Click on the following chapters:
- An honour rescue for the climate scientists
- Quasi-monopoly on information from the IPCC
- Insufficient safety reserves
- Irresponsible safety philosophy
- CO2-concentration - Threatening alarm signal is being ignored
- CO2 in the atmosphere increases global temperatures including ocean surfaces
- IPCC statutes lead to trivialisation of warnings
- Mester cartoon IPCC
- Recovery of greenhouse gases by technical means
- Taking legal action against the IPCC trivialisation of the climate catastrophe?
- Last chance: reversing the Keeling curve with solar and wind energies
- A macabre thought experiment
Gerhard Mester: Fossil economy plays down the CO2 danger at every opportunity:Crane truck: “Fossil Fuel Economy” Billboard: “Supercool C02 Bungee Jumping: It will be OK - Damage to health has not been proved! Optimism instead of hysteria!” Man in crowd: “Shouldn’t they at least ban the advertising for it?!”
1. An honour rescue for the climate scientists
My greatest respect goes to the thousands of climate scientists in the IPCC whose efforts are aimed at saving the world from the final climate catastrophe, the Hansens, the Schellnhubers, Rahmstorfs and many more. At the same time, I see the human tragedy in which they live. It reminds me of the fate of the Trojan Princess Cassandra, who refused to accept the god Apollo and was punished by him with the gift of foresight, but with the curse that no one would believe her.
2. The IPCC's quasi-monopoly on information
Since the founding of the IPCC in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, it has gained a worldwide quasi-information monopoly on climate issues.
As is increasingly becoming apparent, this quasi-information monopoly of the IPCC is being misused by the fossil economy to trivialise climate warnings. As a result, climate protection is being criminally neglected in political decisions and consequently, the climate catastrophe is running its deadly course - with Europe being no exception.
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is not a private organisation, but was founded by the UN. Its task is to collect scientifically proven information to determine whether there is a real threat of dangerous climate change. Its additional task is to determine the causes of this development and to elucidate any possibilities for prevention.
To this end, the IPCC publishes its official assessments, the IPCC Assessments, every six or seven years. These are regarded by the concerned public as scientifically based sources of information on the causes of climate change and on ways to avoid it.
The IPCC has thus gained a worldwide quasi-monopoly on information on climate issues, to which the Federal Republic of Germany, as a member of the UN, has also contributed. The Federal Government therefore shares responsibility for the IPCC's minimization of the climate catastrophe.
The present contribution is intended to show that the IPCC proposals are indeed completely inadequate. Secondly, it is to be shown that it is up to the IPCC's internal procedural rules if urgent warnings by scientists are trivialised or omitted altogether. And thirdly, it is to be considered whether this paralysis of the IPCC could be challenged in a national or international court.
3. Insufficient safety reserves
When human lives are at stake, it is common practice in the engineering sciences to work with considerable safety reserves (contingency measures). For elevator systems, for example, a minimum rope safety of 12 is prescribed throughout Europe. This means twelve times the safety of suspension ropes. A rope that is to lift an elevator of 1,000 kg must not break until it is subjected to twelve times the load.
The defence against the climate crisis is not about a few lives in an elevator but about more than 7 billion people worldwide. And what safety reserves (contingency measures) are being considered by the IPCC in this case?
If you summarize the IPCC's recommendations given at the Paris Climate Conference into a few catchwords (as is usually done by the media), it is understood that we should not allow global temperatures to increase by more than 2 degrees Celsius compared to the pre-industrial global temperature as this would cause irreversible consequences.
However, below such a global temperature increase, the feared positive feedbacks, or rather the tilting of the climate would most likely not occur, and there would even be a certain CO2 budget left for humanity to use.
The typical politician, inexperienced in climate technology, would draw two fatal conclusions from these misleading statements:
1.) It is still (allegedly) possible to reverse all threatening developments that have occurredIn reality, our politicians should become suspicious if "scientists" want to allow a further temperature increase up to 1.5 degrees Celsius or even up to a maximum of 2 degrees compared to the pre-industrial global temperature. Why? Extreme weather events are increasing, a heat wave in Western Europe in 2003 caused almost 70,000 deaths, the strength of hurricanes and typhoons is increasing, the number and extent of insatiable bush and forest fires are increasing and glaciers are melting worldwide and thus can no longer provide sources of fresh water.
2.) If global temperatures rise only by 1.5 degrees Celsius to a maximum of 2 degrees compared to pre-industrial global temperatures, the further rise of global temperatures can (allegedly) still be stopped.
4. Irresponsible safety philosophy
The Technical Inspection Authority (the German TÜV) would immediately withdraw a bus from service if the tread depth on a tyre was no longer sufficient, if larger rust scars appeared on the chassis, or if the brake pads were worn out.
The IPCC in its current state, on the other hand, would probably insist that even if all four tires have burst and the brakes didn’t work, it would still be possible to continue driving "with little confidence".
