Source: email
The Green Politicians have resigned
Erik Bye
August 3, 2025
The collapse of the Norwegian Green Party (MDG) was given some attention in the Norwegian Newspaper Aftenposten, August 2, 2025, with the title:
"When the world turns against you"
The introduction reads: "Politics leads to defeat, but is climate policy extra frustrating?"
Here the journalist and the politicians go around the familiar porridge. Why doesn't MDG admit that they have misunderstood climate change? That it is nature, and primarily the sun, that controls the climate?
Some international organizations have managed to fool the entire world into believing that CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem. In 1992, the first report came from the UN (IPCC). At that time the question was whether the fossil CO2 from the oil production could create global warming that could threaten the existence of the planet and the survival of the population. In AR1, however, they could not see any clear evidence of harmful effects of the CO2 content in the atmosphere. But already in AR2 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that there were signs of global warming, as a result of fossil CO2 emissions.
Michael Mann's hockey-stick
In pre-industrial times, the CO2 level was estimated to be 280 ppm. By 1990, it had risen to 354 ppm; today, the level is 430 ppm. In the 1990s, there was a strong concern that global temperatures could rise 4-6 degrees by 2100, which, according to the IPCC, would have dramatic consequences. In 1995, Michael Mann developed his first hockey stick, which indicated that temperatures would go straight to heaven. But it was just so that Mann's stick was exposed as a fraud. Even random numbers gave the same stick profile. Mann corrected this, but once again, his fraud was exposed. Once again, it was statisticians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who exposed Mann. This time, it turned out that Mann used the same calibration set twice to construct his model. This is highly irregular, and when one of the data sets was removed, the hockey-stick profile disappeared completely. After that, only alarmistic scientists believe in M. Mann. For example, Bjørn Samset, CICERO, Norway, claims that Mann is infallible in his book about the climate in 2070.
Very few scientists have any faith in M. Mann anymore.
The fear of this unfortunate global warming is based on the Arrhenius warming theory. It implies that if the CO2 level doubles, the climate sensitivity predicts how much the temperature will rise. Here, the climate panel has calculated a climate sensitivity of 3˚C in AR6. Based on the CO2 level in 1850 (280 ppm), we risk a temperature increase of 3˚C when the CO2 level reaches 560 ppm. At the rate at which the CO2 level is increasing now, with a quadratic increase, we will reach 560 ppm in about 2070.
Climate sensitivity = 0˚C?
It is possible that some people will be frightened by a temperature increase of 3˚C by 2070. But until now, a lot has happened and changed the picture. First, the Arrhenius warming theory was rejected in 2009, which is documented. At the same time, the climate sensitivity has been calculated lower and lower, and is approaching zero˚C. Then the question can be
asked, does this climate sensitivity exist? In any case, it will be difficult to demonstrate the effect of a variable with a value of 0˚C.
In 2013, three Norwegian researchers, Humlum, Stordahl, and Solheim, showed that the temperature changed before the CO2 level:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ S0921818112001658
Then CO2 cannot be the cause of rising temperatures. But the IPCC has never cared about this work. Of course, it does not fit well into the model with CO2 as the big bad wolf.
Climate goals made out of the air
So, despite the fact that Arrhenius was rejected and CO2 cannot be the cause of rising temperatures, politicians came up with a so-called climate goal in 2009, during the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen. Straight out of the air, without any documentation, they took the value 2˚C and decided that we had to keep the planet below that value. Otherwise, there would be catastrophic consequences.
Climate scientists lived with this goal until the Paris Agreement in 2016. Then they decided that it was necessary to keep the temperature below 1.5 degrees, above pre-industrial times.
And now I am approaching the time when the MDG had a heyday. In the 2021 election year, the MDG only received 3.9% of the votes, below the threshold value of 4% and far below what was expected in the green wave. Well, they did not get more than 3.4% in 2017, but before the 2021 election, they were flying high and were well above 4%.
But now the air is about to go out of the balloon. The Green Party (MDG) is losing many politicians and promising candidates, Aftenposten reported on Tuesday. Of the 54 candidates who were on the top three list positions in
the 2021 general election, 45 have disappeared from this year's lists.
The young people don't bother anymore, the spirit of the times is against us, there are other issues that are taking over: democracy, security in the world, our defense capability, and a rapidly increasing crime rate.
Rossavik (the journalist) also points to all the apocalypses, it was so urgent. But, no doomsday prophecies came to action. Here, the alarmists are being paid for their exaggerations. The end of Rossavik's post is highly interesting reading:
Apocalypse Now again
An almost pure climate and environmental party has two disadvantages. One is that the field has been characterized by apocalypses that never come. "We have only ten years to save the world," said the chairman of the first UN environmental conference in 1972.
Maurice Strong targeted environmental problems on a broad front. Some of them were resolved. But this type of deadline has later particularly affected climate policy. One summit after another is the "last chance". I was at the Kyoto summit in 1997 myself and remember how urgent everything seemed. And then it turns out that the apocalypse is not coming after all. This is not because climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is happening faster than anyone expected. The problem for the MDG is that the world is still managing to adapt in some way. Then the dramatic warnings have the opposite effect.
No upturn
The other problem is that the MDG is not alone in climate policy. Almost everyone is involved in the field. Something is happening too, not least under the auspices of the EU. But then we are talking about partial victories. They can satisfy parties with climate as one of several issues, but not a glowing MDG.
In the interview with Aftenposten, Teodor Bruu (a MDG representative) admits that even he does not put climate first. He thinks more about democracy, peace and the world order. He chose to get involved in climate because of the urgency. Now he seems to have given up.
The zeitgeist?
“There is a feeling that the race is over. That you have tried and then you don’t quite make it, not even when the zeitgeist was with us. When the zeitgeist is no longer with us, it feels hopeless,” says Bruu.
Again, he is not alone. Many who wanted to become active politicians have left the MDG. The party is not likely to get above 4 percent this year either. Maybe green politics alone is not sustainable for any party?
Bruu is not alone in pessimism. And it is sad when idealistic, obviously smart young people give up after a couple of defeats. They should certainly not blame the zeitgeist, because it was different five years ago. And it will be different in five years.
My comments:
However, Rossavik has forgotten the third and most important factor in this game. The climate issue is a big scientific fraud. The CO2 hypothesis must be rejected; CO2 has no measurable effect on the climate. The climate is controlled by nature; humans have no influence. If the alarmists' goal is achieved, in The Green Shift, the atmosphere will not be sustainable. The world's food supply will be captured and piped deep underground. CO2 is vital for all life on Earth. If there is anything that poses a threat to the planet and the future of the population, it is the Green Shift.
With all the knowledge we have now, green is not sustainable. The world's population is dependent on more energy. The only sustainable thing is oil and gas production to achieve enough energy in the world.
And why is no one talking about all the mistakes in this climate issue? One of the latest is the detection of the fundamental error in the IPCC's climate models. They exaggerate the effect of CO2 in their calculations. The Nobel Prize in Physics in 2021 was awarded on the wrong basis. Roy Clark called it "The Nobel Fraud". Incorrectly constructed climate models have been used in all the reports of IPCC, AR1-AR6:
https://climatechangedispatch.com/understanding-the-seven-majorerrors-in-climate-models/
When this becomes clear to the few greens left, the clubhouse will probably be empty.
The last one will probably turn off the lights!