CO2-Driven 'Global Warming' is 'Propaganda'
Thus wrote Günter Ederer in Die Welt back in 2011, which is perhaps the best possible illustration of just how much legacy media changed
Original article—and op-ed—here; translation and emphases mine.
CO2-Driven Climate Change is Just Brilliant Propaganda
By Günter Ederer, Die Welt, 4 July 2011
Politicians, citing the notion of man-made climate change, are devising energy policies that will drive energy prices. Yet, the theory that greenhouse gases are driving anthropogenic climate change has long been disproved.
‘All political parties in the industrialised countries—both on the right and on the left—are adopting the CO2-causes-global warming theory. This is a unique opportunity to tax the air we breathe. Because they are supposedly saving the world from death by overheating, politicians will also be applauded for this. No party will resist this temptation.’ I was told about this as early as 1998 by Nigel Calder, the multi-award-winning British science journalist, editor of New Scientist for many years and BBC contributor.
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 use research to hold the sun responsible for the earth’s climate.
Climate Change: The Big CO2 Lie?
Calder got it right in his assessment of politics. But the findings of researchers, which include scientific work on the effects of the sun and radiation from space on our climate, are largely swept under the rug.
Politicians can’t do anything with these findings. This would mean that the flood of laws [if only ‘laws’] with which citizens are forced to pay ever new levies and taxes in order to save the world could no longer be justified.
Neither the ban on regular light bulbs nor the gigantic subsidies for so-called renewable energy would make sense. Instead of using taxes to influence climate change, 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 about the causes of climate change in German politics. It is simply declared: ‘The emission of greenhouse gases leads to global warming, which is largely undisputed’, thus spake Otmar Edenhofer, chief economist and deputy director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. His colleague Stefan Rahmstorf has simply declared the debate on the causes of climate change over.
The Green Party, which has added man-made climate hysteria [orig. Klimahybris] to its official party manifesto, expressed outrage in a parliamentary enquiry to the federal government as to whether it knew that climate deniers were allowed to speak in the Bundestag. At the invitation of FDP parliamentarian Paul Friedhoff, the founder of NASA’s meteorology division and multi-award-winning American scientist Fred Singer spoke about his research findings. Even those who independently argue with the climate dictate are accused of heresy.
800 Scientific Studies Contradict the CO2 Hypothesis
But what appears to be an unshakeable, strictly scientific truth can be unmasked as clever, even ingenious, propaganda by those who are not only taking up this admittedly one-sided argumentation. There are about 800 scientific publications from recent years that refute the CO2 greenhouse hypothesis.
The latter’s main difference to the climate modellers: they present experiments with observations, whereas the studies published by the IPCC (the international authority that likes to be called the ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’) are based on computer models and estimations. In a nutshell, this dichotomy boils down to facts vs. calculations. But if the facts are not presented to the public, they cannot influence political decision-making.
Climate Modellers’ Claims To be Taken with a Pinch of Salt
Yet, the climate modellers’ repeated claims alone should make anyone suspicious: ‘The scientific debate on man-made climate change is over.’ This is unparalleled in hubris and arrogance, and it contradicts every definition of science. As evidence for the definitive nature of the greenhouse gas theory, it is repeatedly put forward that 97% of scientists agree. To be read in Der Spiegel, repeated on [German state broadcaster] ZDF in ‘Frontal 21’, and by Guido Knopp’s History. ‘97%!’ All journalistic warning signals should light up.
For example: 97% of how many scientists? And which scientists do they include? Who selected them? Twice in the last two years, critical scientists from all over the world have met in Berlin to present their new research, which comes to different conclusions than the IPCC makers and their believers. But then, again, the Potsdam Institute’s absence is conspicuous, and hardly any member of the Bundestag and hardly any journalist take the trouble to inform themselves.
‘An Inconvenient Truth’: A Largely Flawed Film
Another stunt to stifle any debate is the claim that the influence of CO2 on the climate has been known for 150 years. This is a reference to the Swedish chemist and polymath Svente Arrhenius, who assumed purely hypothetically, i.e., without proof, that CO2 would warm the climate, which he, however, considered a great blessing for mankind. Apart from extrapolations [i.e., models], the CO2 climate warmers still have nothing solid [i.e., scientific] to offer.
