Here’s one of the best speeches I’ve heard in a long time.
On October 31 in the Lower Saxony capital of Hanover there was a parliamentary plenum. Dr. Gero Hocker, speaker for Energy, Environment and Climate Protection of the Free Democrat Party, made a speech calling on his parliamentary colleagues to acknowledge the facts on climate.
Slowly, but surely, leading politicians are mustering the courage to express their doubts on climate science and to speak up. What follows are substantial excerpts of Hocker’s speech in English.
He starts by telling his colleagues that the environment is swamped in political correctness, that there’s intolerance to other views, and that spending 9 million euros on “climate protection” is a waste:
I have doubts in that we are not allowed to ask certain questions in this House. And I also have doubts about that it is perceived as correct that certain views should not be expressed. And I have doubts if what you are doing is correct, that is that climate policy is absolutely being placed above all else. I believe you are drawing the wrong conclusions from the flood of 2013. We have to improve our dikes, and not spend 9 million euros on “climate protection”.
At the 1:23 Hocker says that “the IPCC is really not a good source for advice“.
The people out there are really uncertain about the topic of climate protection, and here the IPCC has made a fundamental contribution to that. Six years ago the ‘experts’ from the IPCC projected that every year the global temperature would rise 0.2°C . And in 2013, that’s only 6 years later, ladies and gentlemen, they are forced to backpedal and recognize that over the last 10 years the temperature has risen only zero point zero-five degrees Celsius. They erred by a huge 75%! And those who want to advise us what do for decades and prophesize what’s ahead and that we’re supposed to act based on that, such an uncertain factual basis is surely not the fundamental basis on which to act politically, ladies and gentlemen!”
Of course with the temperature rise, Hocker slipped and should have said “every decade the global temperature would rise 0.2°C“. But the underlying message remains unchanged: The IPCC is nothing on which decisions can be based on.
At the 2:40 mark, Hocker says that it’s not only the experts who question the science, but also prominent publications such as Spiegel and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). In front of his politically correct greenie Parliamentarians, Hocker quotes some of the most provocative headlines made on climate change:
In March 2007, the FAZ carried the headline: ‘Climate Change is Nothing But a Swindle’. In May 2013, Spiegel added: ‘There’s enough fodder for continuing an ideological climate discussion, forget the sworn consensus’, and just six weeks ago: ‘Scientists take away the foundation from climate regulators and request a retreat from global alarmism’. […] This shows one thing: The discussion is taking place everywhere all over society: in the press, among the people, with the experts – and you want to keep this discussion out of the Parliament and prevent the right questions from being asked. You are not the thought police of Lower Saxony! You are not the Inquisition to hunt down others who think differently. You have to come to terms with the fact that there are others who have a different opinion in Parliament and you have to accept this discussion, ladies and gentlemen!”
Loud applause at 3:42, and shouts protest from green parliamentarians.
At the 4:20 mark Hocker brings up Antarctica, where “there’s more ice than ever measured.”
In 2013 China emitted more CO2 than ever before, yet over the last 15 years there’s been no significant rise in global temperature. You have to get used to these facts in this discussion, ladies and gentlemen!”
At this point nervousness erupts among parliamentarians and many are clearly agitated by Hocker’s open act of rebellion. Hocker continues, reminding that science thrives on skepticism and that it needs to be welcome and not scorned. Hocker adds that the 9 million euros proposed for climate protection in Lower Saxony would be far more wisely spent on a slew of other needs, which are lacking in money.
But if you truly believe in a climate change, …then the money would be better invested in flood protection, invest the 9 million in our dikes – then you would provide a far greater service to the people of Lower Saxony than if you invested it in a climate protection agencies.”
Citizens should not be bullied into guilt by green thought
Moreover, the restrictions in personal freedom you have with your climate protection measures will not, in my opinion, achieve the success you think they will. You want to prescribe to the people how they are to take their holidays, not with their cars and not with a plane. You want to tell the people what they are to eat, you want to tell people how they are to dress, you want to tell them how they are to live. I’d like to tell you that I’d like people to go on holidays using a plane without having a guilty conscience. I’d like a future where people don’t have to feel guilty whenever they eat schnitzel. And for those who can’t afford, or those who don’t wish to afford it, they should be able to build a home the way they want to build without having to be pressured into a moral corner of some sort.
When you make one political field absolute and subordinate all other political fields, that to me is an expression of a modern absolutism which in Germany we have been wanting to cast off for centuries. And I, ladies and gentlemen, will not accept that such times transform into green and becomes socially acceptable.”
Hocker has let the cat out of the bag in Lower Saxony politics. He really gets to the heart of what this is all about – fundamental human rights, and people getting tired of being regulated to death and deceived.
Now he has to expect immediate retaliation of the most vicious sort. Expect an orchestrated campaign labeling him a denier, a dangerous populist, or heretic. I hope he’s prepared for it.
I really do hope he keeps it up and that others find the courage to follow. Three cheers for Gero.
There’s never anything wrong with demanding an open discussion – especially science.