[Skybird]

The research on Global Warming is one of the most corrupted scientific branches existing today, I think. And it gets corrupted from both sides of the frontline - from sceptics and believers alike. The scientists trying to conduct a balanced, objective approach, usually take Flak from both sides.

To support Global warming, is a big money-redistribution machine today, immense streams of money are being redirected - or are intended to be redirected - from the industrialised North to the less industrialised South of the World.

In the North, especially here in Germany, it also is the excuse for a tremendous ideological reeducation program. Also, many subsidies gets pumped (in the name of "fighting" Global Warming) into business branches or enterprises that without these subsidies would be uncompettive and would seize to exist. This social- and job-related aspect as well as the profit-interests of daring investors have taken over the motivation of wanting to become a "greener society". Not for the crowd, but for the decision makers.

The crowd does not really care for checking whether what it assumes to help environmentr and climate, indeed makes a psoitive difference for anyone. What thje crowd - ove rhere at least -wants is just to have the nice feeling resulting from believing that what they do in lifestyle chnages means a difference, globally. Checking that assumption for its truth, is not very popular over here. Ideology is all. Green ideology is like a new religion. You must not check and know the facts: you just need to believe something, an d then turn hysteric in your belief. Just two weeks ago, another big science report has slammed the german "Energiewende" and the European climate polciy in totality, showing that it not only causes no globally felt differences for the better, but that in many fields it even makes things worse. The Greenies did not react, or angrily balked .

I think the climate, by general trend and seen globally, is becoming warmer. I think human influenc eplays a role that makes a diference, but whether it is that big as the beolievers want to make me believe, I have my doubts. I think it is not baout wanting to infouence and stop climate chznage, as they say, becasue I think that simply is impossible by now, with or without human effects in global warming. What it is about is when and how we start to adapt, and prepare for the many paradoxical effects created by climate warming as well. Adaptation is key. Evolution is about survival of those who adapt, evolutionary fitness does not necessarily mean physical strength, but the ability to flexibly adapt.

I have my doubts that we will adapt. We are too many people on this globe, too many live in places where they are extremely exposed to climate disasters, and in circumstances where they have not the material means to adapt. I think we stand at the beginning of a very grim chapter of human history.

Sorting waste in Germany and switching off German nuclear powerplants, and all the hysteria about carbon footprints and energy-saving light sources, will make no difference. As long as man does not understand that we are multiple times too many people on this globe and that the corrupted industry model we now run leads too lethally excessive abuse of our living habitat, all the talking about living in harmony with nature is just mentally deranged romanticism. Environmental debates these days to me are not more like the usual cheating babbling of just any politician wanting to bget elected again: it is about control and power but claims to be about moral and ethical principles. An infantile public helps to keep the deception alive - I have enough of this theatre.