Will everything be OK if we stop eating meat and ride bikes - UW

Liink; https://klimanachrichten.de/2023/11/08/wird-alles-gut-wenn-wirkein-fleisch-mehr-essen-und-nur-noch-fahrrad-fahren/ Please see link above for source text.

Will everything be okay if we stop eating meat and just ride bikes?

November 8, 2023 by Climate News Editor

By Uli Weber In Orwell’s “1984,” the story is constantly being adjusted to fit ongoing reality. But we're not that stupid to let something like that happen to us except perhaps during the election campaign. After all, compulsory education has existed in our country for more than a hundred years, giving us all our own access to history and knowledge. Since the beginning of industrialization, the development of natural sciences and the freely available fossil energies have improved the quality of life, health and life expectancy of an originally artisan, agricultural population to an almost unimaginable extent and have stimulated our usable technologies and personal mobility. Today's average person in western industrialized countries is therefore blessed with a standard of living whose energy 1

consumption is equivalent to that of a Roman emperor.

Looking back, the development of science and technology was once supported by a broad and interested citizenry. People were interested in technical progress and tried to understand the latest scientific findings.

Some of us older people may still remember a great-grandfather, greatuncle or distant relative who, as a simple farmer or craftsman, built a grandfather clock that later disappeared in some branch of the family or in the chaos of war. But back then, such skills were at the cutting edge of technology, and many a company started out of these and similar skills. On the other hand, try building a computer, a car or an airplane today. Even the few remaining generalists who can still manage something like this on their own are dependent on half-finished products in many places.

If you now understand the current climate hysteria as a new incarnation of human original sin from the Christian Western tradition, then our paradisiacal and fossil-fueled standard of living couldn't last well for long.

The writer Gilbert K. Chesterton has his Father Brown say, “ When a man no longer believes in God, he does not believe in nothing, he believes in everything .” Has the firm belief in a climate catastrophe in Western industrialized nations actually already developed into a replacement religion? In any case, with some distance one can see clear parallels between the recent media-political and the medieval church inquisition, and so all the elements that make up a religiously influenced worldview can be found in the climate church's code of belief: ● The doctrine of salvation of a decarbonized world community , ● the simultaneous threat to the earth of a deluge and climatic hellfire ● and a CO 2 release with which you can buy yourself freedom from your personal emissions debt .

The real question is how such a reconquista of religious madness could come about in our enlightened and scientifically influenced society.

Because science and religion occupy two fundamentally diametric positions: ● The goal of science is to gain knowledge. The body of 2

knowledge in science is free of emotions and so liberal that everyone can make their contribution to shared knowledge.

Science is dynamic , designed for constant development and can never be completed. Society finances science and guarantees freedom of research and teaching. It is the responsibility of science to give honest and unfiltered scientific knowledge back to society. ● The goal of religion is salvation. The cognitive structure of religion is based on the belief in the unchangeable rules of a higher power and is aimed at the salvation of its followers and the world. The community of believers is emotional, believes in a savior and in salvation from a hereditary enemy. Religion is static , strictly focused on itself and excludes any further change.

If we now look at the clerical IPCC testaments I-VI, starting with the FAR (1990), the main changes there take place in increasingly shrill “summaries for policymakers”, while their scientific basis has hardly developed any further. On the contrary, fundamental connections have now disappeared or been encoded in differences and percentages, while new findings to the contrary have not been taken into account at all. So we can see that climate religion is focused on redeeming the world from dark carbon by conducting a global exorcism against its incarnation as man-made CO 2 . For example, there is an association “ C40 ” as a global network of mayors from leading cities in the world who want to work together to combat the long-awaited climate crisis. According to its homepage, C40 currently has 96 member cities, representing more than 20% of the global economy. Elsewhere , however, it says, “ Over 1,000 cities want to ban meat, milk and private cars by 2030 ”.

