Last week Austrian Broadcasting network ORF aired the controversial new film Climate Crimes in German.
Dr. Sebastian Lüning joins a discussion round on Austrian television. Photo credit: kaltesonne.de/.
Having seen the film in its entirety for the first time, I was truly horrified by the scale of the environmental destruction and mayhem brought on by the recent climate protection movement. It is truly madness at a whole new level and dimension. If you have the chance to see the documentary, then do so. You’ll be shaking your head throughout the film.
Indeed the level of destruction with respect to loss of eco-systems, biodiversity, erosion, etc. brought on by the “green economy” is far beyond anything man-made climate change was ever fantasized of causing by the year 2100. The current damage caused by the “green economy” is real, and it’s happening here and right now. Worse, it’s all taking place with the official green stamp of approval.
In the film, environmental economist Nico Paech says:
Climate protection as it is practiced now is throwing the baby out with the bath water.”
The green economy, intended to rescue the climate from a man-made climate catastrophe in a computer, is in reality systematically accelerating the wide-scale destruction of the environment today by at least a factor of ten.
Many greens are having their eyes opened for the first time, and are now grudgingly admitting that something has gone terribly awry. Wiping out the Earth’s eco-system to rescue the climate is not what they had in mind.
Yet they still refuse to acknowledge that they’ve erred with the climate science, and that all the destruction was unnecessary. They still insist the computerized catastrophe is real, approaching fast, and that we need to act rapidly. The only thing they’re admitting is that the “green energy” sources of hydro-power and biofuel are no longer options. In their view the human race is now in a dilemma because so many sources of energy must never be used. There’s no painless way out.
After showing the Climate Crimes documentary, ORF held a discussion round discussion round. The theme of the discussion round was what needs to be done to get out of the (imagined) energy dilemma?
Four experts joined moderator Michael Hofer were Kurt Remele (ethics and theology expert), Angela Köppl (economics expert in the field of environmental economics, energy and climate protection and Angela Kallhoff (philosophy). The other was co-author of Die kalte Sonne, geologist Sebastian Lüning. Clearly the discussion was not to focus on climate science. For moderator Hofer and the 3 other guests, the science is settled in their view, and there was no need to discuss it. Thus the discussion focused on environmental ethics and man’s responsibilities.
Most of the discussion round was filled with the usual “the end is near” crap. The three greenie guests kept reminding the audience of our generational, environmental and social responsibilities. They told us of the “massive impacts” humans were having, and about all the “dramatic destruction” humans were causing.
We were reminded it would be necessary to get along with much less, to save energy, and to scale back productivity and consumption. Kallhoff, for example, said the human species was “crowding out nature” and that we were “too individualistic and selfish”.
Moreover, the three green guests reminded the audience that climate change is real. Köppl insisted that climate change is settled science and that there was “a tendency to more extreme weather”. She added that “humans would have to scale back” and “that it would not be possible to rely solely on technology”.
Remele poked fun at Arnold Schwarzenegger, who a week earlier had flown in to Austria on his private jet and pontificated about the importance of living green.
Hofer even asked the guests if perhaps our Judeo-Christian religion was perhaps responsible for the earth’s environmental and climatic ills today, citing that the Book of Genesis, which tells us: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Near the end of the discussion round, moderator Hofer asked each guest to tell us what has to be done to get out of the environmental dilemma. The three greenies were more or less unanimous, telling the audience that we will have to change our behaviour, get away from the model of growth, expand public transportation, consume less, and to even eat less meat.
Lüning, the only guest with a different opinion, said that it was necessary to get back to science and real environmental protection. In Lüning’s view, the discussion had been taken over by extreme elements on both sides, and that it had to get back to the center. He also encouraged more critical thinking, and that we not immediately believe someone just because they have a doctor title.
Earlier in the discussion round, Lüning commented that there was too much fear-mongering by a number of opportunistic parties, for example re-insurers. Lüning said that the huge environmental backfire we’ve seen in the green movement so far should say something about the science.
Lüning also reminded the other guests and Hofer that climate science is not settled, and cited a recent study showing soot was a far greater factor in climate than previously thought.
He also pointed out that much more could be done locally and regionally with far less money, and with a far greater impact, than to try to solve the globe’s problems by tweaking a single trace gas.
Lüning said: “There are lots of high impact things that can be done for relatively little money.”
Even an “expert” like Lüning does not tell the whole truth, that climate science is but a sham, built upon rather obviously false theories.
