Hof Beyerinck

Is CO2 responsible for climate change?

Fr eine bersetzung in deutscher Sprache mssen Sie auf die Flagge drcken:


  Voor een vertaling in het Nederlands moet u op de vlag drukken:

With regard to the media, 2,500 scientists from 130 countries believe that people have a negative impact on the global climate and that the man-made increase in concentration of the "greenhouse gases" is the culprit.
Can all these scientists be wrong?

   Global Warming; 31.487 Scientists say NO to Alarm            The IPCC Fraud             IPCC censors climate scientists

A statement by US President Barack Obama: "97 percent of scientists agree: Climate change is a fact, man-made and dangerous".

                                                  The 97% climate consensus myth

The media conceal that over 4000 scientists have signed the Heidelberg Appeal, including 74 Nobel Prize winners. They are skeptical about climate science. Governments and authorities are cautioned against making decisions based on manipulated temperature data and pseudo-scientific arguments.

The following is initially about "scientific and pseudoscientific arguments". This is followed by a discussion of "manipulated temperature data" (see below), amazing about CO2 gas" (see below), some "conclusions" (see below) and the role of the politically motivated media (see below).

One should be aware of the fact that science is not democratic. Not the majority determines whether something is true, but evidence.

(An anecdote attributed to Albert Einstein goes like this: confronted with criticism of his theory of relativity, which was voiced by many scientists, he said: With good arguments and evidence, one critic suffices. So if you find scientific errors in the following text, please contact: e.debeyer@arcor.de)

The average temperature of 8 planetary bodies with dense atmospheres can be calculated precisely by applying a formula that depends on the knowledge of four parameters: 1) the molecular composition of the atmosphere at the surface, 2) the mean height of the atmosphere and 3) the attraction of the planet, with which the average atmospheric pressure at the surface and thus the heat of compression can be calculated from points 1 to 3 and 4) the distance to the sun. (Nikolov & Zeller 2017)

Below these are planets with very many and very few greenhouse alleys. So the temperature on a planet is independent of existing greenhouse lanes, or the influence of greenhouse gases on the temperature of a planet is too low to be measurable. (see below and below)

This also applies to Saturn's moon Titan with hydrocarbon (CH4) in its atmosphere and for the greenhouse planet Venus with 96% CO2 in its thick atmosphere and 92 bar pressure on the ground. This proves that the temperature on Venus is not affected by the greenhouse gases, but only by the sun and compression heat!

We also know this high pressure on our earth, in a diesel engine. Here, the piston compresses the air / diesel mixture as much as the CO2 atmosphere on Venus surface. The gas explodes under this high temperature.

The air temperature on the earth in the lowest c.a. 15 km drops or rises therefore by 6 C per 1000 m difference in altitude! (see below)

In the past the Earth also had an atmosphere like that of Venus. When the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere in its formation phase was still above 100 C, there were no oceans. All H2O present on Earth had evaporated and all O2 was oxidized or burnt! The atmosphere was mainly composed of the greenhouse gases water vapor and CO2. As a result, the earth's atmosphere has not been warmed, but has cooled down further and further. Why?
Nature always strives for balance! The cooling of the Earth's atmosphere was necessary to get the Earth's temperature in equilibrium with the sun's rays. For this, the surplus heat would have to be released to the universe. Since there is only a vacuum around the earth, the earth can only cool down by outgoing (emitting) radiation.
The composition of the atmosphere has, for balance reasons, no influence on the sum of outgoing radiation!

The infrared radiation of the earth's surface is small (45 W / m) compared to the outgoing infrared radiation of the atmosphere (240 W / m), see below.

The earth's surface can cool down by emitting heat radiation through the atmospheric window.
In the atmosphere air molecules, that change their dipole moment by vibrations, can also be cooled by infrared radiation. This condition is fulfilled by molecules composed of two different or at least three atoms.

So the cooling of the air by infrared radiation is only possible by Molecules as CH4, CO2 and H2O. And the earth had a lot of that at first, so the cooling worked well. Sufficient emissive radiation eventually establishes a balance between incoming and outgoing heat.            


The incident solar radiation (the visible light in the red wave area) penetrate through the atmosphere to the earth's surface and heat, by absorption (the gray areas with mainly the spectral lines of H2O), the triatomic "greenhouse gases". The greenhouse gases (in the blue wave area) give off heat radiation in the direction of the universe, which causes them to cool down again. The long-wave heat radiation emitted by the earth's surface (in the blue wave range between 8.7 μm and 12.4 μm) can not warm the triatomic "greenhouse gases" H2O and CO2 due to missing spectral lines (non-existent gray areas)!
Only at outgoing wavelength from the gray areas can CO2 absorb and release radiation. The wavelength of 15 microns (-58 C) is interesting for the greenhouse effect, see below. (shorter wavelength, for example 4.3 μm (+ 400 C), we do not have them on the surface of the earth!)
CO2 gas does not react to any other wavelength!
See the Wiensches Verschiebungsgesetz for the temperature


The CH4 gas reacts only on IR-radiation of 96 C, that we also do not have on earth! (plus 3,3 μm (605C) and 2,3 μm (986C)) The IPCC claim, that the warming potential of methane is 25 times higher than that of carbon dioxide, is justified differently! see below


Since the radiation of the earth is between +50 C (8,9 μm) and -40 C (12,4 μm), the entire heat radiation of the earth's surface disappears through the atmospheric window (7,5 bis 14,5 μm) directly into the sky! (see above)

The CO2 gas heats up on the earth's surface through contact with warmer molecules, as all other air molecules do. Once these molecules have reached a height of about 10 km, their temperature has dropped to -58 C and CO2 can not cool down further by emitting radiation, (see below)
Subsequently, the CO2, as H2O, will further cool the surrounding air molecules by impact. CH4 can not do this because of the lack of spectral lines and cools down like all other air molecules! (see below)


Water vapor can been heated up by direct sunlight. When cooled, water vapor can emit IR radiation.
Second Law of Thermodynamics "Heat can never pass from a body of low temperature (water molecules at a certain height) to a body of higher temperature (earth surface) by itself."
An Earth surface heating backradiation, which is necessary for the so-called "greenhouse effect" must therefore have a temperature that is higher than the Earth's surface temperature! This eliminates CO2 as a counter-radiation candidate because its radiation-temperature is too low at -58 C.

The Counter-radiation could at best be the cooling radiation of the H2O in the direction of the earth's surface. Of course, for this < 8.7 μm radiation, it can warm the earth's surface because it is warmer than our surface. This is ultimately only a delayed solar radiation towards the earth's surface and has nothing to do with the earth's radiation, as the IPCC claims, see below.

Only water vapor can use some spectral lines, from the incoming solar radiation, to warm up. Therefore, only water vapor can be made responsible for the capture and release (cooling) later, in a colder area, from heat radiation! see above.

                                          The coolants of the earth            Dr. Stehlik

The air stores heat in its molecules. Also the landmasses and especially the oceans store solar heat.

All in all, the atmosphere warms up to an average of + 15 C (≈ 288 K) and life on earth is possible!

This is how the natural "greenhouse" earth works! (although this cooling influence of the greenhouse gases on the temperature due to the atmospheric pressure and the sun is extremely minimal, see above)

In the following we treat the minimal temperature change by greenhouse gases.

Lots of atoms and molecules can absorb radiation and store it in the form of internal energy. (Conversely, a particle can release internal energy in the form of radiation)

Atmospheric molecules consisting of three atoms can therefore both warm up and cool down by absorbing or releasing heat radiation (infrared radiation)! They can only react to the specific wavelength of their molecules, the so-called spectral lines.

If, due to more greenhouse gases, the Earth's outgoing radiant energy would be lower than the sun's incoming radiant energy, it could heat the atmosphere. However, this does not correspond to reality. (See below)

Neither CO2 nor H2O molecules in the air can prevent a cooling of the earth's surface by outgoing radiation! (see above)

Now 99.9% of the earth's atmosphere consists of the diatomic homonuclear molecules N2 and O2 and the noble gas argon, which can neither absorb nor give off heat radiation. Only by contact with the earth's surface or by contact with warmer layers of air can they heat up and cool off into colder regions. But they can not cool the ground, because they can not emit IR radiation.

The surface temperature of a satellite is not its ambient temperature of minus 270 degrees, but + 4 C (see Prof.Werner Maurer from
Therefore, without greenhouse gases in the air, it would not get -18 C, as the IPCC claims. See below. The sun-heated surface of the earth would warm the air without allowing this air to cool off in the direction of the universe. (
The earth's surface is still cooling down by means of convection, heat conduction and IR radiation. see above) A cooling of the air could only take place as it happens now. Not the temperature but the heat content of the air will be smaller due to the lack of water vapor. (See below) The balance between incident radiation and escaping radiation from ouer planet-earth does not change. (See below and above)

The founding mandate of the IPCC was literally "to prove that man sinned against the climate". This corresponds to the classical definition of "pseudoscience". This is what we are talking about when it comes to "proving" an economically, politically or strategically desired hypothesis.
In contrast, real science is always open to results, in pseudoscience the result is given.

A pseudoscientific proof:


                                 The Greenhouse Gas Demo                   Prove of the greenhouse effect?  from 9:43 to 11:32

Pseudoscientific is the assertion that a container enriched with CO2 gas, which heats up by irradiation with infrared rays (
or that a CO2 gas heats up when it is fed into a container irradiated with infrared rays), is a proof for the greenhouse effect.
When at ambient temperature (
equilibrium temperature without infrared radiator), e.g. 21 C, an equally warm CO2 enrichment is made, you will be able to see that the temperature does not change! So no greenhouse effect! (A glass of water in the microwave does not get warmer when more water glasses are placed in, but by turning on the microwave. You can also put your hand in the lower container, you will not feel anything with an increase in the CO2 content until the infrared heater is turned on. The molecules in your hand reacts, like CO2, immediately to the additional infrared radiation with the right wavelength.)

