Greenhouse Gas Climate Science is Broken Beyond Repair

Written by Hans Schreuder

In earlier centuries, science had a positive influence on society in developing social awareness around objectivity and rationality.

It replaced the witchcraft and hocus pocus of charlatans with evaluation of objective evidence as the means of determining truth. But now, science is leading the pack for charlatanism and witchcraft, as junk science is acquiring a greater legitimacy than the charlatans ever had.

Wherever there is corruption in science the most important, underlying facts are contrived, while science is applied to more superficial elements of the subject. Omitting the science where it is most relevant isn’t an error, it is fraud. That’s why the word fraud must be used in describing the major corruptions of science.

Nowadays, science bureaucrats require that every detail of research be described in grant proposals; and in the laboratory, the researchers can do nothing but fill in the blanks with numbers. The claim is that doing otherwise would be defrauding the public. So the research has to be done at a desk instead of the laboratory.

Science bureaucrats are not politicians. They are scientists who put themselves in competition with the scientists in the laboratories. The editors and reviewers of science journals do the same. The result is that the laboratory scientists are dominated by office scientists who dictate how their work will be designed and reported.

Madness has taken over the western world, an insanity that demands we destroy ourselves over the ludicrous claim that a tiny increase of a trace gas (carbon dioxide) has endangered the world due to an even more ludicrous “atmospheric greenhouse effect“.

Let me therefore conclude my “I Love My Carbon Dioxide” mission by stating the following, which is in the tradition of proper science, not radiative forcing’s greenhouse effect pseudo-science:

The settled science that a greenhouse warms up due to re-radiated light (energy), as set out by Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), Arrhenius (1896), NASA (2008), et al., is false.

Considering, therefore, that even inside an actual greenhouse with a barrier of solid glass no such phenomenon as a greenhouse effect occurs, most certainly there can be no greenhouse effect in our turbulent atmosphere.

Energy can not be created from nothing, not even by means of re-radiated infra red. Widely accepted theory has it that more energy is re-radiated to earth than comes from the sun in the first place, amounting to almost an extra two suns. All materials above zero Kelvin radiate energy, yes, but energy does not flow from a cold body to a warm one and cause its temperature to rise.

A block of ice in a room does not cause the room to warm up, despite the block of ice radiating its energy into the room. 

Yet carbon dioxide’s re-radiation of infrared energy warming up planet earth is the preposterous theory hailed by not only the alarmists, but accepted and elaborated by most skeptics as well, with mathematical theorems that do little more than calculate the number of fairies that can dance on a pinhead.

The accepted carbon dioxide greenhouse theory is thus declared a complete and total scam, as more fully detailed in these papers, amongst many (and I salute all scientists who agree with these papers and will gladly publicise all papers on this subject) :

“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”


“Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics”

Hans Schreuder
Ipswich, UK

Really new trails are rarely blazed in the great academies. The confining walls of conformist dogma are too dominating.  To think originally, you must go forth into the wilderness.” S. Warren Carey

Hans Schreuder is co-founder of PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (5)

  • Avatar



    Thank you so much for sharing such a nice article with us.
    Keep sharing such articles.

  • Avatar



    Yes. This is an excellent article because the greenhouse effect hypothesis is a delusion and a very bad metaphor that has distorted science from the beginning. The hypothesis was dumped in the dust bin of history by R.W. Wood. in 1905. Wood used physical lab experiments (not just ‘thought experiments’) and concluded – “To argue that an open gaseous atmosphere confines in the way that the top and sides of a greenhouse enclosure does is not valid. To the contrary, a gaseous atmosphere is conducive to the convective cooling that occurs in the absence of an enclosure. It could be argued that CO2 along with the other gaseous components of the atmosphere in fact helps to cool the Earth’s surface.” The revival in the late nineteen hundreds without physical experiments was doubling false as the original theory dumped by Wood only applied to the major GHG water vapour not the minuscule Co2 GHG.

  • Avatar

    Vic Pearson


    I agree there is no real CO2 GE on Earth but because this may be happening on Venus CO2 has got a fear factor with the media.Perhaps we can counter this by citing Mars which has a small atmoshere of CO2 but shows no sign of warming.

    • Avatar



      ..but because this may be happening on Venus..

      Vic, it’s not happening on Venus either. A so-called “greenhouse effect” is not possible anywhere in our universe. It is a violation of physical law. The so-called “greenhouse effect” cannot coexist with our universe. It is an impossibility. Our universe simply could not exist if it were so.

      • Avatar

        jerry krause


        Hi Squidly,

        Why can people not see the influence of the Venus total overcast (cloud deck)? Why can they not see the influence of the photochemistry which occurs above the cloud deck at atmospheric pressures similar to those of the earth’s stratosphere where the ozone photochemistry occurs and heats the atmosphere there? Why can they not see the surface of Venus must be as hot as it is because of the adiabatic lapse rate which is caused by the ‘perpetual’ motion of gas molecules in the gravity of Venus from the altitude of where the photochemistry is occurring in the Venus atmosphere? It is all very simple and consistent if one only looks (observes).

        Have a good day, Jerry

Comments are closed