Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. (Virgil)
Be aware of science. Beware of $ci€nce!
I remember the early eighties, I was studying chemistry, when the first reports appeared in the media about an impending warming of planet Earth due to the emission of carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels. It wasn't until 35 years later that the issue caught my attention again, when a thirteen-year-old truant called on the world to panic at the UN General Assembly. Just two years later, the world actually panicked over a virus and an alliance of politicians, media and some prominent scientists called on the world to follow the science. As a natural scientist - albeit from a different discipline - it was easy for me to see through the contradictions and shortcomings in the work which was presented to justify the deprivation of fundamental rights. The worst thing, however, was to observe how critical scientists, epidemiologists and doctors were defamed, discredited and banned from public discourse.
As the fog cleared, rational thinking slowly found its way back to hearing and since my life and that of my family had begun anew in the less paranoid Polish society, my thoughts wandered back to the slogan "follow the science", this time climate research. In the meantime, climate change, global warming and climate neutrality had become omnipresent buzzwords. Far-reaching laws and initiatives were prepared at all political, social and entrepreneurial levels to reduce CO2 emissions. States have been encouraged or condemned by courts to define specific objectives and measures. Referring to article 20a of the German Basic Law climate protection was made mandatory by the Federal Constitutional Court. However, climate and the composition of Earth's atmosphere are global phenomena. Even almost zero emissions of Europe's largest economy, which were "mandated" for the near future, would barely impact the atmospheric composition. However, the measures taken and to be expanded have already massively changed the German economic situation. Industrial production is no longer competitive due to rising energy prices and it's increasingly relocated to other regions of the world. Deindustrialization and impoverishment are becoming more tangible as a perspective. Against this background the question arises as to the usefulness of such policies and whether the scientific basis for them is really sound. The memory of the belief in science during the Corona period and the fact that climate is more complex than "Corona" prompted me to look deeper into the topic.
In a nutshell, my conclusion was: there is no reason to panic but to adapt to climate change (btw a pleonasm) which is real and to a large extent anthropogenic. Although temperatures have risen globally for the first time in the Common Era [1] there will be regional changes to the worse here as well as to the better elsewhere. There is no reason to expect a runaway scenario prophesied by apocalyptics like the "last generation".
[1] R. Neukom et al., Nature 571 (2019) 550 No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era
In spring 2025 I created a summary of my previously condensed view of the topic in the form of a presentation for the Rotary Club Goethe in Warsaw (I wasn't aware that there has been a row of Warsaw Climate Talks since COP19 was held in the Polish capital). The slides are animated in a 16 min movie:
As the fog cleared, rational thinking slowly found its way back to hearing and since my life and that of my family had begun anew in the less paranoid Polish society, my thoughts wandered back to the slogan "follow the science", this time climate research. In the meantime, climate change, global warming and climate neutrality had become omnipresent buzzwords. Far-reaching laws and initiatives were prepared at all political, social and entrepreneurial levels to reduce CO2 emissions. States have been encouraged or condemned by courts to define specific objectives and measures. Referring to article 20a of the German Basic Law climate protection was made mandatory by the Federal Constitutional Court. However, climate and the composition of Earth's atmosphere are global phenomena. Even almost zero emissions of Europe's largest economy, which were "mandated" for the near future, would barely impact the atmospheric composition. However, the measures taken and to be expanded have already massively changed the German economic situation. Industrial production is no longer competitive due to rising energy prices and it's increasingly relocated to other regions of the world. Deindustrialization and impoverishment are becoming more tangible as a perspective. Against this background the question arises as to the usefulness of such policies and whether the scientific basis for them is really sound. The memory of the belief in science during the Corona period and the fact that climate is more complex than "Corona" prompted me to look deeper into the topic.
In a nutshell, my conclusion was: there is no reason to panic but to adapt to climate change (btw a pleonasm) which is real and to a large extent anthropogenic. Although temperatures have risen globally for the first time in the Common Era [1] there will be regional changes to the worse here as well as to the better elsewhere. There is no reason to expect a runaway scenario prophesied by apocalyptics like the "last generation".
