Consider this admission on 12 May 2012 by the prominent German meteorologist Klaus Eckart Puls in an interview by Bettina Hahne-Waldscheck of the Swiss magazine “Factum”, translated, summarized and paraphrased for brevity by P. Gosselin in a journal article titled “The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is Sheer Absurdity”:
Bettina: You’ve been criticizing the theory of man-made global warming for years. How did you become skeptical?
Puls: Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data — first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it . . . Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.
Bettina: Is there really climate change?
Puls: Climate change is normal. There have always been phases of global warming, many that far exceeded the extent we see today. But there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling.
Bettina: The IPCC is projecting 0.2 degrees Celsius warming per decade, i.e., 2 to 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. What’s your view?
Puls: These are speculative model projections, so-called scenarios — and no
prognoses. Because of climate’s high complexity, reliable prognoses just aren’t possible. Nature does what it wants, and not what the models present as prophecy.
The entire CO2 debate is nonsense. Even if CO2 were doubled, the temperature would rise only 1 degree Celsius. The remainder of the IPCC’s assumed warming is based purely on speculative amplification mechanisms. Even though CO2 has risen, there has been no warming in 13 years.
Bettina: How does sea level look?
Puls: Sea level rise has slowed down. Moreover, it has dropped a half centimeter over the last 2 years. It’s important to remember that mean sea level is a calculated magnitude, and not a measured one. There are a great number of factors that influence sea level, e.g., tectonic processes, continental shifting, wind currents, passats, volcanoes. Climate change is only one of ten factors.
Bettina: What Have we measured at the North Sea?
Puls: In the last 400 years, sea level at the North Sea coast has risen about 1.40 meters. That’s about 35 centimeters per century. In the last 100 years, the North Sea has risen only 25 centimeters.
Bettina: Does the sea level rise have anything to do with the melting North Pole?
Puls: That’s a misleading conclusion. Even if the entire North Pole melted, there would be no sea level rise because of the principles of buoyancy.
Bettina: Is the melting of the glaciers in the Alps caused by global warming?
Puls: There are many factors at play. As one climbs a mountain, the temperature drops about 0.65 degrees Celsius per 100 meters. Over the last 100 years it has gotten about 0.75 degrees Celsius warmer and so the temperature boundary has shifted up about 100 meters. But observations tell us that ice also 1,000 meters up and higher has melted. Clearly there are other reasons for this, namely soot and dust. But soot and dust do not have only anthropogenic origins; they are also caused by nature via volcanoes, dust storms, and wildfires. Advances and retreats of glaciers have always taken place throughout the Earth’s history. Glaciology studies clearly show that glaciers over the last 10,000 years were smaller on average than today.
Bettina: In your view, melting Antarctic sea ice and the fracture of a huge iceberg 3 years ago are nothing to worry about?
Puls: To the contrary, the Antarctic ice cap has grown both in area and volume over the last 30 years, and temperature has declined. This 30-year trend is clear to see. The Amundsen Scott Station of the USA shows that temperature has been declining there since 1957. 90 percent of the Earth’s ice is stored in Antarctica, which is one and a half times larger than Europe.
Bettina: Then why do we always read it is getting warmer down there?
Puls: Here they are only talking about the West Antarctic peninsula, which is where the big chunk of ice broke off in 2008 — from the Wilkins-Shelf. This area is hardly 1 percent of the entire area of Antarctica, but it is exposed to Southern Hemisphere west wind drift and some of the strongest storms of the planet.
Bettina: What causes such massive chunks of ice to break off?
Puls: There are lots of factors, among them the intensity of the west wind fluctuations. These west winds have intensified over the last 20 years as part of natural ocean and atmospheric cycles, and so it has gotten warmer on the west coast of the Antarctic peninsula. A second factor is the larger waves associated with the stronger storms. The waves are more powerful and so they break off more ice. All these causes are meteorological and physical, and have nothing to do with a climate catastrophe.
Bettina: Then such ice breaks had to have occurred in the past too?
Puls: This has been going on for thousands of years, also in the 1970’s back when all the talk was about “global cooling”. Back then there were breaks with ice chunks hundreds of square kilometers in area. People were even discussing the possibilities of towing these huge ice chunks to dry countries like South Africa or Namibia in order to use them as a drinking water supply.
Bettina: What about all the media photos of polar bears losing their ice?
Puls: That is one of the worst myths used for generating climate hysteria. Polar bears don’t eat ice, they eat seals. Polar bears go hungry if we shoot their food supply of seals. The polar bear population has increased with moderately rising temperatures, from 5,000 50 years ago to 25,000 today.
