German Professor: Climate Change Is Delusional Nonsense

One of Germany’s most distinguished atmospheric scientists, Professor Hermann Harde, has slammed his nation’s politicians for being duped into “believing they can save the world”.

The vast majority of the published studies and “horror scenarios” are not based on a secure physical foundation, said Harde, “but rather represent computer games that reflect what was fed in”.

The idea that humans can control the climate with their CO2 emissions is an “absolute delusion”.

There is considerable doubt over the “scientifically untenable thesis” of human-caused climate change, continued the Professor, “and it is completely wrong to assume that 97% of climate scientists, or even more, would assume only anthropogenic warming”.

Climate and energy policy need to be based on reliable knowledge, “and not on speculations or belief”.

For years now, Germany’s politicians have been placating the ‘green movement’ by closing nuclear and coal power stations and banning exploration for fossil fuels. At the same time, the country started importing large quantities of oil and gas from Russia.

For a nation happy to spend €100b a year on defense, handing your energy security over to a foreign, nuclear-armed superpower should be all the proof you need that politicians follow the gravy and the fad, and not what’s actually best for their country.

In Harde’s view, the extreme ‘climate emergency’ policies we’re all suffering with today (the main cause of inflation) are driven by competition between different research groups trying to outdo each other in predicting the most hair-raising horror scenarios.

These alarming, click-baity predictions attracted media attention, unsurprisingly; it then got an ill-informed public involved, “and our decision-makers felt obliged to quickly react”.

Cheap energy has been under attack for decades now. But it is absolutely clear, noted Harde, that without a reliable and sufficient energy supply, “Germany and many other countries that take such a path will end in anarchy”.

Or is that the goal?

So-called ‘journalism’ today isn’t designed to seek truth, it is rather a mechanism for the elites to propagandize their ideologies to a trusting and compliant population.

This is visible in the data: the vast majority of mass media journalists come from the exact same schools and neighborhoods as the elites and politicians they purport to be holding to account–which wasn’t always the case. This is a deliberate move, of course, and results in the MSM sharing the same world-views as those in power, views that have little appeal to the general population; however, because the ideologies are promoted everywhere you turn –newspapers/TV/internet– it is assumed that this is the way to think, and so the sheeple blindly follow-along without question.

When a question is raised, however, and a sheep reaches in vain for a logical answer — bam! — it can feel like a sledgehammer to the head. I, personally, can remember that moment vividly, and I also recall the crucial decision that follows: “You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

I’m sure the majority of those reading Electroverse are, by now, riving in the deepest, darkest reaches of the rabbit hole; but truth is approaching, and along with it will come light and redemption for those of us branded ‘deniers’, ‘anti’-whatevers, and ‘heretics’.

Serving as another example: those who have avoided ‘the vaccine’ up until now have ‘won’. This is particularly true given the fresh revelations that all the vaccines are doing is keeping the virus in circulation; forcing it to mutate but never actually eradicating it.

It is proposed, by some scientists (see video HERE), that when the strain finally ‘breaks’ the vaccines’ resistance, which Mother Nature is currently aiding it in doing, it will be far more destructive to the vaccinated than the unvaccinated as the immune systems of the jabbed wouldn’t of been exposed to all the prior, steadily mutating ‘versions’.

Evolution really sorted this out for us: vaccines are a money-making ploy, a political power trip — they are not necessary.

Professor Harde’s research leads him to state that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change overestimates by five times the thermal effect of doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He points to the “highly overlapping and saturated absorption bands” of CO2  and water vapor, and the significant reduced effect of greenhouses gases under cloud cover.

Harde goes on to state that the recent increase in CO2 has caused warming of less than 0.3°C over the last century.

Only about 15% of the global CO2 increase is of man-made origin. After doing a little math –15% of 0.3°C– the warming attributed to humans can only be 0.05, at most.

In view of this insignificant contribution, it is absurd to think that a ban on fossil fuels could even remotely impact Earth’s climate. Climatic changes are caused by grand natural forcings and interactions that exceed our human influence by orders of magnitude.

In Professor Hande’s opinion, modern climate science has developed more as an ideology and world view, rather than a serious science. Scientists who question or point to inconsistencies in the global warming hypothesis are “publicly discredited” and excluded from research funds; research contributions in journals are suppressed; and in a reference to the recent Professor Peter Ridd case, scientists placed on leave or dismissed from their university. 

