Published on July 8, 2022
Written by Cap Allon
One of Germany’s most distinguished atmospheric scientists, Professor Hermann Harde, has slammed his nation’s politicians for being duped into “believing they can save the world”.
The vast majority of the published studies and “horror scenarios” are not based on a secure physical foundation, said Harde, “but rather represent computer games that reflect what was fed in”.
The idea that humans can control the climate with their CO2 emissions is an “absolute delusion”.
There is considerable doubt over the “scientifically untenable thesis” of human-caused climate change, continued the Professor, “and it is completely wrong to assume that 97 percent of climate scientists, or even more, would assume only anthropogenic warming”.
Climate and energy policy need to be based on reliable knowledge, “and not on speculations or belief”.
For years now, Germany’s politicians have been placating the ‘green movement’ by closing nuclear and coal power stations and banning exploration for fossil fuels. At the same time, the country started importing large quantities of oil and gas from Russia.
For a nation happy to spend €100b a year on defense, handing your energy security over to a foreign, nuclear-armed superpower should be all the proof you need that politicians follow the gravy and the fad, and not what’s actually best for their country.
In Harde’s view, the extreme ‘climate emergency’ policies we’re all suffering with today (the main cause of inflation) are driven by competition between different research groups trying to outdo each other in predicting the most hair-raising horror scenarios.
These alarming, click-baity predictions attracted media attention, unsurprisingly; it then got an ill-informed public involved, “and our decision-makers felt obliged to quickly react”.
Cheap energy has been under attack for decades now. But it is absolutely clear, noted Harde, that without a reliable and sufficient energy supply, “Germany and many other countries that take such a path will end in anarchy”.
Or is that the goal?
So-called ‘journalism’ today isn’t designed to seek truth, it is rather a mechanism for the elites to propagandize their ideologies to a trusting and compliant population.
This is visible in the data: the vast majority of mass media journalists come from the exact same schools and neighborhoods as the elites and politicians they purport to be holding to account–which wasn’t always the case.
This is a deliberate move, of course, and results in the MSM sharing the same world-views as those in power, views that have little appeal to the general population; however, because the ideologies are promoted everywhere you turn –newspapers/TV/internet– it is assumed that this is the way to think, and so the sheeple blindly follow-along without question.
When a question is raised, however, and a sheep reaches in vain for a logical answer — bam! — it can feel like a sledgehammer to the head. I, personally, can remember that moment vividly, and I also recall the crucial decision that follows:
Professor Harde’s research leads him to state that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change overestimates by five times the thermal effect of doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He points to the “highly overlapping and saturated absorption bands” of CO2 and water vapor, and the significant reduced effect of ‘greenhouses gases’ under cloud cover.“You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”
Only about 15 percent of the global CO2 increase is of man-made origin. After doing a little math –15 percent of 0.3°C– the warming attributed to humans can only be 0.05, at most.
In view of this insignificant contribution, it is absurd to think that a ban on fossil fuels could even remotely impact Earth’s climate. Climatic changes are caused by grand natural forcings and interactions that exceed our human influence by orders of magnitude.
In Professor Hande’s opinion, modern climate science has developed more as an ideology and world view, rather than a serious science.
Scientists who question or point to inconsistencies in the global warming hypothesis are “publicly discredited” and excluded from research funds; research contributions in journals are suppressed; and in a reference to the recent Professor Peter Ridd case, scientists placed on leave or dismissed from their university.
What we call truths, continued Harde, depends to a large extent on our state of knowledge. He suggests that climate science requires a fundamental review of the hypotheses and a shift away from the widely established climate industry.
Science must not be misled by commerce, politics or ideology, he said. It is the genuine task of universities and state-funded research institutions “to investigate contradictory issues and to ensure independent, free research that gives us honest answers, even when these answers are often complex and do not fit into a desired political context”.
Harde concludes by warning politicians that it would be an irresponsible environmental and energy policy to continue to ignore serious peer-reviewed scientific publications that show a much smaller human impact on the climate than previously thought.
It is also irresponsible to shut down a reliable, adequate and affordable energy supply, to be replaced by millions of wind turbines, “that destroy our nature and shred trillions of birds and insects”.
Professor Hermann Harde retired a few years ago from Helmut Schmidt University in Hamburg as Professor of Experimental Physics after a long career in science academia. This is the main reason he is able to speak out: his career isn’t on the line.
See more here: electroverse.net
Bold emphasis added
Thanks to: https://principia-scientific.com