Climate Hysteria Debunked, February 9, 2026

Because the big-name science journals are all ideologically governed and basically on the leading edge of the global warming and renewable energy scam, people trying to do serious, objective research have trouble getting published and have to find alternative journals to spread their results.  There can be equally bad research done by people who don’t buy into the climate hysteria, so I am sometimes dubious about what I see.

This study for example, makes sense, but we are given no information about the author–what are his credentials, what is the source of his funding, etc.  That is important information to assess the credibility of what you are reading.  This journal, Science of Climate Change, is trying to be a source of alternative research, but also needs to do a better job of protecting its credibility in who and what it publishes, explaining if there is peer review and if so, explaining who does the review and what were their comments.

The study takes on the notion that somehow CO2 that is put into the air from human activities stays in the atmosphere longer than CO2 from natural sources.  Supposedly human emissions then play a greater role in causing warming, which is a dubious link to begin with.  I always thought a CO2 molecule was a CO2 molecule, silly me not realizing that where a molecule comes from might change its properties.

There is a carbon “cycle” that includes CO2.  CO2 is produced and emitted from various sources and it is absorbed by the ocean, plants and other sources.  That cycle has existed forever and it has varied forever.  Human activities undoubtedly influence it in many ways.  And the natural cycle adjusts to those changes.   I tend to agree with the author’s points that it is unlikely that human CO2 emissions somehow change the entire cycle.  But as I said, I wish more information was provided to allow us to assess accuracy.  (SCC Article)

This second article comes via Watts Up With That, and relates directly to Anthony Watts seminal work in showing the warming bias resulting from various siting and other issues in temperature measurement.  It relates to changes in the equipment used for temperature measurement in Australia.  The official agency in charge denied that this change had any effect on temperature and in fact refused to study the possibility.  Well these researchers in Spain did the work for them and guess what, the change created a strong warming bias in subsequent measurements.  The bias was most apparent for daily high temperatures and did not exist in regard to minimum temps.  I have learned in multiple areas of research that you have to fully understand how data are measured, collected and analyzed if you want to know whether you can trust the results.  (IJC Article)