What we call truths, continued Harde, depends to a large extent on our state of knowledge. He suggests that climate science requires a fundamental review of the hypotheses and a shift away from the widely established climate industry.

Science must not be misled by commerce, politics or ideology, he said. It is the genuine task of universities and state-funded research institutions “to investigate contradictory issues and to ensure independent, free research that gives us honest answers, even when these answers are often complex and do not fit into a desired political context”.

Harde concludes by warning politicians that it would be an irresponsible environmental and energy policy to continue to ignore serious peer-reviewed scientific publications that show a much smaller human impact on the climate than previously thought. 

It is also irresponsible to shut down a reliable, adequate and affordable energy supply, to be replaced by millions of wind turbines, “that destroy our nature and shred trillions of birds and insects”.

Professor Hermann Harde retired a few years ago from Helmut Schmidt University in Hamburg as Professor of Experimental Physics after a long career in science academia. This is the main reason he is able to speak out: his career isn’t on the line.

Related posts

29 Thoughts to “German Professor: Climate Change Is Delusional Nonsense”

  1. Philis

    I stopped getting your notifications. Please add me again. Thanks.

  2. Dallas Schneider

    “Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus”
    Published in Jan 2020

    “Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference.”

    1. Mystic’s Mystic

      This is just my opinion but I think the point of the article is how long can governments maintain a money making fraud and demonstrate zero credible evidence. It has been 34 years and counting for the AGW crowd. You know it is all fraud when after that extraordinary length of time no government has asked the scientific community to explain their failed predictions. All they really want is more time to make more money. They just announced the fraud will continue another 10 years here in the USA. The only certainty is no matter what happens criminal government officials will have amassed sufficient ill gotten gains to take care of themselves and their families while throwing us to the wolves.

  3. Dr Clement Jewitt

    c.15% of global CO2. Interestingly, Peter Taylor in his book ‘Chill’ (Clairview 2009) concluded that the % was c.4%

    1. KJS

      Also worth mentioning in this context, is the lecture by Prof. Murry Salby:
      “What Is Really Behind the Increase of Atmospheric CO2”
      There he talks of an anthropogenic contribution of less than 5 % to the increase in atmospheric CO2-concentration and he also describes the witch-hunt-like practices of the cult climate “science” to defend the illusion that deindustrialization and a ruinous state planned economy were required to ward-off their made-up climate-catastrophe
      00:00 Intro by Hermann Harde
      08:53 Murry Salby Revealing the Real Reason for the increase in atmospheric CO2
      12:15 Evidence of Impact of CO2 – Global Mean Temperature
      24:20 Tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change
      37:20 Observed Evolution of CO2 – Human Emission vs. Response of Atmospheric CO2
      49:50 Retrospective – Institutionalized Treatment of Climate: Science or Ideology
      “Cult Science” as Richard Feynman has referred to it –
      55:00 Reversion from the Benefits in the “Age of Enlightenment” (based on Reason and Inquiry) to the Age Ideology, Suppression, Fear and Superstition
      58:03 .. exemplified by the case of Silencing of Harde´s Inconvenient Evidence (compare also ˃Modus Operandi of Climate “Science”˂ p 42/44 der pdf “Climate Physics (2022-06-05) Harde Hermann”
      77:25 Climate “Science” – what it really is
      81:20 Economic and Infrastructural Consequences
      82:18 Slandering and Destruction of dissenters to the Party-Line
      88:15 Foundation of the Climate pseudo-Science of Anthropogenic Climate Change
      91:00 Motivation of the purveyors of the Cult Science

  4. You need to change the title and theme of this article. Harde provides a weak case with disputed facts that climate change is delusional nonsense. He goes off on the limiting of the use of nuclear power, which should be supported by climate change studies. What do birds hitting windmills have to do with climate change? There are some real issues with how much wind reduces greenhouse gases when backed by natural gas. But that isn’t mentioned. What is talk of vaccines doing in a climate change article?

    Most of this article is about politics. Shoot the messengers. Maybe the messengers deserve it, but please clarify that is the real focus of the article.

