Former Federal German Minister Warns Country Heading Towards Climate Tyranny
“How we live, heat, get around, travel and what we eat could soon no longer be an individual decision, but increasingly be dictated by the state,” a former German federal minister warns
Kristina Schröder [pictured], who served as the Federal Family Minister from 2009 to 2013 in the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, recently commented that Germany currently finds itself on a dangerous environmentally dogmatic path under the current leadership.
Pandemic as the blueprint
In a commentary published at Der Pragmaticus here, she writes:
“The pandemic has provided a blueprint for the climate movement on how to enforce fundamental restrictions on basic rights.”
“Germany is heading in the direction of a radical climate protection dogma that almost completely ignores the costs of the path taken. And once again, the two predominant patterns of argumentation in the pandemic can be observed: A refusal to weigh things up and an ends-justify-the-means mindset,” Schröder adds.
“I am convinced that large sections of the climate-protection movement are also fighting our way of living and our economy at least as much as they are fighting climate change.”
CO2 is a virus of fear
Schröder adds that it is easy to see that CO2 is being viewed as a virus and used to imagine future measures to curb it:
“There is a threat of regulations affecting our most private lifestyles.”
Schellnhuber “three tons per year”
She also speaks critically of Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the former director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) who proposes “every citizen could be given a CO2 budget of three tons per year.”
The average German ’emits’ 11 tons per year, and thus getting down to just three would certainly entail draconian restrictions and regulations.
But so far many Germans have been acting complacently about such drastic proposals, Schröder notes, adding:
“This eager willingness to relinquish fundamental freedoms is all the more disturbing as a crucial question is hardly being asked, let alone answered: Does effective climate protection really have to mean such losses of freedom and prosperity?”
Schröder, who contributes regularly to Die Welt, also wonders why in Germany there’s such a “blindness to the costs” of reducing CO2.
“Why this indifference to the loss of freedom and prosperity?” And: “Why this longing for bans, renunciation, and penance?”
“Powerful lever” against capitalism
In Schröder’s view, for the activists, climate protection is “a powerful lever to push back the hated capitalist system.”
She concludes:
“I am certain that if a technical solution were to be found tomorrow that would allow us to render CO2 harmless overall, large sections of the radical climate-protection movement would not be relieved, but disappointed.”
For the greens and the many activists, it’s follow our politics! It’s not about science.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Some bold emphasis added
Header image: Deutscher Bundestag
Please note: while PSI would disagree there is any need to ‘render CO2 harmless’ because it is already harmless, we reproduce this article to encourage open, honest, scientific debate.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Joseph Reynen
| #
Thermalization and saturation of CO2.
Joseph Reynen 01/12/2023 [email protected]
In reference [1] the long wave (LW) heat transport through a stack of gauge of chicken wire of 30 km high in a vacuum is analyzed.
A gauge(i) is characterized by the position z(i) and an absorption coefficient f(i), much smaller than 1.The coefficient f(i) represents the ratio of the surface area of the wires of the mesh to the total surface. The layers have a measured temperature T(i) in degree Kelvin ºK. We define ftot = Σf(i).
With σ = 5.67e -8 W/m²/ºK^4 the heat flux φ(i → j) in W/m² becomes:
φ(i → j) = σf(i)window(i , j)f(j)(T(i)^4 -T(j)^4) for T(i) > T(j ) and φ(j → i) = 0
This is the classic Stefan Boltzmann relationship.In a stack with N layers, there are N(N-1)/2 pairs (i , j). For N = 90 layers in a stack, the Stefan Boltzmann relation is therefore applied 4005 times.
It now appears according to [1]:
when the variable density of traces water vapor H2O in the air, as a function of the height z(i), is used for f(i) and for the temperature the measured values T(i) ºK, the LW heat transport in a stack with a height of 11.5 km agrees with the results of fundamental physics for an atmosphere with only traces of water vapor H2O.
when the variable density of traces of coal dioxide gas CO2 is used for f(i) in a stack of 30 km high, one finds a heat transport consistent with that of fundamental physics with only traces of the infrared-active gas CO2.
What has been called the saturation of CO2 since 2015 — for ftotCO2 > 1 i.e. > 400 ppm for a stack 30 km high in a gravitational field g = 9.81 m/sec² — can be demonstrated transparently with a to zero going “window” for overlapping pairs of gauge elements.
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) silences the phenomenon of saturation under the motto science is settled.
In the stack model of LW radiation, the phenomenon of thermalization of CO2 can be introduced, whereby the LW radiation at CO2 frequencies from the surface at lower heights is converted into heat which is then sent towards the universe with the broad band of H2O frequencies as LW radiation [2].
