Composition of the air:
- Nitrogen 78%
- Oxygen about 21%
- The noble gases argon, xenon, neon, and krypton together make up just under one percent.
- CO2 0.038%, of which nature itself produces about 96%. The rest, about 4%, is produced by human beings. That is 4% of 0.038%, or 0.00152%. Germany’s share of this is 3.1%. Thus, for example, Germany influences the CO2 in the air by 0.0004712%.
Here are some excerpts from an Epochtimes article from the year 2007:
The purpose of practical politics lies in keeping the mass of the people afraid and thereby making them cry out for security. This is done by threatening them with a series of specters, most of which are freely invented. A lie only has to be repeated often enough, and then it is believed.
Of all the absurdities concerning the CO2 fraud, the so-called greenhouse effect is the basis and probably the most absurd, since it lacks any physical foundation—and because in principle it is easy to refute. How often has each of us heard or read that expression “greenhouse effect” in recent years; the greenhouse effect is a constant fear-inducing companion and has become an apocalyptic horseman.
When one hears of the greenhouse effect, one imagines a greenhouse or nursery, along with high humidity and oppressive heat. Psychologically, one is initially put off by such a scenario, but can easily imagine that something like a greenhouse effect might exist, since one has experienced it oneself—provided one has ever been in a nursery or greenhouse. A greenhouse effect is therefore understood first of all as a system into which heat can enter but from which it cannot escape again, or can escape only insufficiently.
The conventional greenhouse theory states that temperatures rise inside a glassed-in greenhouse when the sun shines on it. Solar energy is reflected at the ground and, as heat, prevented from escaping at the roof of the greenhouse (or the Earth’s atmosphere), thereby warming the greenhouse/the Earth, which in cold regions is beneficial or even necessary for plant growth.
Accordingly, the heat radiation inherent in the system (which occurs in accordance with Newton’s law of cooling) is said to be absorbed at the walls and in the atmosphere. Added to this is the externally supplied solar radiation, which is reflected at the ground and converted into heat and, because of the enclosing glass, can no longer escape. According to the theory, the effect occurs when the transmission and absorption coefficients of the boundaries of the system—that is, the glass—depend on wavelength. In the end the entire system is said to heat up.
So much for greenhouse theory in brief. Incidentally, Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius is regarded not as the inventor but as a further developer of this greenhouse theory; in 1896 he wanted to use it to predict all ice ages. The basis of his theory was the assumption that all CO2 was concentrated at an altitude of six kilometers and would form a kind of belt there.
Until the 1970s, almost all scientists (especially the leading scientists of the Kaiser Wilhelm/Max Planck Society) regarded this assumption as wild speculation, but through the writings of the Club of Rome it was brought back to life.
The Reality
Physically speaking, there is no greenhouse effect. If there were, all gardeners would rejoice, for they would no longer need to heat their greenhouse facilities if they simply added a little more CO2. The above-mentioned Newton’s law of cooling states that any body continually gives off internal heat. If it is in a vacuum, this release takes place much more slowly, since in that case cooling through conduction or convection does not occur. That means the Moon cools more slowly than the Earth.
The so-called and perceptible greenhouse effect in a greenhouse is therefore attributable solely to the absence of air-mass exchange (convection). Warm air masses are not replaced by cold ones; therefore the greenhouse simply cools more slowly than its surroundings and thus corresponds exactly to Newton’s law. That is all. It is in no way attributable to any absorption properties of the glass.
That is why the greenhouse gradually becomes cool after sunset as well; over time the temperatures inside approach those outside the greenhouse. No trace of heating. Moreover, a greenhouse effect presupposes a closed system, as is the case in a greenhouse, which is precisely not the case with the Earth, for there is no defined boundary between the Earth and the cosmos.
According to Newton, a warmer body also cannot warm itself by its own power when it is in a colder environment (Earth and outer space). According to simple laws of physics, that is impossible. Therefore there is no so-called natural greenhouse effect.
Water Vapor or CO2?
According to research, water vapor is responsible for almost 2/3 of the heat absorption that actually takes place on Earth; nevertheless water vapor does not appear in the calculations of the UN organization IPCC, although with a share of zero to four percent of the atmosphere it is far more determining than CO2. The IPCC simply considers the effects of water vapor too difficult to calculate and predict. All the more attention is then focused on the other suspects, above all CO2, but also CO, ozone, and CFCs.
Put plainly, one can say that almost 2/3 of the hypothetically assumed greenhouse effect is not considered at all because it does not appear in the calculations. This is very easy to understand if one uses common sense. If there are clouds above (water vapor), it normally remains warmer down at ground level; if it is cloudless, it is generally colder, as one can experience at night.