Bettina: But is it true that unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is melting?
Puls: It has been melting for 30 years. That also happened twice already in the last 150 years. The low point was reached in 2007 and the ice has since begun to recover. There have always been phases of Arctic melting. Between 900 AD and 1300 AD Greenland was green on the edges and the Vikings settled there.
Bettina: And what do you say about the alleged expanding deserts?
Puls: That doesn’t exist. For example, the Sahara is shrinking and has lost in the north an area as large as Germany over the last 20 years. The same is true in the South Sahara. The famine that struck Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia was mainly caused by the leasing of large swathes of land to large international corporations so that they could grow crops for biofuels for Europe, and by war. But it is much easier for prosperous Europe to blame the world’s political failures on a fictional climate catastrophe instead.
Bettina: So we don’t need to do anything against climate change?
Puls: There’s nothing we can do to stop it. Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. It’s impossible to protect the climate but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other.
I am the co- author of my late Father’s
life works on long term climatic manifestations and his astronomical revisions on climatic cycles based in his three laws
of planetary motions.
The book based in his manuscript entitled ‘ TRUE PLANETARY MOTIONS & RHYTHMIC CLIMATIC CHNGES’ I published almost a decade ago in 2010.
It was quickly dismissed by the major press release company which refused the $1,000.00 I was willing to pay to publish its release.
Today the body of works remains essentially unrecognized although I participated in the 2011 IPCC panel of experts presenting his findings. It is still broadly against the grain of the climate change fanatics ( now termed ‘climate change’ as was termed ‘global warming’ before the farce began to unravel right after publication of my book. One may review the official
book website here:
even better due to recent reduction in emissions due no flights in Europe it got warmer because the CO2 wasn’t blocking the sun anymore
Bill Gates is dead everyone…who we see now is a body double, you can see it’s not the original Gates
The CO2/global warming thing is based on a false premise
In order to single out certain atmospheric gases and demonise them as the culprits responsible for atmospheric warming, it was necessary to attribute certain characteristics to the so called “Greenhouse Gases” with regard to radiant heat which would set them apart from the two most abundant atmospheric gases, Oxygen and Nitrogen.
In his memoirs entitled “Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat”,
detailing a series of experiments conducted at the Royal Institution, Tyndall fallaciously states with regard to Oxygen and Nitrogen that they are both quote:
“practically transparent to radiant heat.”
Thus laying the foundations of AGW fraud.
This statement by John Tyndall is the origin of such claims as “the science is settled” and the “greenhouse effect is 150 year old established physics.” In terms of radiant heat it is the only factor that would differentiate between the various atmospheric gases.
After all, Oxygen and Nitrogen constitute 99% of the atmosphere. If these two gases are shown to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, what would make so called “Greenhouse Gases” like CO2, such a threat to the environment at only 0.0385% of the atmosphere?
So the basis for the “Greenhouse Effect” is that incoming and out going IR is not absorbed by Oxygen and Nitrogen which instead passes straight through these gases. According to this unsubstantiated hypothesis, only those gases which are termed “Greenhouse Gases” posses the capability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation.
The problem for the hypothesis of the “Greenhouse Effect” and of course AGW itself is that the basic premise on which the hypothesis is based is false.
Firstly, Oxygen and Nitrogen both have higher specific heat capacities than CO2.
For verification see here:
Secondly and above all, Oxygen and Nitrogen, of course do indeed absorb infrared radiation:
Click to access o2.pdf
This is the best logical reasoning why Climate Change is a complete hoax and brilliantly explained that we can not protect the climate but we can protect our environment. Gates wants to destroy our environment that needs the sun rays for all living things talk about creating a paradox
This an interesting article and l have wondered about Glaciers melting and less snow falling if Climate Change isn’t happening but Klaus Eckart Puls answers it very well. Great to see there are still Educated and Intelligent scientists willing to publish truth not the BS seen in main stream media
Bill Gates cannot save us from this fraud. He is part of the scheme.
100% Just more control.. They are going to say the world is ending so we have to eat insects and live in a box.. It’s just BS!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Finally, an authoritarian figure who confirms what I have postulated for decades.
THERE IS NO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING, it’s just another way of taxing the bejesus out of the general population by crooked (or stupid) politicians
Yes it’s Climate fraud – Like Bird flu/swine/corona fraud..That people don’t see it is amazing to me..
LikeLiked by 1 person