It is the adherence to false and divisive dogma that is the enemy:
Casting Off Fearful and Hateful Dogmas Is the Key
I agree somewhat your point: Even an “expert” like Lüning does not tell the whole truth
However, the argument was in relation to make green energy better and not a destroying factor. I watched many of these “expert” discussions and I found that at the end the “experts” have said basically nothing. I also seen that the host is directing the discussion in a narrow band.
In short: “A lot of talk without saying really anything.”
If Lüning received guidelines would be interesting.
Near the end Lüning is trying to change the direction a bit but the host, straight away after realizing Lüning’s argument, basically stopped it. The host interrupted Lüning with “Ok … but this is another topic …” and Angela Köppl is shaking her head.
Well, the goal of the greens was always to bring growth to a halt or even better shrink the economy. So they devised ways to make it inefficient, and with success in the EU.
And the economy does shrink; collapsing first in the least productive countries, and the collapse is now approaching France, making its way to the core.
And all the while this INEFFICIENT society uses MORE resources than it would have to otherwise.
I’m expecting some HORRIBLY bad news this summer, everyone will be SO surprised… I’m 80% in Gold and 20% in stocks and I can’t wait…
Uh, I misspoke: 80% Gold, 20% cash – completely out of stocks. Don’t you think I’m optimistic over the next 8 months.
Eichelmann, the filmmaker, only touches the economics very slightly. He could have mentioned that broke Spain has more wind power per capita than Germany; or that both broke Portugal and Ireland have been invaded by huge numbers of wind turbines before going broke. Portugal even had the first commercial wave power plant, for two months, then it broke and has never been repaired.
Or that the next 7 year EU budget (900 bn EUR over 7 years) continues the madness by again allocating 20 % of the money to “climate initiatives”.
You sto pgrowth by siphoning off the surplus. Nothing can grow when you destroy what was saved.
@Harry,
Please be more specific. It is a very interesting point.
Is there a version of the film in English or texted in English?
Try this one, english subtitles can be activated (probably automatic translation but looks good)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzwDg9KtX2k
That’s was fun, a turned on Swedish subtitles. Amazing, how wrong things can get!
A really interesting film but the discussion afterwards was truly awful. When you get a philosopher being presented as some sort of expert on these issues you know you’re only going to get a lot of long winded guff…at one point she dropped the word ‘description’ into her incoherent ramblings…only to be picked up by the presenter of course who made it clear to the audience she meant ‘beschreibung’. How do these people get away with it.
I’m amazed at how the discussion is in large part about ethics, yet many in the round do all they can to deny that the science of man-made global warming is very much in dispute.
The philosopher-ethicists know that their salary hinges on the existence of an ethical crisis. Probably they have internalized it to an extenct that makes it impossible for them to question its existence.
Those “ethics” tend to revolve around fictional projections of the future. The fantasies fuelled by gullibility, fear and ignorance.
The “Greenies” have a secular faith that I call, Environmentalism, one that leads them to Green illusions; it is a form of collective narcissism: their faith is firm, their self-regard more than strong and their Green illusions part of a vast fairytale that requires a “big bad wolf” in some form or other. That is why they sound like self-loathing Cassandras.
Local governments are employing “environmental psychologists”.
I can only surmise that their job is to make the insanity look like rational behaviour. To (mis)shape the minds of the population to accept maladministration and misappropriation for the sake of “the environment”.
I see there are Umweltpsychologen and also Umweltsoziologen; so both of these crackpot peddlers want to take a ride on the new political religion’s gravy train.
We should see the formation of sects and religious wars RSN.
Here, an environmental psychologist from the Helmholtz society (for shame, I thought they were doing solid science) explains the existence of “climate deniers” (article says Klimaleugner) with “the principle of supply and demand”.
http://www.focus.de/wissen/klima/tid-15118/umweltpsychologie-sechs-gruende-nichts-fuer-den-klimaschutz-zu-tun_aid_424219.html
…not that it could have something to do with objective truth. Or science.
I’m funding all these leeches via my taxes. Gotta do something about that.
[…] annehmen. Siehe etwas das Posting zum Film der Global Warming Policy Foundation oder auch des Blogs NoTricksZone. Jetzt darf man deren Rolle nicht zu ernst nehmen. Aber es ist schon schräg, dass die fossile […]
Besides the cycles found in nature, there are the cycles in human psychology. Every hundred years humanity goes insane in some part of the world. In the 17th century it was the witch trials in New England. Around 1800 it was the French Revolution. In 1917 and the 1930’s it was the Bolshevik revolution, the rise of the 3rd Reich, and the expansion of Imperial Japan. In the 1990’s it was the rise of the Catastrophic Global Warming religion. This is the first human insanity that went nearly world wide. It won’t be the last. It has not run its course.