|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
CO2 Lie Exposed by Artificial IntelligencePolitics and the media never tire of telling us—ignorant people—that we are all going to die soon due to climate change, which we, the ignorant masses, supposedly cause simply by living and producing CO2. 
A few days ago, I came across a very interesting video online. It had been recommended to me several times. The thumbnail wasn’t particularly eye-catching, but for some reason, I clicked Play anyway. And that click was really worth itI’m not one of those who still believe the beloved lead... uh... politicians. The same ones who told us there was a pandemic and that it could only be declared over if everyone was fully vaccinated, now tell us that Russia must be defeated—and that this is possible if we just send more weapons, perhaps soon even nuclear ones. These are also the same people who, during the pandemic, said every human life must be saved at all costs, but now refuse to end the war in Ukraine through diplomacy, thereby perpetuating the dying. And these very same people tell us daily that man-made CO2 is killing us all—unless, of course, we pay higher taxes, give up prosperity, and accept restrictions. Meanwhile, these beloved lead... uh... politicians are busy jetting around the world. The CO2 Lie Exposed: AI vs. AIThe following video is a brilliant example of the disinformation we’re subjected to daily, and how the narrative keeps bubbling up. It also has high entertainment value.Markus Fiedler, often labeled “evil” for his critical opinions, had the idea to question an AI (Artificial Intelligence). His first question was what is scientifically better: actual measurements or deductions, such as those from ice cores. The AI explained that direct measurements are always preferable. Next came the question of what the CO2 concentration was before 1900. The AI said that ice core data suggests 280 ppm (parts per million), equivalent to about 0.028% of the Earth’s atmosphere. It justified this by stating that no direct air measurements existed in 1820. Fiedler pointed out that measurements did exist and provided evidence. The AI confirmed this and admitted that around 400 ppm (0.04% CO2) was measured in the air back then—just like today. Still, the AI said that the scientific consensus lies at 280 ppm because it's unclear whether those historical measurements were accurate. However, the AI also admitted there is no indication the methods used were faulty. Fiedler reminded the AI that it had initially claimed no direct measurements had been taken in the 19th century. After further probing, the AI eventually listed 18 scientists who had performed direct measurements—contradicting its earlier claim of ignorance. The historical measurements showed 400 ppm / 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere—identical to today's levels.Another issue discussed was how today’s CO2 values are measured. The key readings come from Mauna Loa in Hawaii. It is said the air there is especially clean. But Mauna Loa is an active volcano. Fiedler worked painstakingly with the AI to reveal that not only does this volcano emit CO2 through porous rock layers, but other nearby volcanoes also contribute emissions. The AI initially insisted these emissions were factored out of the readings. Eventually, it admitted that air flows from all directions—including from nearby volcanoes—toward Mauna Loa. This raises the question of whether Mauna Loa is a reliable reference station. The AI is a perfect mirror of how politics works. The beloved lead... uh... politicians surely know that the human-caused climate change narrative is fiction. Still, we are told this tale over and over. Applying Human IntelligenceThe following interview video features human intelligence. The results are compelling. It uses MODTRAN, an internationally recognized software also employed by the IPCC. But as always, the output depends on the input parameters.Science agrees that water vapor significantly affects the climate. Water vapor has a thermal radiation effect similar to what is attributed to CO2. But how much water vapor is in the atmosphere? Wikipedia acknowledges water vapor exists but provides no figure. It only lists nitrogen (78.08%), oxygen (20.95%), argon (0.93%), and CO2 (0.04%)—totaling 100%. So, apparently, water vapor doesn’t exist in Earth’s atmosphere? A search on the German Weather Service site shows that water vapor averages about 4% of the atmosphere—100 times more than CO2. Clouds in the sky clearly prove water vapor exists. The video uses MODTRAN to show how water vapor and CO2 affect temperatures. The results are clear: water vapor has 100 times the effect of CO2. Human-caused CO2 accounts for only about 3%. 