Anzeige

Datenschutzinfo

All parties in the industrialized countries, right or left, will adopt the CO2 global warming theory.
This is a once in a lifetime chance to get some air to breathe tax. Because they supposedly save the world from death by heat, the politicians receive applause for this. Neither party becomes this Resist temptation. ”Nigel Calder, the award-winning British science journalist, prophesied this to me as early as 1998. For many years editor of the "New Scientist" and BBC author.

Together with the Danish physicists Hendrik Svensmark and Egil Friis-Christensen from the renowned Niels Bohr Institute, he published the book “The manic sun” in 1997, in which they made the sun responsible for our climate on the basis of research.

Climate change: the big carbon lie?

He was right in his assessment of the parties. The results of the researchers, which include scientific work on the effects of the sun and the radiation from space on our climate, are largely hushed up.

The politicians cannot do anything with that. That would mean that the flood of laws, with which the citizens are forced to constantly new duties and taxes in order to save the world, would no longer be justifiable.

Neither the light bulb ban nor the gigantic subsidies for so-called renewable energy would make sense. Instead of influencing climate change with taxes, they would have to deal with the consequences of natural climate change.

There is no debate about the causes of climate change

There is no debate in political Germany about the causes of climate change. It is simply explained: „The emission of greenhouse gases leads to global warming, that is largely undisputed," says Otmar Edenhofer, chief economist and deputy director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. His colleague Stefan Rahmstorf has simply declared the debate about the causes of climate change to be over.

The Green Party , which elevated man-made climate hybris to its party's program, was outraged in a question to the federal government as to whether it knew that climate deniers were allowed to speak in the rooms of the Bundestag. At the invitation of FDP member Paul Friedhoff, the founder of NASA meteorology and award-winning American scientist Fred Singer gave a lecture on his research results. Anyone who deals independently with the climate dictation is accused of heresy.

800 scientific publications against the Co2 thesis

But what comes across as unshakable truth strictly scientific can be exposed as clever, even ingenious propaganda, if you do not only inform yourself one-sided. There have been around 800 scientific publications from the last few years that refute the CO2 greenhouse theses.

The main difference to the climate modelers: They submit experiments with measurements, while the studies published by the IPCC (the international authority known as the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change") are based on computer models and calculations. In a nutshell, the opposite is: facts versus calculations. But if the facts are not perceived by the public, they have no influence in political decision-making either.

The claims of the climate modelers should be treated with caution

The repeated assertion made by the climate modelers should make one suspicious: “The scientific debate about man-made climate change is over.” The hubris and arrogance cannot be surpassed and contradicts any definition of science. As evidence for the final greenhouse gas theory, it is argued again and again: 97 percent of the scientists are in agreement. You can read it in Spiegel, repeated on ZDF in “Frontal 21” and by Guido Knopp's History. “97 percent!”“ - all journalistic warning signals should light up.

For example: 97 percent of how many scientists? And which scientists do they include? Who chose them? Twice in the last two years, critical scientists from all over the world have met in Berlin to present their new research, which has come to different conclusions than the IPCC makers and their believers. But then the Potsdam Institute shines with its absence, hardly a member of the Bundestag and hardly a journalist bother to get information.

„An Inconvenient Truth": Film largely flawed

Another trick that is supposed to stifle the debate is the claim that the impact of CO2 on the climate has been known for 150 years. This refers to the Swedish chemist and all-round scientist Svente Arrhenius, who assumed purely hypothetically, without evidence, that CO2 would warm the climate, which he considered to be a great blessing for mankind. Apart from projections, the CO2 climate warmers still have nothing tangible to offer.

The base figures for the calculations of the IPCC have been destroyed in the lead British institute of the University of Norwich. The Al Gore office apologized for the examples in his film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, which shook the world up.

The numbers and data were taken over by the Munich reinsurance company without being checked, wrote Roger Pielke jr. In the "New York Times" of February 23, 2009. The film was banned from school by the High Court in England and Wales because of its many errors, if it is shown without corrections. In Germany it is still a subject of instruction.

The pricing of CO2 has nothing to do with environmental protection

Nevertheless, the federal government and the opposition are building a price-driving energy policy on the model of man-made climate change, which is costing the German economy hundreds of billions of euros. She doesn't mind that she's increasingly alone in the world. Almost unnoticed by the German public, at the last G8 summit in Deauville, Canada, Japan, Russia and France assured themselves that they would no longer take part in any more conferences for a follow-up protocol to Kyoto.

The US only wants to send observers. While the Chancellor's advisors on climate issues from the Potsdam Institute are still tinkering with scenarios as to how the CO2 can be distributed fairly in the future by a global authority, which of course also determines the economic competitiveness of each country, the rest of the world is slowly saying goodbye to this new one Babylonian tower, which would have marginalized the Central Planning Authority of the USSR.

In the USA the CO2 exchange has burst, in Asia it was not even introduced, in Australia governments are falling over it - only in Europe and under the leadership of Germany CO2 should have a price. It's a real air act. The only tragic thing is that even if no one participates, the German parties are still determined to push through the pricing of CO2. As a role model for the whole world. None of this has anything to do with the energy transition and environmental protection.

The Germans and the fear of the end of the world

Nigel Calder already had a reason for this in 1998. “In the beginning, the theory of CO2 and global warming was an Anglo-Saxon invention that was not least promoted by the nuclear industry, which hoped for a revival. But then it became more and more a scenario for the end of the world and that is against the sober Anglo-Saxons. It was remembered in the IPCC: The Germans are best for doomsday theories! When it comes to the end of the world, the Germans are the best. So the climate-greenhouse-doom theory was handed over to the Germans. I'm afraid: Nigel Calder is right here too.