When the infrared heater is on, the temperature in the CO2-enriched room rises.


The trick behind this test is that the infrared radiator radiates exactly into the spectral line of CO2! (400C by 4,3 m, see above) This extra energy that we do not have on our Earth will help us reach a higher equilibrium temperature!

                                                           Is carbon dioxide really a climate killer? from 5:10


This trick also works with a normal lamp. Since the light intensity is small at 4.3 μm, it only takes a bit longer!

At a natural radiation wavelength from 8,9 m to 12,4 m, corresponding to the radiation temperature of +
50 C to -40 C, the CO2 gas would not react!

It is also interesting that the temperature in the upper compartment, due to a too low natural CO2 concentration, despite the infrared radiation, does not increase. (provided, of course, that the gas does not heat up to the walls heated by the IR-radiation)

And so this test is actually a proof that the CO2 gas has no influence on the climate at all!

In this way, an infrared radiator can heat objects in the room, but not the air! These are only heated by contact with the by radiation heated objects.


Although the infrared radiator emits the wavelength of 4.3 μm, the concentration of CO2 in the air of the room is too low for noticeable warming!

Actually, it is therefore quite idiotic to believe that the earth's radiation, without the wavelength of 4.3 microns, can increase the temperature of the atmosphere!

Close to nature would be a concentration increase of the CO2--gas at the equilibrium temperature as that takes place in reality. Because the gas is now not supplied with more energy as before (no radiation with 4.3 μm), the temperature can not increase! On the contrary, now more CO2 atoms at high altitudes are involved by the colder outgoing radiation. (see below). It can be measured that at an ambient temperature of  -58 C or 15 m (see above), the outgoing radiation has increased by these gases. More outgoing radiation with the same heat load leads to cooling. So the atmospheric cooling by the additional CO2-gases has become bigger.

            NASA: the cooling effect of CO2           CO2 gases cool the atmosphere! from 4:16

In the test setup shown above, a higher temperature of the CO2 gas is only possible when the infrared heater is turned on. This shifts the equilibrium temperature upwards. This is how the warming of the Earth's atmosphere works. A higher temperature of the atmosphere is obtained by receiving more solar radiation, which raises the temperature of the H2O molecules in the atmosphere and increases the surface temperature of the earth, thereby giving off more heat.

Nor is there any doubt that humans have with Urbanization / Overpopulation an influence on the climate

Deforestation of the earth has a direct impact on the climate. In forests it is always colder than on an open field due to the higher humidity and shade, see below
. There is greater warming of the soil due to a change in the albedo.

Humans produce heat in their cities; the so-called heat island! see below

As a result the air
, with water vapor and CO2
, is heated by conduction and convection. As soon as they cool down to the temperature of their spectral lines, they emit radiation in the direction of space and earth. Result: Heat island emit additional infrared radiation.

In the direction of space: Satellite measurements confirm increased outgoing radiation on our earth. NASA satellite measurements
Direction Earth: At two sites in Alaska and Oklahoma, the US scientists followed the effect of the gas in detail over a period of eleven years. Both series of measurements consistently showed that CO2 increasingly emits infrared energy in the atmosphere. This -58 C cold IR-radiation is reflected on the warmer surface, without energy release! (See below)

Pseudoscientific is also the claim that if heat radiation from a candle can not be transmitted through a CO2-enriched container, this is a testament to the greenhouse effect. dies ein Bewies ist fr den Treibhauseffekt.


                                                      CO2 Absorption of heat radiation of a candle

Three comments about this:
1) Our earth does not emit radiation with the heat of a candle (400 C), except by forest fires.
2) For the experiment, the IR camera was set in the range of absorption lines of CO2 at 4.3 microns. (See above, outside the heat radiation spectrum of the earth, but in the middle of the heat radiation spectrum of the candle flame).
3) That's why the IR camera can see the warm flame, but not the colder wax candle!

For this trick thy chosen the "wrong" wavelength range for the measuring the CO2 climate impact.

This has little to do with reality. The decisive impact of the Earth's surface is 8,9 μm (+50 C) to 12,4 μm (-40 C). The decisive for the greenhouse effect radiation absorption of CO2 is 15 microns (-58 C). (See above)

It should also be taken into account that CO2, at the current CO2 concentration of 0.038% or 380 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, absorbs almost every 15 μm radiation . (This can be illustrated by a soot-blackened pane of glass. The disc is impervious to light and a further blacking shows no extra effect.) An additional CO2 supply therefore hardly contributes to the enhancement of the absorption, in a temperature range (-58 C!) Which anyway exists on our earth's surface only at the poles! (The CO2 at 10 km altitude can only absorb this Earth's radiation, but emit a lot of radiation by cooling! See above)

Another pseudoscientific argument for CO2 as a climate-relevant gas;

How to Win Any Debate on Climate Change  A sentence like "if this is wrong, a lot of basic chemistry is wrong" sounds logical, but is not very convincing if the previous theory is wrong. More CO2 gas does not prevent the radiation (cooling) in the direction of the universe. On the contrary! As explained above: CO2 can only absorb or release radiation at temperatures of +400 C or -58 C. For all other temperature beams CO2 can not absorb radiant energy! Since the radiation of the earth is between -40 C and +50 C, the entire heat radiation disappears directly into the sky! (see above
. As a game of thought, you can darken a 1.5m wide window with a thick 2m wide curtain. In the opinion of climatologists, this would require 2 narrow curtain rods with 1 cm diameter left and right of the window to achieve the same effect!)

In addition: When  H2O, CH4 and CO2 gas are hit by radiation, with the appropriate wavelength, starting from warmer matter, then this radiation is not absorbed, but the illuminated molecules emit immediately infrared radiation with a longer wavelength! The energy loss between incoming and outgoing radiation determines the temperature increase of the molecule. If the molecule is struck again by an equally warm beam, the emitted radiation is equal to the absorbed radiation power and the molecule no longer changes its temperature. This stationary state is called the radiation equilibrium between the earth's surface and the atmosphere and is actually only valid for water molecules because of the spectral lines.


At high humidity, the greenhouse effect should be strongest. But comparative research from different places at the same latitude shows that
higher humidity leads to lower temperatures, not higher ones. Another comparison can be made between tropical rain forest around the equator and desert areas. Due to its high humidity, the tropical rain forest should be the example where greenhouse effect is strongest. The opposite is true. In spite of a greater amount of sunlight, the average temperature in the tropical forest is certainly 10 degrees lower than in the deserts. That it is cooler in the jungle is due to the enormous evaporation, so that a lot of heat is extracted from the air here. Furthermore, the resulting clouds prevent direct sunlight. So there is no "greenhouse effect"!

Clouds and their formation are the heat storage of the lower atmosphere !!


More greenhouse gases in the atmosphere result in an increase of triatomic molecules in the atmosphere and thus more stored heat. (Not the temperature, but the heat capacity of the atmosphere has increased) This creates, with the same solar radiation, more reflected and emitted radiation in the direction of all and thus an increased cooling of the atmosphere.
With more greenhouse gases, the atmosphere does not get warmer, only the heat content is increased and thus the outgoing radiation (cooling). The heat output from the earth's surface is thereby increasingly released in the universe!

                                                           Why CO2 cools the earth's surface

Therefore, in the past there has never been a temperature increase due to a CO2 increase. (See below)

Unless you believe the radiation balance of the climatologists. Afterwards, the atmosphere does not get colder, but warmer by a stronger reflection on the additional "greenhouse gases".
                                               The greenhouse effect in the opinion of the climatologists:




In the upper left image part of the solar radiation is converted into heat and heat radiation. The heat and heat radiation can not leave the glazed box. This increases the internal temperature. The so-called greenhouse effect!


Here, the climatologists overlook the fact that the glass plate not only prevents the heat radiation from the box to escape, but also does not let in part of the radiation. (Important is the fact that glass is practically completely impermeable for wavelengths below 0.3 μm and above approximately 2.7 μm.)



If the glass plate is replaced by a transparent and all radiation permeable salt plate, then this heat radiation can penetrate unhindered and escape again. The salt plate only prevents the escape of heated air!


The additional incoming heat radiation also heats the floor. The heat inside is thereby higher than with the glass plate!


The inside temperature has nothing to do with the captured radiation !!





This is how a greenhouse works: windows open and the warm air escapes. It is getting cold despite an unchanged heat radiation! So no greenhouse effect, just "hoarse" air!


The air temperature decreases upwards (down to -60 C at 10 km).


The CO2 gas cools by impact on other air molecules, by adiabatic pressure reduction with increasing height and, as soon as its temperature has dropped to -58 C, by radiation emitted with 15 μm wavelength, see above. These temperatures we only have to the poles and in the upper troposphere! The CO2 radiates from there in all directions.



From the top you "see" that the frosen earth's surface radiates through the atmospheric window unobstructed by -8 C and that the CO2 also radiates upwards by -53 C. From below you "see" the very cold upper atmosphere through the atmospheric window and also the slightly warmer radiation of CO2 from a higher altitude at a wavelength of 15 microns.


The climatologists claim that the resulting relatively cold IR radiation, the so-called counter-radiation, additionally heats the earth's surface.

Since here the sun is irradiation 342 = 107 + 235 of radiation, according to the climatologists, the sun provides no additional heat to explain an increase in temperature on the earth! That's one of the big IPCC errors of thought !! (See below for more errors)

Neither the solar activity nor the distance to the sun are constant, which makes temperature fluctuations easy to explain.