[1] R. Neukom et al., Nature 571 (2019) 550 No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era
In spring 2025 I created a summary of my previously condensed view of the topic in the form of a presentation for the Rotary Club Goethe in Warsaw (I wasn't aware that there has been a row of Warsaw Climate Talks since COP19 was held in the Polish capital). The slides are animated in a 16 min movie:
The contents does not do justice to the complexity. Furthermore, as a non-climate researcher who has never contributed any original research to that field, I do not presume my point of view is coming close to reality. However, this only distinguishes me gradually from many climate studies that show modeling outcomes instead of evidence-based results. I hope that some physical basics, key findings as well as a classification of climate in global and geological dimensions, the slides can provide a reference for those who are feeling caught between IPCC reports and activist appeals from climate researchers or physicists on the one hand and grossly simplistic and often false representations from so-called climate deniers on the other. However, confronted with either climate skeptics or activists, we should remember a brilliant sentence expressed by Austrian aphorist Karl Kraus:
"There are things that are so wrong that not even the opposite is true."
To illustrate the shades of grey between the extremes, the presentation also contains examples of finds on the Internet where serious colleagues were led to make inaccurate statements. The intention wasn't to show anyone off. Rather, the motivation was to show how easily even scientists may overlook or misinterpret things. Scientific, climate related publications are often written in a rather abstract way, summarizing findings that were obtained from different scientific disciplines. This makes evaluations cumbersome, one has to delve deep into the methodology in order to grasp whether the work is sound and the authors' conclusions were drawn appropriately.
However, most people are sticking to the summary and the conclusion written down in such articles. This may be problematic as outlined in the following simple example.
On the occasion of a short dispute in the comment column for an article in the NZZ, a scientific article was mentioned to me. It supposedly should call into question the "saturation" phenomenon of atmospheric CO2. This expression denotes the observation that the energy that is radiated by Earth into space and which can be absorbed through the excitation of CO2 vibrations is already to a large extent absorbed by the current level of 400 ppm atmospheric CO2. It's therefore argued by numerous scientists (and climate deniers) that a multiple of that CO2 concentration won't significantly increase today's green house effect. Indeed, the authors of that article negated the saturation effect in their concluding statement: "We conclude that as the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere continues to rise there will be no saturation in its absorption of radiation and therefore there can be no complacency with its potential to further warm the climate." This activistic statement is problematic in two ways.
First, it's the expression “there will be no saturation” which is deliberately used here - not in a discussion on social media but in a scientific article. However, this concluding remark is highlighting a self-evident fact because of the underlying physics. Absorption follows a logarithmic function and - more importantly - the absorbed excitation radiation can also be reemitted by the excited CO2 molecules. No natural scientist would therfore assume saturation in its stringent meaning. The authors might have speculated that their expression will be interpreted by an ingenuous reader in the sense outlined above: that the article’s results are debunking the logarithmic approximation of the IR-absorption / CO2 concentration curve (no drastic T-increase with further CO2 emissions).
Secondly, the authors are playing with the reader's common sense by using the formulation "… as the concentration of CO2 … continues to raise …". This suggests doubled, tripled or quadrupled amounts of CO2, a range that is covered in figure a where the logarithmic curves are followed. This contrasts the essential message from the authors that there is no saturation but a the potential for further warming. Indeed, this warming potential can only be seen at twentyfold and higher levels of the current CO2 concentration as shown in figure b (nota bene: logarithmic x-axis). Such a huge offset in CO2 concentrations - relevant versus accentuated range - is by no means reflected in the authors' statement "… continues to raise …".
However, most people are sticking to the summary and the conclusion written down in such articles. This may be problematic as outlined in the following simple example.
On the occasion of a short dispute in the comment column for an article in the NZZ, a scientific article was mentioned to me. It supposedly should call into question the "saturation" phenomenon of atmospheric CO2. This expression denotes the observation that the energy that is radiated by Earth into space and which can be absorbed through the excitation of CO2 vibrations is already to a large extent absorbed by the current level of 400 ppm atmospheric CO2. It's therefore argued by numerous scientists (and climate deniers) that a multiple of that CO2 concentration won't significantly increase today's green house effect. Indeed, the authors of that article negated the saturation effect in their concluding statement: "We conclude that as the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere continues to rise there will be no saturation in its absorption of radiation and therefore there can be no complacency with its potential to further warm the climate." This activistic statement is problematic in two ways.
