Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for Klimahoax-debunked

Channel

Klimahoax-debunked

@Klimahoax

On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry

79subscribers

+0 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001806862194
TypeChannel
Username@Klimahoax
CreatedBetween 1 October 2022 and 30 September 2023— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded9 August 2026
Last confirmed live14 August 2026
Measurements held2
On Telegramt.me/Klimahoax

Growth

797 August 2026 — 79 subscribers9 August 2026 — 79 subscribers7 August 20269 August 2026
2 measurements spanning 2 days. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 78–80 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
9 Aug 2026, 19:1779no change
7 Aug 2026, 16:5379first reading

Engagement

20 posts held, back to 17 January 2024the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
26.6%
avg views ÷ 79 subscribers
Avg views / post
21.0
1 post measured
Reaction rate
this channel exposes no reaction counts
Posts in window
1
of 20 held

ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.

ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.

What these figures were computed from
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 5 August 2026
Posts held20 (17 January 20245 August 2026)
Views total21
Reactions total
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken9 Aug 2026, 19:17 UTC

Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.

Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.

Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.

What this channel posts

Photos
15
Videos
24
Links
71

Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 9 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. Below Telegram’s rounding threshold, so these counts are exact.

Video runtime
17m 27s
Average length
2m 55s

Measured directly from 6 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no mark.

Reaction mix

12 reactions across 6 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 25.0% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
325.0%
🤯325.0%
👍216.7%
👏216.7%
18.33%
🔥18.33%

No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.

Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.

Coverage. Reactions were read on 7 of the 20 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 12reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 17 January 2024 to 5 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.

Recent posts

5 Aug 2026, 22:08 UTC21 viewsread 9 August 2026
Forwarded from @tkp_news

Die Schlagzeilen überschlagen sich mit Superlativen: „Rekordhitze“, „noch nie dagewesen“, „Klimakatastrophe“. Und dann gibt es einen Meteorologen, der einfach nur die Physik erklären will. Beitrag hier lesen👇 https://tkp.at/2026/08/05/ursachen-von-hitze-und-trockenheit-versus-heisse-luft-im-tv/

13 Apr 2026, 07:07 UTC≈4,170 viewsread 9 August 2026

„Die Klimakatastrophen waren IMMER die Kaltzeiten und NIE die Warmzeiten!“ Ein tolles Interview von Florian Machl (Report24) mit Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Martin J.F. Steiner, MSc. vom 03.04.2026. Text auf YouTube: „Ein spektakulärer Fund unter dem Gletscher der Pasterze sorgt für Diskussionen: Eine 6000 Jahre alte Zirbe in großer Höhe wirft Fragen zur Klimageschichte auf. Im Gespräch mit DI Dr. Steiner werden zentrale Punkte

16 Nov 2025, 05:57 UTC113 views2 reactionsread 9 August 2026
Forwarded from @report24news

Neue wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen belegen, dass Offshore-Windparks das Oberflächenwasser der Meere und die Atmosphäre erwärmen. Es handelt sich um physikalisch hochrelevante Eingriffe ins Klima. Irgendwie passt dies nicht so ganz mit dem angeblichen "Kampf gegen die Erderwärmung" zusammen. Artikel hier lesen: https://report24.news/offshore-windparks-als-waermepumpen-der-grosse-klimaschwindel-fliegt-auf/?feed_id=

👍2

27 Aug 2025, 04:12 UTC145 viewsread 9 August 2026

Ein wirklich sehenswertes Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzdtuW9B-tg

14 Aug 2025, 05:10 UTC≈93,900 views6 reactionsread 9 August 2026
Video

Wenn man solche Vorträge hört, wundert man sich nicht mehr über das irrationale Verhalten von manchen Menschen! Am 29.11.2024 hielt Prof. Seiffer an der Universität Mainz einen öffentlichen Vortrag zur Physik und Chemie des Klimas. In einer Sequenz präsentiert er selbstgezeichnete Klimakurven ohne Daten- oder Quellenangabe. Achsenskalierung, Methodik und Annahmen fehlen völlig – damit sind die Kurven wissenschaftlic

🤯3👏21

12 Aug 2025, 17:01 UTC284 views1 reactionsread 9 August 2026
Forwarded from @StayfreeKAVideo

Ach guck mal einer an... 👀 Das ZDF schon 2007 auf den Spuren des ständigen, natürlichen Klimawandels ❄️ In einer Reportage heißt es: ➡️ Die Gletscher in den Alpen waren schon 8 Mal fast weg. ➡️ Das Klima war schon immer im Wandel - auch ohne Industrie. Tja... Archive können einem eben manchmal einen Strich durch die Rechnung machen 😅📺🤷‍♀️ Was damals öffentlich-rechtlich gesagt wurde, gilt heute als "Ketzerei" 🤔

1

5 Aug 2025, 00:44 UTC258 viewsread 9 August 2026
Photo

https://x.com/jreichelt/status/1951596564624863373?s=46 https://www.bild.de/leben-wissen/wissenschaft/anstieg-des-meeresspiegels-kritik-an-panikmache-von-axel-bojanowski-688b29c497501d2cebe0561c

3 Aug 2025, 06:15 UTC≈4,160 views1 reactionsread 9 August 2026
Video

Prof. Stefan Homburg auf X: „War das 1997 schön, als Mojib Latif eine Eiszeit voraussagte. Natürlich Bullshit, aber folgenlos. Seit die Klimaschwindler Hitze und Dürre voraussagen, zahlen wir Steuern auf Luft und Wasser, und Deutschland wird zur Rettung der Erde abgewrackt.“ Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCFt8nBOewY https://x.com/shomburg/status/1951178885208441290?s=46

1

4 Apr 2025, 21:40 UTC≈3,130 views0 reactionsread 9 August 2026
Video

The Temperature Hoax https://www.instagram.com/share/reel/_jp_NMKdQ

24 Mar 2025, 05:22 UTC191 views1 reactionsread 9 August 2026
Forwarded from @auf1tvPhoto

⚠️ KI ist sich sicher: An menschengemachtem Klimawandel ist nichts dran Eine brandaktuelle, geprüfte Studie lässt das Klimarnarrativ des Systems weiter bröckeln. Mit Hilfe von künstlicher Intelligenz überprüften vier Forscher die These vom Klimakiller CO2 und die Klimamodelle des UN-Weltklimarates IPCC. Das Fazit: Für die Theorie vom menschengemachten Klimawandel gibt es kaum empirisch belastbare Beweise, und die Kl

🔥1

24 Mar 2025, 05:21 UTC189 viewsread 9 August 2026

https://auf1.tv/elsa-auf1/wissenschaftler-entlarvt-klima-sekte-fakten-gegen-panikmache

Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @Klimahoax. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.

Forward network

Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.

Mentions

A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.

Cite this entry

A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 9 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“Klimahoax-debunked” (@Klimahoax), 79 subscribers as measured 9 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Klimahoax.

Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.