{"id":1438,"date":"2025-01-10T22:59:45","date_gmt":"2025-01-10T22:59:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/facts2reason.com\/?p=1438"},"modified":"2025-11-18T15:32:07","modified_gmt":"2025-11-18T15:32:07","slug":"climate-change-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/facts2reason.com\/index.php\/2025\/01\/10\/climate-change-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Climate change – a story of power, money and deceit (Part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Introduction: Sacrificing for the health of the planet<\/i><\/strong><\/h4>

1. Sacrifices<\/em><\/span><\/p>

Germany<\/b> takes the fight against climate change seriously. Over the last 20 to 25 years it invested a fortune<\/b> into wind energy, photovoltaics, the adaptation of the grid, maintenance of reserve capacity and other measures. Since there is no transparency about the money spent, we are depending on estimations<\/u><\/a>. They go up to 1 trillion<\/u><\/a> USD<\/b>.<\/p>

The results of these huge investments are not impressive. The cost of electricity<\/b> in Germany is now the highest in the EU<\/u><\/b><\/a>.<\/p>

The supply of electric energy is depending on the weather and a short \u201cDunkelflaute\u201d<\/b> as in November or December 2024 can lead to supply shortages, high electricity imports and skyrocketing electricity prices<\/b><\/a>.<\/u> All this has dramatic consequences for the living costs of the people and for the German economy. The former production powerhouse is in a serious crisis.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Also other countries sacrificed a lot to \u201csave the world\u201d from a climate collapse. Great Britain<\/b> moved since 2000<\/u><\/a> from<\/b> 30% coal and < 1% wind<\/b> and solar<\/b> electricity production to about 1% from coal and 30% from solar and wind<\/b> today. Unfortunately, also in GB there is no transparency about the cost of the transition. Everything included, it is likely in the hundreds of billions USD<\/b>. The results are also not great. Behind Germany, GB is competing<\/u><\/a> for the second place in electricity costs<\/b> with counties like Ireland and Denmark (both of which have a very high proportion<\/u><\/a> of their electricity generated from wind<\/u><\/a> too). In addition, the country is in constant danger to experience a blackout<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Another story of a seemingly needed sacrifice for the climate is agriculture<\/strong>. After all, food is even before energy the most basic resource people need. Take control of its production and you control the people.<\/p>

For the last 100 years agriculture has been a story of an awesome success mainly due to synthetic fertilizers. Nobody would have predicted that the earth would be able to feed 8 billion people. However, synthetic fertilizers<\/b> have now been declared a danger to the climate<\/u><\/b><\/a>. Not surprisingly, the UN<\/u><\/a> and EU<\/u><\/a> are pushing for measures to reduce their use. The Netherlands<\/u><\/b><\/a>, a major food producer, wants to close down thousands of farms.<\/b> Who cares that less food means higher prices, though. Just look at the most drastic example of regulating agriculture in the name of a healthy planet: Sri Lank<\/u>a<\/b><\/a>. After an ill-advised restriction of synthetic fertilizers, the country experienced a severe food crisis<\/b>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>

These are just a few examples. Many more countries are making major sacrifices to save the climate<\/b>. \u00a0And other countries have the sacrifices forced on them. The obvious question then is, of course: does it at least help the climate<\/b>?\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

2. Return on the sacrifices<\/em><\/span><\/p>

Example Germany:<\/b><\/p>

The specific CO2 emissions<\/b> for the electric energy production is still the 5th<\/sup> highest<\/u><\/a> <\/b>in the EU. The CO2 emission reduction since 2000 amounts to about 400 Mio tons<\/u><\/a> or 36%. However, the energy consumption in Germany decreased in the same period<\/u><\/a> by 26%. This means that for the investment of up to 1 trillion USD Germany achieved about 115 Mio tons annual CO2 reduction<\/b>. Not included in these numbers are the changes in imported CO2 emissions which might offset a major part of the reduction. Thus, we talk about a maximum of 1\/3 of a percent<\/b> of the global emissions. The effect<\/b> on the global temperature is too small to be measured<\/b>.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Example Great Britain:<\/b><\/p>

From 2000 to 2023 GB lowered the CO2<\/u><\/a> <\/u>emissions by 264 Mio tons<\/b>. This is a reduction of 46%. In the same time the total energy consumption<\/u><\/a> fell by 35%. This in parallel with a reduction of the industrial output as share of the GDP by 50%. A result of the deindustrialization<\/b> is the increased impor<\/b>t of energy intensive products<\/b> resp. CO2. Thus, the huge investments and the deterioration of the reliability of the electrical energy supply resulted in less than 65 Mio tons net reduction of the CO2<\/b> emissions or 1\/5 of a percent<\/b> of the global emissions. The effect on the world temperature<\/b> is so minuscule that it cannot be measured<\/b>. \u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