But the climatologists claim that only a backradiation is responsible for an additional global warming.
According to the climatologists, the backradiation is the proportion of heat radiation reflected by greenhouse gases from a relatively cold altitude towards the relatively warm earth surface, whose energy thus remains in the Earth's system and heats the earth's surface in addition to sunlight.
But a room is not additionally heated by radiant heat from the walls of the room, but by the heating, which has also heated the walls of the room! Or in other words: heat radiation from relatively cold walls can not warm a warmer body in the room!
Heat energy always moves from a higher temperature to a lower temperature! It does not matter whether this heat transport takes place via heat conduction, convection or radiation.
The explanations of the climatologists:
"A condensing lens made of ice can focus the sun's rays so that even a fire is kindled, so the heat radiation reaches from the cold ice to the very warm fire." (this should explain the heat transfer from cold to warm matter?)
or something more pseudoscientific:

"The energy of the molecules of the soil is statistically distributed according to the soil temperature, so the average energy distribution of the molecules defines the temperature of the soil (about 15 C), the same applies to the molecules of greenhouse gases, but with an energy distribution towards lower values. As the greenhouse gases are cooler than the ground, the infrared photons of the counterradiation are correspondingly lower in energy (-58 C) and if they hit the ground, they can only excite molecules with even lower energy (!) is sufficient for warming (?), shifts thereby but the statistical energy distribution of all the molecules of the soil to higher values ​​(?) The heat flows so in the end clearly from the warmer soil to the cooler atmosphere with the greenhouse gases and then in the direction of space (!). The net flow (?) Goes from warm to cold very good, because the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated! (?) "
Very, very unlikely to find on the earth's surface a molecule colder than the backradiation of - 58 C! This backradiation therefore does not cause any increase in temperature on the earth's surface. (no energy transfer, Thomson scattering)

The first law of thermodynamics is that energy can neither be produced nor destroyed nor consumed. Energy can only be transformed from one form to another.


The Earth system also obeys this principle: the energy that is radiated by the sunlight is only converted (warm water, rain, wind, cloud formation, etc.) and finally released as heat radiation back from the earth to the universe. No body can heat up on its own power, this always requires additional energy from the outside. What is not the case with a constant solar radiation! Therefore, a warming of the earth on its own power is not possible! (Stored energy, such as burns or volcanic eruptions, could briefly heat or cool the Earth's atmosphere until the equilibrium re-establishes, but this energy has also come from outside at some point, just like a house can only get warm because the oil tank has previously been filled up.)
The thermal radiation of greenhouse gases radiates in all directions. The sky is not a mirror! If the counter-radiation is due to a reflection on CO2 molecules, as the IPCC claims, then the law of distance says that the intensity of the radiation decreases by the square of the distance. (1: R or, in the case of reflection in a random direction, only 10% of the radiation intensity remains in the direction of the earth after 100 m).

But in the opinion of the climatologists, the total counterradiation of 324 W / m should reach the earth's surface and be even greater than the sun's radiation of 168 W / m!

The radiant heat output of 324 W / m allocated to the counter-radiation corresponds approximately to that of a red-light irradiation lamp at a distance of one meter from the radiator; the reception of such radiant power is registered by normal people in any case. Since the earth's surface emits heat at night, this counter-radiation shines even at night! The alleged 324 W / m power of the back radiation can be determined neither by human perception nor by metrological verification. 
Considering the previous picture, that in the troposphere the temperature decreases towards the top and at the same time recalls the second law of thermodynamics "Heat can never change from a body of low temperature to a body of higher temperature", then "counter-radiation" turns out the to be nothing more than a fantasy product.


In fact, a molecule that absorbs heat radiation (photons) from the sun or the earth's surface emits colder photons, but in an arbitrary direction. Those who disappear in the direction of an even colder space cool the atmosphere. Those who radiate towards the earth are reflected on warmer molecules (no energy transfer, Thomson scattering) until they also disappear in the direction of the universe and continue to cool the atmosphere.
An illusionist is an artist who tries to make the impossible true. By preference, he "violates" laws of nature by e.g. To let people float. He himself knows of course how this trick works. See above.

Thus, anyone who claims that greenhouse gases can heat up the planet earth violates this idea even against two laws of nature (first and second law of thermodynamics, "the earth can not heat without an additional external energy supply" and "photons (backradiation) starting from cold atoms can not warm a warmer atom."

                                           The real impac of CO2.       Dr. Heinz Shtte

If you have a theory such as Environmental policy should work, then it is possible to convince your opponent of your opinion. But if you have a theory that speaks against a law of nature, then there is only one possibility: humble your head in humility and apologize for your wrongdoing.
The IPCC climatologists will never do that and that's why they are not really scientists, but climate illusionists! See above, above, above and above.
You now know how this trick works! It is a perpetual motion machine of the first and second kind, supported with fake temperature data! See below.


With this trick, the IPCC tries to sell the biggest nonsense as a serious science!

Scientists do not adapt data to their wishes and do not ignore any laws of nature!

Refutation of the greenhouse effect based on the laws of physics

Established climate research is pseudoscience! - Interview with Prof. dr. Gerhard Gerlich

  The proof: anthropogenic climate change is unscientific!

If you are still convinced that CO2 is responsible for man-made global warming, then you should at least take part in the climate bet. Here you can win 10.000 !
The one who wants to bet has only to propose an experiment that can be considered a proof of the greenhouse effect. So an experiment that proves that CO2 can cause warming, as the IPCC claims.

And I'm convinced that nobody can do it!


The radiation balance, without trickery, in the opinion of meteorologists:

(For comparison, the fraudulent radiation balance of climatologists)

The earth absorbs 341 W/m=101+240 W/m what the earth emits.

The Earth's surface absorbs 146 W/m =117+84+45 W/m which emits the Earth's surface.
This representation is logical and confirmed by measurements on the ground, in the air and from satellites. Here also the temperature increase by increase of the air pressure is clearly visible! (See above)

CH4 as a greenhouse gas.

The IPCC believes that methane will reduce the conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO
2), produced by combustion of fossil fuels, into solid sulphate compounds. (These floating particles (aerosols) reflect reflected sunlight directly back into the universe and thereby reduce global warming!) This reduction of aerosols thus increases the temperature of the atmosphere 25 times as much as CO2 would!

According to the IPCC, methane is harmful because it reduces man-made air pollution! But the desulfurization of flue gases is a good thing, because these aerosols are the cause of acid rain!

Satellite measurements show that neither thawing permafrost nor cattle play a role in the production of CH4!

Another flaw of the IPCC is that they and Earth see it as a black spotlight, although we all know that the earth seen from space is beautifully colored and a lot of solar radiation is reflected. Clouds, ice surfaces, distribution of land and sea, relief and vegetation are not taken into account.

The Stefan Boltzmann law only applies to bodies with a homogeneous black surface. It therefore has no influence on the Earth's temperature without an atmosphere with water vapor, without an albedo effect and without a rotating movement which allows the sun-facing side to cool off at night.
The shape of the earth is not a sphere in the IPCC-surface calculation, but a disc! (Dr Thne from 1:53:27) Then this erroneous calculation is corrected by reducing the solar radiation!
Thus they come with an atmosphere without greenhouse gases on the erroneous -18 C instead of +15 C.
As already mentioned above, the composition of the atmosphere has, for reasons of equilibrium, no influence on the sum of the outgoing radiation! What comes in as solar energy, must also come out as heat radiation!

And of course it is a mistake that they do not include the all-important compression heat in the temperature calculation. (See above)

A good example of this is the Saturn moon Titan. It is considered to be the most earthly celestial body of the solar system due to its atmosphere of 98.4% nitrogen (N2) and about 1.6% argon and has instead of water hydrocarbons in clouds, rain and lakes. In the atmosphere are clouds, which are mainly composed of the greenhouse gas methane (CH4) and rain on the surface. Its gas envelope is about five times as dense on the surface and the pressure is slightly higher at 1.5 bar than on earth. The solar radiation is only a thousandth of the radiation on earth. The surface temperature of titanium at -180 C is much lower than that of the earth, but again, neither the Stefan Boltzmann law nor the greenhouse gas methane does affect this temperature, they are calculated only from the heat of compression. (see above).

Therefore, Venus and Titan prove that greenhouse gases have no influence on their temperature!
The "climate sensitivity" invented by the IPCC is therefore completely out of place with regard to the CO2 concentration!

So much for the pseudo-scientific arguments.

Now we discuss the temperature data manipulated by the IPCC.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been deceived." But it's worth a try.

Aside from a few pseudo-scientific arguments, the only factual argument I know about the claim of "man-made global warming" is to increase CO2 consensus in parallel with increasing global temperatures.

So let's take a closer look at the temperature rise.

                           UAH Sateliet Data                                                                           NOAA Data

Here are two remarks:
1) At the height of the crosses you can see that the two graphics are not equal.
2) For both graphics no clear temperature indication is given.

Nevertheless, such graphics are generally not in doubt.

According to the data collected by the US weather service NOAA, the mean year hundred temperature of the oceans is 16.1 C (The useful quantity and distribution of buoys has only been around since 2003), land masses are 8.5 C, and ice masses are below 0 C. The global average year hundred temperature of air masses 2 meters above the surface is 15 C.

Since 1880 (13,88 C), the temperature of the earth has risen by 0.8 degrees to 14,68 C in 2018. That is true, but it is also true that since 1915 (15 C) the temperature of the earth has sunk by 0.3 C! (See below)

                                                                  Ice Doesn't Lie - But NASA And NOAA Scientists Do

It can easily be proven that the temperature developments shown above are adapted to the wishes of the IPCC!
Unbelievable but true!

For example, it can not be seen from the IPPC graphics that the world average temperatures from 1920 to 1960 and from 1985 to 1998 were higher than today with 14,7 C! (See below and below)

By lowering the measured temperatures from the past, it looks as if a constant temperature rise has taken place during the last 60 years. (See below)

One of the many tricks that climatologists use to distort the temperature history graphs in their favor is the heat island effect. Far too many measuring stations are in cities !! Of course, the weather stations measure higher values there than in the surrounding areas. Furthermore, more and more stations are coming through the growing cities under the influence of its heat.


