Link: https://eike-klima-energie.eu/2025/08/02/dieerderwaermungshysteriker-reden-vom-klima-lasst-uns-vom-wetterreden/?print=print
Please see the link above for the source text.
The global warming hysterics talk about the climate. Let's talk about the weather!
Written by Admin | August 2, 2025
Lothar W. Pawliczak
The propaganda barrage that next spring, summer, fall, winter, every coming month will be the hottest in living memory is annoying and ridiculous. It's not worth talking about, because everyone knows what the weather was like. And it either changes or stays the same. The weather is always good for harmless small talk, but climate forecasts are not. The weather is predictable for specific regions reliably for hours, days, and probably up to about three days, and for up to three weeks with everincreasing deviations, based on current measurements, radar data, and satellite images using computer programs that can model the dynamics of low- and high-pressure systems, wind speeds, and cloud cover for a relatively short period of time and then have very little in common with climate models. Everyone knows and experiences it practically every day: When there are few clouds in the sky, meaning there's plenty of sun, it gets warm during the day, sometimes very warm – if the cloud cover is thick, it gets cooler. This is the water vapor in the air, not carbon dioxide.
Climate models that postulate the CO2 content of the air as the decisive determinant of the assumed greenhouse effect obviously and unequivocally produce erroneous climate forecasts. They rarely agree with the actual climate. And only coincidentally with the weather, and even then, only rarely. Now that forecasts are proving wrong, climate catastrophe warners are resorting to pointing to high temperatures somewhere in Europe or elsewhere in the world, claiming to be thus confirmed. This is somewhat like a population statistician determining that rising birth rates in one region correlate with the rising number of breeding storks—perhaps in a completely different region—and thus believing that storks bring babies.
The prediction could then be derived from this: If we succeed in increasing the reproduction rate of storks, we will have eliminated the problem of population aging in Germany and Europe after a generation. Logical: If we pay substantial climate taxes, the CO2 content of the air will decrease, and the weather will become more pleasant. Or not.
The "evidence" for the increase in the "world average temperature" compared to the reference period 1850-1900
https://sciencefiles.org/2025/07/27/wettersimulanten-warum-derhitzesommer-der-keiner-ist-doch-einer-ist/
is simply nonsensical, because only 32 measuring stations, of which 75.9% were in the USA and another just under 10% in Canada, form the basis for calculating a "global earth temperature" for the years 1850 to 1859, and so on: 62 further measuring stations were added from 1860 to 1869. In 1850, there was only one measuring station in Europe, located in the Netherlands. By 1856, one had been added in Austria, and by 1900, a total of 338 measuring stations were in operation in Europe, with a predominant presence in Central and Northern Europe. There are few measurements for the hot regions of Europe before 1900, nor for Asia, Latin America, or subSaharan Africa (except South Africa). The establishment of measuring stations in these warmer to hot regions increased the calculated "world average temperature" over the 20th century.
In case a climate activist should annoy you again and you want to get rid of him, I advise you to arm yourself with arguments about the vagueness, weaknesses, inconsistencies, and contradictions of the greenhouse hypothesis, which Michael Limburg has presented in his booklet The Greenhouse Hypothesis: All Smoke and Mirrors?: A Critique Based on Exact Natural Sciences (Hamburg 2021), which is easy to understand and inexpensive (9.97 euros) on 108 pages.