THE MOST BEAUTIFUL POST OFFICES ACROSS THE WORLD: ARCHITECTURAL DIGEST

The 11 Most Beautiful Post Offices Around the World

From Algeria to Arizona, at these unique buildings you can drop off packages in architectural wonders

An interior view of the Postal Palace  a turn of the century post office in Mexico City Mexico. Photographed on 27Jan2018
A post office in Mexico City.

 

WHY DOES JENSEN HUANG OF NVIDIA AND MARY BARRA OF GM DRESS ALIKE?

I have noticed the strange similarity of the outfits they both favor….or seem to ALWAYS wear.

Are they into leather, or are they just not wanting t take the time to pick out their clothes in the morning?

Leather is hot, makes a person sweat…they are in those bright lights on stage…do they smell funny at the end of the day…just curious, why pick the identical outfits?

With their astronomical salaries, can they get a more varied wardrobe?

Just asking…

 

 

 

ELON MUSK’S BORING COMPANY WANTS TO SAVE HOUSTON FROM FLOODING AGAIN

Elon Musk is trying to build $760M tunnels under Houston. A Texas congressman is quietly helping him

For years, experts in Houston have been studying the idea of building massive tunnels under the area to divert floodwaters and save lives and property. Now, Elon Musk wants a piece of the project.

Elon Musk wants his firm, The Boring Company, to build $760M worth of tunnels under Houston.
Elon Musk wants his firm, The Boring Company, to build $760M worth of tunnels under Houston. (Ken Ellis/Houston Chronicle)

The devastating flooding in Houston caused by Hurricane Harvey in 2017 killed dozens of people, inundated hundreds of thousands of homes and left the community desperate for a solution.

Since then, local flood experts have extensively studied the possibility of a multibillion-dollar tunnel system across Harris County, where Houston is located. Studies have focused on the construction of pipelines, 30 to 40 feet in diameter, that could ferry massive amounts of water out to the Gulf in the event of a storm.

Now, after years of research and discussion, Elon Musk wants a piece of the project.

An investigation by The Texas Newsroom and the Houston Chronicle has found that the billionaire, in partnership with Houston-area Rep. Wesley Hunt, has spent months aggressively pushing state and local officials to hire Musk’s Boring Co. to build two narrower, 12-foot tunnels around one major watershed. That could be a potentially cheaper, but, at least one expert said, less effective solution to the region’s historic flooding woes.

Hunt’s team has said the Boring project would cost $760 million and involve the company getting 15% of the cost up front from state and local coffers.

Within two months of this push, the Harris County Commissioners Court unanimously voted to study a pilot program that included a look at smaller tunnels, with specifications similar to what Boring had pitched. The commissioners court, made up of five elected members including a county judge, oversees the county’s budget.

Both Musk and Hunt stand to benefit should Boring be selected to build any part of the project. Hunt is reportedly considering a challenge to U.S. Sen. John Cornyn in next year’s Republican Senate primary. And landing a job like this would also be a significant win for Boring, which has not completed a major public project in Texas and faces criticisms for its ventures elsewhere.

The discussions about the Boring pitch have happened mostly out of the public eye. Hunt mentioned the project in passing at a town hall in Houston in February. Since then, he has refused to answer the newsrooms’ questions about when Musk sold him on the idea and why he became its pitchman.

Efforts to reach Musk and representatives with Boring were not returned.

Experts and some local officials question whether Musk and his company are the right pick for the job. The Boring Co. has focused on transportation tunnels, not flood mitigation.

“If you build a smaller tunnel, OK, it’ll be cheaper, but it can carry less water,” said Larry Dunbar, a veteran water resources engineer who has advised Houston-area governmental agencies on drainage issues. “So what have you saved? Have you reduced the flooding upstream by an inch? And are you going to spend multimillions of dollars to do that? Well, maybe that’s not worth it.”

In response to the newsrooms’ questions, state and local officials said no public money has been allocated to Boring. County officials added that they have not chosen a tunnel contractor and any process to do so would follow normal procurement rules.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, whose staff met with Hunt’s team during the legislative session to discuss the proposal, remains open to the idea. As president of the Texas Senate with close ties to President Donald Trump, he is a powerful ally.

“If Elon Musk and the Boring Company, or any other company, can build two massive tunnels under the Houston bayous in a few years to save the city from flooding, I am always going to be interested to listen,” Patrick, a Republican, told the newsrooms. “The truth is, Elon Musk is one of the only people in the world who could accomplish this.”

Then-candidate Wesley Hunt, now a Republican representative, speaks with volunteers before they campaign on his behalf in 2020.
Then-candidate Wesley Hunt, now a Republican representative, speaks with volunteers before they campaign on his behalf in 2020. (Mark Mulligan/Houston Chronicle | Houston Chronicle)

The pitch process begins

In 2022, the Harris County Flood Control District released findings from its yearslong tunnel study, which has so far cost nearly $3 million in local and federal funds.

The idea was to build eight tunnels, totalling around 130 miles in length, according to the report. The tunnels would be huge, wide enough for a container ship, and buried 40 to 140 feet underground, depending on the location. Austin and San Antonio have similar systems, although on a smaller scale.

The Buffalo Bayou segment of the Houston project — which Boring has proposed to build — is a centerpiece of the design and would run through the city’s core and some of its most developed neighborhoods. The county estimated it would cost $4.6 billion.

The total cost for the system was projected to be $30 billion, funded by a potential mix of federal, state and local dollars, and the timeline was 10 to 15 years to complete construction.

Given the scope and complexity of the project, the Army Corps of Engineers has been involved in discussions about the tunnels since the beginning. The corps also has jurisdiction over the two federal reservoirs in the area.

Eight years after Harvey, however, the tunnel project has not broken ground.

Hunt has accused the Army Corps of “dragging their feet a little bit” because its study of the tunnel system has been delayed. In December, Congress ordered the Corps to finish the analysis. Hunt hailed the decision, but to date the Army Corps has not completed the study.

Just two months later, however, his staffers and Musk’s team started shopping Boring’s proposal to politicians across the state.

Emails, text messages and policy memos the newsrooms obtained through public records requests show Hunt’s chief of staff, James Kyrkanides, repeatedly attempted to obtain public money on behalf of Boring. The documents, which have not been released previously to the public, also lay out how Hunt worked to secure Musk access to lawmakers and other officials ahead of the formal bidding process.

Kyrkanides declined to comment for this story.