The baseline figures for the IPCC’s calculations have been destroyed at the leading British research institute at Norwich University. Al Gore’s office has apologised for his world-shaking examples in his film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.
The figures and data had been taken unchecked from Munich Re [a gigantic re-insurance firm], wrote Roger Pielke Jr. in the New York Times on 23 February 2009. Incidentally, because of its many errors, the film was banned by the High Court in England and Wales for school lessons if it is shown without these corrections. In Germany, the film is still used as instructional material in schools.
Taxing CO2 and Environmental Protection Don’t Mix
Nevertheless, the German government and its opposition are devising energy policies based on these [flawed] models of man-made climate change that will send prices ever higher. This is costing the German economy hundreds of billions of euros [already]. The fact that the German government is increasingly alone in doing so does not bother it. At the last G8 summit in Deauville, France, almost unnoticed by the German public, Canada, Japan, Russia, and France gave assurances that they would no longer participate in any conferences for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
The USA only wants to send observers [remember: the piece was published in 2011, i.e., while Mr. Obama—a ‘good’ US president, as opposed to, say, Mr. Trump]. While the Chancellor’s advisors on climate issues from the Potsdam Institute are still tinkering with scenarios on how CO2 can be fairly distributed in the future by a global authority, which of course will help determine the economic competitiveness of each country, the rest of the world is slowly saying goodbye to this new Babylonian tower project that would have put to shame even the Central Planning Authority of the USSR.
In the US, the CO2 exchange bubble has burst, in Asia it was not even introduced, in Australia governments are falling due to its introduction—it is only in Europe and under the leadership of Germany that CO2 supposed to have a price. It is a true nothingburger. The only tragedy is that even if no one joins in, the German parties are still determined to push through carbon pricing. As a model for the whole world. This has nothing to do with energy transition or environmental protection.
The Germans and their Apocalyptic Fear
Nigel Calder had a reason for this back in 1998. ‘In the beginning, global warming and CO2’s contribution was an Anglo-Saxon invention, promoted not least 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 repels the sober Anglo-Saxons. So the IPCC remembered: “The Germans are best for doomsday theories”!’
When it comes to the end of the world, the Germans are best. So the climate greenhouse doomsday theory was handed over to the Germans. I’m afraid: Nigel Calder is spot-on again.
Bottom Lines
The most obvious thing to state is that a piece like the one by Mr. Ederer reproduced above would have exactly zero chances of appearing in legacy media these days.
Next up is the notion of comparability of ‘presumed’ conclusiveness on part of ‘da Science™’. 97% of people agree, no questions are permitted. Everyone who asks even the modestly investigative questions—such as Mr. Ederer above—is deemed a ‘denier’ or espousing ‘conspiracy theories’.
After three years of Covid-related agit-prop—remember: ‘safe and effective’, ‘100% effective’, and all that—anyone who’s pushing these claims better back them up with serious evidence.
Alas, evidence is lacking in both cases, as perhaps best illustrated by illustrations, such as this one (taken from the slide show of the above piece):
This is an essentially meaningless illustration, mainly because there is no data prior to 1961.
Moreover, the Alps were essentially ice-free when Ötzi roamed the area around 3,350 years ago:
In addition, recent evidence from Norway (think: as far north as Alaska) suggests that as recent as 500 years ago, some glaciers, which are retreating today, were ice-free in summer:
Does this mean we shouldn’t act upon the worst insults to the environment and wildlife? Of course we should do everything we can to mitigate our impacts on nature, but doing so shouldn’t be built on the sandy foundation of gaslighting (here’s looking at you, Greta), fear-mongering, and outright lies, like the ones about Antarctic ice losses:
So, kudos to Mr. Ederer—and, perhaps, if ‘Covid’ and the so-called ‘Pandemic’ have any meaning at-all, I believe that more people are ‘doing their own research’ about vaccines, climate change, and many other things as well.
Let’s keep at it and keep asking questions.
Climate change narrative = stupidity.
Biology, loves CO2.
And polar bears, still increasing. 🤨🤔 maybe they didn't get the memo?😉🤷♀️🤣😂
Who wants to believe that we are constantly lied to about these big issues that are presented as life and death scenarios? To get to that point takes a lot. A lot of reading, listening, thinking and courage to face the truth. Thank you for helping us with that!