by Prof. Claudia von Werlhof and Silvia Terribili, Global Research:
Professor Claudia von Werlhof wrote to Greta Thunberg.
In her letter Von Werlhof says that the disruption of the global climate is not due to CO2.
Following the publication of her letter, Silvia Terribili, of Onda Italia interviewed Professor von Werlhof on her radio show: Onda Italiana on salto.nl, April 9th.
The following text is the transcript of the radio interview
The link below will redirect you to the radio interview.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Climate Disruption Is Not Due to CO2 (audio)
By , April 30, 2019
***
Below is the transcript of the interview.
Claudia Von Werlhof: The question is how we define climate change and its alleged reason, of which it is said is CO2. We consider climate change, at least in the official discussion, as “global warming” and this global warming doesn’t exist.
There are data from NASA, which is the North American Space Agency, and they show that in the last 18 years there was no general global warming. What exists indeed – because we are not deniers of the problem – are changes in different dimensions in the weather, in the climate and more so in the atmosphere, etc. We are going to explain this more in this interview.
The second is the CO2-question which is now very prominent as all these young people are now on the street, because they believe in this story and this dogma of the CO2.
And this is very strange because a lot of scientists, real scientists, are denying the influence of CO2 as a reason for climate change or as an influence at all.
For example, there are about 30,000 scientists in the US now who say that there is no problem with CO2. On the contrary, CO2 this is a gas that stems from rotten natural materials which is needed by the plants to transform it into oxygen. They say that CO2 is not at all detrimental for the climate, and that it even is something we are to welcome and that we need for our trees and plants and as a positive effect.
So, the funny thing is that CO2 is often shown as some dirt, as if it was a dirt in the air. Then you look at the factories that are shown in this opportunity, you see the dust coming out of them, etc. This is not CO2.
CO2 is a gas that is invisible and doesn’t smell so you don’t see it.
In general, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.038 % only. Most of that is vapour, water vapour, some 80 or 70%. So, this tiny amount of CO2 cannot change something huge like the climate of this planet. This is impossible.
Screenshot Global CCS Institute
So, all these scientists who are serious scientists, are denying a negative influence of CO2 on the climate. There are even winners of the Nobel Prize etc., like Ivar Giaever, who are explaining it or people from the MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, like Richard Lindzen and others. The IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, founded at the end of the ’80s of the last century, however, is not so much a scientific but a political organization, and it is propagating and proposing the CO2 myth in public.
So, this is a political question and from the point of view of a real scientist, CO2 is not really something detrimental and is not changing any climate. It’s too tiny for that.
If you look at the origins of this debate at the end of the ‘80s, you see that before this time all the world spoke about a possible ice age, a new ice age. Lowell Ponte, f.i., wrote a book on “The Cooling”. It was in 1976.
They spoke about a cooling and a new ice age in contrast to the global warming-speech of today. There is no historical debate any more about how this myth about CO2 came about.
The IPCC was founded by Think Tanks, like the Club of Rome, the World Watch Institute, the Rockefellers, etc., people who have a different interest in the whole question. And they found, I think it was an analysis by William Engdahl, who said they found or invented the myth of CO2 in order to have a common enemy defined which is humanity itself.
Humanity is guilty of producing so much CO2 by civil industry and consumption. This ideology can be used for another, a new policy. So, this was the origin of the CO2 myth and this has been their propaganda worldwide. Then came Al Gore and everybody believes in him. This is contrasting with the fact that a real climate change is not occurring in the sense they are defining it. This history is generally not known. And people don’t really know anything about Nature and the Planet. There is a certain ignorance generally, and the public just believes in everything.
There are a lot of changes in the world, in the climate, in many aspects, like those Dr. Rosalie Bertell found out, we are speaking about her later, who said we are wrecking our planet. But how? It’s not by global warming, but by something totally different. This is not mentioned by these people who speak about climate change. They don’t see that there are changes but there are different ones with very different origins.
Silvia Terribili: Yes, it seems also that computer models predicting catastrophic global warming in the coming years are parameterized and there is a risk of framing the outcome of these methods and models. Can you say something about these models?
CvW: These models the IPCC is using are computer models. Their results are just an outcome of computer simulation. It has nothing to do with reality and what they are measuring is what they want to measure. They just measure something like more CO2-output, but they do not consider the complexity of the climate on this planet.
They have no parameters about them and so they are really trying to fool us with what they are saying about such a big amount of climate change and global warming. This is not happening, and it will not happen because of CO2.
So, these are strange methods, and not scientific ones.
One should say they are political methods which want to prove something which is not the case. So, there is no reason why there should be such an amount of global warming of above 4 degrees, which is impossible. At least it is impossible with simply putting CO2 as a measure of this tiny amount of CO2 in the air. You would never have any effect and it is very funny that everybody is believing this nonsense. It’s a theory but it has nothing to do with reality and we should look at why this theory exists. So, this is the more important question.
ST: Some 30 years ago we already warned that the protective ozone layer has been reduced. Nowadays we don’t seem to care anymore for ozone depletion in the stratosphere. How could this be explained because we have to be concerned about the depletion of the ozone layer and where does it come from?
CvW: The ozone-question, yes. This is a very funny thing again and it is not funny at all in the end, because the ozone layer is really something that we need.
Without the ozone layer there would be no life on earth, because it protects us from cosmic radiation from the sun, especially UV-B and -C radiation, which is very toxic.
And it has been found out that this radiation today is coming down to earth which normally is prevented by the ozone layer.
But now it comes through, and this is a long story because there was the Montreal Protocol in the ‘80s which prohibited the use of CFCs, all these chemicals you have in the refrigerators, etc., because they thought it was the reason for the ozone hole.
But this was wrong already then because we know that what is really damaging ozone is especially radioactivity. Of radioactivity there is a lot in the air since the military was experimenting with nuclear explosions since the ‘40s and ‘50s until the end of the ‘90s, and we had about 2,200 nuclear explosions on earth and in the atmosphere and they have produced a lot of radioactive radiation that is destroying the ozone layer.
This is the main reason for the weakness of this layer because radioactivity is somehow eating up the ozone so that it is suffocating in a way, because ozone is a sort of atmospheric oxygen and radioactivity is finishing with the oxygen.
The problem is something like suffocation and a toxic effect of radiation coming down to earth when this layer is destroyed or inhibited.
Last year, the people who were measuring the ozone layer found that it was weaker than ever, it did not recover as was proposed after the Montreal Protocol. And they found out that, on the contrary, it is not only existing in the form of holes over the Antarctic and the Arctic – the latter one existing only since Fukushima, as there was never a hole over the Arctic before.