                                    Heat island                                                                         Measuring stations

A constant increase in urban measuring stations and simultaneous reduction of rural measuring stations creates an apparent "global warming". Data manipulation

The influence of wind farms also plays a role. As a result of the rotation of the blades, higher and lower air layers are mixed. The warm air that leaves the Earth is pushed down again. This influence can extend over a distance of 100 km. Measurements in practice at large wind farms in Texas and in China have shown that the temperature has risen by almost 1 degree Celsius in the last 10 years. (In West Texas, where the four largest wind farms are located in the world, the following has been established: Satellite measurements have shown that between 2003 and 2011 there has been a warming of 0.72 toC compared to the landscape where there were no turbines.)

After the measured values, an adjustment of these temperature data then takes place. Adjustment is a process by which the measured temperatures of the past are no longer unchangeable (as one might expect), but "adjusted" according to the IPCC wishes. (Manipulated climate data) (some revealing videos have fallen victim to censorship in Germany!)
                             GISS temperature data from 1999                               GISS temperature data from 2004

When it became clear after 1999 that the temperature rise had stopped and it seemed that this could be because of decreasing solar activity duration (see below), this has caused the IPCC to make some "improvements" in the development of the temperature!

     NOAA accused of manipulating global warming data                 Datenverflschung

Nearly all past temperature measurements are somehow adjusted by the IPCC. In the case of adjustments for objective reasons, the average of the data increases or decreases, but the trend changes little. However, if all settings go down, this indicates that the IPCC is designing the temperature as it pleases! (They make these corrections because no measurement point was measured for 30 years at the same location without the environment changing. On the other hand, these local changes must be able to influence the average world temperature and should therefore not be changed!)

When an old measuring station is replaced by a new measuring station, the measurements continue to run in parallel until the new measuring point is set to produce the same values as the old measuring station. Only then will the old measuring station be dismantled. It can therefore never be that after years the values of the old measuring station must be "corrected" by a few degrees Celsius!
It should be remembered that meteorologists have measured their measurements to a tenth of a degree in the past. They will turn into their graves of anger over their present day colleagues claiming that their measurements were wrong by several degrees Celsius!

Scientists are not allowed to change the temperature values of the past!!

 Is The Global Temperature Record Credible?       Changes to the climate data         Changes to the HadCRUT4-climate data

"Nearly all the warming they are now flaunting goes back to the adjustments," said meteorologist Prof. Joe D'Aleo, "every record has reduced the warming of the 1940s and exaggerated the current warming."
                             Measured values                                                                  Adjusted values
                                                                                                1934 is the Hottest Year on Record 

How does this adjustment, or rather fraud, work exactly?
For this you have to, for example, Take a close look at the NASA-GISS database:


The monthly numbers are only the behind comma digits of 14 C.
If you compare the databases from two different times (for example, here the beginning and end of Nov-2015 with Jan-2017), then you will see how much data is being faked (adjusted) here!

Red underlined values have been increased and blue underlined values have been reduced.
(The Nov-2015 file is again fake compared to its predecessor, which originally measured values are no longer findable!)

For every month that comes to it, all previous data will be "corrected" so that the temperature history graphs show a constant temperature increase! In particular, the data from 1920 to 1950 will be reduced and the data from 1999 until now raised!
(With heartfelt thanks to the discoverers of this fraud, the Climate Manifest Heiligenroth)

                                                         Manipulated climate data from 49:34


                                                    Temperature data adjustments in 2015 and 2017
(El Nio: the 2015/2016 event was the third strongest in 65 years. Cyclic ocean currents (AMO and PDO) cause short-term fluctuations in the climate, but do not affect the long-term trend)

As these data "corrections" are made backwards each month, computer-controlled and in small steps, the "politically desired" temperature rise remains without the population realizing it.

So IPCC climatologists can claim that new monthly and annual heat records are being broken. 2014 with 14.59 C, 2015 with 14.80 C and 2016 with even 14.84 C were always IPCC heat record years.

Harald Lesch und Mojib Latif  ab 7:05 bis 9:00

But the Internet does not forget anything and here you can read the earlier statements of the climatologists:

The literature from 30 years ago tells us that global temperatures in 1988 and 1990 were 15.5 C. Values above 15 C were, according to the opinion of the IPCC, worrying and the trend was still rising!


                                               IPPC with 15,5 C for 1988


                   IPPC with 15,5 C for 1990

From 1997 NOAA data: "The global average temperature of 62.45 F (16.9 C) in 1997 was the warmest year since records began, exceeding the previous record of 0.15 F in 1995 (16.83 C). "


For 1998 it is only stated that it was even warmer than the 16,9 C from 1997! "The biggest anomaly occurred in 1998, making it the warmest year since 1850."

From another source: "Earth's temperature in 1998 was 0.56 C above the last long-term average, based on the period 1961-1990, and the previous world's warmest year, 1997, was 0.43 C warmer than average."

So in 1998 it was 16.9 C + (0.56-0.43) = 17.12 C!


From this it can also be seen that the earth's temperature has cooled since 2000, unlike the above, in reality from 17.1 C to 14.7 C!

But that's not all: The warm period between 1930 and 1940 was even warmer! "The unusually hot summer of 1934/36 triggered heat records that still exist today." and "1934 - the hottest year since records began - was 1.25C warmer than average and in 1998 1.23C was warmer than average"

In 1934, the world average temperature reaches 17.12+ (1.25-1.23) = 17.14 C!

In this diagram from 1976 it can be seen that a) the normal temperature is 15 C, b) that it was warmer than 15 C in the first half of the last century, c) that cooling always takes place after volcanic eruptions
(see below) and d) that a temperature increase is only the way back to the normal temperature! and e)
above 15 C the northern pool ice melts, below 15 C the northern pool ice increases!

How is it possible that the IPCC climatologists now claim that 2016 at 14.84 C was the supposedly "warmest year since 1880"?

Answer: By the temperature data of the past to adjustments!

IPPC presentation from 2016 with 13,7 C for 1934 and with 14,2 C for 1988, 1995 and 1997 instead of 15,5 C, 16,8 C, 16,9 C, 17, 12 C and 17.14 C as shown above! As a result, the heat periods around 1940 and 1990 have disappeared !!

   NOAA accused of manipulating global warming data       NOAA WHISTLEBLOWER BATES

Between 1978 and 1998, the IPCC gradually lowered temperatures by about 3 C and reduced temperatures between 1930 and 1940 by almost 3.5 C!

                                                            data corruption

If you look closely at the IPCC graphics, you will notice that most of the time you do not get direct temperature information, at best a deviation from any temperature (the 0-line as the reference value). What temperature should be that remains questionable. Likewise, the maximum "
1,5 degree warming goal" sought by human intervention has no baseline value. Any temperature of "pre-industrial time" here could be the initial value, or 1,5 degrees from now. It would also be possible to take 1,5 degrees above the natural 15 C.

Because of the natural greenhouse effect, without human intervention in the current solar radiation, in the opinion of the IPCC, the average global temperature would be + 15 C. Logically, this 15 C would be used as a 0-line, as the IPCC did in 1988. (See above, hereby was the average temperature, even including the cold period of the 1970th years, 15 C!)

                                                                   Optimal earth temperature, the 2 degree target and where is the base? 

The climatologists themselves state that in 2016, according to their presentation the hitherto warmest year since 1850, an average earth temperature of 14.84 C was measured.

But if we have not reached this natural value of 15 C even in an El Nino year, then why this scare tactic?

                                  Mexicans laugh at the so-called climate change

                            Schellnhuber / Rahmstorf Dizziness in the book "DER KLIMAWANDEL"

The temperature measurements indicate that the earth has been undercooled since 2000!

If you believe the original graph above, it means that it has never reached a temperature of 15 C, so there has not been any anthropogenic global warming above the Earth's natural temperature until now!

The IPCC has also noticed and responded by simply lowering the natural temperature of the earth from 15 C to 14 C. (contrary to the scientific measurements: 288.14 K = 15 C, see above)

Don't you believe that?    natural earth temperature 15 C or 14 C?  from 20:24 to 24:27

                                           Wikipedia: Manipulation of the climate data


Of course, without presenting this 1 C reduction to the media.

By taking as a base for global warming 14 C, it is simply to establish the max. 1.5 C target warming !!!
(15.5 C is not a particularly high utopian value, see above)

On television, this man can continue to talk about a "threatening" global warming in the tiny hundredths, because the audience does not notice that the 15 C-normal temperature has not even been reached in this century!

threatening global warming  ab 16:30 (some revealing videos have fallen victim to censorship in Germany!)

Evidence: why there has been no dangerous global warming for over 150 years from 15:08


Furthermore, the IPCC claims that the world average temperature can not be determined precisely because of too few measuring stations. They can only confirm the changes of the measuring stations. Therefore, the IPCC would not provide direct temperature information! (This is in stark contrast to the Media, see above, and NASA's publications, NOAA, etc. see above

                                                                          Pretense of dangerous global warming

So also in these graphics from the beginning of this chapter (without temperature indication) the data are adjusted, because in reality the temperatures from 1985 to 1998 were above 15 C. See above. (Incidentally, that was the IPCC rationale for a dangerous global warming with temperatures above the natural 15 C!) and above for the
time between 1920 and 1960.

Therefore, we limit ourselves to the average temperatures as measured and not as the IPCC would like.

Original temperature data, as measured, is becoming harder to find. Here, organizations like NASA-GISS, NOAA, UAH and CRU, with each their own adjustment, have done a great job.

                      USA Senate Hearing 3/26/2013 - Manipulated Data  16:40 und 25:45

Without manipulated data, the higher temperatures around the years 1934 and 1998 can be seen again.