5. CO2-conzentration - threatening alarm signal is masked out
The measurement results of the Mouna-Loa measuring station in Hawaii already show us that now, with only temperature increase of a little more than 1 degree Celsius compared to pre-industrial times, the CO2-concentration in the earth's atmosphere is increasing year by year and moreover, that the increase is accelerating.
- Thawing of the huge permafrost regions of Northern Canada, Alaska, Eastern Siberia and Greenland (frozen swamps about 20 to 25% of the land areas of the earth) allows the CO2 (and the even more climate-damaging methane gas) previously held in the permafrost to escape.
- Increasing forest, steppe and savannah fires emit additional CO2.
- Heated ocean water hardly absorbs any CO2 from the atmosphere and in some places even releases it back into the atmosphere.
On the website of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Studies, 16 such "tipping elements" are listed and explained in detail.
CO2 in the atmosphere reduces heat radiation into space. If the CO2 content of the atmosphere increases, the global temperature rises.
6. CO2 in the atmosphere increases global temperatures including ocean surfaces
Here is a simplified representation of the process:
The visible (short-wave) sunrays are hardly attenuated when passing through the earth's atmosphere and the CO2 molecules present there. The ground and the sea surface are therefore heated by the sun's radiation. The warmed-up ground and the sea surface radiate their heat upwards with invisible (long-wave) infrared rays.
Although the CO2 molecules do not react to the visible short-wave light coming from the sun, they are made to vibrate by the long-wave infrared rays coming from below. This means that they become warm and in turn radiate infrared radiation in all directions, partly upwards into space but also partly downwards, back to the ground and the sea surface. In this way, the ground and the sea surface can no longer cool down properly and thus become warmer.
The more CO2 is present in the atmosphere, the more the ground and sea surface warm up.
The higher global temperatures, in turn, increase CO2 emissions, as just indicated, and a so-called positive feedback effect is already taking place: Higher temperatures lead to more CO2 emissions, higher CO2 emissions increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere. This increases the global temperature and so on and so on. Therefore, we are already in the middle of the dreaded tipping over of the worlds climate.
For the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that methane, next to CO2, already contributes a further considerable share to global warming.
7. IPCC statutes lead to trivialisation of the warnings
The following text can be found on the German language IPCC website
Who is involved in the IPCC?
The IPCC is both a scientific body and an intergovernmental committee. The seat of the Council is Geneva. Its members are: - scientists from around the world who contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors and reviewers. New teams of authors are put together for each report
- Governments of states that are members of the United Nations or the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC.
- Observers from more than 100 accredited international organisations and from civil society.
What the IPCC does.
The IPCC compiles the results of the current scientific, technical and socio-economic literature published worldwide on these topics. It presents the scientific basis, the consequences and risks of climate change and also shows ways in which humanity can mitigate climate change and adapt to global warming.
The IPCC does not conduct research itself, but compiles the results of thousands of scientists and evaluates them from a scientific perspective. To this end, it has been publishing assessment reports, the IPCC Assessment Reports, every six to seven years since 1990. Detailed procedural rules are in place to ensure that the information provided by the IPCC is reliable, balanced and comprehensive.
All IPCC member countries must agree to the relevant version of the report before it is published.
The last sentence I highlighted in red letters is crucial: This provision gives IPCC member countries led by a fossil-dependent government, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Brazil or the USA, a kind of veto right to stop any serious warning about the climate catastrophe and refrain from any demand for effective action!
Note by the author:
On the anglophone ipcc-web page https://archive.ipcc.ch/img/graphics/WP_AR6_en_web.jpg
you can read correspondingly: " Governments review the final draft SPM (subsumption for policy-makers) in preparation for its approval"
The Guardian on the downplaying of IPCC assessments in 2014:
See the following link:
The Guardian of 15 May 2014 reports that this right of veto is being exploited to the full by the IPCC's climate change activists. It describes in detail how the representatives of the oil-dependent countries take every opportunity to trivialize the IPCC's formulations, deny the danger of positive feedback and make the allegedly still usable CO2 budgets appear as large as possible.
Committed climate scientists have no chance of putting their well-founded warnings in the "summaries for decision-makers".The freedom of expression of committed climate researchers towards the worried public has been and is thus largely prevented. It is astonishing that there has not yet been a scandal about this. This may even be a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of expression! Article 5, paragraph 3, sentence 1 of the German Constitution states: Art and science, research and teaching are free.
8. Caricature by Gerhard MesterMy therapy suggestion is each year one less cigarette per day!
Conclusion: The IPCC's proposals fall miles short of what is actually necessary, namely: an immediate end to further anthropogenic CO2 and methane emissions, and the removal of greenhouse gases from the Earth's atmosphere as much and as quickly as possible!