In February, Boring pitched its proposal to elected officials in Harris County as an “innovative and cost-effective solution.”

“We are confident in our ability to execute this project successfully to bring peace of mind to residents of Harris County and the greater Houston area during future flood events,” Jim Fitzgerald, Boring’s global head of business development, wrote in a two-page memo about the proposal addressed to Kyrkanides and shared with local officials.

That same month, Hunt spoke at a town hall meeting about his involvement.

“I talked to him” — Musk — “about Hurricane Harvey and how we need tunnels,” Hunt said, according to Community Impact. “He told me, ‘I can do that at a fraction of the cost the Army Corps of Engineers would do it.’”

A few days later, the head of a local nonprofit wrote to a county commissioner saying she’d heard Hunt and Musk were shopping the proposal around and that the idea may have been discussed on board the president’s jet.

“I hear that Congressman Hunt talked to Elon Musk about his boring company while on a trip on Airforce 1,” Colleen Gilbert, executive director of the Greens Bayou Coalition, emailed.

It’s unclear if Trump was on board or took part in the discussions. The president’s spokespeople didn’t answer questions about the apparent meeting.

In April, Kyrkanides made a detailed pitch in an email to Patrick’s staff. He passed along Boring’s proposal and suggested that $60 million be set aside in the state budget “that will be matched with another $60 million” from the Harris County Flood Control District as a “down payment for the $760 million project Elon pitched Wesley.”

“I believe the Lt. Gov. spoke with Elon and the Boring Company this week,” Kyrkanides emailed in May, a month before the regular legislative session wrapped up. “Wesley also spoke with Elon, and everything seems on track!”

Kyrkanides followed up once more mid-month: “Anything you need from us?”

Pushing for smaller tunnels
As they pushed the idea to state lawmakers, Hunt’s team repeatedly lobbied Harris County officials, reaching out to at least two commissioners, the county’s legislative liaison and flood control experts.

Early on, Houston officials had concerns about what Boring proposed.

The two-page letter from Boring said its tunnels would be “no shallower than 15 feet to 30 feet below ground surface,” while the county’s previous research proposed a much deeper range for the Buffalo Bayou segment.

An engineering expert in County Commissioner Tom Ramsey’s office warned that Boring’s shallower plan could interfere with bridge foundations, utility lines and existing easements.

“It discusses that the tunnel would be much shallower then anticipated,” Eric Heppen, Ramsey’s director of engineering, wrote in an email to other staffers in his office on Feb. 17. “I would quickly confirm if it can be deeper or if that becomes a load challenge for the system.”

Boring said in its pitch that the tunnel depth is “flexible,” but the company did not respond to the newsrooms’ question about whether it can build to the standards outlined in the county’s study.

Volume was another concern. A single 40-foot-wide tunnel can move about 12,000 cubic feet of water every second, county studies show. Two 12-foot-wide tunnels, laid side by side, as Boring proposed, might struggle to keep pace in a flood emergency, according to Dunbar, the veteran water resources engineer.

“One would need eleven 12-foot diameter tunnels to provide the same flow capacity as one 40-foot diameter tunnel,” he told the newsrooms. “Providing only two 12-foot diameter tunnels does not provide the flow capacity that Harris County or the Corps of Engineers are seeking.”

This diagram compares the proposed 'Boring Co. Plan,' which would feature construction of two tunnels that are 12 feet wide and 30 feet deep, to tunnels the Harris County Flood District has studied that are 40 feet in diameter and 140 feet deep.
This diagram compares the proposed “Boring Co. Plan,” which would feature construction of two tunnels that are 12 feet wide and 30 feet deep, to tunnels the Harris County Flood District has studied that are 40 feet in diameter and 140 feet deep. (Ken Ellis, Houston Chronicle)

The county continued to engage with the company despite these concerns.

In March, Scott Elmer, who’s overseen the tunnel study for the past few years at the county’s flood control district, reached out to Boring executives to set up a meeting. In the following weeks, he and other flood control officials met with Boring engineers at least twice to discuss the specifics of Boring’s capabilities.

During one of the meetings, flood control officials pressed Boring representatives on whether the company could build tunnels that are at least 20 feet wide, according to an agenda shared with attendees via email.

The company was reportedly studying how to make tunnels as wide as 21 feet several years ago. But it’s unclear if Boring ever developed that capability or what it told county officials about its potential to make bigger tunnels. On its website, Boring notes it “maintains the same tunnel design for all projects to avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ for every tunnel.”

An April 10 commissioners court meeting in Houston was a turning point.

That appears to be the first time county officials brought up in public the fact that Hunt had been pitching them on a smaller-scale version of the flood plan they’d studied for years. They referred to this idea as a pilot program that would focus on just a few sections of a larger, countywide tunnel system.

Ramsey, the panel’s only Republican, specifically mentioned the pilot program tunnels could be narrower in diameter, as small as 12 feet, and shallower — specifications that would fit the kind of tunnel Boring has typically built.

Commissioner Lesley Briones, a Democrat, said a pilot project may help kick-start a huge, expensive project that the county has struggled to get off the ground.

No one mentioned Boring or Musk explicitly until Commissioner Rodney Ellis, a Democrat, said he’d gotten wind that the tech billionaire might be involved.

“I’ve heard all of the stories about Elon Musk having a tunneling company,” Ellis said. “I’ve got pretty good ears. I’ve got good Republican friends, too, now.”

He questioned the pitch, saying he was worried it would take the county off track.

However, Ellis and all of the commissioners unanimously voted to produce a white paper studying the idea of a scaled-down pilot project. They also voted to ask the state for flood mitigation funds. The vote didn’t require the county to commit to a specific project.

Later that month, records show the county’s legislative liaison reached out to staff for state Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican who chairs the Senate Committee on Finance, to indicate the county’s support for a $60 million budget rider for “underground flood risk reduction systems in Harris County.”

A two-page memo explaining the pilot project included with the request did not mention Musk or Boring and still referenced the larger 30- to 40-foot tunnels.

Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, points to a Texas- and Tesla-themed belt buckle as he answers a question about operating his business in Texas.
Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, points to a Texas- and Tesla-themed belt buckle as he answers a question about operating his business in Texas. (Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle | Houston Chronicle)

What’s in it for Musk’s allies

Hunt has been a leading voice on the need for flood mitigation during his short time in Congress.

Last year, he partnered with Democratic U.S. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher to order the Army Corps of Engineers to move forward with the underground tunnel study. The effort was applauded as a bipartisan victory.