First, it's the expression “there will be no saturation” which is deliberately used here - not in a discussion on social media but in a scientific article. However, this concluding remark is highlighting a self-evident fact because of the underlying physics. Absorption follows a logarithmic function and - more importantly - the absorbed excitation radiation can also be reemitted by the excited CO2 molecules. No natural scientist would therfore assume saturation in its stringent meaning. The authors might have speculated that their expression will be interpreted by an ingenuous reader in the sense outlined above: that the article’s results are debunking the logarithmic approximation of the IR-absorption / CO2 concentration curve (no drastic T-increase with further CO2 emissions).
Secondly, the authors are playing with the reader's common sense by using the formulation "… as the concentration of CO2 … continues to raise …". This suggests doubled, tripled or quadrupled amounts of CO2, a range that is covered in figure a where the logarithmic curves are followed. This contrasts the essential message from the authors that there is no saturation but a the potential for further warming. Indeed, this warming potential can only be seen at twentyfold and higher levels of the current CO2 concentration as shown in figure b (nota bene: logarithmic x-axis). Such a huge offset in CO2 concentrations - relevant versus accentuated range - is by no means reflected in the authors' statement "… continues to raise …".
Adaptations of figures 6a and 6b from Zhong & Haigh, Weather 68 (2013) 100. Forcing calculated for all CO2 vibration modes (excited in the range 100 > λ > 4.3 μm, red curves) and for the dominant CO2 vibration mode alone (excited around 15 μm, blue curves) as a function of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Click the toggle button for explanations.
This example illustrates how misleading statements may easily find their way into pamphlets and panels of those who are happy to see their worldview apparently confirmed. In a more sober context, the "saturation" argument, the asymptotic approximation of 100 percent absorption, has been used to counter apocalyptic prophecies and climate activists who were and still are just focussing on the role of carbon dioxide emissions. How did the dispute in the NZZ comment column end? The NZZ reader who brought up the article accused me of cherry picking because I was referring to the results instead of the misleading interpretation.
Finally, I recommend not to follow science but to challenge it. Instead it's worth to follow the money (cui bono). Let's consider the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research (PIK). It's to a large extent financed by the German federal government, the Brandenburg state and via project funding from public entities like the EU’s Horizon Europe, German Research Foundation (DFG) and BMBEU. In conjunction with PIK's commitment to transparency and objectivity this seems to be a good basis for independence, since no particular interests, e.g. from industry seem to be at play. However, the mandatory climate agendas of the EU and Germany have a huge potential to incentivize research that is bolstering compliance narratives like "climate action as an ethical imperative". There is a risk that a feedback loop evolves: research supports policy, and policy funds research on aligned topics (e.g., decarbonization pathways). Indeed, such a bias in research became visible in a PIK led report for the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) on climate risks (Kotz et al., Nature 628, 551 (2024) The economic commitment of climate change). The authors were accused of “systematically exaggerating” economic damages from climate change, using “scientifically invalid” methods. The article has eventually been retracted on 3rd December 2025.
It's a good sign that there is insight and willingness in the scientific community to correct published results. This example is not an isolated case, but with regard to the journal's impact and reputation and not least the politically charged topic it took too much time for the withdrawal. In the meantime, the content of the article was used by the World Bank, the OECD and other institutions in the financial world to calculate the economic effects of climate. Not to be counted are the presumably numerous reports in uncritical media, which, with reference to the study, have solidified the image of a devastating climate in people's minds. How many of them will report on the withdrawel of the article, as the NZZ did on the same day of its retraction? Cynically, one could say that the PIK has successfully fulfilled the mission desired by politicians and profiteers of EU's green deal.