One ought to try that with the minimal 0.038 percent CO2 in our atmosphere … or even with many times that amount. There would hardly be any effect. But even water vapor can only delay cooling somewhat; it can in no way prevent it. This is said only in case, after the hopefully soon recovery from CO2 mania, people perhaps turn on water vapor as the climate killer.
CO2 – The Wide-Meshed Net
But why can CO2 or other gases make no significant contribution at all to heat absorption? CO2 does in fact have the potential ability to store heat. There is, however, one essential reason that brings the whole greenhouse/CO2 construct crashing down, and that is the following physical effect: solid (or liquid) bodies (that is, the Earth) emit energy over a continuous radiation spectrum. Gases such as CO2, however, can absorb or emit energy only selectively, a fact that can be read in any basic chemistry textbook. All this against the background of a CO2 share of 0.038 percent in the atmosphere. In imagery: CO2 is a thirsty man who is supposed to catch drinking water with a wide-meshed net.
That is why the radiation window between 7 and 13 micrometers into the atmosphere, measured by satellites, remains open; not even water vapor, assuming it has increased at all, can prevent this. Freely accessible thermal images show this very clearly.
Accordingly, there is no greenhouse effect, neither in a small greenhouse nor globally. Put more plainly: even if the atmosphere consisted of 100 percent CO2, the Earth’s atmosphere could not heat up; this is physically impossible. This leads to the question of another physical foundation:
The ABCs of Physics
There are elements that are heavier than air and others that are lighter. That means some rise upward (like helium balloons, which have a molar mass of four), while some go downward (like CO2 in silos).
CO2 has a molar mass of 44, but air only 29. That means CO2 always collects at ground level, where it can also nourish plants. That would be difficult if it rose upward. In the upper atmosphere, specifically between the tropopause and an altitude of 33 kilometers, where according to greenhouse theory it is supposed to carry on its malicious activity, the CO2 content falls below a minimal 10 ppmv. This was published in the journal Nature in the 1980s, when it was still possible to publish such research results. In short, the CO2 shell conceived by Arrhenius does not exist; CO2 is simply not where greenhouse theory wants it to be.
How Significant Is CO2 in the Atmosphere?
CO2 therefore makes up only 0.038 percent of the atmosphere; the human-made share of CO2 is only 3–4 percent of total CO2. What influence, then, would a reduction of 10 or 20 percent in anthropogenic CO2 have on the worldwide share of CO2 in the air? Such a small reduction cannot have any effect at all, especially since the share of CO2 in the atmosphere is, in terms of Earth history, uniquely low.
Juri Israel, director of the Institute of Global Climate and Ecology of the Russian Academy of Sciences and vice president of the IPCC, once said: “Many scientists speak of a CO2 share in the atmosphere of 400 ppmv as the threshold value. Our calculations showed: even if all the explored and extracted fuels of the Earth were burned within a few hours, the CO2 concentration would rise only to 800 ppmv. But our Earth has already experienced 6000 ppmv in its history, namely in the Carboniferous, and life goes on, as we can see.”
So there was once a CO2 content in the atmosphere that was 16 times higher than today, and the world did not end. On the contrary, the Carboniferous was a time of the most luxuriant plant growth, as biologists know.
Science as Dogma – Dissenters Are Threatened and Excluded
What, then, causes the present warming? CO2, of course, according to the mantra repeated like a prayer wheel. Most politicians and media leave no doubt about it. Former British prime minister Gordon Brown had it proclaimed that a “New World Order” had to be established to combat global warming, and that the UN had to make this struggle the cornerstone of its international mission.
He announced massive measures that awaited the British. A priori, no reasonable person should have anything against that, since resources, whether oil or coal, are after all limited. The problem begins, however, where opposing opinions are suppressed or, in the final consequence, persecuted in order to enforce another agenda standing behind it; it begins where there is a gigantic campaign of manipulation with hidden objectives.
The English newspaper The Telegraph wrote: Timothy Ball, a former professor who conducted research at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, received five death threats after expressing doubts about the extent of the human factor in global warming. One threat said he would not live long enough to experience the warming. Another doubter, Professor Richard Lindzen of the world-famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), recently complained: “Scientists who remain unimpressed by the scaremongering see their research funds dwindling. Their work is ridiculed; they are branded as puppets of industry.”
Dr. Myles Allen of Oxford University even warns: “It is ridiculous to suggest that the only way to solve this problem is to remote-control the individual citizen—that is precisely what the environmental activists want.” Divergent opinions from politicians are now scarcely to be found.
