse, ocean disruption), Arctic warming could exceed 12°C this century.

Consequences include seasonal ice-free summers by mid-century, permafrost fires releasing CO₂ and methane, and destabilization of AMOC, accelerating sea-level rise and global weather extremes.


Global Runaway Feedbacks

If multiple tipping points reinforce each other, the climate may enter a self-perpetuating heating cycle beyond human control. The main candidates include:

  1. Ice-Albedo Collapse — Ice loss locks in warming.
  2. Permafrost Thaw + Boreal Fires — Gigatons of CO₂/CH₄ released.
  3. Amazon & Rainforest Dieback — Carbon sinks flip to carbon sources.
  4. Ocean Circulation Breakdown — Jet stream chaos, monsoon collapse, food shocks.
  5. Marine Ecosystem Collapse — Coral death and plankton loss undermine food security.
  6. Soil & Crop Failure Feedbacks — Drought, famine, and forced migration.

Temperature outcomes:

  • Linear physics: ~3–5°C by 2100.
  • With feedbacks: 6–9°C this century is plausible.
  • Runaway: A “Hothouse Earth” trajectory of 10°C+ over centuries–millennia.

Feedback-Driven Warming Beyond 1.5 °C

As global mean temperature exceeds 1.5 °C and multiple climate tipping points activate, the critical question is not simply how much warmer the planet becomes, but how quickly feedbacks amplify that warming.

Scientific consensus: Current models suggest that carbon-cycle feedbacks — permafrost thaw, weakening ocean and land sinks, methane release from wetlands, and fire-driven emissions — could add ~0.2–1.0 °C of warming by 2100 on top of direct human emissions. This range reflects assumptions that:

  • Warming is held close to ~2 °C by policy.
  • Tipping points unfold slowly and largely independently.
  • Ecosystems and oceans continue absorbing a significant share of emissions.

Under a high-emissions trajectory, with multiple tipping elements engaged, the upper end of this estimate (or beyond) becomes more plausible.

My concern: These consensus estimates are already lagging reality. Observations suggest that at least nine major tipping points are not only triggered but are now reinforcing each other. Instead of unfolding over centuries or millennia, the pace is measured in years or decades. Models have struggled to keep up with this rapid nonlinearity.


Cascading Feedbacks in Real Time

Regardless of the rise in global mean temperature, cascading feedbacks are already reshaping weather extremes.

In just ten days during July 2025, the U.S. experienced:

  • Hundreds of flash floods nationwide, with hundreds of fatalities and billions in damages.
  • At least five “1-in-1,000-year” rainfall events (Texas, New Mexico, North Carolina, Florida, Illinois).
  • Multiple “500-year floods” across Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and Iowa as extreme rainfall overwhelmed infrastructure.

These events illustrate how tipping feedbacks manifest in human terms — not only as gradual warming, but as sudden escalations in climate volatility and infrastructure failure.


Permafrost: From Slow Thaw to Year-Round Fire

The permafrost is one of the starkest examples of the gap between theory and reality:

  • Old assumption: Permafrost would thaw gradually over thousands of years, steadily releasing CO₂ and CH₄ into the atmosphere.
  • Observed reality: Large regions are no longer “permanently” frozen. Instead, they are catching fire and burning year-round, releasing greenhouse gases on much shorter timescales.

This raises new scientific uncertainties:

  • Fires combust organic matter directly, accelerating CO₂ emissions.
  • If methane is burned in situ during these fires, some fraction may be converted into CO₂ (a less potent but still powerful greenhouse gas) — effectively acting as a “natural flare.”
  • Yet, unburned methane still escapes, and the net balance between flaring vs. direct release remains poorly quantified.

What is clear is that the pace of release is orders of magnitude faster than assumed, and the feedbacks are already active, not hypothetical.


What 9°C Warming Would Mean for Humanity

  • Uninhabitable Tropics — Wet-bulb > 31–35°C renders regions physiologically uninhabitable.
  • Multi-Meter Sea-Level Rise — Coastal megacities drowned.
  • Food System Collapse — Crop yields crash across tropics and mid-latitudes.
  • Oceanic Collapse — Fisheries and reefs vanish.
  • Mass Extinction — 50–70% of species lost.
  • Mass Mortality & Migration — Billions displaced, political collapse, conflict.
  • Refugia Shrink — Only high-latitude/high-altitude zones remain marginally habitable.

At this level, modern civilization likely collapses, with human survival reduced to scattered refugia.