    1. Martin

      Wind turbines take up so much space on the landscape, kill birds are inefficient, and do you think they are ‘green’ energy?
      Climate change is natural and headed by the oceans and the Sun. If we releasing CO2 into the atmosphere (or not)…DOES NOT change the climate.
      Are you a newbie here or a tourist on this channel?

      1. This article is supposedly about climate change, not whether wind power is green energy or not. I have my doubts that wind energy reduces greenhouse gases. That seems more pertinent to the article than whether it kills birds. All forms of energy have their problems.

    2. Mark Fleming Fisher

      Which facts are disputed? Dr. Wm. Happer of Princeton University, who has spent his whole career in physics, confirms that the very narrow wavelength bands that CO2 is capable of absorbing are already largely consumed by water vapor and other atmospheric gases leaving little or nothing for CO2 to contribute. So that’s not disputed.

      Is it the percent of human contribution then? Or is it the calculation of the amount human induced CO2 temperature increase that you contest? Given that most of the observed “change” in temperature occurred in the early 20th century, long before the precipitous increase in CO2 levels perhaps you have an issue with that?

      There is NO CO2 induced climate change. Anyone who has taken the time to study the competing claims in detail must conclude that it’s a hoax and THE best example of President Eisenhower’s warning about what is now referred to as the military-industrial complex. The capture of policy making of governments by the “rent seeking” academic community. Gone are the leather patches on the elbows of professor’s coat jackets… Now they wear bespoke.

    3. John Rodda

      The ‘greenhouse gas’ theory is contrary to the 2nd law f thermodynamics because it has the colder atmosphere heating the warmer earth. If this were true, then on a cold winter day, we could open the refrigerator door and bask in the radiative heat from its colder interior. The theory is a schoolboy howler – absolute nonsense. The purpose of the UN’s fraud is to degrade Western economies so the UN can step in and save them with socialist government, with the UN in control.

  5. Kevin Quinn

    Why should the theme of the article be changed?
    You conclude that Harde provides a weak case. Others may not!
    Any reader is free to make their own takeaway.
    Birds hitting windmills is related to windmills being erected and employed in response to perceived AGW! In other words, an unintended environmental consequence. Do you think environmental consequences of shifts to new sources of power should be ignored?
    As far as politics goes, do you really think that it can be separated from the climate issue? Would that it could…
    Take Germany for an example of how a blend of political ideology and extreme climate ideology are inexorably leading towards an impending, and largely self-imposed, economic disaster.

    1. The title of the article “CLIMATE CHANGE IS DELUSIONAL NONSENSE” baits the reader into thinking this article is about climate change. Claims of climate change should be debated on the basis of the science.

      I, for one, would rather not read a hodgepodge of unrelated assertions meant to try to discredit those claiming climate change is caused by humans. If that is what the author wants to do, he should change the title and theme of the article to something like “CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS ARE DELUSIONAL.”

      1. Martin

        The problem is that science has been politicized.
        The Science of “Global Warming” now downgraded to ‘Climate Change’… this so-called ‘Science’, but based on theoretical models that does not translate our reality.
        If there’s no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause ‘catastrophic’ warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, why are you concerned about ‘greenhouse gases’?
        When you stop rant about title ‘names’, read this articles:

        1. Just because it is difficult to model the earth’s climate doesn’t mean you should resort to politicizing the science. I will have to rant about you sending me articles in another language.

          1. John Geier

            It is important to ask “what is the ideal mean surface temperature of Earth and what is the ideal atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration?”
            Both are suboptimal and a modest increase in both would have the net beneficial effects of increased agricultural yields (main effect) reduced winter heating costs and fewer deaths from hypothermia.
            I strongly agree with Professor Harde that we are dealing with an economically destructive popular delusion (Climate Delusion). The carbon dioxide emissions are actually beneficial!

