Veteran German Meteorologist Calls Climate Findings “Procured” …Sees Only 0.5°C Of Warming For CO2-Doubling

Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) recently was interviewed by German trade journal Welt der Fertigung (World of Production) on the subject of climate change.

Since global temperatures have not increased in 15 years, doubts about anthropogenic global warming are now seeping into the fields of engineering and industry, which for years have been major proponents of renewable energy technologies.


Meteorologist Puls, who has over 40 years experience in the field of meteorology and climate, provides us with some interesting insights. What follows are some excerpts.

On the subject of climate being used as an instrument for enacting new taxes and fees, Puls comments…

The anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases is not completely without impact on the climate. The impact however, is relatively small because of physical laws, and is about 0.5°C for a CO2 doubling with respect to today. Early on – around the mid 1980s – politics empowered a pseudo-science called ‘climate protection’. The political motivations were on one hand “world rescue philosophies“, and, on the other hand, fiscal interests via ecological taxes.”

Puls on the mixing of politics and science…

Many of the scientific findings are merely results of a certain “procured science’: ‘whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks,’ is the old saying. And the IPCC itself is a politically founded organization, just as the name says: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

On a global climate treaty, Puls is adamant:

There isn’t going to be any international climate treaty.”

On the subject of CO2’s assumed high sensitivity, Puls says that even the IPCC itself concedes…

…that a doubling of CO2 alone can produce only 1°C of warming. Beyond that feedback effects get calculated in. The IPCC reports speak about ‘assumed values’. This is nothing but hypotheses!”

On global temperatures having stagnated for 15 years, Puls says:

The 15-year stop in global warming is now outside the range of climate ‘noise’ and climate models. It is statistically significant. […] from a science point a view, it is sheer absurdity to want to maintain ‘a nice, comfortable, stable climate’ through a few turns of some sort of CO2 control-knob.”

If anthropogenic global warming is not really happening, then how could the whole world have been blindly led to this unbelievable error? Puls answers

I cannot answer that question – but currently psychologists and sociologists are dealing with that: scientific debates about the climate catastrophe, explains Prof. Dr. Norbert Bolz, are nothing more than a ‘civil religion’ coming from the faith of the religions of the mass society. In it prevails priestly fraud.”

On sea level rise:

If the trend continues – and because of numerous factors nobody can really know – then in 100 years we will see a rise of about 25 cm, which won’t be any problem at all.”

Puls also explains that Arctic sea ice has naturally fluctuated in the past and that today’s conditions are nothing unusual. He reminds readers that according to the Alfred Wegener Institute, Antarctica now has “the largest sea ice extent in 40 years!

On the plausibility of global warming causing cold winters in Europe:

Meteorologically this is sheer absurdity. For more than 100 years we have known that the atmospheric circulation is subject to unpredictable cyclic fluctuations. Simply said: the atmospheric pressure gradient between the Azores and Iceland changes chaotically over the years, which in Europe leads to a series of warmer or colder winters. It has nothing to do with polar ice melt, climate change, and absolutely nothing to do with CO2. […] Why do climate catastrophists, who claim they can foresee the climate 100 years in advance, always come up with such explanations after the fact?”

Puls comments on whether CO2 is really good for plant growth:

CO2 via photosynthesis is truly life elixir: without CO2 there are no crops,  no plants, no animals and also no people because photosynthesis also produces the oxygen in the air that we breath.  The demonizing of CO2 as a pollutant, as a climate-killer, is outright nonsense – scientifically absurd!”

On the sun being a factor on climate change…

Yes, there’s a lot indicating just that. Over the last few years, solar scientists have been gaining more and more the upper hand in the climate debate, and they are crowding out the single cause of CO2. The new literature on this is very comprehensive. ‘Die Kalte Sonne’ [The Neglected Sun] for example led to hysterical allergic reactions among the CO2 climate alarmists. The increasing plausibility of the climate being controlled by solar variation has shaken the established climate institutes that are fixated on CO2.”

On the question of whether climate protection has anything to do with environmental protection, Puls says, “absolutely not!” He then quotes physicist Prof. Horst Malberg:

Clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, clean lakes, rivers, oceans and soil and an intact ecosystem belong to the fundamental human rights. As climate history shows us, a stable climate is not one of those rights.”


20 responses to “Veteran German Meteorologist Calls Climate Findings “Procured” …Sees Only 0.5°C Of Warming For CO2-Doubling”

  1. DirkH

    Very eloquently and precisely argued by Puls. Hope the German Mittelstand picks up the message and makes its voice heard. Time for the gravy train to be stopped.

    (For non Germans: The Mittelstand is the gargantuan network of small to medium sized companies that forms the backbone of the German economy and the lion’s share of industrial employment. And they really don’t like blackouts. Even if the blackout only lasts for a second.)