But Fletcher, a Democrat, said she was not involved in Hunt’s work with Musk on the Boring proposal and has “not heard from anyone advocating for it.” She said she’s worked with Army Corps of Engineers and local communities “on a transparent, informed, community-driven effort to address water conveyance and flood control in our region.”

A West Point graduate and former Army captain, Hunt has shaped a political brand that appeals to both GOP insiders and MAGA-leaning voters. He was a regular at Trump campaign events in and outside Texas and secured a prime-time speaking slot at the 2024 Republican National Convention. He is the only Black Republican in the Texas congressional delegation.

But if Hunt enters the U.S. Senate race against Cornyn, he will likely need a high-profile political win to stand out, according to Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, as incumbent senators in Texas have won nearly every primary over the past few decades.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is also challenging Cornyn in the primary.

Given the volatile dynamic between Trump and Musk, aligning with the latter carries political risk but also the potential for major reward, Rottinghaus said.

“Hunt certainly is well-known enough as a member in his district, but the problem is that when you’re in Congress running for a statewide office, your base support can sometimes be very provincial,” Rottinghaus said. “To partner with Musk would provide for a kind of national profile that Hunt would need to be successful.”

Musk has tapped local politicians when pursuing similar big projects elsewhere.

In Tennessee, Republican leaders recently announced that Boring would build a transit tunnel for cars from downtown Nashville to the nearby airport. The city’s mayor and other Democratic leaders have raised questions about a lack of transparency, competitive bidding and environmental planning. At a public meeting in early August, a Boring official said the company would seek public input for the project but did not answer reporters’ questions about why they had not yet done so, according to the Nashville Banner.

In Las Vegas, where Boring built a transit tunnel system, the company was able to avoid many of the lengthy governmental reviews typical of these kinds of projects because it is privately operated and receives no federal funding, ProPublica previously reported.

In 2022, Bloomberg reported the company had pitched eight projects to Texas officials. Two were water drainage projects in Austin and Houston. Neither appears to have been built.

If Boring secures part of the Houston job, it would appear to be the company’s first public flood control project. The company lists only transportation-related projects on its website.

Texas law requires county governments to open large public projects to competitive bidding and give all potential contractors an equal shot under the same conditions.

While the law does not explicitly bar local officials from discussing projects with individual companies ahead of time, that kind of early outreach — though common in some places — hasn’t been expressly authorized by state courts or the attorney general, according to legal guidance from the Texas Municipal League, which provides legal guidance to local government officials.

Emily Woodell, the spokesperson for the Harris County Flood Control District, said the agency has not shared any sensitive information with Boring about the Houston project and only met with the company to understand its capabilities.

Ramsey, the county commissioner, told the newsrooms he believes there’s nothing wrong with officials entertaining private pitches before the formal bidding process begins.

“All companies that might have an interest in it, that might understand and offer us information, certainly we’d be open to listening,” Ramsey said.

What’s next

The future of the project, and Musk’s involvement, are still up in the air.

The state never granted Boring the $60 million it wanted for the project. Huffman, the senator overseeing the finance committee, confirmed the rider was never placed in the state budget and told the newsrooms she had nothing to do with the proposal.

“The only involvement my office had with this proposal was when Rep. Hunt’s chief of staff reached out to my scheduler to arrange a meeting between Rep. Hunt and me, but it never took place,” she said in a statement.

County officials also told the newsrooms that they haven’t provided any public money to Musk.

However, in June, the Harris County Flood Control District produced the pilot project report that commissioners voted for in the spring, looking at a scaled-back version of the original tunnel design. This white paper proposed focusing on only a few segments of the countywide tunnel system and considered tunnels as small as 10 feet in diameter as a real option — well within Boring’s ability to construct.

The white paper also floated the idea of a public-private partnership allowing a private firm to design, build and even run the system afterward, just as Boring has done elsewhere.

It does not appear that this report has been released to the public. The flood control district provided it to the newsrooms upon request.

Carlos Gomez, acting public affairs chief for the Army Corps of Engineers’ Galveston District, told the newsrooms he had not heard about the pilot project potentially involving The Boring Co. and could not say if his agency would be interested.

After the newsrooms presented them with the findings of this investigation, Briones and Ramsey emphasized they are not committed to one particular company and that all solutions would be subject to due diligence. Ellis told the newsrooms that Musk should not be involved, calling him “someone who has shown blatant disregard for democratic institutions and environmental protections.”

Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo and Commissioner Adrian Garcia, both Democrats, declined to comment.

Woodell, with the flood control district, said there have been no further discussions with Boring in months. She said the county has looked at smaller tunnels before but acknowledged that engineering analyses found large-diameter tunnels would be the most effective option for a countywide system. Woodell added the county might still consider smaller tunnels in “specific locations.”

“There will never be a single solution to flooding in Harris County,” she said.

If Harris County moves forward with a smaller-scale project like the one Hunt wants, which doesn’t rely on federal funding, the process to design and build it could still take up to a decade.

Jim Blackburn, co-director of Rice University’s Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disasters Center, said Musk’s slimmer tunnels might still prove useful. But he warned against handing a project of this magnitude to a private company without proper vetting.

“The scale of the problem we have really demands, I think, all of us to be open-minded about ideas,” Blackburn told the newsrooms. “Invite them in. Just don’t give them the contract tomorrow.”

 

COW MANURE KILLS REGULARLY ON DAIRY FARMS

Deadly Dairy Disaster: Six Workers Lose Lives to Toxic Gas from Cow Manure in Colorado Farm Incident

Deadly Dairy Disaster: Six Workers Lose Lives to Toxic Gas from Cow Manure in Colorado Farm Incident

Six Workers die in Colorado Dairy Farm Manure Gas Tragedy

Six people, including a teenager, died after being exposed to toxic gas at a dairy farm in Weld County, Colorado last week. The incident, which occurred at Prospect Dairy, involved a contractor who inadvertently released hydrogen sulfide while working in an underground manure pit. Five rescuers subsequently succumbed to the gas in attempts to save him.

According to industry sources, the gas, a byproduct of decomposing animal waste, triggered the fatal chain of events. Exposure to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can cause immediate loss of consciousness and death.

This tragedy underscores the extreme dangers present in modern agricultural work, particularly within the dairy industry. Dairy farms,frequently enough perceived as idyllic,are in reality sites of significant hazards,combining heavy machinery,large animals,and the constant threat of toxic manure gases.

the incident is under examination by authorities, raising serious questions about safety protocols and worker protection on large-scale farms. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the risks faced by agricultural workers and the critical need for enhanced safety measures.

What specific engineering controls, beyond ventilation, could be implemented in manure handling facilities to minimize worker exposure to hydrogen sulfide?

The Colorado Tragedy: A Deep Dive into Manure Gas Poisoning

On August 27, 2025, a devastating incident at a dairy farm in Colorado resulted in the tragic loss of six lives.Workers were overcome by toxic gases released from accumulated cow manure, highlighting the frequently enough-overlooked dangers present in agricultural settings. This event underscores the critical need for robust safety protocols and awareness regarding manure gas safety, hydrogen sulfide poisoning, and farm worker safety.

Understanding the Silent Killer: Manure Gases

Cow manure isn’t just waste; it’s a complex biological reactor. as it decomposes, it releases a variety of gases, some of which are incredibly dangerous, even lethal.The primary culprits include:

Hydrogen Sulfide (H₂S): This is the most critically important threat. It’s a colorless gas with a characteristic “rotten egg” smell, but it quickly paralyzes the olfactory nerve, meaning you can lose your sense of smell after brief exposure, creating a false sense of security. Even low concentrations can cause irritation, while higher levels can lead to rapid unconsciousness and death. Hydrogen sulfide exposure is a serious concern.

Methane (CH₄): A flammable gas, posing a fire and explosion risk. While not directly toxic at typical concentrations, it displaces oxygen, contributing to asphyxiation.

Ammonia (NH₃): Highly irritating to the respiratory system, causing burns and perhaps leading to pulmonary edema.

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂): Another asphyxiant,displacing oxygen and causing breathing difficulties.

The concentration of these gases fluctuates based on factors like:

Manure age and composition: fresh manure produces different gases than aged manure.

Temperature: Warmer temperatures accelerate decomposition and gas production.

Agitation: Mixing or stirring manure (e.g., during cleaning) dramatically increases gas release.

ventilation: Poorly ventilated spaces allow gases to accumulate.

The Colorado Incident: What Happened?

Details are still emerging, but preliminary reports indicate the incident occurred during routine manure handling operations. Investigators believe agitation of the manure in a confined space – likely a manure pit or lagoon – released a sudden surge of toxic gases, overwhelming the workers before they could react. the lack of adequate ventilation and potentially insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) are being investigated as contributing factors. Dairy farm accidents are sadly not uncommon, but fatalities of this scale are rare.

Preventing Manure Gas Poisoning: Safety Measures

Protecting farm workers from manure gas exposure requires a multi-faceted approach.Here’s a breakdown of essential safety measures:

  1. Ventilation is Key: Ensure adequate ventilation in all areas where manure is stored or handled. This includes natural ventilation and, when necessary, forced-air ventilation systems.
  2. Gas Monitoring: Implement a regular gas monitoring program using calibrated H₂S detectors. These devices provide real-time readings of gas concentrations, alerting workers to potential hazards. Portable detectors should be carried by workers entering confined spaces.
  3. Confined Space Entry Procedures: Strict confined space entry procedures must be followed. This includes:

Permit-required confined space entry.

Atmospheric testing before entry.

Continuous ventilation during occupancy.

A designated attendant outside the space.

Rescue plan and equipment readily available.

  1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Provide and require the use of appropriate PPE, including:

respirators: Specifically, supplied-air respirators (SARs) or self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBAs) are crucial in high-risk situations. Cartridge respirators are not sufficient for high H₂S concentrations.

Protective Clothing: To prevent skin contact with irritating gases.

Eye Protection: Goggles or face shields.

  1. Training: Comprehensive training for all farm workers on:

The hazards of manure gases.

Proper use of gas monitoring equipment.

Confined space entry procedures.

PPE selection, use, and maintenance.

Emergency response procedures.

  1. Buddy System: Never work alone when handling manure. Implement a buddy system to ensure someone is always available to assist in case of an emergency.

Real-World Examples & Past Incidents

Sadly, the Colorado tragedy isn’t isolated. Several similar incidents have occurred in the past:

2018, Wisconsin: A farm worker died after entering a manure storage tank to retrieve equipment.

2015, Iowa: Two workers were hospitalized after being overcome by fumes while cleaning a manure pit.

2011, minnesota: A farmer died from hydrogen sulfide exposure while working in a manure lagoon.

These cases highlight the consistent danger and the need for proactive safety measures. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) offers extensive resources on agricultural safety and manure management.

The Role of Technology in Enhancing Safety

Advancements in technology are offering new ways to mitigate the risks associated with manure gases:

* Wireless Gas Monitoring Systems: Real-time data transmission to

WARREN BUFFETT AND GREG ABEL HIS MINI ME, SCREW UP AGAIN A GREAT RAIL ACQUISITION

CSX Stock Drops Because Buffett Isn’t Interested in Rail Merger. It Has Wider Consequences.

CSX  stock fell 5.1% on Monday after a report that Warren Buffett’s railroad BNSF wasn’t interested in a merger. (Dreamstime)

Warren Buffett’s railroad, BNSF, might not be interested in creating a transcontinental railroad to compete with Union Pacific investors are disappointed.

ESPECIALLY THE INVESTORS IN BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC., WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR ADD-ON ACQUISITIONS USING THAT CASH HOARD TO BE DEPLOYED.

Warren Buffett,the 94-year old, known as the world’s  biggest cheapskate apparently thought the price to acquire CSX may be too much…! His mini-me Greg Abel tagged along and apparently also agreed.

There is a saying…”stupid is …..”…that’s those two now…NO DIVIDENDS FORE 60 YEARS AND NOW BLOCKING A GREAT ADD-ON TO THEIR BNSF RAILROAD..

Shares of CSX dropped about $2 late Monday, leaving them down 5.1% at $32.81 on the day. Shares were down another 1.3% at $32.36 in early trading on Tuesday, while the S&P 500

The Monday move came after CNBC reported the conglomerate’s CEO, Buffett, and his heir apparent, Greg Abel, met with CSX CEO Joe Hinrichs on Aug. 3. “While they were open to partnership and greater cooperation between BNSF and CSX, they were not interested in making an offer for the company,” wrote Bernstein analyst David Vernon in a Monday report.

“The first question the news raises is whether we can live in a world with one transcontinental railroad, if even for a little while,” added Vernon. Railroad regulators might not want “imbalanced competition,” and the market would prefer two transactions instead of just the Union Pacific-Norfolk tie-up.

“The second question this raises is why Berkshire is not interested in a deal. If the merger benefits are so great, why not pursue a deal?” added Vernon. He suspects Berkshire might balk at paying a big premium to CSX shareholders for synergies that aren’t sure to materialize.

Still, the lack of a buyer for CSX could throw a wrench into the potential for large railroad mergers—something that hasn’t happened in a generation. If regulators don’t see adequate competition, they might not allow the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal to proceed.

Canadian rail deals could be a solution if either Canadian Pacific Kansas City or Canadian National Railway were interested. A Canadian-U.S. deal would face heightened regulatory scrutiny north of the border, said Gordon Haskett analyst Don Bilson.

The simplest solution for the industry would be two highly competitive transcontinental railroads. That would require BNSF to act, however.

“With Buffett now on the record, CSX investors can now safely assume that nothing is going to happen between CSX and BNSF anytime soon, if at all,” Bilson said in a Tuesday report. “We would note that Buffett will be retiring in December, though we doubt Greg Abel is a threat to call an audible until he has seen what comes of the partnership that was just announced.”

BNSF and CSX recently announced an agreement to collaborate on intermodal service, the use of both trains and trucks to take goods to their final destinations.

“With a BNSF bid for CSX now (seemingly) squashed, the base case now shifts to deeper CSX-BNSF commercial alignment,” wrote Raymond James analyst Patrick Tyler Brown on Tuesday. “The wildcard remaining [is] whether BNSF (and/or CSX) formally opposes a Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal, which would further dampen deal odds.”

Failing to find a merger partner and regulators letting Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern merge could result in CSX being less competitive, said Ancora portfolio manager Jim Chadwick. Ancora has a stake in CSX and believes the company should pursue a combination aggressively.

That, however, requires some willingness from another party.

At Monday’s close, CSX stock was just below its level in mid July, before news broke

that Union Pacific was looking to find a merger partner.

 

DEMOCRATS AGAIN WANT TO BAN YOUR GAS APPLIANCES!

Bans on gas stoves come back as Democratic cities and states continue war on gas appliances

 

The Biden administration tried and failed to enact a federal ban on gas stoves, and then denied the plans, convincing media “fact-checkers” to call it a “right-wing conspiracy.” A federal court shot down Berkeley’s ban on natural gas hookups, but undaunted, the movement to ban gas stoves lives on with “creative” laws that may avoid the legal pitfalls that killed Berkeley’s law.

A new law went into effect in Colorado earlier this month requiring health warning labels on gas stoves, similar to those placed on cigarette packages. It’s one example of multiple efforts, primarily in blue states, to stop consumers from using gas-powered appliances in their homes.

After a Biden administration official in 2023 alluded to the possibility of a ban on gas stoves in the name of public health, legacy media outlets produced a number of “fact checks” insisting the Biden administration wasn’t going to ban gas stoves. They claimed the whole idea was just a “right-wing conspiracy.”

Conveniently, most of the “fact checks” ignored the many local and state efforts in Democratic strongholds to accomplish the same goal. Time Magazine published a January 2023 “fact check” calling Republican opposition to such bans on a state-level a “right-wing culture war,” comparable to “family values and religion.”

According to Time, “Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis pushed back against the notion that Republicans are the ones engaging in culture war over gas stoves.” During a speech, the Republican told supporters that Democrats and the media are trying to stoke the issue. “They want to do it, I mean, let’s be honest,” DeSantis said of the calls to ban gas-fueled stoves. “You start to see the narrative kick into gear, CNN segments saying how it’s causing asthma in kids. They start propagating the narrative.”

“The whole campaign is just an attempt to ban fossil fuels at the end of the day. So it’s just kind of one plank in a larger strategy,” Energy analyst David Blackmon, author of the “Energy Transition Absuridities” Substack, told Just the News.

State senator: “Only fair to warn people”

Colorado State Sen. Cathy Kipp, a Democrat who co-sponsored the legislation, told Canary Media — an activist publication that receives funding from anti-fossil fuel groups — that “it’s only fair to warn people” that gas stoves might have health impacts.

“Like other gas-burning appliances and gasoline-burning cars, gas ranges spew noxious compounds such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides,” Canary Media reported.

Under the law, a warning label must be affixed to gas stoves, warning consumers that they need to “understand the air-quality implications of having an indoor gas stove.” Using a link or QR code, the labels direct consumers to a state website that tries to convince buyers the appliance will possibly kill them or cause illnesses.

The information on the website relies primarily on federal government websites, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, concerning potential health impacts from poor indoor air quality. However, there is no scientific consensus supporting such claims.

Anti-gas activists have regularly touted studies that found potential health risks from using stoves powered by fossil fuels, only to ignore flaws in those studies or the other studies that found no such link. In 2020, UCLA researchers produced a report claiming that gas stoves pose risks of respiratory illness, cardiovascular diseases, and premature death, especially among children, the elderly and low-income renters.

However, a study in 2023 by the California Restaurant Association, which lobbied against bans on natural gas hookups, found several issues with the UCLA report that led to flawed comparisons. “Had the UCLA Report made the correct comparisons, it would have concluded that there are no adverse health impacts from indoor use of natural gas appliances,” the study stated.

The UCLA study was funded by the Sierra Club, which has received $1 billion through Bloomberg Philanthropies. That money came from billionaire Bloomberg as part of a campaign called “Beyond Carbon,” which seeks to stop consumers from accessing energy from fossil fuels.

No significant association with asthma, but plenty of political ties

The controversy over a federal ban on gas stoves by the Biden administration followed the publication of a study by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), which found that 12% of current childhood asthma cases in the US can be attributed to gas stove use.

Less than a month after the RMI study was published, Bloomberg News interviewed Consumer Public Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. about the alleged health impacts from gas stoves, asking if the commission would take action. Trumka told Bloomberg that “products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”

Critics of RMI’s gas stove study argue that the quality of the data it used was poor because it didn’t factor in the findings of a 2013 study by the International Study of Asthma and Allergies, which is considered the most comprehensive global study on the topic to date.

Last year, a major study published in the renowned medical journal The Lancet conducted an extensive meta-analysis of the health risks — meaning an examination of scientific literature to determine overall trends in the findings of multiple studies on the topic — from using gas stoves compared to electricity and other fuels. The Lancet study found no significant association between natural gas and respiratory illnesses such as asthma. It even found a lower risk of bronchitis compared to the use of electric stoves.

The Colorado website that consumers will be directed to by the warning labels makes no mention of these studies, instead presenting health consequences as a foregone conclusion.

“It’s strictly a political campaign with a political strategy, and they believe this is a winning issue,” Blackmon said.

Beyond Berkeley: The push to ban gas stoves is back

In 2020, Berkeley, California, became the first city in the U.S. to ban natural gas hookups in new construction. The California Restaurant Association sued the city, arguing the ban was preempted by federal law. Ultimately, federal courts agreed, and the law was never allowed to go into effect.

However, according to the Grist, a publication that also receives funding from several anti-fossil fuel activist groups, some cities and states are looking for “creative” ways to sidestep the legal challenges that killed Berkeley’s anti-stove laws, which include emissions targets, building codes, and limits on indoor air pollution.

In July, a federal judge ruled that a New York law banning natural gas connections in new homes and buildings doesn’t conflict with federal law. A coalition of building and trade associations wrote to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in June, asking her to file legal challenges to the law.

“The gas ban violates core constitutional principles of interstate commerce by attempting to dictate national energy usage through state-level restrictions. It burdens domestic energy production, raises costs on middle-class homeowners, and compromises energy reliability and economic freedom,” the coalition wrote in their letter.

Despite a large body of research disputing claims that gas stoves pose significant health risks to consumers, activists are looking for avenues all across the U.S. to stop people from using the appliances. While the Biden administration failed to enact a federal ban on gas stoves, these local and state efforts may prove successful.

FBI CONTINUES ITS FRAUD ON THE PEOPLE, CAUGHT AT IT AGAIN!

Watchdog group says FBI undercounts incidents in which armed civilians stop active shooters

The CPRC review uncovered 561 incidents during the same period, with armed citizens stopping 202 of them, or 36%. CPRC saod the percentage jumped to 52.5% when excluding shootings that occurred in “gun-free zones.”

A new analysis by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) found that the FBI has understated the number of times armed civilians have stopped active shooter incidents in the United States.

According to the FBI, civilians stopped just 14 out of 374 active shooter cases between 2014 and 2024, which is a rate of 3.7%.

But the CPRC, a nonprofit data watchdog on crime issues, said it uncovered 561 incidents during the same period, with armed citizens stopping 202 of them, or 36%. CPRC said the percentage jumped to 52.5% when excluding shootings that occurred in “gun-free zones.”

According to the CPRC, the FBI’s data is off, in part, because in some cases civilians who intervened were listed as “security guards,” even when they were private citizens. The group also found that armed bystanders who thwarted attacks were not counted if the suspects fled.

The FBI had classified the 2019 church shooting in White Settlement, Texas, involving a parishioner who shot and killed the gunman as being thwarted by a security guard, even though the man was not a security professional.

The CPRC also noted that the FBI excluded some cases it labels “domestic disputes” or “retaliation murders” from its data about civilians stopping active shooters.

You can read the full report here.

CPRC President John Lott said the group’s data shows that armed civilians stopping shootings is more common than mainstream media coverage shows.

During the 2022 mall shooting in Greenwood, Ind., Elisjsha Dicken, 22, stopped a gunman who killed three people.

Reuters and CNN were among the news outlets that referred to the situation as “uncommon.”

“Of course, law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is not citizens stopping these attacks—it’s the national news covering it,” Lott wrote.

The FBI has said that its reports on this issue are “not intended to explore all active shooting incidents” but they provide a “baseline understanding.”

Some argue that the FBI’s data compilation practices can skew public opinion.

“The cascading effect is incredibly deleterious,” Theo Wold, a former U.S. Justice Department official, said. “When the Bureau gets it so systematically wrong, it shapes the entire national debate.”

Still, many Americans believe armed citizens are more effective at stopping active shooters.

According to a 2022 Trafalgar Group poll, 42% of voters said that armed citizens were the best defense against mass shootings, while 25% said it was local police.

The FBI did not respond to a request for comment prior to publication

HOW MANY MILLIONAIRES ARE THERE IN THE USA???

How Many Millionaires Are in the U.S.? More Than Any Other Country

The U.S. is home to more millionaires than any other nation, but that doesn’t mean it has the highest percentage of millionaires. Yulia Reznikov / Getty Images

As of 2024, the number of millionaires in the U.S. was around 23.8 million. That means roughly 1 in 15 people in the U.S. has a net worth of at least seven figures. This number includes not just tycoons but also people who have slowly built wealth through investing, home ownership, and disciplined saving.

To be clear, millionaire status isn’t about having a million dollars in cash. It’s about your total net worth, which includes your financial assets like stocks, retirement accounts, and real estate, minus liabilities such as your mortgage, credit card balance, and other debts.

If what you own is worth more than what you owe, and the difference is $1 million or more, congratulations: You’re a millionaire.

What Makes a Millionaire Tick?

Millionaire
Let’s be honest: The vast majority of millionaires do not look or act live like this. Mensent Photography / Getty Images

Millionaires tend to be goal-oriented and patient. Instead of flashy lifestyles, they often focus on building a mix of financial assets that grow over time. Their wealth often comes from consistent contributions to retirement accounts, wise use of credit, and avoiding unnecessary liabilities.

Their portfolio may include rental and investment property, employer-sponsored retirement plans, and taxable accounts holding dividend-generating stocks. Many own life insurance and annuities as long-term tools. Some manage their own businesses, which significantly boost their net worth.

The typical millionaire makes methodical choices: They pay bills on time, avoid debt traps, and keep expenses below income. Rather than reacting to market swings, they stay the course.

They understand that wealth isn’t about how much you spend, but how well you manage your money.

Wealth Accumulation Over Decades

Most people don’t become millionaires overnight. Data shows that people who reach this milestone typically do so after 30 to 40 years of saving and investing. By maximizing retirement plans, controlling spending, and investing in appreciating assets, they see steady gains.

A major factor is avoiding the drain of high-interest credit card balances, auto loans, and short-term gratification. Instead, millionaires prioritize financial goals, like eliminating their mortgage, funding children’s education, and ensuring a secure retirement.

They keep a close eye on the total value of their holdings and revise their strategy based on age, market performance, and inflation. Many rely on expert advice to keep their strategy current and effective.

Economic Factors and Millionaire Resilience

Economic factors
Current and aspiring millionaires watch the market very closely — but they don’t overreact to changes. Alistair Berg / Getty Images

Even millionaires must navigate economic challenges. Inflation can erode the purchasing power of cash, while market downturns test emotional discipline.

The savvy ones diversify across sectors, keep emergency savings, maintain a modest primary residence, and rebalance their portfolio as conditions change.

During periods of economic growth, the number of U.S. millionaires typically climbs. But recessions can reduce net worth, particularly for those heavily invested in volatile stocks or illiquid property.

Still, most millionaires weather downturns better than the average household, due to lower debt and better planning.

They also keep tabs on accounts, minimize discretionary spending, and track investments closely. Maintaining control over finances is key to riding out volatility.

The Bigger Picture

The U.S. leads in both the number of millionaires and the number of billionaires, though it doesn’t always top the list in terms of millionaire percentage of population. Countries like Switzerland and Australia have fewer people but a higher percentage of millionaire households.

Globally, the millionaire population continues to rise, driven by increases in global property values, stock market performance, and international business opportunities. The rise of digital commerce and investing apps has made wealth-building tools more accessible than ever before.

Despite this, fewer millionaires are self-made in some parts of the world where wealth transfer and inheritance dominate. In contrast, in the U.S., a significant share of millionaires built their fortune through personal effort, entrepreneurship, or steady investment.

Lifestyle and the Long View

Becoming a millionaire is often a milestone, not an endpoint. Many set new goals: helping families, funding charitable causes, or starting businesses. Others focus on maintaining their wealth and adjusting their investments to match changes in life stage and risk appetite.

They still watch spending, keep track of their accounts, and review portfolio performance. Having reached financial independence, their biggest challenge often becomes preserving what they’ve earned.

Whether driven by ambition, security, or a desire to leave a legacy, millionaires remain focused on long-term success — not short-term gains.

Many millionaires actively avoid financial pitfalls like over-leveraging or ignoring debt. They remain wary of trends that promise fast gains without proven results. Instead, they often reinvest dividends, hold rental properties for passive income, and keep their retirement plans fully funded.

Their finances reflect years of work, not a sudden get rich quick scheme. And while some may one day become billionaires, most are content to sustain a healthy balance of cash, assets, and investments.

SCIENTISTS DISCOVER A CRYSTAL THAT IS LIKE OUR LUNGS!

Scientists Discover Crystal That “Breathes” Oxygen and Could Transform Energy, Electronics and Buildings

  • A newly discovered crystal made of strontium, iron and cobalt can absorb and release oxygen like human lungs without degrading.
  • The breakthrough could revolutionize fuel cells, thermal devices and energy-efficient windows by enabling real-time oxygen control.
  • Unlike previous materials, this crystal remains stable at lower temperatures, making it practical for commercial use.
  • Applications include cleaner energy, self-adjusting smart windows, and thermal transistors to prevent overheating in electronics.
  • Researchers must now refine its heat resistance and scalability to unlock its full potential for sustainable technology.

(Natural News)—Imagine a material that inhales and exhales oxygen like human lungs, switching between states on command while staying perfectly stable. Sounds like science fiction? It’s not. A team of researchers from South Korea and Japan has just unveiled a crystal that does exactly that — and it could change the way we power our world.

Published in Nature Communications, the study reveals a metal oxide crystal made of strontium, iron, and cobalt that can repeatedly absorb and release oxygen at relatively low temperatures without breaking down. This breakthrough, led by Professor Hyoungjeen Jeen of Pusan National University and co-authored by Professor Hiromichi Ohta of Hokkaido University, opens doors for cleaner fuel cells, smarter thermal devices, and even energy-efficient windows that adjust to the weather.

“It is like giving the crystal lungs and it can inhale and exhale oxygen on command,” said Prof. Jeen. And unlike previous materials that required extreme heat or fell apart after a few cycles, this one stays intact, making it practical for real-world use.

How the crystal “breathes” and why it matters

The crystal’s secret lies in its ability to form and refill tiny gaps called oxygen vacancies in its structure. When heated in a simple gas environment, it releases oxygen; when oxygen is reintroduced, it absorbs it back. The process is fully reversible, and only the cobalt ions change their state, while the iron keeps the structure stable.

This kind of oxygen control is crucial for technologies like solid oxide fuel cells, which generate electricity from hydrogen with minimal emissions. It could also enable thermal transistors—devices that direct heat like electrical switches — and smart windows that adjust their transparency and insulation based on temperature.

“This is a major step toward the realization of smart materials that can adjust themselves in real time,” said Prof. Ohta. The implications stretch from clean energy to electronics and even eco-friendly building materials.

From fuel cells to self-adjusting windows

One of the most exciting applications is in fuel cells, where oxygen movement is key to converting fuel into electricity efficiently. Current materials often require extreme temperatures, driving up costs. This new crystal operates at milder conditions, potentially making fuel cells more affordable and practical.

Then there’s smart windows. The researchers found that when the crystal releases oxygen, it becomes more transparent and electrically resistant, which is a perfect combo for windows that adapt to sunlight and heat. Imagine a building that automatically adjusts its tint and insulation, cutting energy costs without sacrificing comfort.

The crystal also shows promise for thermal transistors, which could revolutionize how we manage heat in electronics. By controlling oxygen flow, these devices could switch heat on and off like a lightbulb, preventing overheating in everything from computers to industrial machinery.

Why this discovery stands out

Most materials that can “breathe” oxygen either degrade quickly or need extreme conditions. This crystal is different. It stays stable through multiple cycles, and its structure actually improves when oxygen is reintroduced.

“This finding is striking in two ways: only cobalt ions are reduced, and the process leads to the formation of an entirely new but stable crystal structure,” explained Prof. Jeen. The iron in the mix acts like a backbone, keeping everything from collapsing while the cobalt does the heavy lifting of oxygen exchange.

However, there’s still work to be done. The crystal has a thermal limit as it starts to break down around 932 F (500 C). This means engineers will need to refine it for high-heat applications. Scaling up production and ensuring stability in real-world conditions are the next big steps.

But the potential is undeniable. From cleaner energy to smarter buildings, this “breathing” crystal could be the key to a more efficient, sustainable future in which materials don’t just sit there but actually respond to their environment.

 

CORAL REEFS FLOURISH IN WARMER WATER, CLIMATE DENIERS DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO KNOW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE DOES NOT HURT THE SEA ENVIRONMENT

Coral Resilience Defies Climate Doom: New Studies Reveal Ancient Reefs Flourished in Warmer Seas

  • Historical coral growth surged during the Holocene (6,000–10,000 years ago) when oceans were 1–2°C warmer and sea levels 1–2 meters higher than today.
  • Modern coral decline linked to shallow waters, not warming—reefs expanded rapidly when deeper “accommodation space” was available.
  • Great Barrier Reef’s “turn-off” periods coincided with cold phases (e.g., Little Ice Age), not heat, with growth resuming when temperatures rose.
  • Sea-level variability, not CO?, drove reef health—higher seas created ideal conditions for expansion, while falling levels stunted growth.
  • Current climate policies ignore geological context—corals adapted to natural warming before, raising questions about doomsday narratives.

(Natural News)—For decades, scientists and policymakers have warned that rising sea temperatures and ocean levels spell doom for the world’s coral reefs. Yet emerging research from Indonesia’s ancient reefs and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) tells a starkly different story: Corals not only survived but thrived when oceans were significantly warmer and sea levels far higher than today.

A study published this month in Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology reveals that between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago, during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, coral reefs in Indonesia grew at rates of ~6 mm per year—six times faster than today’s anemic ~1 mm/year. The reason? Sea levels were up to 2 meters higher, providing the “accommodation space” needed for vertical expansion. As oceans cooled and levels dropped, growth slowed dramatically.

Meanwhile, research from the Keppel Islands in the southern GBR confirms that reefs experienced “turn-off” periods during cold snaps—such as the Little Ice Age—when sea levels fell. When temperatures rebounded to 1–2°C above modern levels, corals resumed rapid accretion, with some reefs growing at 15 mm/year, the fastest rates in the GBR’s 8,500-year history.

These findings upend the dominant narrative that warming oceans are an existential threat to corals. Instead, the data suggests shallow water depths—not heat—are the primary constraint on modern reefs. With current sea levels 1–2 meters lower than during the Holocene optimum, corals lack the space to expand, leading to the “declining coverage” observed in recent decades.

The sea-level secret: Why depth matters more than temperature

The study’s lead authors, including Dr. Holly East of Northumbria University, have long argued that reef health is more sensitive to sea-level changes than temperature. In the Maldives, East’s team found that reef islands formed during periods of higher seas, contradicting claims that rising oceans would “drown” atolls. “If climate change causes rising sea levels,” East noted, “it may actually create the perfect conditions to reactivate reef growth.”

This aligns with the GBR research, where reef “hiatuses” occurred when sea levels fell—not rose. At Halfway Island, corals grew vertically at 8 mm/year when seas were higher but shifted to lateral expansion as levels dropped. Nearshore sites like Divided Island only initiated growth during a late-Holocene highstand (~2,000 years ago), when waters were ~1 meter above today’s levels.

  • Warmer water + higher seas = Rapid coral growth
  • Cooler water + falling seas = Stunted or halted growth

Yet modern climate models ignore this geological context, instead attributing coral decline solely to anthropogenic warming. The data suggests the opposite: corals are starved for space, not suffering from heat.

The Great Barrier Reef’s cold-water crisis

The GBR’s history further undermines the climate-doomsday narrative. During the Mid-Holocene (5,500–2,500 years ago), reefs in the northern and southern GBR experienced a “turn-off”—but not due to heat. Instead, falling sea levels and cooler temperatures reduced accommodation space, halting accretion.

Dr. Nicholas Leonard, whose 2020 study examined GBR reef cores, found that coral growth surged when SSTs (sea surface temperatures) were 1–2°C warmer and seas were 1 meter higher. “The reefs accreted uninhibited under these conditions,” Leonard wrote, “suggesting warmth was not a stressor but a catalyst.”

Today, the GBR’s struggles are often blamed on bleaching events linked to warming. Yet historical records show:

  • 1998’s mass bleaching occurred after a strong El Niño, a natural cycle.
  • Coral recovery rates vary widely—some reefs bounce back within decades, while others stagnate due to local pollution or overfishing, not global temperatures.

Critically, the GBR’s fastest growth in 8,500 years occurred in the late 20th century, when SSTs rose modestly. This contradicts claims that even slight warming is catastrophic.

The political reef: Why the climate narrative ignores geology

Despite the evidence, governments and NGOs continue to push a one-sided story: corals are dying because of human-caused CO? emissions. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, for instance, warns of “irreversible damage” from warming—yet omits the Holocene context where reefs flourished in hotter conditions.

Why the silence?

  1. Funding incentives: Billions in climate research grants depend on catastrophic projections, not nuanced geological history.
  2. Policy agendas: Carbon taxes, renewable mandates and Net Zero policies rely on fear of ecological collapse.
  3. Media sensationalism: Headlines about “dying reefs” drive clicks; stories of resilient corals do not.

Dr. Peter Ridd, a marine geophysicist who sued Australia’s James Cook University for wrongful termination after questioning GBR science, argues that “institutions suppress dissent” to maintain the crisis narrative. “The data shows corals adapt to warming,” Ridd told The Australian. “But admitting that would undermine the political push for climate action.”

A Future Written in Stone: What Ancient Reefs Teach Us

The lessons from the Holocene are clear:

  • Corals are not fragile—they thrived in warmer, higher seas for millennia.
  • Sea-level variability is the dominant driver of reef health, not temperature alone.
  • Modern reef decline is more likely due to local stressors (pollution, overfishing, dredging) than global warming.

What does this mean for policy?

  • Adaptation over mitigation: Instead of focusing solely on CO? reduction, efforts should prioritize water quality, fishing regulations, and sediment control.
  • Questioning climate models: If corals grew faster in warmer seas, why do models predict their extinction?
  • Decentralized conservation: Local communities, not global bureaucracies, are best positioned to protect reefs based on real-world conditions.

Beyond the doom: Reefs, resilience and reality

The narrative that corals are on the brink of extinction is not just incomplete—it’s historically inaccurate. The Holocene record proves that reefs are dynamic, adaptive systems capable of remarkable growth under conditions warmer than today. Yet this truth is buried beneath layers of political agendas, media hype and institutional groupthink.

As the world spends trillions on climate policies based on flawed assumptions, the real question is: What if the greatest threat to reefs isn’t warming, but people’s refusal to learn from the past?

For now, the corals themselves offer an answer—written in limestone, not computer models. And their message is clear: Life finds a way, if people let it.