The phenomenon thermalization of CO2 is also kept silent by the IPCC under the motto science is settled.
The analysis of heat transfer with the Stefan-Boltzmann relation for 4005 pairs of mesh is based on the finite element method. Lay persons in that field can skip that
part of the paper [1] and start with Figures 3 and 4 regarding temperature distribution and the standardized concentrations of the infrared-active gases, water vapor H2O and carbon dioxide gas CO2.Figures 5 and 8 show results for an atmosphere with only traces of H2O vapor and only CO2 gas, respectively.
Figure 8a shows temperature increases for ftotCO2 = 0 to 1 — or 400 ppm for an air column 30 km high in a gravitational field g = 9.81 m/sec² — without thermalization.
These results parallel those of James Hansen’s of June 23, 1988 Congressional hearing in Washington DC, hosted by then-Senator Al Gore, with “defective” air conditioning and open windows.
Figure 8a for ftotCO2 = 0 to 1 represents the so-called greenhouse theory of IPCC. By extrapolating to higher ppm values, IPCC has continued to give the alarming fake messages.
Figure 8b for ftotCO2 from 0 to 4, or 1600 ppm, shows the effect of saturation, but without thermalization. These results correspond to those of Happer, also with saturation and without thermalization of the infra-red active traces of CO2 gas [3].
Figure 9 shows the results like in figure 8a for ftotCO2 = 0 to 1, but now with thermalization of the infra-red active traces of CO2 gas.
Figure 10 and Table 1 in [1] show the final results with temperature increases due to ftotCO2 from 0 to 4 — or 1600 ppm for an air column of 30 km high in a gravitational field g = 9.81 m/sec² — including thermalization and saturation.Conclusion of [1]: thanks to the phenomena thermalization and saturation of the infra-red active CO2 gas there is hardly any further temperature increase since the 400 ppm CO2 concentration of the year 2015.
Appendix
The phenomenon of thermalization was analyzed in [1] by Pangburn [2] in 2016. Pangburn’s work was in 2023 the reference to thermalization for the author of [1].
It now appears that the renowned German institute EILKE has already provided a detailed description of the phenomena of saturation (Hug, 1998) and thermalization (Nelson, 2012) [4].
References
[1] Reynen,
https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SaturationIVnew.pdf.
[2] Pangburn, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316885439_Climate_Change_Drivers.
[3] Happer,
[4] EILKE,
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Joseph,
Since the Stephan-Boltzmann law deals with radiated energy in black body (vacuum where he only heat loss is by radiation) it cannot be used in the atmosphere where the primary transfer of energy is done by convection. The Petani gauge shows that the loss of energy by radiation at the surface of the Earth is .4% and doesn’t reach 50% of the loss until well into the thermosphere the whole GHGT is bogus.
If you look up interview withTom Shula in PSI (Use the search function) it will explain it.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
That should be Pirani Gauge.
Reply
joseph reynen
| #
Herb,
Indeed, it turns out that indeed convection is the main mechansm.
See figure 5 and 6 for water vapor and figure 8 and 9 for CO2 gas.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Joseph,
Water is the main mechanism for transporting heat from the surface to the top f the troposphere (600 calories/gram). It is a moderator of energy losing and gaining heat to the air as the temperature of the atoms[here changes.
It is not a gas, however, but nano liquid crystals. This can be seen when you boil water in a tea kettle. It first comes out as a clear gas but then quickly cools into water droplets. On further cooling these droplets disappear. This is not because they are absorbing 540 calories/gram and converting back into a gas but losing energy and forming liquid nano crystals. (see Dr. Gerald Pollacks experiments) These crystals then reach their second melt point at the top of the troposphere and convert to rain. (The kinetic energy of molecules increase with increasing altitude while the temperature zig-zags because their numbers decrease, transferring less energy to a thermometer.) If water were a gas, with a molecular weight of 18, it should permeate the atmosphere and join neon, hydrogen, and helium in the top layer, instead it is almost exclusively (99+%) found in the troposphere.
Herb
Reply
Joseph Reynen
| #
The relation in the paper q = Ktheta is identical to the
realation Ktheta=q, however:
in the first one it is assumed that q is the unknown and theta is the known parameter, and in the second one it is the other way around.
The message in my paper is using the first one: for a known measured temperature distribution theta, the realtion gives the nodal parameters q necessary to have indeed the measured theta distribution.
The resulting q pameters are the necssary nodal heat sources due to other the radiation mechanisms!
Figure 6 in the paper gives the paramters q:
-SW absorption of incoming sun radiation
-convection from the surface of the planet, and
-thermalization of CO2.
Joseph
Reply