Against the background of a constant media bombardment of climatereligious scaremongering, we have to ask ourselves why the liberal and dynamic development of science on the climate issue is religiously petrified and only defends positions that have been known for decades. And we also have to ask ourselves where the basic scientific striving to gain knowledge has actually gone. Above all, we must ask about the moral responsibility of science, which, in return for its free exercise, must return honest and unfiltered scientific knowledge to the society that funds it. So the beginning of an initial insight is probably hidden in the last sentence, in which science

3

feels obliged to its financiers to pass on appropriate scientific findings, because 'No wall is high enough that it cannot be climbed over by a donkey laden with gold ' (Philip of Macedonia).

Realization: The disinterested walls of free science were probably not high enough.

The media, which are kept free, are now disseminating relevant climate religious findings from real science and relying on so-called “experts” who can be strictly defined by Caesar's 'De bello Gallico' (illi omnia experti=those tried everything ). The following summarized, highly intelligent and highly scientific “expert plans” from targeted alibi commissions come into play: ● Germany bans unconventional fracking for the extraction of hydrocarbons (2016). ● Germany will end electricity generation using nuclear power (2023). ● Germany is ending electricity generation using coal (which, according to the coalition agreement, should be brought forward by 2030). ● Germany is driving electric mobility forward. ● Germany is making fossil fuels more expensive. ● Germany is increasing the energy efficiency of private households by law. ● Germany is relying on “green” hydrogen to become “climate neutral” by 2050.

If we look back through human history with “Planet Knowledge”, then we find in the article “ Man and Fire ” that fire (=energy) appears to be the engine of human cultural development, if not even of development is viewed as human, quote: “ Finally, prehistoric people also managed to use fire specifically for their own purposes. Archaeologists have found evidence that early humans in South Africa had fireplaces in their caves as early as 1.5 million years ago.

The fire warmed, provided light and made it possible to better prepare the 4

captured meat . Firstly, fried meat is usually tastier for people, secondly it is easier to chew and thirdly it is easier to digest. Heating also kills pathogens.

One theory suggests that the high nutritional intake from fried meat was an important factor in modern humans' evolution toward larger brains.

One thing is certain: mastery of fire allowed people to emigrate to colder regions. This is how humans conquered the globe starting from Africa .”

With the mastery of fire, humans as hunters and gatherers had taken the important first step towards a self-determined cultural and historical development. In the course of further human history there were cultural revolutions, i.e Neolithic revolution from hunter-gatherers to agriculture and the Industrial Revolution from agriculture to an industrial society, each resulted in a tripling of the energy available per capita. The so-called “ Great Transformation ” ordered “from above ”, on the other hand, is only intended to bring about a fossil-free 1:1 decarbonization of the world by the year 2100 while maintaining the same energy supply.

How do we want to achieve this goal here in Germany on our own? - We will see: ● Unconventional fracking: We import American fracking gas ● Nuclear power: We import French “nuclear power” ● Electricity generation using coal: We import Polish coal-fired electricity ● Electromobility: We permanently support uneconomical technology with subsidies ● Fossil fuels: We tax fossil fuels to close the gap to the “alternatives”. ● Energy efficiency of private households: We're helping the middle class' savings accounts

5

● “Green” hydrogen: We dream that there are no physical laws Of all these borderline moronic pipe dreams, let’s just pick the last point, “green hydrogen”. The production of hydrogen from electricity has an efficiency of around 30%, which means that almost a third of the electrical power used in hydrolysis is converted into the energy source hydrogen.

German primary energy consumption was around 12 exajoules in 2020:

Figure: Primary energy consumption in Germany in 2020, source: Federal Environment Agency So we needed a complete primary energy replacement for around 12 exajoules from “alternative energies”, i.e. wind and sun, as well as “green hydrogen”, which in turn has to be generated from the first two. According to the Federal Network Agency's (BNetzA) power plant list, as of April 1, 2020, generation plants with a total net nominal output of 221.3 gigawatts (GW) were installed in Germany. If we assume that 50% of primary energy consumption can come directly from “green electricity”, then in order to satisfy the “decarbonized” primary energy demand we would need a further increase of around 2.5 times the current net nominal output for “green hydrogen”. need. This in turn corresponds to an expansion of 600 times the output of the Isar 1 power plant block. The replacement of the existing 6

conventional power plants is not even taken into account.