    1. BobW in NC

      The marvelous old proverb (German?) Puls cites, ” ‘whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks,” says it all re: the resistance to unequivocally stating that global warming/climate change is a complete fraud.

      Thank you, Dr. Puls.

  2. John Silver

    “Puls comments on whether CO2 is really good for plant growth”

    Did somone actually ask this question?
    Oh, poor humanity!

    1. DirkH

      You won’t believe how uninformed the young German engineers I speak to are about all things Global Warming and renewable energy. And these are the intelligent ones! They are also very much in favor of wind and solar energy.

      They get their information from German public TV.

      Yesterday I told one of them that the output of a windmill varies with the 3rd power of the wind speed. He still didn’t understand what that means for a power grid.

      They are dumbed down completely, and none of them seeks their own information. They don’t even know how little they know.

  3. Myrrh

    If anthropogenic global warming is not really happening, then how could the whole world have been blindly led to this unbelievable error?

    Because it was deliberately introduced into the education system, by whom I do not know, but what has been introduced is a clever manipulation of science terms to create “The Greenhouse Effect” – even he apparently does not notice that he is spouting a meme when he says:

    “On the subject of CO2′s assumed high sensitivity, Puls says that even the IPCC itself concedes…

    …that a doubling of CO2 alone can produce only 1°C of warming. Beyond that feedback effects get calculated in. The IPCC reports speak about ‘assumed values’. This is nothing but hypotheses!”

    But a hypothesis has never been produced. Whenever empirical data requested for the claims they make for carbon dioxide the usual response, after the blustering of hand waving generally to the past authority in the meme “Ahrennius, Tyndall, Fourier” and claims that there are hundreds of experiments in the last century confirming this, is silence.

    What he probably does not know, and which I only found out by chance questioning, is that the AGW GHE has changed the properties of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and oxygen – they are not what he has probably been taught them to be, but are now “ideal gas”, which is an imaginary construct in physics of some use in calculations when all the missing bits are put back in.

    The ideal gas is not a real gas, it has no mass, so no weight under gravity, no attraction, no volume, the GHE stops short of Van der Waals. So in this atmosphere there is no convection, because real gases (real and ideal descriptions from traditional physics), in their properties of expanding when heated and condensing when cooled, is what gives us heat transfer by convection and so our winds which are convection currents.

    I am assuming he was educated in meteorology pre the GHE introduction, so assumes they are using the same real gases for their claims. If so, it will certainly come as a shock to him if and when he finds they actually have no atmosphere at all, but only empty space populated by ideal gas miles apart from each other zooming about at great speeds under their own molecular momentum and bouncing off each other and an invisible container so ‘thoroughly mixing’ – the invisible container required because ideal gas is not subject to gravity, they are hard dots of nothing, so without this they would zoom at hundreds of miles an hour to the ends of the universe..

    The Greenhouse Effect does not have winds and weather and it has no Water Cycle, no rain in its Carbon Cycle for example – those promoting CAGW/AGW brought up on this strange impossible physics have no reason to question the basics, and so do not miss these because they are never mentioned.

    It began to be introduced into the education a few decades ago by first including it in general teacher training courses, those not specialising in science and entering into teaching at the infant and primary level. The result now is that we have PhD’s in physics who do not the difference between real and ideal gas.

    I have seen several refences recently to making the teaching of ideal gas only with no details of real, too complicated one such said, extend into university level from the now high school level.

    The way I found out was by questioning a PhD teaching physics at university level – he was adamant that carbon dioxide could not separate out because it was ‘thoroughly mixed as per ideal gas diffusion’. He was rather shocked when I gave him examples from the real world, volcanic, mining, breweries, to show that heavier than air actually meant something physically.. He came up with an idea, certainly not taught, that carbon dioxide must bring the ‘whole package of air in which it was thoroughly mixed, down with it’. The fictional fisics of AGW teaches that it cannot separate out at all.

    I was still in shock myself hearing his claims for carbon dioxide and to be sure that I was not misunderstanding him, and since he conceded that carbon dioxide could pool on the floor, I suggested a thought experiment.

    There is a room where carbon dioxide has pooled on the floor and nothing is changed to alter this, no work done, no window opened, no fan put on.

    I said that because it is heavier than air, one and half times heavier, it will stay pooled on the floor. He said that it would spontaneously and rapidly diffuse into all the space in the room and become so thoroughly mixed that it could not then be unmixed without a lot of work being done.

    Those taught this AGW Greenhouse Effect fisics do not realise they have no sound in their world, which is perhaps why they have such difficulty hearing this..

    1. Bernd Felsche

      1) I recall some German experiments in open-air fertilisation by CO2. They achieved significant “stratification” of CO2 near the surface when the winds weren’t strong.

