Weather instead of climate – a liberating idea

European Union plays the part of the driving force behind the climate change sham

by Dr phil Wolfgang Thüne, meteorologist

We are changing the climate, and the climate is changing us. Climate protection is therefore a magic word in a double sense. It releases our endorphins, calms us and creates a comfortable mood; however there is something dangerous about it, because the security is deceptive. Nothing in life is more volatile than the climate. Inclinations may constantly change, even without our intervention. In the daily “struggle for existence” climatic disasters are therefore quite normal and can hit everyone unexpectedly. Our whole way of thinking and acting is aimed at being able to live in a good climate as well as in a pleasant atmosphere. Climate protection therefore meets with general approval, whether in society, in the media, in politics, economics or science. Everybody wants to be a beneficiary and promises his contribution for the improvement of the climate. Many want to make money from the climate; others are admonishers, scholars and saviors. There is a boom for the genre “do-gooders” who make the most of the climate disaster.

Prior to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the German Foundation for World Population in Berlin thought to be particularly inventive with its claim “birth control helps climate”. Even if the climate change may be something quite normal, it may spread fear and terror, when it is presented as a sudden event. We do not like sudden strikes of lightning. They interfere with our security needs. We want to control everything, have everything under control, but sometimes things develop their own momentum and get out of control. Probably the worst climatic crisis for politics was the sudden collapse of the financial climate. The bursting of the bubble had plunged some banks into ruin and developed an apocalyptic climate. The business and economic climate, the investment and stock market climate, the consumption and labor market climate deteriorated dramatically. The social climate threatened to be engulfed as well.

Besides, there is a climate that has not interested us at any time, because it does not matter in our daily lives. For some unknown reason scientists started to make it a problem case some fifty years ago. In the United States of America people spoke about the “vulnerability to climatic change”, about fears of the “man-made climatic catastrophe” in 1975. This concern was expressed by the American National Research Council in the study “Understanding Climatic Change – A Program for Action”. The fear of man-made climate disasters spread onto the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva and the United Nations and sparked a kind of climatic pandemic at the expert level. In 1975, the Max-Plank-Institute for Meteorology was established in Hamburg. After the 1st United Nations Climate Change Conference in Geneva in 1979, the number of media reports increased by reports such as “The Earth has a fever”, “World climate in danger”, “Climate change threatens billions of people”, and even a collapse of the climate, a global climate disaster was not excluded. The highlight? “The earth has only 13 more years to live” was the conclusion of the UN Climate Change Report in 2007. If the forecast for the 2020 doomsday were to be averted and global warming is to be slowed down, the emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide would have to be reduced immediately, climate experts advised.
In view of the approaching apocalypse with the Linal Judgment climate change was lifted up into religious spheres and made a matter of protecting the Creation. The Christian religions were made responsible for all environmental sins because they had followed the biblical instruction “Subdue the earth”! With a bad conscience, they adopted the slogen of the environmental movement. As a gesture of obedience and prior to the UN Climate Summit in Berlin in March 1995, the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany published the study “Endangered climate – our responsibility for God’s Creation”. The church did, however, refer to the reliability of the Noah’s covenant “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease” and emphasized that God had kept his word. Man has defied this constant change of weather in the course of the days and years, in defiance of the impending “storm clouds”. Why did the Genesis speak of the weather though, but not of the climate?

After the 1st UN climate summit in March 1995, federal minister for the Environment Angela Merkel said: “Climate protection is one of the greatest environmental challenges today and in the future.” The director of the UN World Climate Research Program in Geneva, Hartmut Grassl, assisted the minister. In a joint publication of the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation they both asked the anxious question, “Can our climate still be saved?” At that time, the word “climate” had become internalized and had developed such a momentum that no responsible person in church, politics, business and science dared to ask for the origin of the word “climate”, what it meant and how it was defined. In order to save the climate Hartmut Grassl said, “The implementation of the Convention will still keep our children and grandchildren busy. We must assume that the Climate Convention may have roughly reached a first milestone in 2050.” The composure of the UN Special Representative for Climate Change should have made us suspicious. If there had really been an imminent danger, why should the factor time play no longer a decisive role?

Meanwhile, in Copenhagen, the 15th climate summit has already been climbed without the weather making even the tiniest attempts to adapt to climate standards. Hardly anyone can assume what kind of obscure role politics and science play in this game. Only a few have ever suspected that fears are to be fueled by imaginary dangers in order to change inclinations, to achieve a redistribution of power and domination and to secure new sources of tax revenues. The pandemic of raising “ecotaxes” is spreading. It conveys the image of medieval indulgences, which brought forward the monk Martin Luther and led to schism, i.e. to Reformation.

Such questions have been suppressed, but they are still waiting to be answered. Politics washes its hands of it and refers to the scientific world and its consensus opinion. The latter has been “approved” of by the majority of politicians so that all players can exculpate each other. In particular, the international court of arbitration IPCC behaves like a supreme instance of knowledge, which rules out any individual criticism. As an expert meteorologist and sociologist, I allow myself to take the role of a naive child and to say frankly: “But the emperor is naked!” There is no global climate. However, those who are courageous enough to oppose the zeitgeist, which dominates the climate of opinion, come into conflict with the authorities and can hear stereotypical responses like: majorities are always right; the world’s top climate experts cannot be mistaken. And how they can be mistaken! Even if the greenhouse construct is built out of a concrete mix of hard truths, half truths and untruths and surrounded by high walls of protection, it has fundamental weaknesses which, although well-concealed, are yet visible with a keen eye.

First, the terms are to be clarified

The presented book aims at training this view on construction flaws and is therefore quite unconventional. As an author I trust both in expertise and in judgment and follow the imperative of the Konigsberg philosopher Immanuel Kant, “Sapere Aude”. This was the motto of Enlightenment. Who does not have the civil courage to summon the courage to use his own brains, will never achieve an independent judgment, will never free himself from his self-imposed immaturity. This includes the advice of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, that at the beginning of any scientific activity we have to work on the concept. Words are our primary means of expression and communication, but only if their meaning is revealed. Ambiguous words such ambiguous terms can distract, mislead, manipulate, and be used as weapons. Words can even “kill”!

The word “climate” is of Greek origin and means “inclination” and defies definition because it says nothing about the strength and direction of the inclination as well as its variability. Our whole life is a struggle for inclinations about the climate. Literally, there is a climate disaster, if an inclination is overturned in an entirely unexpected way and love turns into hate, affection turns into resentment. Every politician is an acrobat of words, a word artist, because he has to compete for the favorable climate among voters and win their affection. The modern game is the juggling with climate fears and dangers in order to be able to advertise and air oneself as a savior.

Climate is a static concept – a locally and temporarily abstract construct

“Climate” is not only an expression of affection, but also a term that – although scientifically defined – cannot be experienced in practice. Each climatic value is a statistically calculated and thus an abstract value without reality. It is widely interpreted and interpretable. Geologists and paleontologists understand something completely different when they talk about “climate” and “climate change” than meteorologists and climatologists. The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as the “average weather” in one place over a fixed 30-year period. Since you cannot feel average values, there is the phenomenon of the meteoropathy, but no climatoropathy. Averages are no guidelines. Just like not a single man’s life complies with the statistically calculated average life expectancy, the weather does not comply with the climate as average weather. Climate is a locally and temporally abstract construct. Via the abstraction of the abstraction of the abstraction in space and time we will make it to the global climate, from which the global temperature has been laboriously deducted.

The climate protection policy has set up things psychologically in an extremely intelligent way. According to Sir Karl Popper, its statements can neither be verified nor falsified. If in the future an increase in “weather extremes” is claimed in the most general way, and increasing heat and drought periods, cold and wet periods, storms and other weather conditions are announced without specification of place and time, the Prophet can never be wrong, but we should at least be suspicious. Climate experts are real reduction artists, scientific dreamers. They surrender to the weather dynamics, leaving the ungrateful weather forecast to meteorologists and indulge in first predicting the world’s end and then promising the paradise on earth with an eternal “weather and climate balance”.

