German Professor: Climate Change Is Delusional Nonsense
One of Germany’s most distinguished atmospheric scientists, Professor Hermann Harde, has slammed his nation’s politicians for being duped into “believing they can save the world”.
The vast majority of the published studies and “horror scenarios” are not based on a secure physical foundation, said Harde, “but rather represent computer games that reflect what was fed in”.
The idea that humans can control the climate with their CO2 emissions is an “absolute delusion”.
There is considerable doubt over the “scientifically untenable thesis” of human-caused climate change, continued the Professor, “and it is completely wrong to assume that 97 percent of climate scientists, or even more, would assume only anthropogenic warming”.
Climate and energy policy need to be based on reliable knowledge, “and not on speculations or belief”.
For years now, Germany’s politicians have been placating the ‘green movement’ by closing nuclear and coal power stations and banning exploration for fossil fuels. At the same time, the country started importing large quantities of oil and gas from Russia.
For a nation happy to spend €100b a year on defense, handing your energy security over to a foreign, nuclear-armed superpower should be all the proof you need that politicians follow the gravy and the fad, and not what’s actually best for their country.
In Harde’s view, the extreme ‘climate emergency’ policies we’re all suffering with today (the main cause of inflation) are driven by competition between different research groups trying to outdo each other in predicting the most hair-raising horror scenarios.
These alarming, click-baity predictions attracted media attention, unsurprisingly; it then got an ill-informed public involved, “and our decision-makers felt obliged to quickly react”.
Cheap energy has been under attack for decades now. But it is absolutely clear, noted Harde, that without a reliable and sufficient energy supply, “Germany and many other countries that take such a path will end in anarchy”.
Or is that the goal?
So-called ‘journalism’ today isn’t designed to seek truth, it is rather a mechanism for the elites to propagandize their ideologies to a trusting and compliant population.
This is visible in the data: the vast majority of mass media journalists come from the exact same schools and neighborhoods as the elites and politicians they purport to be holding to account–which wasn’t always the case.
This is a deliberate move, of course, and results in the MSM sharing the same world-views as those in power, views that have little appeal to the general population; however, because the ideologies are promoted everywhere you turn –newspapers/TV/internet– it is assumed that this is the way to think, and so the sheeple blindly follow-along without question.
When a question is raised, however, and a sheep reaches in vain for a logical answer — bam! — it can feel like a sledgehammer to the head. I, personally, can remember that moment vividly, and I also recall the crucial decision that follows:
“You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”
Professor Harde’s research leads him to state that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change overestimates by five times the thermal effect of doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He points to the “highly overlapping and saturated absorption bands” of CO2 and water vapor, and the significant reduced effect of ‘greenhouses gases’ under cloud cover.
Only about 15 percent of the global CO2 increase is of man-made origin. After doing a little math –15 percent of 0.3°C– the warming attributed to humans can only be 0.05, at most.
In view of this insignificant contribution, it is absurd to think that a ban on fossil fuels could even remotely impact Earth’s climate. Climatic changes are caused by grand natural forcings and interactions that exceed our human influence by orders of magnitude.
In Professor Hande’s opinion, modern climate science has developed more as an ideology and world view, rather than a serious science.
Scientists who question or point to inconsistencies in the global warming hypothesis are “publicly discredited” and excluded from research funds; research contributions in journals are suppressed; and in a reference to the recent Professor Peter Ridd case, scientists placed on leave or dismissed from their university.
What we call truths, continued Harde, depends to a large extent on our state of knowledge. He suggests that climate science requires a fundamental review of the hypotheses and a shift away from the widely established climate industry.
Science must not be misled by commerce, politics or ideology, he said. It is the genuine task of universities and state-funded research institutions “to investigate contradictory issues and to ensure independent, free research that gives us honest answers, even when these answers are often complex and do not fit into a desired political context”.
Harde concludes by warning politicians that it would be an irresponsible environmental and energy policy to continue to ignore serious peer-reviewed scientific publications that show a much smaller human impact on the climate than previously thought.
It is also irresponsible to shut down a reliable, adequate and affordable energy supply, to be replaced by millions of wind turbines, “that destroy our nature and shred trillions of birds and insects”.
Professor Hermann Harde retired a few years ago from Helmut Schmidt University in Hamburg as Professor of Experimental Physics after a long career in science academia. This is the main reason he is able to speak out: his career isn’t on the line.
See more here: electroverse.net
Bold emphasis added
Header image: Quora
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.