Why “Global Average” Misleads

The idea of a global average temperature obscures human experience. For example, while the average may rise 3°C, some regions (like the Arctic) could see 10°C+ increases. What matters more is regional extremes and wet-bulb thresholds — the real determinants of human survival.


Wet-Bulb Heat: The Real Threat

Wet-bulb temperatures >31°C are already being observed in parts of the U.S. Gulf Coast, Florida, and Mississippi River Valley, with lethal consequences. These levels were once thought “impossible” in the U.S., but climate change is shifting baselines.

This metric — not the global average — is the clearest signal of existential risk to human health and survival.


Conclusion: Humanity’s Chosen Fate

The question is not whether Earth will warm — it is how fast, how far, and how violently feedbacks will accelerate the process. A 9°C rise this century may or may not occur, but even “consensus” outcomes (~3°C) would be catastrophic.

The decisive factor is human action: whether we allow runaway feedbacks to trigger an irreversible “Hothouse Earth,” or whether we cut emissions, restore ecosystems, and adapt quickly enough to keep habitable zones intact.

We are not just modeling the future — we are choosing it.

* Our probabilistic, ensemble-based climate model — which incorporates complex socio-economic and ecological feedback loops within a dynamic, nonlinear system — projects that global temperatures are becoming unsustainable this century. This far exceeds earlier estimates of a 4°C rise over the next thousand years, highlighting a dramatic acceleration in global warming. We are now entering a phase of compound, cascading collapse, where climate, ecological, and societal systems destabilize through interlinked, self-reinforcing feedback loops.

We examine how human activities — such as deforestation, fossil fuel combustion, mass consumption, industrial agriculture, and land development — interact with ecological processes like thermal energy redistribution, carbon cycling, hydrological flow, biodiversity loss, and the spread of disease vectors. These interactions do not follow linear cause-and-effect patterns. Instead, they form complex, self-reinforcing feedback loops that can trigger rapid, system-wide transformations — often abruptly and without warning. Grasping these dynamics is crucial for accurately assessing global risks and developing effective strategies for long-term survival.

The Human Induced Climate Change Experiment

bookmark_borderFederal Appeals Court Strikes Down Key Trump Tariffs, Deepening Trade Uncertainty

by Daniel Brouse

On August 29, 2025, heading into the Labor Day holiday weekend, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. delivered a major ruling: most of President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs, along with a separate set imposed earlier this year, are illegal. The decision represents both a constitutional challenge to executive authority and a new source of turmoil for an already fragile global economy.

Scope of the Ruling

The court’s decision addressed two major elements of Trump’s trade war:

  • “Reciprocal” tariffs, unveiled in April 2025, which Trump claimed were necessary to “balance” trade by matching foreign tariff rates.
  • A separate set of tariffs imposed in February 2025 against China, Canada, and Mexico, which had immediately escalated tensions with America’s largest trading partners.

The ruling does not impact tariffs issued under other legal authority. For example, Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum imports remain intact. This distinction highlights a broader complexity: with a wide variety of tariffs in play, the ruling may not provide relief to many businesses or consumers in the short term. Instead, it complicates the already daunting task of determining which tariff rates apply in specific cases, leaving companies mired in uncertainty.

Constitutional Clash

At its core, the ruling strikes at the legality of Trump’s unilateral approach to trade policy. The court found that the president exceeded his executive authority by imposing tariffs without proper congressional authorization. This confirms long-standing warnings from constitutional scholars that Trump’s trade war strategy was on shaky legal ground.

Economic Fallout

Even though the ruling is limited in scope, the implications are sweeping:

  • Businesses now face greater uncertainty as tariff structures become harder to predict or plan around.
  • Consumers are unlikely to see quick relief, since other tariffs remain in place and global supply chains are still disrupted.
  • Markets may react with volatility, as investors recalibrate expectations for trade flows, corporate profits, and Federal Reserve independence.

Global and Political Consequences

For U.S. trading partners—particularly China, Canada, and Mexico—the ruling offers partial vindication but not full clarity. Global markets will be watching whether Trump doubles down with new measures or is forced to negotiate under congressional oversight. Domestically, the decision reignites debate over the balance of power between Congress and the presidency, especially in matters that directly affect the U.S. and global economies.

A Warning for the Future

The ruling is not the end of tariffs under Trump, but it underscores a deeper truth: trade wars are costly, legally fragile, and economically destabilizing. For businesses and workers, this decision changes little in the immediate term but raises profound questions about the sustainability of America’s current economic path.

