It’s difficult to convince people that the science behind the claim of human-caused global warming is wrong. The technocrats developed their own language and technical terms to protect their control over the information; to make people pay a higher price for their services; to ensure they remain unaccountable for their actions.

The three lawsuits filed to silence me from explaining their science in ways the public could understand, and all came from technocratic members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report said there are 12 years left to save the planet. It triggered the usual frantic and ridiculous reactions. NBC News even proclaimed, “A last-ditch global warming fix? A man-made ‘volcanic’ eruption” to cool the planet.

Could the selection process for entry and success (“actively publishing”) in the climate profession create a bias that compromises the information we rely on to make our critical decisions about climate?

Retired Analytical Chemist, Hans Schreuder, sends an open letter to Britain’s Climate Change Committee requesting an explanation as to why the nation should adhere to the discredited science of the UN IPCC, which is proven to be politically biased, subjective and discredited on its claims.

In the 1950s the world’s scientific community understood that the greenhouse gas climate theory was long dead. [1] But somehow it was brought back to life in the 1970s. Below William W. Kay explains why.

It might be hard to believe, but the cost of disasters has actually fallen as a percentage of economic output since 1990, according to the findings of an environmental study.

The study, published Saturday in the journal Environmental Hazards, reinforces previous findings that when economic growth is taken into account, disasters like hurricanes and wildfires are less costly to society than in the past.

While German activists are growing hysterical over fine particle emissions from today’s relatively cleaner diesel automobiles, the German Allgemeine Zeitung here reports that researchers have determined that low-frequency infrasound from wind turbines indeed do have a negative impact on the human heart.

Wind turbines proven to convert 40 percent of the wind’s energy into power and 60 percent into infrasound, making them a threat to human health.

In 2016, with considerable fanfare, the Cape Sharp Tidal (CST) company launched its “long-awaited” underwater test turbine in the Bay of Fundy.  CST, co-owned by Nova Scotia’s Emera Inc. (EI), and the Irish co. OpenHydro Ltd. (OH), a subsidiary of the French co. Naval Energies, (NE), have hit the end of the road. Both CST and OH have now filed for bankruptcy.

PSI has been at the forefront of debunking the fundamental foundations of the Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming claims, by falsifying the Greenhouse Effect Hypothesis itself.

When I came across the work of the scientists whose papers they published, I had to spend a lot of time looking up relevant laws of physics, rules of mathematics and hours and hours of time generally to make sure I was understanding what had been written.

Another global warming scare story bites the dust: fragile islands and atolls in the Pacific are not sinking beneath the waves because of global warming. In fact, they are doing just fine.

The bad news (only bad for alarmists, of course) comes in a study by Virginie Duvat of the University of La Rochelle-CNRS, France, titled ‘A global assessment of atoll island planform changes over the past decades’.

As a C4 crop, maize (Zea Mays) is often thought to be less-responsive to atmospheric CO2 enrichment than plants like wheat or rice that use the C3 photosynthetic pathway to fix carbon.

Carbon is an element of the Periodic Table. Is that a fact? Yes, it is a fact. It is not an opinion. Anyone can look it up, as I just have. Not only that, it has an Atomic number, which is 6. Incidentally Hydrogen is 1 and Oxygen is 8.

I’ve recently discussed the 16 pages worth of changes the UN’s climate body is making to its latest scientist-authored report so that it aligns with the politically-negotiated-after-the-fact Summary.

I’ve observed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is meddling with the glossary definition of six terms central to the climate discussion – such as the definition of ‘global warming’ itself – at this eleventh hour.

The UN IPCC appears to have secretly changed the definition of what constitutes ‘climate’ by mixing existing and non-existing data.

The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years.