The Power of Images
To build visions of terror, one must choose powerful images. One is polar bears seemingly helplessly drifting in the water; the other is Kilimanjaro, now almost free of snow. This white giant became a stone witness to global warming caused by CO2 and glacier melt. Unfortunately, however, its testimony is false. The melting of the glacier began before 1880, when the CO2 content had risen, through the beginning of industrialization, from only 280 to 290 ppmv (parts per million by volume). CO2 can therefore be ruled out as the cause. More precisely, the area of the glaciers rapidly declined from 20 square kilometers in 1880 to twelve square kilometers in 1910. Since then, despite rising CO2 levels, the acceleration of the retreat became slower and slower, reaching just under four square kilometers by 2004.
The beginning and extent of glacier melt on Kilimanjaro and in other glacier regions are obviously in no recognizable relationship with the rising CO2 content in the atmosphere. Satellite measurements since 1978 showed only minimal warming on the mountain, about 0.1 degrees Celsius in total, an irrelevant quantity. The glaciers seem to be nothing more than a remnant of a past colder period. Conclusion: indeed, there is no longer snow on Kilimanjaro, but there is no significant correlation whatsoever with CO2. Nor was there a uniform temperature rise in the 20th century while CO2 rose sharply. Warming developed until 1940; then, suddenly, an unexpected cold phase developed until 1975.
Deforestation and Humidity
Melting glaciers have demonstrably existed for well over a hundred years. The cause is a change in the moisture of air currents, which carry less precipitation into glacier regions, while melted ice and snow are no longer replaced. This in turn is the consequence of global deforestation. Thus 200 years ago there were about 70% more forested areas than today; these are therefore no longer available as moisture reservoirs. This reduces the moisture of air currents—with the known effects on glaciers.
Background: between 950 and 1450 there was a warm period in which temperatures in Europe were up to 1.5º Celsius, and locally even 3º Celsius, higher than today. Even unusual winters are nothing compared with that time, when cherry trees were not infrequently already blossoming by Christmas.
Claim and Reality
Environmental policy speaks of a reduction in CO2 as a utopian distant goal, but in practice more than a decade of climate hysteria has accomplished absolutely nothing. CO2 emissions in Germany rose again last year as well, although by less than one percent. A real reduction is not actually desired, for the threatening specter must be kept alive. Everything is subordinated to this distant goal; people are supposed to live for this goal and, if necessary, in the spirit of Malthus, die for it as well.
In the public media and on the Internet, such calculations, repeatedly published by renowned scientists, are again and again discredited as incomplete and therefore false by flimsy counterclaims formulated, wherever possible, so that laypeople cannot understand them; and where possible they are deleted from social media.
So much for the article.
Dear brothers and sisters, this report does indeed cast a worldly view on current events, and we know that the Father permits all this for wise reasons. But it is also about truth, about exposing lies and deception. Jesus did this when He publicly denounced Pharisaism and called it a brood of vipers and an offspring of the devil.
Today’s Pharisaism is not the church; the Whore of Babylon has long been sinking and is fighting for survival by making herself subject to the evil earthly powers now ruling. Today we are dealing with a conspiratorial elite, a global agenda by which total control over the entire population of Earth is to be assumed—and it has already happened.
Humanity now finds itself in the safest and deadliest prison there is. It is the one that is not recognized as such, while people believe they are on the road to freedom; but in truth, in the bonds of the soul created by hypocrisy, they are heading toward a painful and disastrous abyss that will bring great distress and death.
Only the children of God are protected in this final time. Even though they bear the distress of the world with them, they rest trustingly and securely at Jesus’ heart. They have entrusted their bodily and soul life to Him. They know that behind the plans and implementations of satanic powers there exists a greater divine plan by which everything will ultimately be led toward the good. For this painful birth will bring forth a kingdom of peace and love in which the children of God may live in joy and luminous harmony together with their God and Father Jesus Christ.
To all those who regard these last words as fanciful wishful thinking, let this be said: the objection is understandable, for not every person has access to faith because of earthly upbringing, opinion formation, and conditioning. The earthly-conditioned intellect simply has difficulty accepting unprovable spiritual events and realities as well as a Creator God—that is, acknowledging a fundamental and higher divine truth and integrating it into one’s life.
The dear God knows this; that is why He has opened various paths so that every person can approach this truth—if he is of good will. The main path is love. The love of our hearts is the key to truth. One always carries it with oneself; one can activate it and pass it on always and everywhere. In this way one inevitably finds one’s way to God—even if this does not happen consciously—for God is the spirit of love.
But this is precisely where the devil begins. He tries—and has already done so—to falsify our love, to lead us onto the paths of hypocrisy and false tolerance. He has bound people’s hearts to his lying spirit and pretends that this is the light of life—but this false light leads people into a deadly abyss.
That is why it is important and necessary to question what is happening in this world and at least to allow for the possibility that a God of love exists who has a plan for this world. Then previously unknown spaces of consciousness open up, and with good will there can be an awakening into the light of truth.
* * *