An even lower effect<\/b> can be expected from the sacrifices of Sri Lanka and the European farmers<\/b>: Absolutely negligible<\/b>.<\/p>

Compare these pointless sacrifices to the actions of the major economic competitors of the western nations:<\/p>

China is heavily investing into coal<\/b> fired power plants which provide it with cheap electrical energy<\/b> and allows it to outcompete the western industry. Alone in 2023 about 48 GW<\/u><\/a> new coal capacity came online and about 70 GW new construction got underway. This represents an estimated total of an additional 115 Mio tons of CO2 emissions<\/b> per year. Moreover, the increasing sale of CO2 intensive goods<\/b> made in China to western nations cancels out a high percentage of their reduction efforts and makes those even more meaningless.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The conclusion: \u00a0Western nations like Germany, UK and many others spend trillions<\/b> on climate initiatives without any discernible effect<\/b> on the global temperature. The negative effects on their economy and, mainly, on their poorer population, on the other hand, is considerable. The electricit<\/b>y markets<\/b> are in turmoil<\/b>, poor people<\/b> have problems paying their heating bills<\/b>, energy intensive industries move<\/b> to countries with cheaper (and more CO2 intensive) energy.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

3. Follow the money<\/em><\/span><\/p>

This raises a most important question: Who in their right mind would continue to invest<\/b> based on such an absurd return on investment<\/b>? There must be strong benefits<\/b> somewhere which still drive\u00a0 this kind of climate policies. Who are then the beneficiaries<\/b>?<\/p>

As in most human endeavours, power and money<\/strong> as drivers might be a good bet. Obviously, the trillions spent on saving the climate are going somewhere. Such huge sums of money<\/b> will inevitably attract people<\/b> which try to profit from the \u201cclimate emergency\u201d. Starting from the researchers<\/b> offering solutions, to the companies <\/b>and their investors<\/b> producing the renewables value chain \u2013 a whole economy<\/b> has grown out of the climate change narrative. Last but not least, the prophets of doom in the media<\/b> and the many NGOs making money<\/b> from scared citizens make sure that the story stays in the news. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>

The media refer to the powers which support<\/b> their activist reporting. The major ones being the UN<\/b> with the ICCP<\/b>, the EU <\/b>and their Net Zero strategy<\/u><\/a> as well as many governments<\/b>. They drive a policy in the west which obviously has been doing more harm than it did save the climate. Why? The best answer is obvious: power. As seen with COVID<\/b> these kinds of declared emergencies tend to move a lot of power and influence upwards.<\/b> As soon as some high up bureaucrat in the UN<\/b> or the EU opens his mouth to reveal the next climate catastrophe, he gets the attention of all the media. Governments fall in line whenever the UN proposes the next treaty, the next rule to fight climate doom. The unelected EU bureaucracy<\/b> keeps writing regulations and sends the courts after those which do not comply.<\/p>

It is an old game these institutions are playing. Claiming or even creating major dangers have always been one of the strongest tools in the toolbox to strengthen top-down powers <\/b>and, even, fully suspend freedom and democracy. We just experienced COVID<\/u><\/a> as a prime example. Even wars<\/b> have been started to force the country behind the government.<\/p>

Accordingly, in the last decades of a more and more globally connected society a relentless drumbeat of real or imagined dangers<\/b> led to an increasing demand for so called experts and supranational institutions to<\/b> face such severe global threats.<\/p>

Examples are the danger of a nuclear war, a Malthusian collapse as expressed in P. Ehrlichs \u201cThe Population Bomb\u201d, the takeover by AI and, as experienced by all of us, a pandemic.<\/p>

However, while we are easily manipulated to look for a strong person or institution when we are feeling helpless and scared, the experience should show us that they, once they have the power<\/b>, are much more likely to try to add to it than to release it<\/b> when the danger has passed. The worst part is, that if they are \u201cexperts\u201d, bureaucrats or supranational institutions they are not under democratic control<\/b>. The victim<\/b> of such an upward shift of power, therefore, have always<\/b> been freedom and democracy<\/b>.<\/p>

COVID was a clear warning sign<\/b> how \u201cexperts\u201d like Fauci in the USA, international institutions like the WHO or the UN and many others use scare tactics and allied government power to expand their control over us to their own benefit.<\/p>

Thus, whenever a government or the UN resp. other unelected bureaucrats are crying wolf about a major danger and ask for more power to fight it, we better check carefully whether the danger is real and their proposed \u201cmedicine\u201d helps us or them.<\/p>