Insanity Unleashed

President Trump wasted no time firing back after the ruling, issuing a late-night statement laced with all-caps fury. In part, he declared: “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country.”

He went even further, warning that: “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”

For now, the appeals court has allowed the contested tariffs to remain in effect until October 17, giving the Supreme Court time to decide whether to intervene. The unusual delay has left markets and trading partners in limbo.

The Attorney General of Oregon—one of the states that brought the lawsuit—was blunt in his reaction, calling the tariffs “bonkers” and arguing they have done measurable harm to both state economies and global trade.

The ultimate fate of Trump’s tariffs now rests with the Supreme Court, where the outcome remains highly uncertain. Economists warn that if the Court sides with the appeals panel, the administration could be forced to refund billions in ill-gotten tariff revenues. Many believe such a refund would provide overdue relief to businesses and consumers, but in the meantime the uncertainty continues to roil markets at home and abroad.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderSea Level Denial vs. Climate Reality: The Accelerating Collapse of Ice Sheets and Ocean Circulation

by Daniel Brouse
August 29, 2025

Here’s an example response you can use when confronting a climate denier—this one addresses the accelerating rise in sea levels and the collapse of the AMOC.

The climate denier said to me: “What an absolute load of BS. Sea level hasn’t changed to ANY verifiable degree in 2,000 years. Sit down, and STFU.”

I replied:
Wrong. Sea level rise has already accelerated far beyond your denialist talking point. For most of the past 2,000 years, sea levels were relatively stable. But since the industrial revolution, we’ve seen an exponential shift. Sea level rise was doubling at a rate of about every 100 years. A decade ago, that doubling time dropped to every 10 years. Now, it is doubling every two years. And that still doesn’t account for the compounding feedback loops currently destabilizing the system.

For example, the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is slowing ocean circulation, heating the tropics, warming the Arctic, and accelerating polar ice melt—all of which cause faster sea level rise. Melting Greenland and Antarctic ice also inject massive volumes of freshwater into the North Atlantic, further destabilizing the AMOC in a reinforcing loop.

The same disrupted system drives Amazon drought and dieback, reducing its ability to recycle rainfall and store carbon. That adds more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, which further accelerates warming, ice melt, and sea level rise. Meanwhile, the albedo effect from melting ice, brown carbon from megafires, and permafrost methane releases are amplifying the chaos.

To put numbers on it:

  • Greenland alone holds enough ice to raise sea levels by ~20 feet, much of which is already destabilizing.

  • West Antarctica could add another 10 feet within decades.

  • Sudden “cork release” pulses of 1–3 feet per year are possible once key ice sheet thresholds break.

  • The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, the true wildcard, holds ~170 feet of potential rise.

This isn’t speculation—it’s backed by observational data, paleoclimate records, and validated climate models. My own work, alongside colleagues, uses a probabilistic, ensemble-based climate model that integrates complex socio-economic and ecological feedback loops within a dynamic, nonlinear system. Our projections indicate global temperatures could rise up to 9°C this century—far exceeding earlier estimates. That level of warming virtually guarantees catastrophic sea level rise.

You can yell “BS” all you want, but physics doesn’t care about emojis and denial. The evidence is overwhelming, and if you’d like to attempt literacy, here’s a starting point:
👉 http://membrane.com/global_warming/Ignite-a-Domino-Effect.html

The Human Induced Climate Change Experiment

bookmark_borderTrump’s Tariffs Are Crushing U.S. Soy Farmers While Brazil Gains

by Daniel Brouse
August 20, 2025

Trump’s latest wave of tariffs is already sending shockwaves through the U.S. agricultural sector, with soybean farmers among the hardest hit. The American Soybean Association has warned that many growers may lose their farms this year, as the trade disruptions come at a critical moment in the harvesting season.

Soybean producers were still struggling to recover from Trump’s first trade war with China in 2019. Before that conflict, China accounted for 33% of U.S. soybean exports. That share collapsed after China retaliated with tariffs, and even by 2024, the market had only clawed back to 25% of pre-trade war levels. In other words, farmers were still operating below historical export norms when Trump reignited protectionist battles in 2025.

This year, the damage has been swift and severe. Typically, by this point in the season, about 10% of the U.S. soybean crop would already be under contract with China. Instead, there have been zero new contracts. Buyers in Beijing are turning to Brazil, which has rapidly expanded its agricultural capacity in recent years. Ironically, even though the U.S. has imposed a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods, Chinese buyers are more than willing to pay for Brazilian soy rather than navigate the uncertainty and higher costs of American exports.