The earth temperature has always fluctuated around 15 C during the last 100 years!

That this global temperature trend reflects the reality is also shown by the good agreement with the heat records in Greenland and the GISS temperature data from 1999, see above-left. (Up to 1998, the NOAA or GISS did not have to forge the data because the temperature development until then went as desired!)

"The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are getting scarcer, and in some places the water is getting too hot, according to a report by the Consul-of-Commerce Department in Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, sealers and researchers indicate a radical change in climatic conditions and unprecedented temperatures in the Arctic. In many places known glaciers have completely disappeared.

But do not worry:                  This was a report from 1922 !!!

The chronology of tree rings (dendrochronology) shows that worldwide the 1930s to the early 1950s were warmer than the end of the 1990s and warmer than today!

Because natural warming in the early 20th century was the same as warming at the end of the 20th century, this final warming could also be natural.

Despite these facts and the fact that the current world average temperature is below 15 C, the IPCC has nevertheless recommended a drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. This, although the magnitude of the temperature fluctuations is in the range of natural climatic fluctuations. (15 C +/- 2 C).

Above 15 C the ice melts to the poles, below 15 C the polar caps grow! see above.

The IPCC has recommended a drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, although the magnitude of temperature fluctuations is within the range of natural climate variability.

In order to visualize temperature fluctuations, the world average temperatures are given as two digits behind the coma. A normal thermometer is not readable with this accuracy! It is questionable whether it makes sense at all to determine a world climate with an accuracy of a few hundred degrees Celsius, considering that between day and night already 10 C difference are normal. Let alone the temperature differences between summer and winter.                                     

If you measured the temperatures with a normal thermometer, the temperature evolution is actually surprisingly constant! That's why we humans can not detect any climate changes in our lifetime and in our living environment!
Nevertheless, there were warm and rainy summers and cold and rainy winters. This has nothing to do with the climate. These are weather conditions that will occur again and again.

That was different not too long ago!
Before the Little Ice Age (1570-1715) it was warmer than today. Even the years around 1800, after the little ice age, were warmer than today!

From this it can be seen why the IPPC can only show a "threatening" temperature increase from 1880 onwards. Before that time, the temperature evolution was quite different! (Tambora volcano erupted in 1815. It was the world's heaviest eruption over the last 37,000 years. The material thrown out by the eruption, 180 km, caused global climate cooling. At the same time, the number of sunspots decreased, Dalton Minimum. In 1883 erupted also te volcano Krakatoa, which corset all together a temperature minimum around 1884. see above)


In 1257, the Samalas volcano erupted on Lombok. It was the world's worst eruption of the last 37.000 years. The material ejected by the eruption, 40 km of rock 43 km high in the stratosphere, caused global climate cooling and was the beginning of the small ice age. Again, a low solar activity, the Maunder minimum, supported the global cooling.


        (The annual fluctuation in sea levels is caused by the interaction of the sun, moon, wind and ocean currents.)

In parallel with the temperature development, the sea level drops or rises due to the formation of glaciers or the melting of glaciers. At the end of the Middle Ages, the sea level dropped for about 500 years!

The sea level on the Fiji Islands was from about 1550 to about 1700 about seventy centimeter higher than today. Then it sank and was about fifty centimeters lower in the 18th century than it is today. Then he rose to about the current level. During the last 50 to 70 years the level was even absolutely stable.


Of course, the rise or fall of the sea level has nothing to do with the disappearance or appearance of islands due to tectonic forces.


The Pasterze glacier in Austria was in the Middle Ages, until 500 years ago, a green alpine meadow and before that there even grew a forest. In the last 400 years, the Pasterze glacier, through the Little Ice Age, reached its maximum length in 1850, since then the glacier melts again.


Glaciologists assume that the glaciers had retreated more strongly in Roman times. Alpine glaciers ended at the time of Hannibal 300 meters above the present level. During the Optima in the early Holocene, the glaciers were almost completely melted. Witness to this is tzi, who died 5250 years ago when crossing the Alps and whose body disappeared under a new glacier.

In Canada 1000 year old tree stumps can be found under the retreating ice, 100 km north of the tree line.

Cold periods, such as the Little Ice Age, produce glaciers. When the temperature of the temperature rises again, this ice melts and the sea level rises. It takes a few years for the glaciers to react and visibly become shorter or longer.

Since the world average temperatures are constantly below 15 C since 1999, since 2009 many glaciers are beginning to grow again worldwide!  Zeit-Online

The amount of polar ice is more dependent on the inflow, and therefore on the temperature, of the relatively warm seawater than on the outside temperature. For the ice above the water, the temperature must be only below zero, but salt water starts freezing at -1.8 degrees Celsius.

As a result of the last warm period at the end of the last century, drift ice melted due to the inflow of relatively warm water at the poles. Only since 2009 does the amount of ice recover due to the temperatures that have fallen during this century.


This does not apply to the landing to the Poles. Despite the heat period, nothing is reduced here.

                    Antarctic ice                                                                   Greenland

The missing cause-and-effect (causal) link between CO2 evolution and temperature evolution.

Between 1880 and 1940, there was the largest temperature increase of the last 140 years without a significant increase in man-made CO2. See above and above for the explanation. The measured temperature development after 1940 looked like this:
Between 1945 and 1975 the temperatures dropped. This was followed by a rise in temperatures between 1975 and 1998, followed by stagnation, or even a decline that continues until now (2018). During this entire period, the CO2 concentration steadily increased.

                   Soil temperature measurements                                  Satellite measurements

During this entire period, the CO2 concentration steadily increased.

Thus, the only evidence for the claim: "the global warming is caused by the increase in CO2 concentration" lapsed!

The climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to only one factor!

                                                               globel warming im EU-Parlament        

In order to meet the temperature decline since 2000, one has therefore changed the now erroneous term "global warming" into "climate change". Anyone can agree with this, because the climate, ie the average global temperatures over 30 years, has never been constant.


The 30-year span will lose a warm year in 1986 at 15.5 C and a cold year 2017 (14.7 C) will take its place. The result is that the "climate" cools down!

                                                                            For 14 years it is getting colder in Germany

                                                                            Dismissal due to doubts about climate change

                                                                            Swiss temperature development

You can go even further back and even then it stays with a slight cooling.

                                                           SWR - Where is climate change?
                                                     Nuhr on global warming and climate change

In the past, there has never been an increase in CO2 concentration followed by a temperature increase. The reality is exactly the opposite!

First the temperatures rise, then the oceans release their CO2! (This chart also shows how "threatening" the 0.8 C temperature rise really is)

In physics, the following rule applies: "If a theory does not agree with reality, then the theory is not correct!"

That would be the case now after another five years of temperature stagnation, but we do not hear that!

The reason is, as explained above, the heat island effect and the adjustments of data, whereby the temperatures seem to continue to rise !! But the gap between true and desired is now so far apart that the IPCC must eventually come in Erklrungsnot!

In a few years, the lack of a causal connection between a non-existent climate-relevant increase in temperature and the still increasing CO2 concentration will cause problems for the IPCC ideologues.  

But unfortunately nothing is harder to refute than lies that people want to believe in.

                                                     3sat: Climate Change - The New Religion?

Those who know nothing must believe everything.

That is why IPCC climatology has become a substitute religion. Just as in the Middle Ages, disbelievers are portrayed as heretics and want to persecute the leaders of this movement to think differently.

Don't you believe that?        PROSECUTE CLIMATE DENIERS

                                   Justice Dept. may prosecute climate change deniers

If 100% of the priests believe that a god exists, is that proof of his existence?
Faith in man-made global warming is just as logical as belief in a god. Both are only hypotheses! These hypotheses appear to be inconsistent with the facts / observations / measurements. (There is no evidence that increasing CO2 leads to higher temperatures, but there is evidence to the contrary. See above, above and above. When applying the scientific method, one would have to test alternative hypotheses. If one does not do this, one enters the field of pseudo-science)
Only through many just successful tests a hypotheses can be upgraded to a theory.
The next step is to prove the theory and thereby make it a law that makes it irrefutable. Neither the church nor the climatologists will (want to) reach the last two steps.

(Nicolas Fouquet (1615-1680) wrote a hypothesis about the law of Pythagoras, claiming that a ͪ + b ͪ = c ͪ  is only valid for h = 2. This hypothesis became credible through endless practical tests and thus a theory. The proof was only delivered 300 years later by an English Professor!)

So much for the IPCC policy, wrong dates and replacement religion !!

                                                       SpiegelTV: The Climate Diaper

The possible future:

Computers can not predict future climate change because the climate is chaotic! (Much more variables than equations) If the IPCC still claims to be capable of doing so, then it would be a trivial matter for these computations to be reset to 1880 and calculate the subsequent evolution. Since this is known, it would be a good test if the climate models work. Problem: They can not adjust it!

Forecasts of the future due to hypothesis and measures taken are of course extremely inaccurate. The later observations are therefore not attributable to the measures taken.


The future can and probably will be of natural origin.

Larger temperature fluctuations are always a consequence of volcanic eruptions. As a result, a lot of aerosols and CO2 are emitted, leading both to a global cooling! See above.

The minor changes in temperature, along with many other factors (such as the imbalance (nutation) of the earth due to ice ages and continental shifts), may be due to sunspots. Although the differences in solar radiation in W / m are small, the development of the sunspots fits well with the low measured temperature differences!

Agreement with measured temperature values       and      of course not with adjusted temperature values

Harald Lesch and the adjusted temperatures   2:50 bis 3:33

                                                                                                                  Current solar cycle and development                                                                                          

This effect is enhanced by increased cosmic radiation, which can reach Earth due to low solar activity. As a result, the formation of clouds is promoted and additionally reduces the already low solar radiation on the earth's surface!