A downer is the direct reference to the “net nominal output” of wind and solar power producers, which differs greatly from the highly volatile actual feed-in output. We should therefore not forget that the extrapolated demand of a good 800 gigawatts is only the net nominal power and therefore not the “secure feed-in power” required to operate an industrial nation.

If we look at the connection between our current life expectancy and the average energy available to us per capita in the following figure, then we should finally use our own efforts to illuminate the media-induced darkness in our brains and take a critical look at the clerical climate madness Feel tooth:

Figure: Life expectancy depending on energy (?) consumption with note (red)

7

as log(lifespan) = 4.56+(4.84)*exp(−0.36*log(energy)) Graphic: Burger et al. (2011) Industrial energy use and the human life history Figure 2(c) Copyright © 2011, Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareALike 3.0 Unported License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ with the scale values of What the electricity meter reveals about birth rates from Fig. 1b Note: The author has not resolved the energy≠performance contradiction here.

By 2050, we want to build the equivalent of 600 power plant blocks with 1 GW each of generating capacity from “alternative energies” and at the same time create the necessary industrial infrastructure for the hydrolysis of hydrogen in order to secure our primary energy consumption without fossil fuels and without nuclear power. In the end, with all these investments, we will at best be in a 1:1 position as we are today - but with empty pockets.

Are there any climate models at the IPCC that can be used to determine the effects of removing the huge amounts of energy required for global decarbonization from our earth's climate engines (i.e. sun and wind)?

Perhaps such projections could be made public and compared with the usual catastrophe forecasts. In this way, it would be possible to determine in good time which of the two toads is the lesser evil from a global perspective. Because it would be very unpleasant if, with all our efforts, we only cast out the devil with Beelzebub and then had to face the dangers of Mother Nature empty-handed.

If in the end “global decarbonization” goes wrong because too 8

many non-MINT scaremongers , confused amateurs and unsuspecting free riders have promoted this madness, then the life expectancy of our children and our children's children will suffer very sustainably.

Just look at the following figure, where the difference in life expectancy between East and West Germany at the time of reunification was more than 5 years. The development of life expectancy from a common starting point of almost 70 years at the beginning of the 1960s is obviously due to the different economic developments in East and West. Since around 1975, the increase in average life expectancy in the East has been significantly flatter, while the common development since 1990 has followed the steeper West curve with a slight offset:

Figure: Development of life expectancy in Germany by Sven Drefahl – License CC BY-SA 3.0 This different life expectancy of five years within three decades between 1960 and 1990 documents the socio-political development of both German states, i.e. the difference between a market economy and a planned economy. And we now want to implement alchemical socio-political worldsaving fantasies with a state-controlled and subsidy-driven planned economy that are firmly linked to volatile energy production.

9

So it's not so much a question of "if", but rather "how far" life expectancy in Germany will increase after the implementation or failure of the social experiment of a "WBGU Great Transformation" (or also the UN Climate Agreement in Paris , EU Green Deal , WEF-Great Reset , WHO-Climate=Health Emergency ) will sink into a decarbonized new world. The global average for life expectancy is roughly where East and West Germany stood together at the beginning of the 1960s, fifteen years after WW2. The downward trend in an auto-deindustrialized Morgenthau Germany, which produces volatile electricity on its agricultural land, may not stop there for a long time...

Final remark: Parts of the text on climate religion were based on my book “ Climate hysteria endangers freedom ”. There I also noted, “ After the fall of the Iron Curtain, people once agreed that they would never again allow social experiments on people. Given these historical experiences, it would be sheer hubris if climate research actually believed that it could lead our democracy intact through the critical process of global decarbonization. It would be better to ask ourselves in good time what the call for a “social problematization of unsustainable lifestyles” [ WBGU: Social Contract for a Great Transformation ] really means in its softened formulation and what kind of witch hunt we might actually have been threatened with in the end ! “

10