Finally, I recommend not to follow science but to challenge it. Instead it's worth to follow the money (cui bono). Let's consider the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research (PIK). It's to a large extent financed by the German federal government, the Brandenburg state and via project funding from public entities like the EU’s Horizon Europe, German Research Foundation (DFG) and BMBEU. In conjunction with PIK's commitment to transparency and objectivity this seems to be a good basis for independence, since no particular interests, e.g. from industry seem to be at play. However, the mandatory climate agendas of the EU and Germany have a huge potential to incentivize research that is bolstering compliance narratives like "climate action as an ethical imperative". There is a risk that a feedback loop evolves: research supports policy, and policy funds research on aligned topics (e.g., decarbonization pathways). Indeed, such a bias in research became visible in a PIK led report for the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) on climate risks (Kotz et al., Nature 628, 551 (2024) The economic commitment of climate change). The authors were accused of “systematically exaggerating” economic damages from climate change, using “scientifically invalid” methods. The article has eventually been retracted on 3rd December 2025.
It's a good sign that there is insight and willingness in the scientific community to correct published results. This example is not an isolated case, but with regard to the journal's impact and reputation and not least the politically charged topic it took too much time for the withdrawal. In the meantime, the content of the article was used by the World Bank, the OECD and other institutions in the financial world to calculate the economic effects of climate. Not to be counted are the presumably numerous reports in uncritical media, which, with reference to the study, have solidified the image of a devastating climate in people's minds. How many of them will report on the withdrawel of the article, as the NZZ did on the same day of its retraction? Cynically, one could say that the PIK has successfully fulfilled the mission desired by politicians and profiteers of EU's green deal.
00:00
/
00:00
A GROK animated section out of "creeping death" (Pełzająca śmierć) from Zdzisław Beksiński (1973)
Be aware of technology. Beware of ideology. Mind your mind!
Cheap energy, available in large quantities with little effort, was the driver of progress. In evolution, organisms required nutrient-rich sources to develop powerful brains, which ultimately made humanity's cultural, scientific and technical achievements possible. These, in turn, would have been unthinkable without the exploitation of fossil energy sources. This conversion of stored chemical energy into mechanical, electrical or thermal energy is necessarily associated with chemical by-products, such as carbon dioxide. In addition, the available fossil hydrocarbons on Earth are finite (although still abundant) and after all too precious for burning. Both aspects require a move away from this type of energy conversion. We are looking for solutions that can deliver energy in maximum quantities with minimal impact on the environment.
So far, four main approaches have been explored:
1. Nuclear energy (fission, fusion)
2. Photovoltaics (on Earth, solar powered AI satellites envisioned by Elon Musk)
3. Mechanical energy (wind, tides, water)
4. Geological energy (thermal, hydrogen)
Another boundary condition for the sensible use of the converted primary energy is its constant provision over time and space. This applies in particular to electrical energy. At any time a balance between generated and used amounts of AC is needed to prevent the network from collapsing. Electricity will be in increasing demand due to energy-intensive computing power (artificial intelligence, digitalization, cryptocurrencies), electric transportation, heat pumps and not least the implementation of carbon-free industrial processes, in particular the production of glass and metals as well as chemicals. The dominant of the latter is green hydrogen from water electrolysis, a disenchanted beacon of hope for the making of green steel, biofuels and ammonia.
Consequently ,the so-called "renewable energies" PV and wind which at first hint appear attractive (the sun and the wind won't send bills) should be critically questioned on the following criteria:
1. Environment (land use, microclimate, ecology, recyclability)
2. Reliability (seasonal, geographical, political implications)
3. Costs (energy generation, distribution, net regulation)
4. Storage options (losses, costs)
5. Negative GHG effect (leaked H2 hampers degradation of atmospheric CH4)
This list is not exhaustive. However, it outlines the essential aspects that are controversially propagated or rejected by politics, the media, organizations (NGOs) and business actors. At this point, fundamental cultural differences between societies become apparent: ideologically dominated with Germany as an extreme example (no nuclear energy, maximum shares of PV and wind energy) and profit-oriented with the USA as a counterexample ("drill baby drill" and new nuclear fission plants). Between them, there are pragmatically acting states that want to realize a smooth transition from the fossil to a carbon-free era using all four possible technologies in parallel without jeopardizing wealth. China is an example. Last but not least, the local refining of green hydrogen is seen as an opportunity for industrialization in countries where yields from wind and photovoltaics appear sufficiently high to compensate for higher costs in the production of derived products. Examples are the Lake Turkana wind farm (Kenya) and some solar pilot projects in Namibia. James Mnyupe, head of the Namibian hydrogen program, prioritizes business: "It's not about the climate, it's about money, about the economy" (cited by DW 2024).