      2) From memory, one can measure the near-surface CO2 levels above vegetation at night and discover that it’s much higher just a metre above the ground. But that doesn’t stop the frost nearly as well as water vapour which can reach concentrations high enough so that the energy stored in the vapour can be convectively exchanged with the surface, before the surface gets too cold.

      3) People used to suffocate in their own CO2 when digging deep wells.

      1. Myrrh

        Yes to your three points.

        In all the studies, and there are many and ongoing, the levels of carbon dioxide vary with height, and amounts with season – plants ‘inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide’ as we do except in photosynthesis, and this is usually a morning process. The “well mixed background” was a claim by Keeling who shared Callendar’s anti coal agenda, and they chose a very low figure for this by Callendar taking out all the great variation..

        Of course, then going to the world’s biggest active volcano surrounded by active volcanoes in the great hot spot in warm seas creating volcanoes with thousands of earthquakes a year.., just the place to be able to create the fiction of “well mixed background which can be measured from anywhere in the world”..

        ..while claiming it is a “pristine spot for measuring uncontaminated by local production”. It is actually rather sad to read how they arbitrarily decide what is volcanic and what not, by the same Callendar method, throwing out anything which does not fit in with their claim that levels are rising from man made production, and even the those doing this appear not to see the lack of joined up logic.

        When I first began looking into this most of the arguments were about backradiation and the 2nd law, and discussion about the properties of carbon dioxide practically non-existent, a few mentions here and there. But it really puzzled me how they could claim its weight did not matter and I tried to find papers on this. One I found early on but unfortunately did not bookmark was on a study of methane in mines.

        Someone had obviously had enough arguments made to him against well mixed and had been given methane in mines as an example of separation by weight. Methane being lighter than air is a well known hazard in mining as it gathers in a layer at the ceiling and it was until very recently tested for by someone covering himself in wet towels and entering with a lighted candle at the end of a long pole..

        This climate scientist and his team set out to prove methane would diffuse as per ideal gas which AGW claims it is, and introduced it into a mine. To their consternation it layered at the ceiling. He reasoned that it could be another source of methane entering and layering at the ceiling not giving time for his methane to diffuse – although this is not what is taught. AGW claims that these gases diffuse rapidly in all directions under their own molecular momentum, taking practically no time at all to mix thoroughly and so do not layer at all.

        He and his team checked out all the nooks and crannies of the mine but could find no other source of methane. But still, his conclusion was that they must have missed it.

        It is very difficult, even for those with science minds, to overturn something that is considered a well known physics basic, it is assumed that such a description has come from empirical knowledge. The power of these “memes” have a life of their own, I have often read discussions in which someone expert in one field will take for granted that another AGW GHE claim is basic physics. These memes have been in the general education system for a long time now.

    2. DirkH

      “I said that because it is heavier than air, one and half times heavier, it will stay pooled on the floor. ”

      If CO2 were red, one would see it as a layer, and every disturbance would create ripples and turbulences at the boundary, and some mixing.

      CO2 is not red, but has a color in the infrared. Has anyone already created a video? I find nothing. You would need an infrared laser with the right frequency, an infrared camera and a filter for the frequency of the laser.

  4. Loodt Pretorius


    The ignorance about basic physics is truly astonishing. These days a welder with a gas testing certificate knows more about gases than a climate scientist.

    Try working in a large enclosed vessel, big tank, ship hold with a welding torch and without proper ventilation and see how long you will last before the CO2 takes over.

    People park in underground parking garages and do not realise that ventilation fans are installed to ensure drivers are not overcome by the carbon dioxide produced by cars.

    As a mining engineer I know that we fear carbon dioxide as it collects in the deepest darkest hollows of the earth, and you do not enter these drifts without adequate ventilation.

    The diurnal carbon dioxide swings of up to 100 ppm on surface stations are also a mystery.

    But, then, people weak in proper science are pursuing climate sciences as it is evident that you need not be the brightest of sparks to make a very comfortable living.

    1. Myrrh

      “The ignorance about basic physics is truly astonishing. These days a welder with a gas testing certificate knows more about gases than a climate scientist.”

      As a mining engineer you will be able to appreciate the study I have just described in a post to Bernd..

      My anger has now calmed down to a simmer, but it still infuriates me when I read those like Spencer with his weird explanations for backradiation and Willis for whom gravity has become a taboo word never to be mentioned in discussions, attack yet another with applied science physics. I find their rudeness a measure of their ignorance, inverse ratio, the less they really know about the subject the ruder they become..

      The diurnal fluctuations are tied in with heat, gases expand when heated and become less dense and lighter than air rise. In the day’s heat carbon dioxide will also be so affected as well as nitrogen and oxygen, with the added imput that it will be separating out from any water from the surface as this gets heated and evaporates more strongly.

      Although I do not know at what temperture carbonic acid, as in surface water and rain, fog, dew, separates out into water and carbon dioxide. I have not found anything on this, yet.

