The fairy tale of trust

Link: https://kaltesonne.de/randbemerkung-das-maerchen-vom-vertrauen/ Please see link above for source text, embedded hotlinks, and comments.

Side note: The fairy tale of trust November 25, 2020 from Kalte Sonne Contribution from a guest author We are happy to pass on praise and criticism to the author Once upon a time, there was a multitude of opportunities in our lives and in our environment to achieve “small victories”. Whether they were worthwhile in the long term often very much depended on the degree of trust placed in them.

The opposite of trust is known to be mistrust. This usually goes hand in hand with the expectation that the other side should change first. In fact, this can lead to manipulation of the other person. Conversely, trust means showing willingness to change one's own behavior for the benefit of the other side, which admittedly is not always easy.

In our brains there is something like a general "switch" that is either -trust- or -mistrustpoled. We will not succeed and it would also not be sensible or advisable to set the switch permanently to -trust-. A healthy distrust, on the other hand, goes hand in hand with skepticism or caution and is therefore recommended for meaningful application.

Here is a practical example: I sit in a taxi and trust that the taxi driver will take me to the desired destination without having to carry out extensive cross-checks. There will be places and times when this doesn't work. Nevertheless, it hardly makes sense to even sit in a taxi without a trustworthy person. If, on the other hand, I want to make a larger investment, then it is advisable to obtain a 2nd or 3rd offer. Trust is good - control is legitimate.

1

What is the political landscape like in the meantime? Can we still “blindly” trust? I have become rather suspicious. Concerned citizens who may not express thoughts that fit the pattern are quickly referred to as crank. Isn't the right to freedom of expression the greatest good of democracy? But that's exactly what looks badly battered at the moment.

Handling is quick in the form of pigeonhole thinking. Without further ado, a stamp is stamped: The full program = Nazi = right-wing radical = denier = ashes on his head.

The citizens of this country are still the sovereign and the politicians are the elected representatives. Apparently the "employees" want to change that at breathtaking speed, to the supposed disadvantage of the sovereign. Meanwhile, the impression suddenly arises that politicians and their vicarious agents run ahead with the power of a wild mouflon herd and roll down everything that gets in their way or that is not at 3 on the trees. Consult the people? Allow debates or discussions on corona, energy, climate? = Undesirable. Factual arguments are ignored. Worse still: they are quasi thrown out and exposed to ridicule. Many reports from the ARD theme week from November 15-21 bear testimony to this.The motto should practically be renamed to: § 1 “Climate protectors” and politicians are always right. § 2 If "climate protectors" and politicians are wrong, § 1 automatically comes into force.

Of the three state powers, the legislative and executive powers have both been gradually converted into harmony over the last few years and trimmed in a controlled direction. It is more and more often governed by parliament. This is hardly noticeable, as there is no (no longer) a strong critical opposition in the Bundestag. And if the leadership cannot get their way through as planned, then so-called empowerment laws are passed by exercising parliamentary group compulsion. Everything happens, it is inglorious to convey, only for our own good. For my part, I currently tend to trust taxi drivers.

Then there is the mainstream, i.e. the secret 4th violence in the state. In the meantime it has also been calmed down and trimmed to a large extent in line. Alternative media, on the other hand, quickly receive warnings for freely expressed opinions. Oh yes, mainstream publishers will receive state-financed "industry support" from this year.

There remains the judicial power. Let's trust that the judges will remain steadfast and that future court judgments will not be passed by the law.

What does it do to us? Every day we readers of “Kalte Sonne” are presented with a cornucopia of scientifically valuable articles and tips. If, however, those who sit at the gear lever manage to implement their plans, then much of it will become superfluous and degenerate into a breadless art, because only § 1 and § 2 as described above will apply. We can still get excited: the scripts have already been written. So there is not much time left.

What should we do? In all modesty, I would like to motivate all readers to talk and discuss with their partners, children, friends, relatives, acquaintances, colleagues, sports 2

fans, i.e. with a lot of people, in order to solve the dilemma with simple (!), Simple (!)

Explain representations. Until the rind cracks.

Write to the members of the Landtag and Bundestag you know and confront the press spokesman of the parties for energy policy etc. with persistent questions. The e-mail addresses are all accessible over the Internet. If there is still a chance, it is now time to cross the path of “green” politics. To do this, we simply have to become much “more”.

