by Cap Allon
One of Germany's most distinguished atmospheric scientists,
Hermann Harde, has slammed his
nation's politicians for being duped into,
"believing they can
'save the world'"...
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
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
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
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,
It then got an
ill-informed public involved,
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
"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
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
I, personally, can
remember that moment vividly, and I also recall the crucial decision
"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."
research leads him to state that
the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
overestimates by five times the thermal effect of doubling
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
He points to the,
and saturated absorption bands" of CO2 and water
vapor, and the significant reduced effect of 'greenhouses gases'
under cloud cover.
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
case, scientists placed on leave or dismissed from their
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,
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
"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
This is the main reason
he is able to speak out:
his career isn't on