  5. Bertold Klein

    Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls is almost right. There is no credible experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect exists. Below in the references is one of many real scientists papers that show why the GHGE is a total hoax.
    There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been technologically reviewed by Ph.D physicists . Ph.D. Chemical engineers and others. The experiment is found on the web-site http:// click on the blog tab, page 3. It is titled “The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist”
    Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels

    Posted on June 4, 2013 by Anthony Watts



    There are two gases in the earth’s atmosphere without which living organisms could not exist.

    Oxygen is the most abundant, 21% by volume, but without carbon dioxide, which is currently only about 0.04 percent (400ppm) by volume, both the oxygen itself, and most living organisms on earth could not exist at all.

    This happened when the more complex of the two living cells (called “eukaryote”) evolved a process called a “chloroplast” some 3 billion years ago, which utilized a chemical called chlorophyll to capture energy from the sun and convert carbon dioxide and nitrogen into a range of chemical compounds and structural polymers by photosynthesis. These substances provide all the food required by the organisms not endowed with a chloroplast organelle in their cells.

    This process also produced all of the oxygen in the atmosphere

    The relative proportions of carbon dioxide and oxygen have varied very widely over the geological ages.



    It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface.

    During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today . Oxygen in the atmosphere fluctuated from 15 to 35% during this period

    From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon dioxide.

    The theory that carbon dioxide concentration is related to the temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong.
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company,
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from: at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist consenus, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

    University of Pennsylvania Law School
    A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
    and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
    at the University of Pennsylvania
    Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
    Jason Scott Johnston
    May 2010
    This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
    Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
    Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
    Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
    Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)

    Web- site references: Ponder the Maunder
    many others are available.
    The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
    The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
    —Albert Einstein
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.”
    Benjamin Franklin

    1. Myrrh

      Bertold Klein
      “Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls is almost right. There is no credible experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect exists. Below in the references is one of many real scientists papers that show why the GHGE is a total hoax.”

      There is a simpler way to show it is a hoax – to see the sleights of hand that have gone into creating AGW’s concept The Greenhouse Effect, and its energy budget, KT97 and ilk.

      The Greenhouse Effect basic premise is the claim “that without greenhouse gases the Earth would be 33°C colder, from the 15°C it is to minus 18°C.”

      The “greenhouse gases” are defined by the GHE as those imbibing longwave infrared heat.

      In real physics as traditionally still taught by some.., the minus 18°C figure is for the Earth without any atmosphere at all, which is mainly the real gases nitrogen and oxygen, weighing down on us around 14lbs a square inch, a ton on our shoulders.

      Earth with all heavy voluminous real gas atmosphere under gravity: 15°C

      Earth without atmosphere: -18°C

      Compare with the Moon without atmosphere which figure is -23°C

      Earth with atmosphere, but without water, think deserts, 67°C

      They have taken out the Water Cycle.

      (And, you will not find rain in their Carbon Cycles because carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle as water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere form carbonic acid. All natural unpolluted rain is this weak acid from the carbon dioxide attracted by water, and, the residence time of water in the atmosphere is 8-10 days. Another reason why it does not “accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years” besides the gravity defying power of its ideal gas pretending to be carbon dioxide..)

      The real “thermal blanket” then is the mainly heavy ocean of real gases nitrogen and oxygen, with volume and weight under gravity, not the trace gas carbon dioxide which is practically all hole in atmosphere. It is these gases which prevent the Earth from going into the extremes of cold as the Moon is subject to, and, it is these gases which also play a part in cooling the Earth from the extremes reached on the Moon – in heat transfer by convection and convection currents as their individual volumes expand when heated and condense when cooled. Hot air rises cold air sinks, winds flow from high to low (pressure).

      (Pressure, as gases are heated and expand (and become lighter than air and rise taking heat away from the surface, heat transfer by convection), they take up more room so their weight is spread over a bigger area forming areas of low pressure, weighing down on us less, when these cool in the colder heights they condense and become heavier forming areas of high pressure on us, and so sink to the surface displacing the volumes of lighter, low pressure air, these are convection currents, winds.)

      There is no physical process to get the “33°C warming by greenhouse gases”, its an illusion created by the science fraud of misappropriating the minus 18°C and applying it where it does not belong..

  6. Robbo

    These same “climate scientists” which can predict the temerature in 100 years cannot tell me whether I should plan for office work of field work in four days. They try, but their record of accuracy is about the same as a roll of the dice.

  7. Weekly Climate and Energy news Roundup | Watts Up With That?
  8. Thomas Beyer

    well argued.

    Climate chnage is the new religion. It is a belief system.

    Let’s just keep the air fairly clean, and let’s not debate if temparatures will go up 0.5 degrees or oceans rising 20 cm. Who cares !

  9. Rob

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy