With Germany scouring the world for supplies of oil and gas and firing up dormant coal power stations, one of its most distinguished atmospheric scientists, Professor Hermann Harde, has castigated politicians for reacting to increasingly shrill climate horror stories and “believing they can save the world”. Many of the research studies and “horror scenarios” are not based on a secure physical foundation, he says, “but rather represent computer games that reflect what was fed in”. The idea that humans can control the climate with their CO2 emissions is said to be an “absolute delusion”.
In Professor Harde’s view, there exists considerable doubt about a “scientifically untenable thesis” of purely human-caused climate change, “and it is completely wrong to assume that 97% of climate scientists, or even more, would assume only anthropogenic warming”. In his view, climate and energy policy can only gain popular acceptance when they are based on reliable knowledge, “and not on speculations or belief”. Harde retired a few years ago from Helmut Schmidt University in Hamburg as Professor of Experimental Physics after a long career in science academia.
For many years, Germany’s politicians have been able to make virtuous green noises by closing nuclear power stations and banning exploration for fossil fuel. At the same time, the country started importing large quantities oil and gas from an unstable Russia. The war in Ukraine has suddenly brought home to Germany, and the EU, the sheer stupidity of this dangerous policy.
In Harde’s view, the move to impose ‘climate emergency’ policies was led by competition between different research groups to outdo each other predicting horror scenarios. Alarming predictions attracted media attention, “and our decision-makers felt obliged to quickly react”. But, noted Harde, it is absolutely clear that without a reliable and sufficient energy supply, “Germany and many other countries that take such a path will end in anarchy”.
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 vapour, and the significant reduced effect of greenhouses gases under cloud cover. He goes on to state that the recent increase in CO2 has caused warming of less than 0.3°C over the last century.
He continues:
Since only about 15% of the global CO2 increase is of anthropogenic origin, just 15% of 0.3°C, i.e., less than 0.05°C remains, which can be attributed to humans in the overall balance. In view of this vanishingly small contribution, of which the Germans are only involved with 2.1% [of emissions], it is absurd to assume that an exit from fossil fuels could even remotely have an impact on our climate. Changes of our climate can be traced back to natural interaction processes 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 serious inconsistencies about human-caused or anthropogenic global warming, are “publicly discredited” and excluded from research funds. In addition, research contributions in journals are supressed, and in a reference to the recent Professor Peter Ridd case in Australia, placed on leave or dismissed from their university. After all, he notes, this is “settled climate science”, and doubts about the harmful effect of CO2 on the environment and the climate are not allowed, “because it is about nothing less than saving the planet”.
What we call truths, continues 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 says. 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”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Postscript: It has been pointed out that a 2018 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that “human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels”. This view is supported by findings from such organisations as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the IPCC, which indicate that human activity is the greatest contributor to global warming, primarily through its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
In Chris Morrison’s defence, the role of human activity in causing global warming is still a matter of dispute among climate scientists and the claim that it is “the greatest contributor to global warming” is not in reality ‘settled science’. Most people know what the IPCC thinks, since its views are widely reported. Our article reported an alternative view, one held by a distinguished atmospheric scientist. We believe science progresses by debating hypotheses such as these, not pretending they are ‘settled’ and dismissing views that challenge them as beyond the pale.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Imagine injecting poisons and heavy chemicals into a human shoulder to generate ‘spike proteins’ and finding out that it kills and injures and does nothing against a non-existent ‘viral genomic structure’. Shock news surely. No single isolated Sars II ‘virus’ in its ‘shell’ exists, making the creation of a ‘remedy’ rather difficult. $cience, fraudology and all that. See HIV for more info.
Fraudology indeed, the new pseudo-scientific umbrella term that encompasses virology, genomics and (sadly) epidemiology. I know of several fraudologists blissfully unaware they are, I guess they’re useful idiots.
The question is ‘how do we stop them?’
We may need to start with daddy fraudster himself, Loius Pasteur and his hubris, erroneous inferences and data manipulation. Swiftly followed up by exposing the epistomological flaws in ‘germ theory’ and the circular reasoning employed by virologists.
It’s going to be a long messy fight, but I’m game!
Here’s another recent one, if it hasn’t already been shared on here. Dr McCullough is one of the authors.
Results;
”Approximately 98% of the King County population received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 2023. Our analysis revealed a 25.7% increase in total cardiopulmonary arrests and a 25.4% increase in cardiopulmonary arrest mortality from 2020 to 2023 in King County, WA.
Excess cardiopulmonary arrest deaths were estimated to have increased by 1,236% from 2020 to 2023, rising from 11 excess deaths (95% CI: -12, 34) in 2020 to 147 excess deaths (95% CI: 123, 170) in 2023. A quadratic increase in excess cardiopulmonary arrest mortality was observed with higher COVID-19 vaccination rates. The general population of King County sharply declined by 0.94% (21,300) in 2021, deviating from the expected population size.”
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202405.1665/v1
Regarding excess deaths/democide, Jacqui Deevoy makes this valid point. And I think the answer is simple, as somebody rightly points out in the comments: the police are obviously paid to prioritise and protect the government ( and their various agendas ), not the people. Examples of this abound across all of the government-pushed narratives. We are nothing more than cattle or collateral damage and zero f***s are given;
”We have recently seen evidence that the police have been told not to investigate jab injuries and deaths when a video showing a police officer explaining this to someone who’d gone to them about a jab death went viral.
I’ve believed for years that the police in the UK have been instructed not to investigate the Midazolam murders too.
It would appear that investigating democide – death by government policy – isn’t their thing.
This belief stems from my own experience of trying to get the police to look into my dad’s suspicious death back in 2021 and from hearing accounts from members of my support group who’ve approached the police about the involuntary euthanasia (i.e. murder) of their loved ones only to be turned away.
Can the police be forced to investigate these deaths? If not, how can it be that such blatant democide can be totally ignored?”
https://x.com/JacquiDeevoy1/status/1807418901589852466
Thanks Mogs
But negative effectiveness in itself is no problem.
The real problem is that they are actually er, shall we say rather toxic.
And there my kindness ends.
The bastards knew this, or should have known –
https://doorlesscarp953.substack.com/p/walkthrough-fcfc-interactions-and?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=650045&post_id=146127883&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=x6a6a&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=emailwn.
Were we not in Clown World, they would be facing prison.
Some might think a greater punishment should befall them.
Well, negative effectiveness is a problem if you’re elderly and, thus, more likely to be infected. For the elderly, even catching a cold can ultimately be fatal.
I’m glad I said no, wait and see, in March 2021.
During the next “pandemic”, which may come during your preferred Labour government, you may not get the option to “wait and see”: Sir Keir Starmer Reveals How He Would Handle Anti-Vaxxers & Reacts to the New COVID Measures | GMB Sir Keir Starmer Reveals How He Would Handle Anti-Vaxxers & Reacts to the New COVID Measures | GMB (youtube.com)
I understand that medical scientists want to write articles in a way that may get them “published in a major medical journal” but it’s been bleedin’ obvious for more than two years that the Covid vaccines are not effective. Anyone who wants to look (e.g. on the Worldometer website) can see the graphs showing the MASSIVE increases in Covid cases and Covid deaths in Australia, New Zealand and many Asian countries after mass vaccination compared to before. An effective vaccine is supposed to REDUCE cases and/or deaths, not be followed by MASSIVE INCREASES in cases and deaths, as the graphs for Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and many other countries clearly show:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
We need to add the possibility of the Antibody Dependent Enhancement Effect as an additional mechanism why Covid infection in vaccinated people flourish.
Antibodies developed after vaccination with a certain strain, can potentially enhance virus entry and replication by the next strain that is slightly different.
One of the reasons not to mass vaccinate during an outbreak.
What are the clear and specific symptoms identifying the illness named Covid-19? If there are none then maybe there is no such thing as Covid-19, especially if you can only identify a person as having the illness by means of a PCR analysis, when the inventor of PCR said you cannot use this method to identify illness.
And why did anyone believe, it being the case that Covid-19 takes on so many different forms of illness (like being run over by a bus), that a vaccine can be created to supposedly protect against this undefinable disease?
I suppose we should be happy our politicians did not react like they do with the bird flu – massacring whole bird populations at any sign that one of them is sick. Or maybe that is more or less exactly what they did …