With the “climate” as a construct derived from the weather, man has slipped into the role of a “creator”. He has created a “second reality” besides the natural one. In this reality he sees himself as God, who calls for the protection of his creation! One can compare the transition from weather to climate with the transition from representational to abstract painting. Wassily Kandinsky painted the first abstract painting in 1911. The level of abstraction was determined by the artist. The expert does so for the climate. Climatology was a descriptive science in the context of geography, as the division of the earth in the climate atlas shows. The data processing by computers was able to create a “climate reality” beside the weather reality and to convince people that this is the “super-reality”, which is sitting in judgment on us, the climate offenders and threatens us with the maximum penalty of the “climate disaster”. The “Azores high” and the “Icelandic low” are such statistic bogus structures that have no reality and therefore exert no influence on the weather.
In his 1966 book “The representation of nature in contemporary physics”, Werner Heisenberg mentioned the great danger that abstractions could develop a life of their own in our minds and abrogate the line between physics and metaphysics or reality and virtuality. The Nobel physicist warned of the situation that a person resolves nature into models of his own thinking, and then believes he could rule nature with these models and impose his will on it. The climate experts succumbed to this temptation. They have represented the complexity of nature in simple models, and are now convinced that they can calculate the climate for any length of time without the weather. There is no greater delusion than that. The obedient computers however only reflect their model fantasies, nothing else. Climate experts revive the ancient art of fortune telling and give the impression that they might look into the future just like the clairvoyants with their “second sight” could look into a “second reality”.

With the creation of “climate physics” the outdated “mechanistic worldview”, the figure of “Laplace’s demon” re-emerged on the scene. This demon resurrects the belief that the universe works like clockwork and everything is causally determined. The environmental movement as a new “eco-religion” has taken hold of this demon and raises the claim for leadership over the seven major world religions. It has declared climate protection to be protection of the creation and everybody humbly nodded. The “greenhouse” is like the temple, the spiritual superstructure, in which the eco-priests celebrate their “sacred act” of climate change. Not the Creator God, the Creator of man or superman determines his own fate and the future of the earth. If we do not want to change freedom for global bureaucracy and dirigisme, we should tackle with these new climate rulers in time.

The art of abstraction has made its arrival in many areas of life. In politics, the trend shows that the well-being of society has been placed above the welfare and dignity of the individual. Politics brings happiness to the “greatest number”. Their magic word is “social justice”. The sociological worldview of Auguste Comte is based on the idea of “man as a machine”, which the “social engineers” are assigned to make use of. In this way, all the levers of modern media and entertainment industry are operated around the clock to turn us into good “social beings” who obey on command. Who are the programmers?

Our greatest weakness is thus exploited, the inherent fear. The birth cry is an expression of fear, of not getting enough affection, of starving. The child needs parental care and protection before it can enter the “struggle for existence”, the “struggle for climate”. Tormented by the fear for survival, every person is emotionally and without rational examination grateful for offers of protection. The main thing is that the timid “gut instinct” is calmed. The word “climate protection” creates an emotional exhilaration in the subconscious mind. I trust in anyone who pretends to protect me! However, the subconscious mind does not realize that this is only playing with feelings and inclination reflexes. As helpful as the “gut instinct” may be, it is not equipped with the cool reason to realize that the “climate” is just a bogey and is misused to individually and collectively provoke artificial anxieties that do not exist in reality.

Politicians and climate experts were smart enough not to promise weather protection. There are fog and freezing rain, which can paralyze the air and road traffic. Weather protection means protection from the weather and never protecting the weather. The weather does not require our protection, it does anyway as it pleases. Either sunscreen, or rain gear, cold or wind protection, they all do not protect the sun, the rain, the wind and the frost. Even more astonishing is that the dialectical trick, climate change was intended to protect the climate, has remained undetected in our “information society”. This is a proof how anxious we are by nature, and how blind we follow alleged shepherds. Those who devised the term “climate protection” had something in mind.

Whatever climate protection measures were decided on the 15th climate summit in Copenhagen by the 192 leaders of this world and will be negotiated at the 16th summit in Cancun, Mexico, it won’t change anything for terrestrial weather patterns. Weather will remain what it has always been for humanity: a mystery. And that’s a good thing!     •
The text is an introduction to the book, “Propheten im Kampf um den Klimathron” (Prophets in the struggle for the climate throne).

^{(Translation Current Concerns)}