How is climate change wrong

Does climate change really exist?

Allow controversy, discuss together

It is important that we keep questioning things. Even things that we now take for granted. For example, that there is climate change. There is nothing wrong with questioning theses and arguments. Why also? It only makes you smarter.

Therefore we deal with the question:

What does climate change mean? Isn't this actually just the earth's natural cycle? What influence do humans actually have?

We have dealt with the statements of climate skeptics. We want to understand the arguments, perhaps question ourselves and allow controversy.

Skepticism is important and an essential part of science

In order to follow a chain of arguments specifically, we refer to one of the latest and much-clicked YouTube videos: Prof. Dr. Kirstein, climatologist, speaks in an interview about climate change - in the sense that it doesn't exist. (Prof. Kirstein in an interview "Facts vs. Climate Hysteria")

Let's get to the bottom of this. Direct statements as such are formulated as quotations.

1. Prof. Kirstein: "The CO2 There is no greenhouse effect. "

Prof. Kirstein explains the atmospheric or CO2-Greenhouse effect as a lie.

In order to get to the bottom of this thesis, we have to delve deeper into the topic and would now like to briefly, plausibly and hopefully explain the results of our research to you. (Please ask if you don't understand something!)

Composition of the atmosphere

Our atmosphere consists largely of nitrogen (N.2) and oxygen (O2), also argon (Ar). It also contains carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Water vapor (H2O) and other gases.

These three or more atomic molecules, i.e. CO2, CH4, H2O (but also completely new substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are produced exclusively by humans) allow the sun's short-wave solar radiation to pass through. The earth absorbs this energy and emits long-wave heat radiation. This long-wave heat radiation is absorbed by the gases and in turn reflected back in all spatial directions. Correspondingly, a large part of this thermal radiation comes back to earth (counter radiation). (Graph of the Earth's radiation budget)

The greenhouse gas effect is (over) vital for us and ensures a stable and pleasant mean temperature of 15 degrees on earth.

Exactly this property of the gases of allowing short-wave radiation to pass through unhindered, but of absorbing long-wave radiation, causes the greenhouse effect: And this is (more) vital for us and all living beings on earth, because without the greenhouse effect the earth would be an ice ball with a medium temperature of minus 18 degrees.

(Note: The biggest effect, however, is the water vapor (clouds). It contributes to the natural greenhouse effect. The problem: The proportion of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the temperature. More CO2 leads to rising temperatures, which leads to more water vapor and increases the greenhouse effect.)

Counter-example moon: Without an atmosphere, temperature fluctuations of over 250 degrees prevail.

Let's look at the moon, which does not have an atmosphere with such (greenhouse) gases like the earth. The solar radiation heats the surface to more than 100 degrees Celsius during the day and drops to around minus 160 degrees at night.

Without the atmosphere, the same would also apply to the earth. The atmosphere and thus the greenhouse effect ensure that the climatic conditions on earth are friendly to life: Instead of an icy minus 18 degrees, we have an average temperature of 15 degrees, i.e. 33 degrees more.

The natural carbon cycle is polluted by human emissions. The CO2-Concentration in the atmosphere is higher than ever.

The greenhouse effect per se is therefore important for our survival on earth - as long as the CO2 is in a natural cycle. The oceans, soils and vegetation absorb CO2 up and give CO2 off again. Plants need CO2to photosynthesize; in the process, they give off oxygen, which in turn is essential for other living beings.

This natural cycle is disrupted by additional emissions from humans. There are multiple reasons for that. They lie in the enormous increase in energy consumption and the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, crude oil and natural gas as well as in the expansion of industrial production, land use and animal husbandry.

Nature absorbs some of the emissions caused by humans, but around half remains in the earth's atmosphere and leads to a net increase in CO2Salary. This effect is favored by deforestation, which reduces the natural CO2- Insulate the buffer significantly. Every year human influence releases 42 gigatons into the atmosphere (billions of tons). (Page 471 in Chapter 6 of Part 1 of the Fifth IPCC Assessment Report)

As a result, the CO2-Concentration in the atmosphere is higher than ever. This comes from the CO2-Measurements in ice cores and can be carried out back to the last 10,000 years - and can therefore also be seen independently of whale and warm periods. The CO2-Concentration in the atmosphere has risen from around 250 to over 400 ppm - parts per million and is now around forty percent above the level in pre-industrial times (before 1750).

The greenhouse gas effect is further favored by the addition of CO2 emitted other "greenhouse gases", which have different climatic effects and different lengths of time in the atmosphere, such as methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N.2O) as well as the fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-gases).


The greenhouse effect plays an (over) vital role on earth. Additional greenhouse gases brought in by humans, however, throw the natural cycles out of balance and intensify the warming effect with negative consequences for the environment and people.

2. Prof. Kirstein: "Even when the word climate change is mentioned, money flows."

A distinction would be desirable here: How does he come to the statement and which cases does he use to support the thesis? Where exactly does more money flow when it comes to climate change than in other industries? In his opinion, what is the justification for supporting such scientists? Unfortunately, Prof. Kirstein does not substantiate his statement. Therefore, there is no data basis.