The economic fallout extends far beyond the farm. With fewer contracts, rural communities are losing vital income, credit markets that finance farm operations are tightening, and American consumers face the risk of higher food prices. To make matters worse, grain operators in rural areas are refusing to accept soybeans from local farmers unless the crops are already under contract—pushing many small farmers to the brink of collapse. Meanwhile, Brazil is solidifying its position as the world’s dominant soybean exporter, seizing on U.S. trade instability to expand its global market share.

The president of the American Soybean Association summed it up starkly: these tariffs are “destroying U.S. soybean farmers.” Without swift policy changes, this year may mark not just another setback but a permanent loss of market share that America never regains.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderAmerica’s Quiet March Toward Socialism: Trump’s Golden Share and the State’s Expanding Grip on Industry

The United States—long celebrated as the global champion of free-market capitalism—is drifting toward state-controlled economics at a pace few could have predicted. Recent developments reveal a pattern of government intervention in critical industries that blurs the lines between capitalism, protectionism, and outright socialism.

Trump’s Golden Share in U.S. Steel

Perhaps the clearest example comes from Trump’s move to socialize U.S. Steel, in which the government has secured a “golden share.” This arrangement effectively hands Trump final say over key corporate decisions, giving the government direct control over a private enterprise that has been central to American industrial history. For a nation that once railed against state ownership in places like China, this marks a striking shift.

Taxing Tech Revenues: Nvidia and AMD

In a separate but equally significant move, Nvidia and AMD have reportedly agreed to hand over 15% of their revenue from sales of certain advanced chips to China directly to the U.S. government. While justified as a way to fund national security and counterbalance Beijing, this model effectively amounts to government revenue-sharing on private enterprise—a system more often associated with resource nationalism in petro-states than with American capitalism.

Defense Investments in Critical Minerals

The U.S. Department of Defense has also stepped into the investment space, announcing $400 million in funding for MP Materials, a key rare-earth mining and processing company. The rationale is clear: securing supply chains for critical minerals is essential for both the green energy transition and national defense. Yet this represents another case of direct taxpayer investment into private industry, expanding the government’s footprint in the market.

From Capitalism to Corporatism—and Beyond

Individually, each of these actions could be defended on strategic grounds: protecting national security, ensuring supply chain stability, or countering foreign rivals. But taken together, they signal a profound reordering of the relationship between the U.S. government and the private sector.

  • Golden shares are a hallmark of state capitalism in places like Russia and China.

  • Revenue-sharing agreements resemble socialist taxation structures designed to redistribute corporate profits.

  • Direct government investment in strategic industries pushes the U.S. closer to an industrial policy model that relies heavily on state intervention.

The end result is a creeping hybrid system—part capitalism, part state socialism—that threatens to undermine the very principles of free enterprise that the U.S. has long championed.

The Bigger Picture

Critics warn that once the government establishes itself as a direct stakeholder in industry, it rarely retreats. What begins as a national security measure often morphs into permanent control, stifling innovation and distorting markets. Meanwhile, other nations are watching closely: how can Washington preach free-market values abroad while practicing state control at home?

Conclusion

Whether labeled as protectionism, industrial policy, or socialism, these moves represent a turning point. America is no longer the free-market exemplar it once claimed to be. Instead, it is quietly embracing a model of government-steered capitalism—a path that risks undermining both economic freedom and global credibility.

Trumpenomics: The Decline of the US

bookmark_borderEvaporation: Death by Corn Sweat

by Daniel Brouse and Sidd Mukherjee
August 10, 2025

Introduction: Observing a Vanishing Pool

I’ve been researching evaporation for decades, but sometimes the most telling experiments happen in my own backyard. At the start of this pool season, rainfall far exceeded evaporation. Then, for the past two months, the balance flipped: with little rain and intense heat, the pool lost about 10 inches of water solely from evaporation. This small observation mirrors what’s happening globally — a shift toward higher net water loss as temperatures climb.

The 2003 Invention: Cooling Through Evaporation

In 2003, I invented Solar Powered Climate Control: Energy Transfer Through Evaporation. The idea was simple: collect rainwater and drip it over the roof on hot days. As the water evaporated, it absorbed heat from the structure, removing massive amounts of energy from the building.

When water evaporates, it transitions from liquid to vapor, a phase change that requires a huge energy input. In our experiments, Sidd calculated:

“For every cubic foot of water that evaporated, it took 61,000 BTU with it.”

