Share this...



At the online Baseler Zeitung Swiss geologist Markus Häring writes that the claim “a drastic reduction in CO2 can prevent a warming of the climate has no scientific basis.”

Hat-tip DkS

Häring writes that he has a background in natural sciences and took it upon himself to examine the science that allegedly underpins the anthropogenic global warming theory. He finds that “CO2 has been unjustifiably vilinized“.

Upon analyzing the data, Häring concludes:

The statement made by the UN IPCC that an unstopped further development of man-made activities will lead with great certainty to a dangerous climate warming is a prognosis and not a substantiated fact. […] Whoever claims the opposite with sentences like ‘The science is settled’, puts his credibility as a scientist in doubt.”

Häring points out that too many of the conclusions made by climate science rely on prognoses for the future and not on actual observations. He writes:

Prognoses cannot be checked. Just how reliable prognoses are is demonstrated by the financial world, even though it works with more measureable facts and systems that can be better understood. Even more problematic is when prognoses are based on models that no longer agree with observations. The climate development of the last 15 years no longer agrees with the IPCC models. Here there is a need to explain why.”

Häring also describes how the bad climate science has led to foolish and destructive policy measures, such as biofuels, palm oil plantations and carbon sequestration. He writes, “The question of whether CO2 in the ground causes more damage than CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be asked.”

On blaming weather extremes on CO2-induced climate change, Häring says it’s cynical to even speculate on this. “Extreme events such as droughts and floods involving the deaths of thousands will continue with or without climate warming”.

He then explains that building infrastructure and taking measures to counter such events today makes much more sense than cutting back on CO2 in the hope that this will act as a solution 100 years down the road. In a nutshell he says that countries need development today, and not witchcraft to cure the possible ills of the year 2100.

It is not surprising that poor countries are hit harder by natural catastrophes than rich countries because they can’t afford any protective measures.”