In the following the focus will be on climate change<\/b>. It is presently the prime example of how institutions like the UN and the EU, \u201cexperts\u201d and their associations as well as government bureaucrats, supported by a relentless onslaught of media reports, try to push a narrative of global danger onto all of us and ask for the power to fight this \u201cdanger\u201d.<\/b><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Background to the climate change narrative<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>

The narrative started in 1896.<\/strong> Svante Arrhenius<\/strong> published his work \u201cOn the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground\u201d.\u00a0 In this paper he predicted a temperature rise of 3-4 \u00b0C upon doubling the CO2 content of the air.<\/p>

For a long time, nobody seemed to care. Then, almost 100 years later at the World Climate Conference 1979<\/b> the assembled scientists concluded<\/u><\/a> that \u201cit appears plausible that an increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can contribute to a gradual warming of the lower atmosphere, especially at higher latitudes.\u201d<\/p>

Already then there was no shortage of \u201cClub of Rome\u201d- inspired activists convinced of the doomed future of our western societies<\/u><\/a><\/b>. They were looking for a way to reverse the developments of the industrial revolution<\/b> to avoid the Armageddon they saw as imminent. CO2 is the basic molecule for life <\/b>and a major result of the human drive to escape the abysmal conditions of poverty through the use of fossil energy. Accordingly, it looks like the ideal handle<\/b> to change the trajectory of human development. Prof. P. Ehrlich<\/b>, author of \u201cThe population bomb\u201d, put it in words 1978<\/u><\/a>: \u201cGiving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.\u201d<\/b><\/p>

Another 10 years later politics realized the opportunity and took over. The WMO (World Meteorological Organization) and the UNEP (UN Environmental Program)<\/b> created the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)<\/b> as an intergovernmental<\/strong> body in 1988. Contrary to what is being claimed by most media \u201cthe IPCC is not a scientific organization<\/u><\/a><\/b>; it is an administrative entity<\/b> consisting of delegates from governments of its member states. It allows interested government parties to control every aspect <\/b>of the process by which the IPCC assesses and reports on climate science.<\/p>

This is blatantly obvious in the creation of the summaries for the policy makers<\/b>. Their content is determined in every single detail<\/b> not by the contributing scientists but by IPCC government representatives<\/b>.<\/p>

The political takeover of the climate change issue is already obvious at the climate conference 1988<\/b> in Toronto. It \u201cbrought together<\/a> 341 delegates, including 20 politicians and ambassadors<\/b>, 118 policy and legal advisors<\/b> and senior government officials; 73 physical scientists, 50 industry representatives and energy specialists; 30 social scientists<\/b> and 50 environmental activists.<\/b>\u201d<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

With the establishment of the IPCC an unstoppable process<\/strong> was started. When in the human history did a political committee<\/b> designed to deal with a problem decide that the problem did exist no more and dissolved itself. Moreover, wouldn\u2019t it be crazy to expect that the scientists<\/b> contributing to the IPCC reports try to prove that the problem was not serious or did not exist? And thereby risk the grants spoken by the political entities which support the idea of human generated global warming?<\/p>

Not surprisingly the media<\/b> \u2013 always in love with wars, disasters and catastrophes \u2013 jumped on this opportunity with great abandon. Catastrophic global warming was soon the simpleminded explanation for any \u201cirregular\u201d weather pattern<\/b>.<\/p>

In the following I will describe how this politicization led to the corruption of science<\/b> in order to support the political agenda. \u00a0In turn, the results of a corrupted science are used by the political instances for dramatically expending their power.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The establishment of the IPCC<\/i><\/strong><\/h4>

\u00a0<\/strong>It is important to understand the circumstances at the time of the establishment of the IPCC.<\/p>

In 1988 it was already widely assumed<\/b> that there was a real danger of excessive global warming due to the increasing production of CO2<\/b> by the burning of fossil fuels. NASA scientist James Hansen<\/b> delivered testimony and presented models to the US congress in June of 1988, saying he was \u201c99 percent sure\u201d that (human induced) global warming was upon us. The composition of the delegations at the above-mentioned Toronto conference was decided based on this assumption and that corrective actions needed to be prepared<\/b>. The United States Environmental Protection Agency<\/u><\/a> was a leading player and sought already then an international convention to restrict greenhouse gas emissions<\/u><\/a><\/b>.<\/p>

The establishment of the IPCC happened against this background.\u00a0 Its role<\/b> was defined<\/u><\/a> as to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change<\/strong>, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.<\/p>

\u00a0Details of the role of the IPCC in climate research<\/span><\/p>