Share this...



Physicist Dr. Peter Heller wrote at the German language Science Skeptical here how the election of Donald Trump could mean “the return to reason in climate policy” and that there may be a course change: “one away from trying to do what’s good for the climate, to one that does what is good for man.”

Physicist Dr. Peter Heller. Photo: FDP

He writes:

This is neither dangerous nor unscientific – rather it is optimistic. It holds the promise for a better future that offers more than just the energy savings variant of the present.”

Heller views both opposite extreme positions taken by the radical elements on either side of the debate as irreconcilable and are in fact “nonsense that have more to to do with belief than with science.”

Heller then adds that if the climate alarmists had their way, they “would not only destroy our current prosperity, but also rob mankind of all options to further prosper in the future.”

Today Heller sees hope for a return to reason in climate policy given the “current developments“. One reason for hope he cites is the recently watered down Climate Plan 2050 submitted by the German government at the recent Climate Conference in Morocco. Ultimately Germany was not ready to deindustrialize after all. Heller believes:

Thirty years of climate diplomacy where tens of thousands of taxpayer-funded politicians, bureaucrats and scientists jetted to large conferences and congresses at attractive touristic locations were useless. […] After the election Donald Trump to President of the United States, the gate for better policy has finally opened endlessly wide.”

In his analysis Heller of course agrees that man has an impact on climate and that the greenhouse effect is real, but that this does not necessarily mean climate change is climate catastrophe. He thinks climate sensitivity is closer to 1°C per doubling of CO2. He calls the claims that climate is only worsening “pure speculation” and the claim that man-made climate change is taking us to a climate catastrophe is based on “numerous assumptions“.

Heller also thinks that human ingenuity with respect to adapting to new conditions is being hugely underestimated, reminding readers that humans have adapted to and mastered every climate zone on the planet.

Even in regions where there are frequent drought periods, powerful storms or flooding, man did not retreat. His ingenuity overcame all obstacles. The temperature range within which civilization spread went far beyond the range of 2°C.”

As part of this adaptation, Heller calls fossil energies “a moral necessity” because we use them to generate our prosperity and to produce products of every type that benefit our lives.

In many applications they are indispensable and some are not so easily replaceable, as the 2°C target demands. In summary their advantages substantially outweigh their disadvantages. […] Fossil fuels not freed humanity from feudal exploitation and slavery because they provide an efficient and effective supply through machines, they have foremost enabled us to refrain from consuming biomass as a form of energy and thus prevented the destruction of the environment. In the 18th century when charcoal was substituted by coke in iron smelting, forests once again were able to expand.”

Heller sees Donald Trump as a “new start”, someone who will expand the production of fossil fuels and end the climate protection policy of Obama, and thus with it usher in a series of economic, social and political advantages.

This could introduce the end of international climate diplomacy in its current form, as countries like Russia, China or India are also poised for a reorientation.”

The German physicist calls the howls and gnashing of teeth now taking place within the German mainstream media “over-the-top and wrong”.

He summarizes:

From the very beginning it was a fundamental mistake by climate policy to allow political activists from climate research to have the say. Donald Trump’s program puts the setting of guidelines where it really belongs: in a policymaking that that does not focus on the welfare of the climate, but rather on the welfare on mankind. Climate protection through decarbonization does not offer anything to anyone. In the end even its proponents are left with nothing except a good feeling.”