Allan Shelton
| #
The Professor still believes the GHG Theory then.
He is just a very “Lukewarmist” .
Reply
Alan
| #
Yes, I thought that as well but at least some of his views are welcome. Let us hope that he has some influence in Germany now he isn’t protecting his job.
Reply
Alan
| #
At the very end of the article we see the problem with climate science – he has just retired and now feels he can speak out because his job is no longer at risk. Some like Peter Ridd do speak out and he lost his job. How can we ever have the truth exposed when people are afraid to speak it. This is understandable because we all have to survive and probably have families to support. Will he be able to make amends for his silence by making the German politicians listen?
Reply
ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
| #
You don’t need to be an “atmospheric scientist” to call out the climate BS. Geologists solved that LONG ago with core sampling worldwide.
540 million years ago during the “explosion of life” called the Cambrian, atmospheric CO2 levels were some 15x higher than today. That’s 7000ppm (0.7%) compared to 400ppm (0.04%). The UNIPCC states man’s CO2 in the atmosphere is 3% and Nature does the rest.
Notably, the planet didn’t burn to a crisp over those hundreds of millions of years, ever. Which allowed an elite group of monkeys to evolve and fly to meetings about climate “doom” in private jets, laughing all the way to the bank and figuring out new ways to strip-mine your wallet. And they’ll make sure that whatever Nature’s 97% does, we’ll take the blame for it. They’ve been at this fraudulent game for generations.
http://www.globalwarming-sowhat.com/_Media/600-my-of-temps-560-my-of_med_hr.jpeg
youtu.be/lGN_jdt7bX4
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
Right on…..
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Question for Professor Hermann Harde: We are told both CO2 and H2O vapor act similarly to ‘warm’ the Earth. If this is true, then why is it hotter in Arizona and New Mexico than Alabama and Georgia?
Both areas are around the same latitude. Only difference is humidity…
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
“and it is completely wrong to assume that 97 percent of climate scientists, or even more, would assume only anthropogenic warming.”
Yes, and don’t forget the Bell Curve.
Want to vote on it?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Compare Professor Harde’s first two statements. First he seems to blame politicians for the world’s present state of affairs and then in the second he identifies that the real problem is due to his fellow atmospheric scientists. Which mades the professors seem to be not consistent.
I finally see that this first sentence contains NO words of the Professor.except “believing they can save the world”. Cap Allon has taken some words of Hard out of Harde’s context and spun Harde’s word into his (Cap’s) context.
Either you (a reader) see this or you may be mislead, as I initially was, by what Cap is skillfully doing by using Harde’s words out of context. For I was initially critical of Professor Harde and not of Cap Allon.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Even Svvanti Arrhenius admitted that the GHGT was wrong and created it.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Before Climatology there was Meteorology:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/5MUcM4tMcSU/m/_oK-G05SAAAJ
Claudius DenK:
Paul Alsing:
These kinds of tactics are not real science. In real science the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the person or groups making the positive claim. Meteorology (when it comes to their theory of storms) is not a real science. It’s closer to secular religion or a cult of belief. Ultimately, it’s nothing more than a continuing conversation based on traditional beliefs that can never be concisely defined well enough to be tested.
Dr. Berry:
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Since their data is based on the thermometer, which was not designed for gases and does not measure the kinetic energy of molecules and the barometer, which does not measure atmospheric pressure, everything they believe is based on fallacies.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I don’t see the thermometer as much of a problem. The big problem is that they have the role of water in storms completely wrong.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Because of the thermometer they don’t know the flow of energy. Granted they have no concept of the properties of water or much of the dynamics of the atmosphere. How can they call water a GHG when it acts as he air conditioning fluid of the Earth?
Herb
Reply
Katalina
| #
Real online home based work to make more than $14k. Last month I made $15738 from this home job. Very simple and easy to do and earnings from this are just awesome for details.r4 For more detail visit the given interface….. https://work24.netlify.app/
Reply
João
| #
Higher Mass => More Energy => More Pollution
E=Mc2
Electric Vehicles weigh more and Pollute More (cycle of EV and mass), besides the weight contribute to less safety, performance and economy, that translates into bigger accidents and more serious, less miles because the weight of batteries are constant instead of fuel that lowers during the trips.
Reply
Russ D
| #
And don’t forget STUPID Leftest Logic:
The Left wants us all in electric cars, but they are also saying we will have power outages this year because the electrical grid cannot meet the demands.
PURE STUPIDITY!!!
Reply