9. Recovery of greenhouse gases by technical means
One often encounters the misunderstanding that it would be sufficient to merely reactivate the natural photosynthesis of the plant world on land and in the oceans so that it could take the excess CO2 back out of the atmosphere and the oceans. This notion overlooks the insane quantities of fossil material that have been systematically extracted from the earth's crust over the last 200 years and used to produce energy - i.e. converted into CO2 - which has been pumped into the atmosphere.
The rapid increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is quite simply proof that the plant world has simply NOT managed to maintain the CO2 content of the atmosphere at its original level.
How, then, can they even manage to reduce the surplus again?
No complaining will help! Mankind itself must now take out the industrial waste it has deposited in the atmosphere!
The retrieval alone is not enough. In order for the amount of recovered gases to be accommodated at all, it is not enough to compress them under high pressure in underground caverns. They would then escape again at every leak and harm the climate again. In addition, a more violent release of CO2 could lead to suffocation, because CO2 is odourless and those affected would not be able to “smell” the danger they are in.
Moreover, a sudden leakage of methane could lead to dangerous explosions, because methane is combustible.
A successful retrieval consists of three steps.
- Retrieval from the atmosphere
- Chemical conversion of the recovered greenhouse gases into climate-friendly carbon compounds of higher energy density
- Safe storage or economic use of the carbon compounds rendered harmless to the climate.
CO2- recycling for the production of methanol
Production of methanol from the CO2 in the atmosphere
by Dr Michael Specht - Final Report July 2000
The production of vegetable charcoal from dead trees or garden waste and its further use as a soil conditioner to be ploughed under is also a process that points in the right direction. In particular, the user of the vegetable carbon has a clear advantage. This makes financing easier.
10. Take legal action against the IPCC trivialisation of the climate catastrophe?
In September 2018, the Solar Energy Promotion Association of Germany (Solarenergie-Förderverein Deutschland e.V.) and the Federation for Environment and Nature Conservation (Bund) e.V. as well as eleven individual plaintiffs filed a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. The complaint alleges that the legislature failed to enact adequate laws against the violation of the fundamental right to life and physical integrity and other fundamental rights.
It remains to be considered whether the violation of the fundamental right to freedom of opinion for research and teaching described in the previous chapter in the IPCC's publication provisions should also be included in the text of the complaint in the constitutional complaint now pending. The deliberate suppression of the most urgent warnings in the IPCC texts not only constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of opinion in research and teaching, but in this combination also massively endangers the defence of the fundamental right to life and physical integrity.
In contrast to the usual regulations in engineering science that safety reserves (contingency measures) against the failure of structures or machines must be set at a higher level, the higher the number of people at risk and the more uncertain the possible dangers, the institutions of the IPCC work with a diametrically opposed “murderous” safety philosophy: dangers arising from the continued use of fossil fuels can be excluded from IPCC assessments by the lobby of the fossil energy industry. The result: the greater the danger and the more complex its defence, the less it is mentioned publicly.
In connection with the peaceful use of nuclear energy, from which we will hopefully be finally freed in 2022, we still know the concept of risk or residual risk. The risk is the product of the amount of damage multiplied by the probability of occurrence. The so-called residual risk is the risk that remains after everything humanly possible has been done to avert the known dangers.
In its Kalkar decision of August 8, 1978, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the population has to bear a residual risk from the use of nuclear energy as a "socially adequate burden" "if it appears practically impossible, according to the state of science and technology that such damaging events will occur".
A similar permission for a further use of fossil fuels by the Federal Constitutional Court is rather not to be expected in the case of the above-mentioned constitutional complaint, because in the case of an imminent climate collapse the feared catastrophes are not "practically excluded" according to the state of climate science, but - on the contrary - are to be expected with great probability.
11. Last chance: reversal of the Keeling curve with solar and wind energies
As long as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the concentration of other greenhouse gases continue to rise as shown in Figure 1, global warming will continue to accelerate despite all the down-played claims of the fossil-dependent IPCC member countries.
It is the task of mankind as we live today to use all conceivable means to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations to pre-industrial levels. After all, our survival is at stake!
Figure 3 Necessary reversal of the keeling curve
12. A macabre thought experiment
Even if humanity were to suddenly disappear (very quietly - without nuclear war and without a deadly epidemic) and if, as a result, there were no more anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the (non-anthropogenic) positive feedbacks that have already begun would nevertheless continue to drive up greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperatures.
So far, the thought experiment.
Now for the conclusions:
- The recovery of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere does not happen by itself! It requires active efforts of mankind and immense amounts of CO2-free and radioactive-free energy.
- These amounts of energy can only be supplied by solar and wind energy due to the necessary short response and development time.
- We can no longer hope that the fossil infiltrated IPCC will provide an impetus for this.
- International conferences do not promise success!
- The leading elites of the individual nations and the climate protection organisations must take the initiative themselves.
- We need national success!
- Nothing is more successful internationally than national success!
- Planet Earth - our home - and home for all higher life is therefore dependent on national initiatives!