The author sees electrification basing on PV and wind energy - wherever economical and feasible with minimal environmental impact - in conjunction with nuclear energy as the only path to decarbonized yet prosperous societies. The mastery and use of nuclear fusion should be the ultimate goal. Of course, additional forms of energy production such as the use of hydropower or geological energy should be implemented where they make economic sense and are compatible with the environment.
Financial resources and brilliant minds are needed for the realization of nuclear fusion. Unfortunately, too much funding is wasted on progressive projects to transform societies, to subsidize non economic activities (wind energy, hydrogen, "green" steel-making) or to fuel conflicts. Basically people have to pay twofold: with their taxes for subsidies for energy and with their increasing expenses for goods made with not competitive processes: a reallocation of wealth bottom up. Furthermore, in Western societies a trend towards socialist ideals and a departure from meritocracy can be observed. Hedonism and well-being are given greater value than performance. Conformism is expected, contradiction not appreciated if not sanctioned. Distraction in digital worlds and a lack of inspiration are easily compensated for by the use of digital contents prepared on demand by artificial intelligence, which will train itself partially on its own former output. Are we entering a downward spiral from human and artificial intelligence? Are "workslop" or "AI slop" and "shittification" just heralds of a dystopian world sketched in the movie Idiocracry?
Is this degradation in human intelligence even promoted by nano- and microparticles that are known to accumulate in our brains? Airborne pollution (break dust, combustion products, tire abrasion) has direct access to the brain via the nose. Plastic degradation particles are polluting rivers, oceans as well as land (agriculture) and thus enter our organisms through food and water uptake. Recent analyses of brains from deceased people are suggesting links between microplastic uptake and dementia [1] while experiments on mice, fish, crabs and bees revealed behavioral disorders, memory loss and problems with decision making and orientation as results of exposure to microplastics. Has humanity passed peak intelligence and is a time window for solving the energy and pollution issues already closing?
Are there sufficient people not yet sedated by main stream media propaganda but staying critical of publications from official bodies (governments, NGOs, publicly funded research groups) and interest groups of singular activity in the field of energy, be it oil, hydrogen, wind, whatever? Will there be enough critical, admonishing and demanding voices from those companies whose processes and businesses are depending on cheap and secure energy supplies?
[1] Lithium is an essential trace element playing a critical role in maintaining brain homeostasis and recent research (Nature, open access) has linked lithium deficiency with the onset and progression of Alzheimers disease. The authors have shown that amyloid-ß plaques (Aß) are sequestering lithium ions from the surrounding brain which is leading to deficiency of endogenously active lithium. The latter normally prevents Aß formation through regulation of a key enzyme in brain function.
My hypothesis: microplastic particles having entered the brain are also adsorbing lithium ions on their surface. While the natural mechanism involving Aß is taking momentum in the case of lithium deficient nutrition, this should become more detrimental in the presence of additional, foreign matter that is also acting as a lithium sink.
So far, four main approaches have been explored:
1. Nuclear energy (fission, fusion)
2. Photovoltaics (on Earth, solar powered AI satellites envisioned by Elon Musk)
3. Mechanical energy (wind, tides, water)
4. Geological energy (thermal, hydrogen)
Another boundary condition for the sensible use of the converted primary energy is its constant provision over time and space. This applies in particular to electrical energy. At any time a balance between generated and used amounts of AC is needed to prevent the network from collapsing. Electricity will be in increasing demand due to energy-intensive computing power (artificial intelligence, digitalization, cryptocurrencies), electric transportation, heat pumps and not least the implementation of carbon-free industrial processes, in particular the production of glass and metals as well as chemicals. The dominant of the latter is green hydrogen from water electrolysis, a disenchanted beacon of hope for the making of green steel, biofuels and ammonia.