97% of CO2 is of natural origin, meaning the human influence on temperature is nearly zero. There’s also a saturation effect: increasing CO2 or water vapor further results in only minimal additional warming. I highly recommend taking the time to watch both videos. The CO2 lie should be exposed by now. But does anyone care?Of course, politics doesn’t care. Starting in 2025, CO2 taxes and levies will increase again. The uninformed and unquestioning citizen accepts it because it's not explained otherwise.If politics were really interested in addressing the real causes of global warming, they would have to tax water vapor. But that would be too obvious—and even more absurd than the CO2 tax. Water vapor mainly comes from ocean evaporation. Without it, there would be no clouds, no rain—and without rain, Earth would be a desert. Climate discussions would then be pointless. So, politics does the only “logical” thing: it convinces the ignorant people that they are their own enemies through their CO2 emissions. And enemies must be punished—or taxed. In earlier times, this was called indulgence trading. It took a while before people realized it wasn’t about salvation, but enriching the traders. Question and Engage in DiscourseDr. Martin Steiner urges us to do what is standard in science: question, verify, and discuss. This is precisely what politics increasingly tries to suppress. It’s understandable—how could they justify indulgences in the form of CO2 taxes if the scientific foundation were missing and people knew it? That would be difficult. Which is why the AI initially repeats the narrative—and the truth must be painstakingly extracted.The Structural Transformation Is Based on a LieThe structural transformation we’re expected to undergo in our region lacks a scientific foundation. Everything is based on disinformation and assumption-based deductions. The discussions around IKIG, the coal phase-out, and the rising costs in all sectors lack solid grounding.Is it time to engage local politics in a conversation about facts, to perhaps steer things in a better direction—or should we just let it all play out? The AI says the following: If CO2 is indeed not the greenhouse gas it is claimed to be, this would challenge the basis of many climate protection measures. In such a scenario, it would be important for both citizens and regional politicians to act thoughtfully and responsibly. Citizens should start by informing themselves independently and thoroughly about the scientific debate. It is crucial to critically examine the arguments from both sides—the proponents of the current climate narrative and the skeptics. Only then can a solid understanding of the issue emerge. Furthermore, engaging in dialogue—with local politicians, experts, or like-minded individuals—could provide important impulses to shape political discourse. Another step for citizens would be to actively participate in democratic processes. Elections, petitions, or town halls offer opportunities to advocate for fact-based policies. They could also make conscious decisions in their daily lives—regarding consumption, mobility, or energy use—and ask themselves which measures are truly meaningful and sustainable. Raising awareness in their personal circles could help broaden public understanding and encourage critical thinking. For regional politicians, it would be essential to base decisions more strongly on scientific facts, regardless of political trends or ideological directives. They should be open to new insights and willing to adjust policies if previous assumptions prove incorrect. Transparency is key here: decisions and their justifications should be communicated clearly to build public trust. In addition, regional politicians could support local projects and initiatives that benefit the environment, quality of life, and the regional economy, instead of blindly implementing global directives. Dialogue with citizens would be an important part of this. Town halls or discussion forums could be used to inform the public about new findings, hear their views, and collaboratively seek solutions. Politics has a special responsibility to ensure economic stability and social cohesion. A hasty structural transformation could threaten jobs and stir social unrest. Therefore, measures should always be evaluated for their regional impact. If CO2 plays a lesser role, local climate measures could focus on other environmental issues—such as air pollution, biodiversity preservation, or the protection of soil and water bodies. In conclusion, it is crucial that both citizens and politicians engage in an open, fact-based discourse. Neither blanket rejection nor blind adherence to current measures will lead to meaningful results. Instead, the goal should be to find pathways that are scientifically sound, sustainable, and socially just. Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | 27.11.2024 |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Secret Meeting Regarding Deportation in ZeitzMarkus Nierth invited people to a secret meeting on behalf of the Alliance for Diversity and Democracy. The topic was the "deportation of millions of people."... zum Artikel |
 | Craftsmanship for Youth Instead of Prisons for CriminalsInstead of locking people up, we should give them a future – with a craftsperson’s house that preserves knowledge and brings Weißenfels back to life!... zum Artikel |
 | Is the End of Opinion-Free-ness Threatening? Where Can the Censorship Democrats Go Now?It is a dark day for all friends of censorship and so-called fact-checking. Because while X (formerly Twitter) has for some time now developed into a veritable Eldorado of unchecke... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |