|
Knowledge of human nature and climate change
|
Imagine that you have no idea of natural science at all. No pale glimmer, nothing that goes beyond, that there is gravity, because you obviously do not just so float away. In this situation of complete ignorance about natural science you have to judge, is there a climate change by greenhouse gases or not.
The direct appraisal of all the facts is therefore completely taken, because this is based on natural sciences, which are something completely alien and unknowable to you. Only the indirect observation remains: How do all the people who express a concern about climate change behave? Is the behavior of the climate protectionists plausible to fight against a threat to civilization, or is it just a show to achieve completely different goals?
|
Climate protectors totally lacks credibility
|
The first observation, these climate protectionists have been demonstrating at climate conferences since the past quarter century, claiming "more money for climate protection". What should be done with this requirement? How often has this campaign been tested for its effectiveness and redesigned because of its lack of effectiveness? How often has the management of climate protection been exchanged for total failure and absolute no success?
Every fan of a soccer club is obviously much more worried, expresses his worries much more violently when his club is in the relegation zone than these climate protectionists around the climate.
How do climate protectors react to proposals to better present their concerns? Great discussion, enthusiasm storms, with the newly designed campaign "Calculation ERROR" we will create it? Or completely ignorance? The traditional
- With "more money for climate protection" we have always protested
- Anyone could come for that
Only judged with your knowledge of the human being that the complete carelessness of the so-called "climate protectors" for climate protection can only be concluded: there is no climate change caused by greenhouse gases.
|
Elon Musk - the final proof
|
Who has worldwide the best chance of convincing Donald Trump of an effective climate protection program?
- Only a self-made billionaire can talk to Donald Trump about it at eye-level
- The best thing would be, that this person has taken considerable risks in order to promote climate protection
- The best thing would be, that this person made his fortune by actions for climate protection
I know two people around the world who meet these requirements: Wang Chuanfu, founder of BYD and Elon Musk, founder of Tesla Motors.
One of these 2 persons is in the advisory team of Donald Trump.
Can there be a greater triumph for a group than when the top lobbyist of his own camp is invited into the advisory team of the enemy camp? The reaction of the climate protectionists is the final proof: there is no climate change caused by greenhouse gases. The so-called "climate protectors" do not celebrate the great success "Our best man in the advisory team of the enemy". No! On the contrary, they demand that Elon Musk be thrown out of his position in the counselor's team.
|
The so-called "climate protectors" are climate change deniers
|
Understanding this is of the utmost importance to deal with the issue. This is the only way to push back the eco-fascism so that finally effective and, above all, measures supported by the broad majority of population can be taken. No one, except the eco-fascists has something against:
Investment Avalanche - Innovation Avalanche - Economic Boom
Over the next 30 years, a tripling of the global economy with a simultaneous reduction of fossil energy down to almost zero.
Investment Avalanche - Innovation Avalanche - Economic Boom
Even if the current price development reduces the costs of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, 12,000 billion a year are not affordable for today's humanity. However, it is affordable in the case of a threefold increase in the global economy and further cost reduction. Why should it be affordable? Thawing Permafrost floors and outgassing methane hydrate are an enormous threat potential for climate development. A little reduction could be too little. Even 100% less CO2 emissions could still be too little. 200% less, ie no further human CO2 emission plus active reduction by filtering and splitting, should be sufficient.
For this, the economic conditions must be created. That this can only work with the creation of worldwide wealth is nevertheless a nice side effect.
|
Religion in the sense of relegere
|
Latin relegere: “to consider carefully, to contemplate, to think about repeatedly, to be thoughtful in view of an important issue.”
This should be the first duty of beings "created in the image of God". In the natural sciences, this happens all the time, before their achievements can have only the greatest respect. The opposite must be said about the politics.
The Infinitism certainly describes the best possible for all currently living humans, nature and future generations to an unimaginably distant future. This spread will require much time and labor.
Please support this lengthy tedious activity with your membership.
|
Short description of all members translated to English
|
The organization to support infinitism has now 54 members from 4 different countries. One international know VIP, 3 localy known VIPs.
When You are not from Germany, Austria, Switzerland or Denmark, take the opportunity to be the first member from Your country.
My book "Calculation ERROR" is now free as a PDF.
|