    1. Rocket Scientist

      The atmosphere is getting thicker, more viscous and less translucent as it approaches “Critical Plasma Density” and conductivity. If the critical density is exceeded, the plasma is called over-dense. Plasma (from Ancient Greek πλάσμα (plásma) ‘moldable substance’)[1] is one of the four fundamental states of matter. It contains a significant portion of charged particles – ions and/or electrons. The presence of these charged particles is what primarily sets plasma apart from the other fundamental states of matter. It is the most abundant form of ordinary matter in the Electro-Plasmaverse/Electroverse. Traditionally, the plasmasphere has been regarded as a well behaved cold plasma with particle motion dominated entirely by the geomagnetic field and, hence, co-rotating with the Earth. We are now seeing the sometimes visible “Strongest Noctilucent [plasma] Cloud Activity In Decades” On Wednesday morning, July 6, sky watchers in Europe woke up to some of the brightest noctilucent clouds (NLCs) in years… or just shine a light up or sideways some distance outside at night.

  6. JohnSmith

    While “climate change” is an observable fact, the “delusional nonsense” is the assertion that man-made CO2 is the cause. The oligarchs of the CFR/WEF network promote this myth to advance their sustainable development / world government agenda. However, the proposed “carbon zero” economy is technically unworkable without a massive reduction of the current population. Oh, wait…

    1. Mark Fleming Fisher

      Actually I don’t think you can say that climate change is “observable fact”. When you examine the best, most robust, longest duration and most geographically diverse temperature record (that would be the US which has had almost total coverage of the continental US measured and recorded for over 130 years which comprises 90% of the whole world’s records of equal dignity) you find almost no indication of temperature changes… until the ” adjustments” began being made to the raw data in the 1980’s.

      Those “adjustments” have incrementally been slipped into the “official” reports and have significantly cooled the pre-1950 years and warmed the decades subsequent. A fact illustrated by comparing reports and graphs published by NOAA, NASA & the NCDC over time that shows that they have done exactly what the authors of the “Climategate email” scandal said was necessary in order for their claims to be correct- the removal of the incredibly warm decades from 1910-1950… Heat and accompanying drought so pervasive that it caused the “dust bowl” during the 1930’s.

  7. Al

    These jabs are not only unsafe, they are life threatening. Who truly knows of anybody who died of this spook virus?…they all had comorbitities and these caused their deaths. Almost everyone knows or has heard of someone dying from a heart attack the past 12 months from these poisons. As their immune systems are wrecked, it open up the door for further viral mutations and even organ failure en-masse in the next few years.
    They have had these jabs developed for decades…refined and stealth. Most of the jabbed refuse to believe there is a sinister agenda…how could a seemingly normal or intelligent individual get it so wrong for two and a half years?…because it would be shattering to admit being so very wrong.
    They thought they were for once on the winning side of life….now they have sown their demise much quicker.
    The spook/fake virus covid causes heart attacks they say…gardening causes heart disease…sudden acute death syndrome…nothing to do with an MRNA poison jab of course. The unjabbed can get a cold or flu but the symptoms are far less risky than the jabbed. In Australia, they are desperate to get another booster into you via federal government ads….few are taking these jabs except for the old and weak minded. It’s common knowledge that they cause death and injury….deaths in Australia are up 20% from 2020/21….that says it all.
    Within this month of July….they are going to collapse the markets with a serious event.

    1. Matt Dalby

      IMO it’s important to distinguish between Covid vaccines and other vaccines e.g. against polio that have been around for decades. No vaccine is absolutely 100% safe, but with most vaccines the risk of serious side effects or death is many orders of magnitude less than the risks involved with catching the disease. This is manifestly not true with the Covid jabs, and for the majority of people the jab is more risky than the disease, especially as the jabs only offer limited protection for a few months after which time the number of “cases” is higher in the vaccinated.
      I’ve voluntarily taken all the standard travel vaccines e.g. yellow fever, cholera etc. and would do again despite what has happened with the Covid jabs. If I had young children I would make sure they had all the standard childhood jabs, although I would insist they had individual jabs not the combined MMR. However I will never take a Covid or flu jab, and if anyone I cared about was planning to I would try and talk them out of it.

  8. Trevor

    How about the Dutch govt move on farming – to meet WEF demands of its adherents? No science here – just a copy of PUTIN’s use of jack boots to solve his perceived Ukraine problem. You will notice KS in the video clip also list Putin as one of his disciples – along with the Dutch and Canadian PMs.

  9. Ice Age Big Pharma Eugenics

    “I’m sure the majority of those reading Electroverse are, by now, riving in the deepest, darkest reaches of the rabbit hole; but truth is approaching, and along with it will come light and redemption for those of us branded ‘deniers’, ‘anti’-whatevers, and ‘heretics’.