Consequently ,the so-called "renewable energies" PV and wind which at first hint appear attractive (the sun and the wind won't send bills) should be critically questioned on the following criteria:
1. Environment (land use, microclimate, ecology, recyclability)
2. Reliability (seasonal, geographical, political implications)
3. Costs (energy generation, distribution, net regulation)
4. Storage options (losses, costs)
5. Negative GHG effect (leaked H2 hampers degradation of atmospheric CH4)
This list is not exhaustive. However, it outlines the essential aspects that are controversially propagated or rejected by politics, the media, organizations (NGOs) and business actors. At this point, fundamental cultural differences between societies become apparent: ideologically dominated with Germany as an extreme example (no nuclear energy, maximum shares of PV and wind energy) and profit-oriented with the USA as a counterexample ("drill baby drill" and new nuclear fission plants). Between them, there are pragmatically acting states that want to realize a smooth transition from the fossil to a carbon-free era using all four possible technologies in parallel without jeopardizing wealth. China is an example. Last but not least, the local refining of green hydrogen is seen as an opportunity for industrialization in countries where yields from wind and photovoltaics appear sufficiently high to compensate for higher costs in the production of derived products. Examples are the Lake Turkana wind farm (Kenya) and some solar pilot projects in Namibia. James Mnyupe, head of the Namibian hydrogen program, prioritizes business: "It's not about the climate, it's about money, about the economy" (cited by DW 2024).
The author sees electrification basing on PV and wind energy - wherever economical and feasible with minimal environmental impact - in conjunction with nuclear energy as the only path to decarbonized yet prosperous societies. The mastery and use of nuclear fusion should be the ultimate goal. Of course, additional forms of energy production such as the use of hydropower or geological energy should be implemented where they make economic sense and are compatible with the environment.
Financial resources and brilliant minds are needed for the realization of nuclear fusion. Unfortunately, too much funding is wasted on progressive projects to transform societies, to subsidize non economic activities (wind energy, hydrogen, "green" steel-making) or to fuel conflicts. Basically people have to pay twofold: with their taxes for subsidies for energy and with their increasing expenses for goods made with not competitive processes: a reallocation of wealth bottom up. Furthermore, in Western societies a trend towards socialist ideals and a departure from meritocracy can be observed. Hedonism and well-being are given greater value than performance. Conformism is expected, contradiction not appreciated if not sanctioned. Distraction in digital worlds and a lack of inspiration are easily compensated for by the use of digital contents prepared on demand by artificial intelligence, which will train itself partially on its own former output. Are we entering a downward spiral from human and artificial intelligence? Are "workslop" or "AI slop" and "shittification" just heralds of a dystopian world sketched in the movie Idiocracry?
Is this degradation in human intelligence even promoted by nano- and microparticles that are known to accumulate in our brains? Airborne pollution (break dust, combustion products, tire abrasion) has direct access to the brain via the nose. Plastic degradation particles are polluting rivers, oceans as well as land (agriculture) and thus enter our organisms through food and water uptake. Recent analyses of brains from deceased people are suggesting links between microplastic uptake and dementia [1] while experiments on mice, fish, crabs and bees revealed behavioral disorders, memory loss and problems with decision making and orientation as results of exposure to microplastics. Has humanity passed peak intelligence and is a time window for solving the energy and pollution issues already closing?
Are there sufficient people not yet sedated by main stream media propaganda but staying critical of publications from official bodies (governments, NGOs, publicly funded research groups) and interest groups of singular activity in the field of energy, be it oil, hydrogen, wind, whatever? Will there be enough critical, admonishing and demanding voices from those companies whose processes and businesses are depending on cheap and secure energy supplies?
[1] Lithium is an essential trace element playing a critical role in maintaining brain homeostasis and recent research (Nature, open access) has linked lithium deficiency with the onset and progression of Alzheimers disease. The authors have shown that amyloid-ß plaques (Aß) are sequestering lithium ions from the surrounding brain which is leading to deficiency of endogenously active lithium. The latter normally prevents Aß formation through regulation of a key enzyme in brain function.
My hypothesis: microplastic particles having entered the brain are also adsorbing lithium ions on their surface. While the natural mechanism involving Aß is taking momentum in the case of lithium deficient nutrition, this should become more detrimental in the presence of additional, foreign matter that is also acting as a lithium sink.
00:00
/
00:00
Video will also pause on outside click.
L
Image: open AI / HHB, GROK animated
L