You mean it's no use? We know the example with the stone thrown into the water. This creates many rings and there is movement in the water.

FIG. 1 10 COUNTRIES CAUSE TWO THIRDS OF CO2 EMISSIONS

1) China 2) USA 3) India 4) Russia 5) Japan 6) Germany 7) Iran 8) South Korea 9) Indonesia 10) Saudi Arabia 11) Others

3

How much CO2 can Germany still emit?' asks Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf from PIKPotsdam about the Paris climate agreement that was signed in 2015 by 195 participating countries. The global amount of CO2 emitted should ultimately be halved by 2030, and then to be around 20% by 2050 at the latest. That was once. With brute force, according to the current state of affairs, an annual reduction in CO2 emissions of 6% should be zero in 2036. The professor calculated it and the politicians and their vicarious agents believe him. Why didn't they know that before the climate agreement? So can we blindly trust this without cross-checks?

In a time window of around 16 years, all gas and coal-fired power plants would have to be shut down and replaced by CO2-free alternatives, and all combustion engines (from cars, trucks, buses and trains, etc.) would have to be scrapped and replaced with CO2free drives will. The manufacture of all goods produced in Germany (in the case of imports also those of all signatory member states) must also be CO2-free. The movement of all ships and aircraft may only be done with emission-free propulsion. The heat produced in our buildings with natural gas or oil can also be generated by CO2-free heating systems, including the wood-burning appliances. Cost what it may. No matter how. One searches desperately for the breeding line for an egg-laying woolly milk sow.

For today, let's make a point for further lists and show a little distrust of the whole thing.

What would actually be gained if the 1.8% of Germany ceased to exist and other countries continued to upgrade their CO2 emissions? Where is the reliable scientific proof that the much-invoked 1.5 degree global warming has been saved by reducing anthropogenic CO2? Or should it all be just a question of faith? Trust is good - control is legitimate.

Who is not amazed? Should not acc. Paris climate agreement will be halved by 2030?

Yes but hello! We're on the right track in this country. Not necessarily the time to get into the hammock. But why all the excitement? As far as I know, the Paris Agreement on climate protection continued to write to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 and not, as Professor Rahmstorf thinks, to "zero". Does he actually distrust his own predictions, or is everything only suitable in terms of climate technology when our economy is shattered? How can the “ignorant” show him trust at all?

But what has happened in the past 50 years? In the chart we see a lot of "newcomers" in the right column. Surely it should be allowed to ask how these countries want to get to "zero" by 2050? It is known that 195 states have signed the agreement. Do we really have to be held responsible for having done everything wrong in the past and do we have to fear, as shown in the ARD film "Ökozid", of being convicted for our behavior in lawsuits before international courts of law? Or do not today's climate activists have to fear that they will have to appear before a tribunal in 30-50 years, in order to answer for supposedly destructive behavior? Who knows that I'm safe today? Seen in this way, I am extremely suspicious of the whole thing,Or to put it another way: I imagine the future to inspire confidence to be different.

4

FIG. 2 MORE CO2 – ESPECIALLY FROM ASIA Countries with the highest CO2 emisisons 1973 and 2018 in billions of metric tons.

Here is a link to relax, on which interesting, informative presentations can be called up.

The opening map shows global CO values. Carbon monoxide is always produced when there is insufficient oxygen available when carbon-containing materials such as coal, gas or even petrol are burned. Unfortunately, the CO2 values map can no longer be called up . That makes you suspicious. Are the values kept secret? Am I a rascal if I think evil about it?

Last but not least: On November 17, 2020, the blog included a reference to the interview with Carola Rackete as an opening article. Later there was also a reference to the Spiegel 5

report with Luisa Neubauer. Let's not forget to mention Carla Reemtsma, who thinks and acts in a similar way, in the circle of the trio.

Dear climate protection activists, please set a good example and publicly scrap your cell phones, tablets and laptops. Renounce completely from these energy wasters. Above all, your fellow campaigners from FFF and Extinction Rebellion also call for the same action. But please do not ask others to do something that you are not ready to do yourself. Your representations are not necessarily to be classified as confidence-building measures.

Shanghai - Fossil fuels have built a much better China in the last fifty years, helped millions of their people out of dire poverty. The Chinese will never allow their economy to be destroyed by mandates for wind and solar energy. They will stick with fossil fuels, hydro-electric and nuclear power. Only “democracies” led by fanatic global warming alarmists will do that.

6