For well over three decades now the world has been held to ransom by a perceived “consensus science” that has convinced scientists and politicians alike that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) cause a myriad of “extreme” weather events and other claimed but unrelated issues.

We have been told repeatedly that the “consensus science” has been settled for over a century and that carbon dioxide is a so-called “greenhouse gas” that “traps heat” and thus makes the earth “warmer than it would otherwise be”. ^{1, 2}

There exists on the internet, at the time of this writing, a video, purported to be: ‘Climate 101 with Bill Nye’
-although we never actually see his face- with the comment that anyone can replicate it.

In this video, a simple experiment is presented where two glass jars with thermometers in them, one filled with air and one filled with CO2, are exposed to energy from heat lamps, to show how CO2, as compared to normal air, causes excess temperature rise when exposed to heat.

Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, man-made problem.

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut here’s a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease, or remain the same?

Fresh analysis of government scientific records reveals the idea of ‘long-settled’ science in the greenhouse gas theory is a myth. The claim human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) act as a control knob on climate only appeared in consensus science since the 1980’s. Prior to that time, official records show the theory as “abandoned.”

A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.

Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.

It could be a groundbreaking year — in the worst way possible. Normally, when someone tells you terrible things are going to happen in the year ahead, it’s not worth fretting about.

After all, from climate change to rapidly dwindling biodiversity to, well, a chocolate crisis, we’ve already got plenty to worry about. Why add another dollop of despair?

But when that someone is Roger Bilham, a prominent geologist at the University of Colorado, it may be prudent to strap on our seismic seat belts.

Why is there snow on mountain tops was one of the very first questions that I asked my scientific mentor, Hans. It is indeed a difficult question. If say the summit of Mt Everest or Mt Blanc is nearer the Sun, surely these summits should be hot.

It seems illogical, especially in view of the one piece of pure Physics that I have proposed, namely that Radiation must encounter mass for heat to be generated. Inter alia.

SPOTLIGHT: We’re told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific organization that makes scientific determinations. But that isn’t true.

BIG PICTURE: The process by which climate change was declared a problem is a process only bureaucrats could love. In his brilliant book, Belgian writer Drieu Godefridi explains why the ‘IPCC = science’ claim is false.

Frustration with criticism over the fate of polar bears decades into the future has plagued consensus experts since they first brought their concerns to the attention of conservation organizations in the mid-2000s.

But now that catastrophe has not materialized, these researchers have shifted their defensive style from logical reasoning to relentless insult.

The recent cold snap was “highly unusual in the current climate,” and not the product of man-made global warming, a new study found.

But wait, other scientists said the two-weeks of frigid weather and snow in the eastern U.S. was “very much consistent with our expectations of the response of weather dynamics to human-caused climate change.”

Climate scientists grossly underestimate the effect cloud cover has on global temperatures, according to researchers at Princeton University’s environmental institute.

Climate models factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat into their projections about what the Earth’s land temperatures could look like long-term. Inaccuracies in accounting for daily cloud cycle distorts the effectiveness of a tool scientists use to measure climate change, according to a study published in the journal Nature Communications.

The search for aliens has taken another mysterious turn after scientists said they have discovered the essential ingredients for life on ancient meteorites.

Image copyright: DR SETH SHOSTAK/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Astronomers have fresh insight on a mysterious source of recurring radio pulses from space. Fast radio bursts (FRB) are one of the most persistent puzzles in astronomy. While usually short-lived, one source in the sky was sending out repeated flashes.

Now, a team says the emission may be caused by a dead star located in a very powerful magnetic environment.

Details were reported here at the 231st American Astronomical Society meeting.

China is the fourth largest country in terms of geographical size and the largest in population size. Accordingly, human-induced climate change from greenhouse trace gases would be of major concern to China’s leaders.

So, what does a fact check reveal of China’s modern climate change due to human CO2 emissions? Frankly, little, if any, emission impact on present climate change based on new Chinese peer-reviewed research.

Princeton University researchers have found that the climate models scientists use to project future conditions on our planet underestimate the cooling effect that clouds have on a daily—and even hourly—basis, particularly over land.

The researchers report in the journal Nature Communications Dec. 22 that models tend to factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat, which results in warmer, drier conditions than what might actually occur.