After that, it could be in 2021 as cold as in 2010. And again, we will be able to control it!
                                                                                 small ice age - sunspots
                                                                                 Upcoming Little Ice Age for the year 2030 predicts

                                                                                 Mini ice age expected in a few years


You do not need to be a prophet to predict the near future based on graphics below, and it's cold, very cold!

The previous warm period was shorter and warmer. Hippos and crocodiles swam in the Rein and Thames. Even the polar bears have survived this time! The sea level was about 2.5 m higher than now.

                      Eem- Warmzeit                       in north Germany                                       Eiszeit

At the end of a warm period, the temperatures fall rapidly. 21,300 years ago (low temperature), the northernmost people lived in southern France like Eskimos and north of Paris to the edge of the glacier you could prove no life! Winters in Germany were extremely cold with permafrost in the ground.
Quite unlike today's minimal temperature fluctuations in the tens range, one can actually speak of "climate change". Climate zones have shifted then!

The downhill temperature in the next ice age has already started!
After the coming temperature drop, there will be huge migrations to the south! Hopefully is this at the earliest a problem for our toddlers and it would be due to a change in the sun's radiation due to a changed Earth orbit around the Sun (Milanković cycles).

CO2 is a useful gas:

The temperature development is independent of the CO2 concentration!

The relationship between CO2, O2 and temperature in the atmosphere has been constantly changing in the course of Earth's evolution, with a falling tendency for CO2-gas. 


Sediments store a lot of CO2. Mainly in limestone as CaCO3 (a colorless, crystalline solid) and to a lesser extent in coal, natural gas, oil and coral reefs (through the conversion of atmospheric CO2 to calcareous shells and skeletons of marine animals). As a result, the concentration of CO2 in the earth's history is constantly decreasing. The carbon dioxide released by nature (from oceans, soil, volcanoes or vegetation) can not compensate for this loss! (We humans can do that!)

350 million years ago in the Carboniferous (coal deposits) there were a lot of plants and very few land animals. At that time, the plants consumed almost all CO2 and converted it into O2, without enough CO2 being replicated by animals. At that time, the big flora boom was almost suffocated by lack of CO2.

Even today, plants are suffering from this problem again. The concentration of CO2 is currently below the optimum for plants.
This is noticeable because the CO2 concentration is not constant over 24 hours. As soon as photosynthesis starts in the morning, the plants consume the CO2 produced by animals, humans and the earth's surface within a few hours.

In winter, less CO2 is absorbed by the plants. But the animals do not produse less CO2, which increases the CO2 concentration.


For plants now the living conditions are comparable to those for us at 5000 m altitude!
If temperatures fall during the next ice age, the CO2 concentration will drop. At the end of the last ice age, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 180 ppm and came dangerously close to the deadly limit of 150 ppm (0.015 vol.%) for plants! See above. Without human intervention it will then be difficult to feed the world population! At 150 ppm, plant growth is no longer possible on the solid soil and life disappears above water.

Maybe humanity then has to burn coals to produce CO2 for the vegetation and, gain some energy as a waste product! Another solution would be cutting down all useless forests worldwide, because these are then CO2 competitors for our agricultural plants!

The IPCC ignored the 90,000 historical CO2 readings showing that since 1812 CO2 levels in the air
were much higher than today. The effects of volcanic eruptions are clearly visible here. These facts can not be seen in the data of the core drilling of the eewige ice! The CO2 values in the ice must be wrong!

It seems that nature itself has a mechanism that responds to changes. For example, if the earth gets warmer for some reason: The warmer it gets, the more CO2 gases come from the oceans and cool the atmosphere. As a result, the heating slows down to a standstill. The oceans cool down and the CO2 concentration also decreases because it dissolves again in the oceans. So it can go on and on.

The increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere du not leads to higher temperatures, but directly promotes plant growth. This effect is called CO2 fertilization effect and is used in greenhouses.

The combustion of natural gas CH4 results in the addition of CO2 + H2O + heat into the air of the greenhouse and increases vegetable growth.
And the Sahel turns green again. Satellite images since the early 1980s provide the proof. Could it be that the CO2 emissions have something to do here? (greening Sahel)

                                                                Increasing CO2 makes the Earth Greener

                                  CO2 is Green - Leighton Steward - Fox Business News Interview

                         USA-Climate scientist to Congress: Increased CO2 causing 'remarkable greening of planet Earth
An increase in the CO2 concentration, from now 400 ppm to 1600 ppm (optimum for C3 plant growth) would be a desirable goal. In the developing world, the poorest of the poor would no longer be threatened by famine.

However, this goal will not be achievable, because the more CO2 in the atmosphere will be present, the more CO2 is consumed by plants and, for reasons of equilibrium, is dissolved in the water of the oceans. Also the slowly falling world average temperature leads to more CO2 being dissolved into the oceans. The CO2 content of the oceans is 50 times that of the air!

The real influence of the
"green" CO2 gas:

                  1) CO2 can not prevent earth radiation!
See above
                  2) CO2 does not increase the air temperature!
See above
                  3) CO2 is not toxic or harmful to the environment!

                  4) CO2 Consumption is constantly decreasing due to geological deposits!
                  5) CO2 Consentration is already below the optimum!
                  6) CO2 is invisible and not polluted in the air!
                  7) CO2 is a vital gas for plants!
                  8) plants produce food and oxygen for us!

The CO2 gas is not climate-relevant, but is what it always was: A vital gas for plants and animals! Plants need CO2 and incidentally produce O2 for animals, so for us, to live!




The real impact of CO2 on the climate, the manipulation of measured temperatures and why the earth has not warmed up since 1999:

The absorption lines of CO2 in the infrared range are 4.3 m (+400 C) and 15 m (-58 C) (see above). The atmosphere has an open "window" for the earth's normel radiation temperature of +50 C to -40 C.
This is exactly the wavelength range in which the alleged "greenhouse gases" CO2 and CH4 can not absorb any temperature radiation at all! (see above)
As a result, energy and thus heat from the  surface can constantly vanish into the ice-cold outer space.

There is no scientific evidence of a climate change through CO2 gas. Very well for the opposite, see above, above und above.

The claim that humans can cause a climate catastrophe through their CO2 production has not yet reached the level of a theory, but is only a hypothesis. See above.

The temperature on a planet is independent of existing greenhouse lanes, but is mainly due to solar radiation and compression heat in the atmosphere! (See above)

At the momentary distance to the sun, the earth's temperature will rock around 15 C. (See above and above) The rocking movements are caused by natural processes. (Sunspots, volcanic eruptions, imbalance in orbit, etc.)

The magnitude of the current temperature fluctuations is in the range of natural climatic variations.
(15 C +/- 2 C

Larger global temperature changes are caused by large volcanic eruptions. The consequences are always lower temperatures, with much aerosols and CO2 being emitted. See aboveAs a result, the greenhouse effect is only the return to the normal temperature!

Temperatures have been rising since 1880 because the temperature low point was reached after the Tambora and Krakatoa eruptions. The temperature data from the IPCC Grafieken therefore begin with the year 1880. Since about 1900, the temperature has returned to normal at 15 C. (See above)

The Climate includes a period of 30 years. Since we lose a warm year every year (up to 1998 with 17 C) and get a cold year instead (with c.a. 14,6 C), the average of these 30 years, in any case until 2028, is getting lower: the climate is cooling off!

In order to nevertheless make credible an apparent "climate catastrophe", the IPCC has changed the measured temperatures from the past. (See above) As a result, over the last 60 years, a dangerous temperature increase to 14.84 C in 2016 appears to have occurred. The IPCC itself points out that temperatures have never exceeded the natural 15 C since 1880. See above (this is not true, see above
). So according to this IPCC logic, there can not be a dangerous man-made temperature increase above the natural 15 C!

When world average temperatures dropped below 15 C after 1998, the IPCC has begun to reduce past temperatures and replace the natural world average of 15 C with 14 C. This made a rise in temperature believable! see above.

Greenhouse gases can not raise the temperature of the atmosphere. More greenhouse gases even lower the temperature of the atmosphere! see above

There are only 0.038% CO2 in the air, nature produces 96%, the rest, or four percent, people. That is four percent of 0.038%, i. 0.00152% CO2 is caused by humans. Because of the extremely low concentration of CO2 caused by humans, the potential effect will not be measurable. See above.

The CO2 gas is non-toxic and an essential gas for the plants that feed us. On top of that, the plants produce the vital O2 for us. Nature is not capable to compensate for the constant loss of CO2 in sediments! This threatens in future, without human intervention, a shortage of CO2 for plants. See above and above.

A lot of money is being made available for research into man-made climate change, with studies on natural climate change becoming a minority! This creates a non-scholarly imbalance that is misinterpreted by the media and politics.

Nevertheless, people can warm the atmosphere. Heat island are caused by human activities. (See above) People can reduce this warming by living according to the guidelines: COLD IS COOL
Heat is released with all luxury items when they are made and produce heat during use!

The system behind the alleged "climate catastrophe" is ancient and still works: the more often one repeats a lie, the more credible it becomes. One has to claim for this only with every expensive project, that it would be necessary because of the climate change, or even prevents the climate catastrophe!

The greenhouse effect is the biggest and most expensive scientific flop ever.

At some point in the next 1000 years, a meteor impact or a powerful volcanic eruption could lead the earth into a new cold period. And we will certainly have a next ice age again. See above

Man is a very adaptable being. So, if at some point there was really a noticeable climate change, then mankind would have to play out its strength and not try to row against the current!
This prevents a lot of money, reserves and intellect from being used inefficiently.

Climate change and the politically motivated media.

Catastrophes, half-truths, tendentious reporting and opinion manipulation are commonplace in the media!

