The topic of climate is currently playing the leading role in the political debate. Spurred on by the Greens and climate activists and supported by capricious weather conditions, everyone currently sees this topic as a worthwhile field of activity. Yet climate is not something that can be changed in the short term. For the definition climate - weather see here.
How we talk about a topic and which words we use strongly influence our thinking and our emotional world. For this reason, first a short definition of the individual terms and their meaning:
|
Climate change? On the subject of climate, an increase in the average surface temperature of the air is referred to as climate change in the current discussion. Increasing carbon dioxide content in the air is assumed to be the cause. However, this is an unproven hypothesis. A regionally varying increase of the average temperature is visible and undisputed, unlike its hypothetical cause. |
Climate crisis? In the current situation, the ill-considered use of the term climate crisis or climate emergency is the driving force and incentive for activists. In the meantime, political laws are also based more and more on irrational foundations. According to an objective assessment, there is no climate emergency. |
Climate catastrophe? Disasters are unpredictable and usually cannot be reserved. In the context of climate, the term is therefore associated with doomsday and doomsday scenarios. Climate change probably yes, |
That the weather is changing is beyond question. Also, that it is probably anthropogenic effects cannot seriously be doubted and that measures must be taken should be clear to everyone. However, these should be legitimized by research, not opinion.
Which measures should be taken when and where, however, must be thoroughly considered and weighed up. At the moment, far-reaching and in some cases irreversible political decisions are being made which are based exclusively on the opinions of the IPCC and a greenhouse model based purely on solar radiation.
Critics are called deniers and muzzled. The underlying greenhouse model is only an unproven hypothesis and almost certainly wrong, it is not physically possible anyway.
More about this on the other pages in the menu under Climate.
To underline the words "opinions of the IPCC", here is an excerpt from the SYNTHESIS REPORT OF THE IPCC SIXTH ASSESSMENT REPORT (AR6):
"Based on scientific understanding, key findings can be formulated as statements of fact or associated with an assessed level of confidence using the IPCC calibrated language."
This IPCC language is defined as follows:
"Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, for example, medium confidence. The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result: virtually certain 99–100% probability; very likely 90–100%; likely 66–100%; more likely than not >50-100%; about as likely as not 33–66%; unlikely 0–33%; very unlikely 0–10%; and exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95–100%; more likely than not >50–100%; and extremely unlikely 0–5%) are also used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood also is typeset in italics: for example, very likely"....
There is no better way to conceal ignorance!