A viewer writes: “The book, Inconvenient Facts, by Gregory Wrightstone gives information that differs greatly from mainstream science. Is the information in the book about the periodic climate changes and the decline in CO2 concentration reliable?”

This information is reliable and accurate in a literal sense, and written by someone who is open-minded and not manipulated and truly has worked to sort out the truth here, and was subjected to careful scrutiny as will often happen from doubters and critics, especially those with competing ideas. So those with an opposing view must work doubly hard, especially as they go against a prior consensus. When there has been a particular hypothesis that has become embraced by the mainstream scientific community and has been taught for a period of time to students and budding scientists coming up in new generations it is hard to overthrow conventional wisdom of any kind in any intellectual arena. In some ways it is harder in the scientific community because science is always a superficial, surface, look at things and only gets deeper bit by bit, and over large spans of time with the advent of new tools to probe things and a gradual widening of perspectives. So there is much well-entrenched dogma and there will be many highly intelligent detail-oriented defenders who will have their own personal bias and this will lend great weight to particular perspectives and interpretations that are still more opinion than not, but will not be felt as such because they are, after all, based on scientific observations and facts of a sort. If there is anything history has shown, it is that facts are always highly dependent on the nature of their origin, the thinking behind their pursuit, the hypotheses under investigation, and the way in which things were probed and the data obtained and analyzed. Often, there will be a subjective bias in one or more of these steps based on prior expectation and existing dogma, rather than absolute truth, which is unknowable, after all. The fact science gets hidebound and rigid in thinking and highly resistant to change in so many instances is actually a product of mind control manipulation, because scientists are not freethinkers any more than any other segment of society. They are highly constrained and highly programmed to follow the leader. So that truly means that all bets are off with regard to any body of knowledge. Many scientists can take exception to the specific items catalogued by this author and attempt to poke holes and raise additional questions, impose constraints that seem to be exceptions to his conclusions, and so on, but that is a kind of nitpicking that scientists are particularly good at, and doesn't necessarily alter the overarching truth of this body of information and what it purports to show. And his thesis is the correct one, that anthropogenic global warming is a fallacy. There are much more significant influences governing climate change. So this is an important body of work, particularly because it is understandable to the layperson and that is much needed in a situation like you are facing, where climate change is a political tool as well as a corrupting influence and maneuver to provide a scapegoat for much Extraterrestrial Alliance mischief, and worse.