The results were remarkable: my electric bill dropped by two-thirds. Back then, I saw evaporation as a potential climate solution. Now, I see how climate change itself is supercharging evaporation — and in ways that can harm as much as help.

The Physics of Evaporation

Evaporation is among the most powerful natural cooling mechanisms on Earth. The latent heat of evaporation, L, measures the energy required to transform water into vapor without changing its temperature:

  • L = 8,094 BTU per gallon

  • 1 BTU = 1,055 Joules

  • 1 calorie raises the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1°C

  • Levaporation = 536 calories/gram

This means that even small amounts of evaporating water move massive amounts of energy from the surface into the atmosphere — energy that doesn’t just disappear, but fuels storms and weather extremes.

Climate Change and Evaporation’s Double-Edged Sword

Evaporation cools surfaces locally, but globally it adds more water vapor to the atmosphere. According to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, for every 1°C increase in temperature, air can hold about 7% more water vapor. In regions of the U.S. that are experiencing +10°C seasonal anomalies, the atmosphere can now hold about 70% more water vapor than in the past.

This fuels several dangerous trends:

  • Stronger storms — The extra moisture is energy for hurricanes, atmospheric rivers, and severe thunderstorms.

  • More intense rainfall — Raindrops are becoming larger and faster, increasing their momentum (p = mv). Higher drop count per second boosts total impact force.

  • Flash flood severity — With more raindrops falling at higher velocities, momentum and destructive power increase significantly.

  • Erosion & soil degradation — Heavy rains strip away topsoil, reducing agricultural capacity.

Flow Dynamics: Scaling Forces with Climate Change

The drag equation shows that force increases with the square of velocity and is proportional to fluid density. This means:

  • Doubling wind speed quadruples its force.

  • Water is ~800× denser than air, so water flow at the same speed exerts ~800× the force of wind.

As climate change drives higher wind and water speeds, the destructive potential grows exponentially. A modest increase in velocity can translate into catastrophic increases in force — toppling trees, collapsing infrastructure, and scouring soil.

Evaporation, Drought, and the Feedback Loop

Warming oceans — particularly in the tropics — are releasing increasing amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere. Atmospheric rivers transport this moisture and energy inland, fueling more intense rainfall events.

On land, rising temperatures are accelerating evaporation from both plants and soil. By 2025, “corn sweat” had even entered weather forecasts. This term refers to the large amounts of water vapor released by corn plants through transpiration—the process by which plants draw water from their roots, move it up through the stalk, and release it into the air from tiny pores in their leaves.

A mature cornfield can release several thousand gallons of water per acre per day into the atmosphere during peak growing season. The effect is so pronounced that meteorologists now factor corn sweat into heat index forecasts for states like Iowa, Illinois, and Nebraska.

While this moisture can increase local humidity to dangerous levels for people, it’s also a sign of stress for the plants themselves. High heat and increased transpiration can sap soil moisture, reduce yields, and inflict economic losses across agricultural regions already strained by climate change.

But here’s the climate “whiplash” problem:

  • More extreme rainfall events lead to floods, soil loss, and infrastructure collapse.

  • More extreme droughts follow because warmer air strips moisture from the ground faster, especially when relative humidity remains low despite higher absolute humidity.

As soil moisture evaporates away, ecosystems degrade. Once soil structure collapses, desertification can set in — a feedback loop that is much harder to reverse than to prevent.

From My Pool to the Planet

Measuring the water loss in my swimming pool is straightforward. Measuring the net evaporation of the Earth’s soils, forests, and croplands is far more complex — but the trend is clear. Net evaporation is rising. Precipitation is becoming more extreme but also less reliable. Soil degradation is accelerating.

What began as an experiment in using evaporation to mitigate heat now reveals a stark reality: climate change is pushing evaporation into a new role as a driver of instability.

Soil Degradation and Desertification
The Rapid Acceleration of Soil Degradation and Desertification Part II
The Converging Collapse: AMOC, Jet Streams, and Deadly Wet-Bulb Temperatures
Climate Change and Deadly Humid Heat
Burning to Stay Cool: How Our Fight Against Heat Is Fueling Climate Collapse
Solar Powered Climate Control: Energy Transfer Through Evaporation
Understanding Urban Heat Islands: Causes, Data, and Climate Context
Ignite a Domino Effect: Albedo, Brown Carbon, AMOC, Permafrost, Amazon Rainforest Dieback, Sea Level Rise Pulses, Hydroclimate Whiplash, and Arctic Sea Ice

The Human Induced Climate Change Experiment