The mainstream media is often reported on "opinions" rather than "events". If different media report the same "opinion", then a media culture emerges that deviates more and more from the "events". This goes so far that one should be ashamed to have another "opinion"! But the readers are or should be able to form their own "opinion" about "events". This imposed "opinion" annoys more and more people, with the result that they are less inclined to believe this compulsive, politically motivated "opinion" of the media and start looking for truth on the internet. Or to put it differently: citizens do not let themselves be forced into a politically correct opinion!

There are two sides to the climate debate. Press, radio and television should take note of this and report on the different perspectives. An informed public could then decide if they believe that humans will bring the world to destruction.

For example the next article with commentary!!  or above.


In fact, the average temperatures in this century were always just below the natural 15 C and there is therefore neither a threatening rise in temperature nor a man-made global warming! see above.
It is therefore not surprising that one finds on the Internet sayings like: With an impending climate catastrophe, it is just like the emperor's new clothes; they are just not there!

Press releases like to refer to the seemingly for everyone noticeable climate changes which are nevertheless only an "opinion". These climatic "events" probably have not been influenced by humans because they took place even before the industrial era.

For example, with catastrophes such as "it has never been so warm" (no, in the periods 1920-1950, 1980-1998 and in the Middle Ages and in Roman times it was warmer, actually in all cultural periods of flowering. Tendency falling, see above and below ) "The glaciers are melting" (yes and in the last 8000 years the alps were free of ice four times, cold periods, like the little ice age, produced glaciers which now melt again, see above) and "the sea level is rising" (yes, since 8000 years around 20 cm / 100 years, tendency decreasing to now 17 cm / 100 years, see above and below) "the weather catastrophes are increasing" (no, see graphic below) Storms do not occur in summer, but only in cold seasons when the leaves have already fallen, in winter the temperature difference between the North Pole and the equator is greater, which causes higher differences in air pressure, so that global warming will have fewer storms).



Top 10 Signs Climate Change Is Worse Than Ever (10 points and no one hits!)

Point 1: Rising sea levels, yes, but has nothing to do with CO2. See above.
Point 2: The oceans are getting more and more acidic, no, at a higher temp. less CO2 dissolves in the water.
Point 3: Living things in the More are less and less, here helps less fishing and clean water.
Point 4: Climate zones shift, no, see above.
Point 5: Temperatures around the world are increasing, no, see above.
Point 6: CO2 emissions have permanently exceeded a threshold, no, see above.
Point 7: Arctic ice disappears, no, not since 2012, see above or on satellite imagery.
Point 8: Heavy forest fires, no, with a temperature increase, more water evaporates and more rain is generated.
Point 9: glaciers melt, yes, is not special, they always do after cold periods, see above.
Point 10: Extreme weather, no, see above or here

                                           USA Senate Hearing 3/26/2013 - Global Warming Debunked

                                                 Rahmstorf, IPCC, Al Gore, Climate dizziness

                                                           Climategate on German television
The barely existing disadvantages of a possible global warming are more than justified by the advantages of a climatic optimum.

Historically, warm periods have always been good times. Only when it bekame cold again, the problems came: famine, war, migration of peoples until disappearing whole cultures!

All species are better off when it gets warmer. As you know, many more species live in warm than in cold regions.

The energy needed to heat homes will decrease while food production will increase.

For agriculture, the harvest can catch up almost a month earlier. In many more regions could even be grown twice a year.

With global warming, the acreage of food will grow towards the poles.

In the cold zones of Northern Europe, Russia and Canada, the thawing soil could be used for agriculture.
This results in additional new sources of income and food.

When the climate warms above 1.5 to 2 degrees, the monsoon arrives in the Sahel.
From the barren foothills of the Sahara, where farmers and cattle herders today usually struggle with drought, transfer to green regions.

Even the Sahara could become habitable again. Where only sand can be seen today, a powerful stream flowed through the Sahara a few thousand years ago.
The Wadi Howar was 1100 kilometers long, lined with lakes and wetlands. Hippos and crocodiles bathed there, rhinos and giraffes roamed the sheer endless grass steppe. Humans also settled in the former green paradise. But then came the climate catastrophe. The temperatures dropped, the humid summer monsoons disappeared, and the fertile North Africa dried up. In the first millennium BC, the ill-fated process drove away animals and people. The once fertile Sahara was transformed by cooling down into the world's largest dry desert - a hostile space occupying approximately the same area as the US.


Unfortunately it will not happen that the Sahara will become a green paradise again. Slowly but surely the temperatures are sinking, despite the good hope of the climatologists. see above.

Meteorologists can predict the weather a few days in advance. They rely on daily updated experiences, so their mistakes can be corrected again and again. This creates a self-learning prediction system. Climatologists, by contrast, lack these self-learning opportunities and are therefore not even able to predict one year!

In the 1970s, the majority of relevant scientists and the media agreed to face a new ice age because global temperatures had previously fallen, see above. The expected consequences were extreme events such as hurricanes, droughts, floods, famine crises and other disasters. Even then people were responsible for the lower temperatures caused by the anthropogenic emission of aerosols (solid or liquid suspended particles in smoke).

                        The winter of 1978/1979 was very cold.                                                                       The Coming Ice Age

After 1980 the temperatures rose again.

The only argument in favor of nuclear energy in the late 1970s was clean air due to the lack of smoke and CO2 gas emissions. Smoke has been filtered successfully for a long time. So politicians like Helmut Schmidt and Margret Thatcher have tried to portray CO2 as a harmful gas for the global climate. (It was not about saving resources, because uranium ore is also consumed.) Thatcher wanted to reduce the influence of coal mining and Schmitt wanted clean air. RTL: Politics uses climate change ab 2:48
The climatologists provided a suitable argumentation to order.

Most politicians do not understand that they are being traded, but take advantage of these pseudo-scientific arguments to enforce their intended goals. The ice age did not come, but an energy consumption reduction for devices of all kinds could be enforced. Forest dying (1980) did not take place, but brought the smoke filtering of power plants. The ozone hole was probably not caused by humans, but by a natural temperature decrease of the stratosphere to the poles, which is still continuing, but brought environmentally friendly refrigerators. As well as the supposed increase in temperature caused by CO2 of the troposphere, which also does not take place, but was useful in the 1970s for the enforcement of nuclear energy and now for the energy transition.

It was not the lack of flint or copper ore that ended the Stone or Bronze Age, but a new, better technique! There was no lack of wood when we switched after 100,000 years from wood heating to coal, oil or gas heating.
The energy transition offers nothing new, The energy transition offers nothing new, no cheaper or guaranteed energy production. It is not a turning point, it is ultimately just a shift in the production of the same product.

It is even a technological decline in the past. Until 300 years ago, energy production was always sustainable, and they ware able to save this energy! For this they had a firewood supply for the winter for cooking and heating their houses and dammed water for the grain mill or sawmill by dry periods. Only since c.a. 200 years we have the opportunity to produce a lot of energy centrally and transport it to the individual households all year round. If you look at the development since then, not everything was bad, despite the resources needed for that!


Reserves = economically recoverable amounts of an energy resource deposit at today's prices and with today's technology. The reserves are, due to planning and economic reasons, always kept at min. 40 years by the mining companies!
Resources = Proven but not yet recognized inventories or technically / economically recoverable quantities of energy commodities.

It should be remembered that the largest energy reserve in this graph have not even been mentioned: the methane hydrate!


The argument: "Soon we will have no more coal, gas or oil" is therefore, besides "CO2 is harmful", a bad argument for spending a lot of money! This money would be better invested by developing a new safer, greener, cheaper, and always-supplying technology for energy like the liquid salt reactor or How to make the world better. Dr. Bjorn Lomborg.

The use of fossil energy does not decrease, neither in Germany nor worldwide!

As long as fossil fuels are so much cheaper than renewable energy, this global trend will not change.
It does not look like we have to be scared of having too little CO2 in the air because of "climate targets"! see above.

This amount of energy is called primary energy. About 30% of this is electrical energy in Germany and 14% renewable energy.

                                                                    Current Electricity Generation in Germany
                                                   (In Germany, the base load is 40 gigawatts, peak load 80 gigawatts)

The base load is supplied by power plants.

It would not be a bad thing to discuss politically whether you want to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources in order to save resources, for environmental protection or to become more independent from abroad.
But you should not only discuss the benefits and always pay attention to the proportionality! (What does it cost and what will it bring)

Politics should never subsidize a manufacturing industry such as wind and photovoltaic. This promotes a planned economy, whereby further development no longer takes place and leads to the end of this industry.
Excluding research and innovation projects should be subsidized to have a head start on (foreign) competitors!

Citizens place expensive photovoltaic systems on their roofs, not to prevent a climate catastrophe, but to avoid electricity cost increases and to have a good return on their invested money. Incidentally, they also do something for the environment!

Measures to reduce CO2 emissions have absolutely no measurable impact on the climate and slow down the growth of both the economy and vegetation! See above.

Prosperity is only possible with cheap energy. It is not just about a light or a coffee machine. It concerns everything, food, housing, connections, transport, industry, etc.


If the weather-dependent renewable energy is to provide a substantial part of the required electricity, then the energy storage problems have to be solved beforehand to prevent an electroless night without wind!
Or to put it another way: Only if an entrepreneur can also save his in 14 days produced renewable energy for 3/4 years, he gets the permission to build such a plant.


In order to be able to bridge a fourteen-day lull in the winter at 2030, about 1,452 pump centers with Goldisthal dimensions should be available in Germany - a hopeless thing.

A partial solution could be the brine4power named redox project in Jemgum. They want to combine their megabattery with a whole wind farm. For the battery they have calculated a capacity of 120 megawatts, with an expected efficiency of at least 70 percent. (So min. 10 brine4power projects with 20 salt caverns to replace one power plant!) A disadvantage is the low energy density of the storage medium.
Decentralized battery storage is more practicable. Provided, of course, that the state pays the extra cost to the citizens, without a tax increase. Batteries are not long-term storage. It therefore remains questionable whether it is possible to bridge in the winter for several days without wind. It is probably only enough to compensate for power fluctuations!

