For the 26th time since 1995, the mighty and powerless of the world are meeting in Glasgow at COP26 to save the world climate. Just the ecological footprints of this travel circus maximus should burden the green world conscience – because not only the negotiators, but above all the hundreds of thousands of protesters come to their annual global rendezvous. At the great environmental conference in Rio in 1992, it was calculated how much this conference tourism pollutes the environment. Now it is better to keep silent about the extent of these excesses. After all, they serve to “save” the climate – flying and driving are only forbidden to ordinary people.
But anyone who consults other sources of information (possibly international science journals) in addition to the green-alarmist propaganda will notice that the alleged 97% consensus of “science” is dissolving. Despite the prevalent cancel culture for “deviants” from the doctrine of the end of the world at universities, more and more weighty scientists are speaking out who profoundly contradict the general hysteria. And that although billions in research are only earned by those who hit the climate horn and apart from the “man-made” CO2Contribution (three to five percent of the total amount) does not allow any other component than the explanation of changes – such as the effects of the sun or the tectonic changes under the oceans.
Since the political organization UNO has put itself at the forefront of the climate turmoil, it is primarily about money: The rich states should not only ruin their own economic power in the name of the climate, but also pay much more development aid under the heading of climate rescue .
Let’s be clear: Yes, the climate is constantly changing – you can neither “save” it, nor “deny it”. More could be done for the environment; that would not stop climate change, but it would improve our air quality, pollute the oceans less, and please the wildlife and children’s lungs. One could also better prepare for the changes that climate change will bring with it, i.e. invest in flood protection or really avoid red zones in buildings.
But the climate hysteria shows one thing: We are no longer able to cope with change. We let ourselves be persuaded that the wheel of time can be turned back. It would be more honest and more efficient to deal constructively with changes – never before have we had such an arsenal of knowledge and skills in science and technology at our disposal.
If we accept the fact that change is a fundamental constant in this world, then it would be easier to remain optimistic: Because then it is not so easy to overlook the fact that many of the predictions made by the climate alarmists have not come true. Just one example: According to the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and prophet Al Gore, there should be no more ice on the polar ice caps this year.
And one could stop confusing politics with science.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and all affiliated politicians mainly rely on model calculations. In a wide variety of ways – when predicting the decline in sea ice by 2100, for example, 19 (!) Models are used, so the results range from 10 to 100 percent change. Everyone can then avail themselves of the result that they need for their policy. To speak of the reliability of the UN forecasts, however, seems more than daring.
And yet: Our Vice Chancellor wants to save the planet from “scorching” through tough measures that we all have to pay for. As if changes – including climate change – only ever went in one direction. Calculations that are not based on models but on actual temperature recordings have shown that the global warming phase is coming to an end – from the middle of the 2040s / 2050 a cooling of the climate can be expected.
Then the climate politicians and Greta Thunberg meet at COP50 and freeze to discuss how to save the climate from yourself and the many cargo bikes and e-cars.