    Serving as another example: those who have avoided ‘the vaccine’ up until now have ‘won’. This is particularly true given the fresh revelations that all the vaccines are doing is keeping the virus in circulation; forcing it to mutate but never actually eradicating it.

    It is proposed, by some scientists (see video HERE), that when the strain finally ‘breaks’ the vaccines’ resistance, which Mother Nature is currently aiding it in doing, it will be far more destructive to the vaccinated than the unvaccinated as the immune systems of the jabbed wouldn’t of been exposed to all the prior, steadily mutating ‘versions’.

    Evolution really sorted this out for us: vaccines are a money-making ploy, a political power trip — they are not necessary.

    Ice Age Big Pharma Eugenics
    July 6, 2022 at 2:37 pm

    It’s all a scam including the: “Great Invisible Undetectable Virus In The Sky Hoax” The propaganda, poisons and more propaganda are the simple trick(s).

    Science, Pseudoscience, and The Germ Theory of Disease – Dr. Jordan Grant (2022 Conference)

    Virus Mania – look inside

    Mike Adams sums it all up. (((They))) will never stop the weaponized profitable/eugenical multi-purpose multi-century invisible undetectable delusional particle diseases until they stop “testing” for them. “Testing/Vaxx Religion” Eugenics works… and it’s OK.

  10. J F

    Tell me how I get back on your email list. Thanks!

    1. Hold My Hand

      Just Fed… please send me daily email reminders to get up, eat food and check out what’s new on Electroverse. Thanks.

  11. Linda

    1 very important detail about carbon dioxide increase or decrease in our atmosphere- it FOLLOWS the increase or decrease in temperature. If the atmospher warms co2 goes up, if the atmosphere cools co2 goes down. How can it possibly be causing heating or cooling when it is a follower not a leader?

    1. KJS

      Absolut! This is the ultimate coffin´s nail to climate alarmism

  12. KJS

    A big thank you to Cap Allon for referring us to Professor Harde´s findings! The title of this article is right on. When visiting Professor Harde´s web-page one finds confirmed, that his conclusion is based on the thorough research of a physics professor as opposed to the illusionary Cult Climate Science of the IPCC and their minnions.
    Professor Harde has published the results of his research here: (attached pdf file). In the “Own Climate Studies” Section, he first explains in summary and then in detail – with specific references to his research and publications – which IPCC errors or deceptions his investigations have uncovered (pages 15-16 of the pdf-file):
    1. In Section d) Carbon Cycle, he refutes the assumption propagated by the IPCC and the corrupt climate alarmists that the (only linearly) increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere were exclusively caused by human use of fossil fuels (pages 34-37). A contribution of less than 5% (up to a maximum of 15%) to the growth in the atmosphere´s CO2 concentration, doesn´t justify an energy transition policy (even if CO2 caused the illusionary dangerous warming and even if geopolitically unilateral initiatives could be effective). So, it doesn´t come as a surprise, that this finding in particular has triggered a war of annihilation against him and Prof. Murry Salby as described in Section “Modis Operandi of Climate “Science”: Silencing Inconvenient Evidence” (see, pages 42 to 44).
    2. In Section b) Climate Sensitivity, he assesses the warming effect spectroscopically induced by CO2 as being reduced by compensating feedbacks and not amplified. The IPCC ignores the cooling effect of convection and evaporation in particular, and exaggerates the enhancement from water vapor (pages 27-31). Thus, while acknowledging, modeling and quantifying the spectroscopic CO2 greenhouse effect with laboratory experiments in Section a) Greenhouse Effect ( pages 17-21), he unmasks CO2 alarmism as untenable – even if the increase in the Earth´s atmospheric CO2 concentration were essentially due to anthropogenic use of fossil fuels. In Section c) Methane Sensitivity ( pages 32-33) he explains how misguided the alarmist IPCC statements are also for methane. And in Section e) Solar Influence pages 38-41) he confirms that the role of the dominantly solar-determined climate changes (solar irradiation variance, magnetic field effect, cloud formation and induced oceanic cycles) are not due to greenhouse gas effects incl. feedbacks – on the contrary.

Leave a Comment