Worldwide temperatures are falling as Co2 is rising. Ice ages are the climactic norm, will such events be blamed on a trace chemical, 3/100 of 1 % of atmospheric gases, 95% emitted by Gaia ? Is that science or stupidity and criminality ? [link]

The big brains at NASA have reconfirmed what most of us learnt in high school science – that Co2 is a coolant. [link from NASA] Applause for the huge brains at NASA! Well done. So now to conform to their irrational, human-hating fascism that a natural chemical causes 'weather', earthquakes, hurricanes and bad hair-cuts, the trace chemical Co2 – a coolant – will cause cooling, which will cause warming, which will cause more snow and ice records [only about 20.000 such records were set in 2012-13....].

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator.  “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

High school science lesson revisited. Thanks NASA.

Back in the 1950s, the smartest people in history [scientists], predicted that Venus would have a 'climate' akin to that of earth, with the same atmosphere and temperature. That was the 'consensus', vigorously defended, and all 'deniers' who stated that Venus would have a different composition of gases and hence temperature, were pilloried. Well, well. After 20 years of space probes, it was known by the early 1980s that Venus' surface temperature is 870 F or higher [which melts metal immediately]; and that Co2 was 96% or so of atmospheric gas weight vs. 3/100 of 1 % on Earth. Hence the fascistic cry about Co2 levels ! 96 % vs 3/100 of 1 % ? Hmmm. The core of Venus was determined to be molten liquid, indicating that the planet is quite young and still cooling down. This common sense observation is of course denied by most 'scientists' who are invested in the 'traditional' narrative of a very old planet Venus. Their theories to explain why Venus is the same age as Earth, sound a lot like their painful denials that Co2 has nothing whatsoever to do with Gaia's climate, temperature, or experiential data indicating cooling not warming.

It is clear from recent analysis that the complicated feedback loops inherent in a planet in which Co2 is the main chemical element, such as Venus, are causing the planet to cool, not to keep heating up like a popcorn bag in a microwave which is what the cult of warming would have us believe. Venus is cooling down – how does the cult of warm explain that ? Another inconvenient fact for scientists, is that Venus has a rotation which is the opposite of that of earth – from east to west. How is that explained by current cult of warm and 'scientist' dogma ? [Venus Facts] Ancient cultures on Gaia also described in great detail an earthly rotation from east to west; and then a sudden change some 3500 years ago from west to east. These mythical claims are dismissed by 'scientists', who can't be bothered to try to explain why one planet rotates west to east and another east to west.

In summary, something gave Venus a slow backwards spin, caused it to outgas a dense atmosphere and form high mountains, and to have no natural satellites today. Something caused Mercury’s satellite-like size and appearance, giving it a prolate shape, high density, and magnetic field, and put it into a 3-to-2 spin state. Up to now, astronomers have invented separate and ad hoc explanations for each of these anomalies. But we can instead invoke a single hypothesis, from which all these anomalies are natural, deductive consequences: that Mercury is an escaped satellite of Venus! [Link]

If Mercury was once a satellite of Venus, a whole host of problems arises for 'scientists'. Most likely they would simply state that it was the Co2 of Venus which caused this climate change. That is much easier than admitting that we don't know a whole lot about Gaia, climate, our solar system or the Universe. Mercury ejected by Venus ? Is that more unlikely than a 'soupy mixture' giving rise to complicated cells, DNA, and RNA ? Doubtful.