Other energy storage possibilities such as for example compressed air storage power plants or  flow to gas are neither suitable nor affordable due to their low efficiency (<40%) for such amounts of electricity. Future technical improvements make it unlikely that efficiency improvements can be expected significantly, which means that only little cost saving potential can be identified.


The international solution to build more nuclear power plants of the newer generation and thereby avoid CO2 emissions is not a good idea as long as the final storage of Atomic Waste is not resolved without a doubt.

                                Why I changed my mind about nuclear power - TEDxBerlin

Politically left-oriented rich countries can use compulsory levies to force their population to bear the costs of producing CO2-free energy. This includes the costs for the basic load protection!

To bridge the gap in supply, only the construction of new gas-fired power stations is possible. They can be started and stopped quickly. As a result, they are financially unprofitable. It is then, they are subsidized and do not need to pay off any CO2 burden!

If political parties advertise in their election campaign with miraculous clean climate goals, without realistically illuminating the follow-up costs, then these voters should not lament later, if they have to pay these costs themselves!

A significant increase in energy prices will lead to a shift of industry to cheap countries, without this means less production but with the loss of a lot of jobs.

In addition, the most vulnerable families are the most financially burdened. They can not reduce their energy bill with an expensive photovoltaic system. They are fully hit by future electricity price increase because they are not self-sufficient!


In addition to missing out on the benefits discussed above, the necessary billions of euros per year for CO2 reduction must of course be paid by the population! For the rest of their lives, they have to pay more than twice as much for electricity as they do in neighboring countries. Since this is not enough, there is still a CO2 tax for infinite many products that can not be produced without CO2 emissions! With this, no influence on the climate can be achieved!! See above.

                                  Carbon Tax for Canadians         CO2-Abgabe Schweiz          CO2 Carbon Tax BRD   

Under these conditions, voters would probably not vote for such a party. Unless the politicians sow enough panic. 

Further, the Paris Agreement stipulates that $ 500 billion annually from developed countries must be paid to the Green Climate Fund (GCF). This money will then be distributed by the United Nations (UN) among the developing countries who are so affected by the "climate change"! The aim is to bring these countries from cheap but guaranteed power plants to expensive and unsafe CO2-neutral energy production.
In reality, it is a redistribution of money with the aim of reducing the economic output of the Western world in favor of developing countries.
Read about these statements from high level IPCC officials and judge for yourself: IPCC co-chair Otmar Edenhofer we redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policyOne has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.

Fortunately, he at least understood that this is not about saving the climate, but about the environment!

The World Bank cities global warming as justification for ceasing to finance coal, oil and gas projects in developing countries. This makes the energy supply of the poorest countries even more expensive!

As Mencken (1880-1956) put it: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false prescription for the urge to govern."

Many politicians "forget" that climate protection measures have nothing to do with environmental measures!
Cars cause air pollution mainly through particulate matter from brakes and tires, regardless of whether they are powered with or without CO2 emissions. The flue gas filtration in power plants, on the other hand, works well.

In addition, global traffic contributes more than 25% of total energy use. Wind and sun seem to deliver just over 2%. Even if this contribution is made available exclusively to users of electromobility, 90% of these cars will continue to use fossil fuel.

If we want to experience climate change because of our cold climate, we do not have to go that far to the south. There the climate is pleasant, there are palms and figs grow. Here in our environment, none of you has ever experienced a different vegetation. Even in our youth we had rainy and beautiful summers such as mild and cold winters. Then we were looking forward to the good, now a lot of rain (2017) or a lot of sun (2018) is a dangerous climate change! In reality, it is just weather conditions that have always been there and will also occur in the future.

The negative consequences of this nonsensical climate policy their parents are the economic consequences, so our children will have difficulty maintaining our standard of living!

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is banned from teaching in England and Wales because of his mistakes when he is shown without corrections. In Germany, the former Environment Minister Gabriel bought 6,000 DVDs and made schools available for free. With no corrections, allowing students to present this film as an irrefutable truth.

Since 20 years, longer than the students are old, the average world temperature is always just below the normal 15 C with a decreasing tendency, see above. The teachers know that too!

However, they are not ashamed to tell our children a climatic lie without being able to explain how this would be caused by CO2. They make the children afraid of a disaster if the average temperature rises more than 2 C and rises above 17 C. But we already had that in 1934 and 1998 without any problem with our earth! see above. And the warm period 100,000 years ago was in our area near paradise, see above.
It's nothing new for children to be abused by adult confidants. Priests convinced children to start a crusade to Jerusalem. Parents would do well to tell their children how that ended.
The real danger to our youth is an education problem caused by bad teachers.

The negative consequences of this nonsensical climate policy their parents are the economic consequences, our children will have difficulty to maintaining our standard of living!

They do not even realize that the so vilified nuclear energy will play a major role in preventing the "imminent climate catastrophe." CO2 demonization is exactly what the nuclear industry uses.

When politicians swirl at each other over a topic such as man-made climate change and the media report on it, people believe that truth is spoken about here. But in reality they suffer massively under the Dunning Kruger effect.
(Stupid people think they are intelligent)
The stupid are thus sure to be right, while the clever ones are so full of doubt. Smart people know that they do not know much!

It is therefore understandable that the left-wing politicians are pursuing the wrong idea of the seemingly harmful CO2 gas. It would have been better to formulate their reasons, certainly good ones, truthfully. As a result, conservative parties can and will leap into this "green" field of activity.

                                   Climate Euphoria: Insights from the German Political-Media Complex

It seems that certain political movements use lies to force the "good" from their point of view. But if the 'good' is really good, then she didn't need that lie to convince her voters!

The politicians should therefore say in their negotiations with the left-wing politicians: "We are quite willing to spend more money for the environmental protection, but not for climate protection, because it proves to be counterproductive."

Post-factic politics: Many politicians simply do not want to hear the truth! The truth is behind the emotional impact of the CO2 message, especially on one's own interest group. Nevertheless, they will not be happy with this because lies have short legs.

                                                 Top 10 Climate Change Lies Exposed  

French people in 1814 on the Germans:

"There is no more good-natured, but no gullible people than the German ... No lie can be conceived roughly enough: the Germans believe it ... For a lie told to them, they persecuted their compatriots with greater bitterness than their real enemies... More unreasonable is no other people on earth."

It is amazing that not science determines whether CO2 is harmful, but a political direction. If this political direction also uses false information to incite panic (climate disaster!) so that they can more easily reach their goal (raising billions of euros for their ideology), then they go on the criminal road.

Climate change has become the new religion of the left elite.

The initiated "climate protection measures" are completely superfluous, and one can not accept in any case!

An incredible statement of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the basis of the climate lie: Climate protection is above nature and species protection! In other words: wind farms may be built in nature reserves, endangered species may be eliminated and later killed by rotor blades!
Or as mountaineer Reinhold Messner puts it, "
Alternative energy production is nonsensical if it destroys exactly what you actually want to preserve through it!"

Or as Winston Churchill once said: How is it possible that so few can lie to so many, and to such an extent and for so long?
History is repeating itself: now it is the Green-climate populists who lie to so many, to such an extent and for so long.

For the initial question; "Can the IPCC scientists make mistakes?" A simple "yes" is not enough in response. It's worse: they cheat us! This is scientific fraud.
(see above)

It is a scientific fraud committed by scientists who are not seeking the truth, but are more interested in political science or climatology. Everyone has their own goal, and these goals are guaranteed not to protect us from the so-called climate catastrophe!

These climate populists are comparable to iron powder: As soon as a magnet gets close to them, they are directed towards the magnetic field (political will), because this is where the best career opportunities and the best earning opportunities come from.


Nor does it make much sense for these "scientists" to peer reviewed the climate message of the IPCC. It's like priests check the bible for possible mistakes!

It is time to hold the "false prophets or climate illusionists" who have gained a lot of tax money to account for their data corruption
! Hopefully it will soon come to a media-effective criminal complaint! 

It's not that the politicians are not informed:

                         Climate Change HOAX Exposed to the UK Government

                         Dr. Lning in the German Bundestag

                         Eu Parliament from 0:40 to 3:15

Or as Bertolt Brecht put it: "If you do not know the truth, you're just a fool, but whoever knows her and calls her a lie is a criminal!"

                                                                                Global Warming Alarmists to be Prosecuted Under California Bill 1161

We need a constitution worldwide like the one in the Swiss Penal Code, Art. 258:
"Afraid of the population:
Anyone who frightens the population by threatening or imposing a danger to life, limb or property will be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or a fine."

Dr. Christopher Lord Monckton Of Brenchley:         Climate Scientists To Be Prosecuted

"Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible.
Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century's warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming.
Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas warming is entirely absent from the observed record.
Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking.
Even if per impossibile the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines.
Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue.
Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate.
Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good.

At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."

On the basis of the videos below you can get a better insight into this topic and notice that physics and meteorology scientists here quite a different level of knowledge than that of the climatologists.

Nobelpreistrger exposes the climate fraud

Prof. Dr. Kirstein: CO2 is harmless

Prof. William Happer, we have nothing to fear

Prof. Ewert : NASA-GISS Temperature data has been changed

Prof. Mahlberg: Meteorologie

MDR speaks surprisingly openly about the climatic lie !!!

John Coleman talks about global warming hoax

You can also treat these embarrassing lies with humor:

Vince Ebert on climate research

"Sapere aude" or "Have the courage to use your own mind"!

There is a vaccine for everything, but not against stupidity.

So much for the biggest lie of the century, the climate lie, climate swindle, climate hysteria. climate dictatorship or Global Warming Swindle.

Egbert de Beyer