The fact is that the state's funding catalog provides finances for researching various topics. This is important and correct in science in order to gain knowledge about space, geology and also the human influence on the earth.

His reference to Al Gore, who likes to earn good money with the topic, does not close to his thesis that money flows immediately when it comes to climate change. In general, the question arises here whether people who work in this area are only allowed to gnaw on starvation as a general rule and are not allowed to earn any money?

As we have also experienced ourselves, actors in the field of sustainability or climate change are more likely to face even greater challenges than in the conventional market - because these issues open up an unpleasant field that calls into question the system of overconsumption and growth paradigms.

Defamation of climate researchers is part of everyday life

Accordingly, only two examples of defamation by highly respected climate researchers should be mentioned at this point. For example, scientists under US President Trump experienced enormous defamations in Parliament in Washington. (more on this 1, 2)

Discrediting also plays a role within Germany: For example, the critical attitude of the Mayor of Frankfurt, Peter Feldmann towards (about) the auto industry, led to his speech at the opening of the IAA this year being canceled and canceled. (more on this)

In addition, many climate scientists draw private consequences from their research and voluntarily limit their comfort, for example Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (e.g. no car, no air travel, etc.). These conclusions are hardly drawn in order to get more research funding.


Climate change does not entitle to separate funding and has no privilege and no lobby.

3. Prof. Kirstein: “Man is [portrayed] as a scapegoat [for climate change], but it is now a completely natural process. [...] Science denies the warm and cold ages or ice ages "

This is a rather misleading and absurd assumption: there is probably no climate scientist who would claim that the climate has ever been in a stable state of equilibrium. There are also a number of past causes of climate change. CO2 is only one of several influencing factors and was by no means always the strongest in the past. According to the Federal Environment Agency, the following are simplified Causes of climate change:

  • Changes in geoastrophysical parameters (e.g. solar constant, earth orbit elements),
  • Changes in the earth's surface (e.g. continental drift, change in land use) and
  • Changes in the substance balance of the atmosphere (for example the content of greenhouse gases and small, floating particles, the aerosols).

(more on this)

In the past, warm and cold periods (which science has undoubtedly confirmed) had partly stronger influencing factors on the climate than CO2.

In comparing current global warming with past climate changes, two important distinctions must be made.

  1. Global climate changes must be distinguished from local ones: Local climatic fluctuations are usually much larger and can be caused, for example, by changes in the atmospheric or oceanic circulation. This is localized and has little or no influence on the global mean temperature. So there are currently regions that are cooling down contrary to the general trend or in which the glacier masses are growing. However, what is scientifically meaningful for the “global climate” is not a look at individual stations, but the global overview.
What all temperature reconstructions have in common is the fact that the warmest temperatures of at least the past thousand years are currently prevailing.
  1. Time scales must be adequately taken into account: Climate changes over millions of years or over many millennia can be considerably larger and also have other causes (e.g. the drift of the continents or changing earth orbit cycles) than those over decades and centuries. The impact on ecosystems and society depends not only on the intensity of the change, but also very much on the speed, since slower climate change makes adaptation much easier.

Without a doubt, the ice ages brought about the greatest climatic changes with a change in the global mean temperature of approx. 4-6 ºC. In comparison, the previous global warming of 0.8ºC in the 20th century is small, but this change occurs within a few decades; the change in the ice ages lasted several millennia in each case. There has never been such an abrupt rise or fall in temperature as it is today. Scientifically, this can only be justified by the atmospheric change in greenhouse gases caused by humans. (more on this)


Science shows that there were always warm and cold times on earth due to very different causes (not necessarily due to greenhouse gases). The fact is that there has never been such a drastic rise in temperature in such a short time. This is only due to the anthropological influence of humans on the CO2 Justify the content of the atmosphere.

There are many opportunities to campaign for consistent climate protection. Personal consumption and lifestyle can be tested using the CO2 footprint calculator. From this, everyone can derive for themselves how to reduce their own impact.

Political demands can be articulated on demos, e.g. by fridaysforfuture. There is also the option of getting involved in associations, NGOs or directly in political parties to campaign for compliance with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and the 1.5 ° C target.

Not to be forgotten are companies that absolutely have to be made responsible for sustainable development. Ask producers and service providers or your own company to what extent sustainable management is already being pursued. Demands and promotes transparency and environmentally friendly offers.

As plant values, we support and promote holistic, sustainable management and climate-friendly corporate management. We support public institutions and established companies as well as startups in the sustainable transformation of their business models; We support startups and young companies in building a holistically sustainable company. Our approach is to enable our partners to carry out an independent, continuous transformation or to establish permanently sustainable business.

Are you planning the next steps towards sustainability?

Ask me for a free information meeting.
I am ready with advice and joy.

Franziska Kramer
Sustainable tourism topic

01520-6208119 | [email protected]

Sources and further articles:änke/ursachen/ursachen_natuerliche/ursachen_terrestrisch/atmosphaerenzusendung/index.html Answeren-auf-die-argumente-von-skeptikern-ld.1468011