The following text was created based on a podcast video, speech-to-text software, and subsequent stylistic processing by AI. It is a good AI processing, although it contains minor errors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLGTCK6dsuI
“So, hello friends. In this video, I will talk about the issue of climate change, scientific research in this area, and its correct interpretation. I will address how CO2 plays a role in warming and to what extent other factors can also influence the climate. I will also focus on a political topic, especially the European Union, which probably has the most climate-focused policy, and I will address the question of whether this policy is heading in the right direction.”
Just as a side note, I will try to convert this podcast, this video, into text form. I will try to assign this task to artificial intelligence. It is done by first converting what I am saying here into text form using specialized software. Then, artificial intelligence processes this data into some coherent and meaningful text. We will see if it can handle it. If so, I will publish it. If not, I will not publish it in text form or in the form of an article.
To begin with, what is the essence of the CO2 issue? In any case, the climate crisis – although I don’t like using the term “climate crisis” because the word “crisis” itself is usually used by eco-fascist ideological fanatics who try to manipulate people with fear of climate change. I am very allergic to the word “crisis” and I don’t like the phrase “climate crisis”. But then again, those ideologues use it.
The issue is whether the European Union’s policy is really correct. It is a huge economic burden. The European Union’s climate policy is truly destroying the European Union’s economy. Various industrial enterprises are closing down and much more as a result of climate policy, because it is logically related to the huge increase in energy prices due to the use of alternative energy sources. Although it is also a marketing ploy to call them “renewable energy sources” to make it sound environmentally friendly. These “eco-fascists” have very good marketing when they say “renewable energy sources”, but this word does not really capture renewable sources. We could rather say “alternative energy sources”, that’s probably what we could call them. These, of course, very unpleasantly affect the price of energy, and it is a very unpleasant thing. So, whether the essence really lies in whether the scientific evidence that carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change is strong enough for us to really pursue such a bold climate policy that we simply sacrifice the economy, sacrifice industry and destroy our industry. Whether such a suicidal policy of the European Union is really worth it.
Another thing is that not everything written in the media and said by politicians is true. And not everything that people think in the collective consciousness or in a public opinion poll, when the majority of people think something, does not mean that it is true. There are countless examples of this, where a huge mass of people simply believe some disinformation, and it can sometimes be an overwhelming majority of those people. So, in the area of climate policy, especially in the European Union, there is simply huge manipulation by the media, because huge scandals have already erupted. Corruption, meaning that some types of subsidies from the European Union and their handling are very non-transparent. Some green propaganda is also spread through the media. First, money is poured into some non-governmental sector, and that non-governmental sector, so-called non-governmental organizations, then finances a campaign in the media to manipulate people. This was a recent case. Dutch investigative journalists came up with it, and I, as an anti-corruption activist who deals with the transparency of drawing EU funds on the topic of ecology, can confirm that huge amounts of money are indeed being poured into the media in Slovakia for a disinformation campaign in favor of the European Union’s policy.
And it’s no myth. So that I’m not just some theorist, there’s an organized criminal group called BROZ. For example, behind this is probably the biggest recipient of subsidies and the biggest payer and sponsor of the media. In fact, it has gone to such an extreme in Slovakia that they are among the very substantial and economically very important sponsors of the media. Sometimes it’s a matter of the economic survival of these media outlets, whether they will draw some corrupt subsidies, some bribes for spreading disinformation and propaganda about how wonderful and important it is to destroy industry and the economy because of climate change.
Another thing is that not every time a politician or a media outlet uses scientific research, it is based on truth. A large number of such disinformation can be listed, not only in the area of such a very sensitive topic as ecology, which divides society so much. We can list a huge amount of such information. For example, glyphosate itself. People really fell for the disinformation campaign in the area of the spray called Glyphosate. But if you take scientific research, the scarecrow of glyphosate is simply not justified. Most people think that by using glyphosate, it will then go into the groundwater and from the groundwater we will then drink it as drinking water and similar nonsense. Of course, the opposite is true. Soil bacteria decompose all the glyphosate very well and it is never found in the groundwater.
And we can list more such things, for example, the huge scaremongering about asbestos. This is also a huge mistake of the European Union, where, based solely on some political decision contrary to scientific knowledge, there are such huge comedies around asbestos. There are also huge disinformation issues around asbestos, regarding real scientific research and public opinion, what asbestos actually is and to what extent it is harmful and to what extent it is not harmful. What are the scientific studies? Scientific studies say that it can exclusively cause lung cancer. But if you ask an ordinary, average person, they will say that asbestos can cause all types of cancer. Of course, that is disinformation and propaganda. And also, the asbestos will never be there, it will not be released. Unless it is broken or sawn or drilled into in some way, it has no chance of releasing any harmful fibers. It works on the principle that first asbestos fibers get into the lungs. Subsequently, this causes irritation of the lungs, and from irritation, lung cancer arises. And of course, a much greater health threat is what many people essentially work with, and that is glass insulation, glass wool. It is much more harmful, much more dangerous. It is much easier to get cancer from it, as some scientific research also shows, but that is not so popular. It is not talked about that much. That is why it is very important to use a respirator and protective equipment.
So, by this I mean that not everything that the majority thinks is true. Not everything that the majority or the “stupid mass” thinks in the collective consciousness from the perspective of social or sociological psychology is really true.
The aim of this video is to address whether any scientific research actually states that CO2 is responsible for all climate change and global warming, or not. Whether it is not actually the case, because many times such examples can be listed. I have listed only a few small examples.
Another very interesting thing is, for example, that most Christians have absolutely no doubt that the Bible itself supports the divinity of Christ. But I have done very high-quality expert studies where I deal in great detail with the fact that even those examples where Christians in the Bible refer to the divinity of Christ are manipulated translations. It is possible to deal with these things very beautifully on a scientific basis. Perhaps if I had the title of associate professor or some high academic title and was a professor at some university, I can imagine that if I published such a work, it would be a huge success not only in Slovakia but also in the world. But I really only run it on a website.
So, it’s also true that scientific data is not always based on completely real, exact evidence. Sometimes it’s really at the level of hypotheses. And also, from what I’ve studied on Wikipedia, for example, although it wasn’t directly written there, it de facto indirectly followed from it, and I think even artificial intelligence explicitly stated it, that although they indirectly suggested that it might not be the only and most correct theory that CO2, carbon dioxide, is responsible for all global warming, we actually don’t have anything better. We haven’t found any better hypothesis, so based on this, it’s like a scientific consensus. And I personally think that it’s really true that it’s very difficult to discover or explain the cause of climate change, global warming, based on real, exact scientific data. To a certain extent, it’s probably possible to understand those scientists in some way.
And now, a very important thing that I could have mentioned at the very beginning, and it is a very dangerous thing: The European Union directly finances many very serious and very important scientific research projects on the topic of global warming, or rather CO2. Of course, in itself, this is good. The role of the European Union is indeed very correct – to support science, to support research even on such a very serious and important topic as climate change. In itself, I praise it, it is very good.
However, there is one big BUT. And this big BUT is very, very crucial and very serious, because simply, in the current situation, and also in the coming years, the European Union will be the absolute world leader in the field of climate change and scientific research in this area. Americans can only look with enormous envy at the level of scientific research at the European Union level or the scientific support of the European Union. Clearly, most of the money goes into this. Even billions of euros go into it, because in connection with climate change, a huge satellite project called Copernicus is also supported. I think it can exceed a billion euros there. These are not cheap things if you launch very high-quality satellites into space as part of the Copernicus project. It is the Copernicus project, and it is absolute, Americans only look with enormous envy that the European Union invests in such things at all. These are very interesting things on the one hand. But on the other hand, I say, it also has its very dark side. And that is, even if the scientists found out that the cause of global warming is some other factor than CO2, I am afraid that they would not be able to afford to publish it in reality. Because you are logically dependent on your sponsor. And you cannot go into conflict with your sponsor. You cannot question the policy of the European Union in any way. When the policy of the European Union is reduced only to carbon dioxide, you cannot say anything else.
Specifically, I would like to mention the ECMWF organization. It is probably the most important world organization, which Americans can look at with enormous envy for its most accurate weather forecasts. You may know this organization from weather forecasts, but the European Union has given it enormous contracts. I don’t even know how to count it, how many millions, maybe it’s in billions of euros, but they have at least hundreds of millions of euros. It is connected with the Copernicus project, it is connected with CO2, so it is already a given that the organization must only focus on linking global warming with CO2. It is already a given from the sponsors. It is never very good when some politicians and some very hard eco-fascists from the European Union finance such scientific research, because then the scientists cannot feel free. They simply cannot feel free, because you cannot go into conflict with your sponsor. And when, of course, these scientists know very well what ideological fanatics are in the European Union, they know very well that they cannot go against them, they cannot go against their sponsors. And simply, these are really absolute climate fanatics in the European Commission, so logically, they cannot go into conflict with these people. They cannot in any way talk about scientific research that will question the policy of the European Union. It’s simply not possible.
It would be very interesting if journalists really wanted to, and perhaps at least from some larger newsrooms somewhere in France or somewhere in Europe, or really some truly free newsrooms that haven’t received any bribes from the European Union on how to write about climate policy, then perhaps quietly over a beer they would sit down with those scientists, and perhaps under some promise of anonymity, the scientist might loosen up and say that in no way, we have completely different findings, that it is not related to global warming. Also, it is even possible to determine via satellite, through satellite images, through some very special technologies, how much CO2 is in what locations. This, for example, is also known based on the Copernicus project, it is called COCO2. CO stands for Copernicus and CO2 is CO2. So, based on that, you can beautifully look up these things, google much more interesting details about it.
Also, this organization, ECMWF, said that they conducted scientific research on the impact of CO2 on weather forecasting, and that based on the concentration of CO2, they were able to refine weather forecasts. Such official scientific studies exist. I didn’t learn from it whether they actually found that CO2 is responsible for global warming or cooling, or whether it acts one way or another. I didn’t learn that there. These are really very complex professional terminologies, and even if a scientist came to some conclusion, they cannot explicitly write in that scientific study that they came to some completely different conclusions, because logically, this organization simply receives huge millions. So that is a really serious problem. Simply, when you receive subsidies from such very dirty and very perverse politicians as the European Commission, then unfortunately, the independence of these scientific researches is very strongly questionable. It is really very strongly questionable. That’s just a fact. That really cannot be doubted. And even on its official website, this organization, ECMWF, quite directly and frankly and openly admitted that, de facto, within the framework of some very large grant project from the European Union, they essentially have the task of only investigating what impact CO2 has on global warming, and they cannot work with any other hypotheses. Also, when I looked it up on Wikipedia, it seemed to me that the scientists didn’t even try or attempt to investigate any other reasons for global warming besides CO2. Indeed, it only mentions other factors very marginally.
Another very interesting thing that I had, it’s a very important thing that I should have said at the very beginning, is that the strongest greenhouse gas is surprisingly water vapor. So, it would actually be more rational or reasonable to deal with the water cycle in all of nature. How can global warming be mitigated based on the water cycle, instead of just blaming everything and declaring war only on CO2? Sometimes even scientific research contradicts itself in some way. On the one hand, the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor, on the other hand, we will concentrate all our attention only on CO2, of which there is really an absolutely ridiculous amount in the atmosphere. It is really in a ratio of 4:10,000, which is, with all due respect, a ridiculous ratio, it doesn’t even make sense to deal with it.
Well, Wikipedia also argues very cleverly, and thus also that if it is actually a scientific consensus that CO2 is largely responsible for global warming, then it is simply the right policy of the European Union. Well, the European Union is not actually mentioned there, only de facto, that yes, it is like a scientific consensus, so I’m just saying, it can be a scientific consensus. And this is also very interesting, that even in that article, there is a quote about the scientific consensus, that a survey of opinions was conducted among top scientists who were dedicated to the field of climate, and that they found there that absolutely unequivocally, that humans are responsible for global warming. I even agree with that. I agree with that, but of course, in the real area of politics and media, it is interpreted completely differently. Even those surveys of opinions among scientists, that automatically, that humans are responsible for warming, are not misinterpreted as, that humans are not responsible for global warming, but it is only reduced to the topic of carbon dioxide.
So, in the media, the meaning of these surveys is somehow twisted, not to mention that any public opinion polls can be very strongly manipulated. In reality, few people know about it. I really know, as one of the few people, how public opinion polls really work behind the scenes. The average layman doesn’t even know how it actually works. It works in such a way that in the absolute majority of cases, the public opinion poll turns out according to how the client who pays for it orders it, as they wish, so it turns out. Because there is a very, very, firstly, the polling agency is somehow bound or not completely free in that public opinion poll, because it is dependent on who pays them. That’s the first thing. And secondly, very strongly suggestive questions can be asked. In that public opinion poll, very suggestive questions can be asked, which to a certain extent force the population to answer in a certain direction. Even me, I even had a quite long phone call with some public opinion research organization. Some lady, some auntie called me, so that’s good. Well, and even there I felt from it, even in the area of climate change, such very, very strong, suggestive questions. The lady didn’t even tell me who actually ordered that public opinion poll, but it was also in the area of climate and also very, very suggestive and manipulative questions, that it also pointed in some direction, that actually, as if, whether I also feel some kind of climate change or something in this sense, like some global warming. Of course, I feel it too. But of course, in practice, it was interpreted in some way. It was already so suggestively posed that it could be interpreted in such a way that I would also agree with it, that carbon dioxide is the only cause of all climate change. That in this way, some organization that could have ordered it, some non-governmental organization or who knows who ordered it, can already misinterpret it in this way, that we, as a non-governmental organization that fights for the liquidation of industry and the closure of all industry to save the planet because of CO2. So we de facto have legitimacy with the public, because we have done some, we as an organization, have legitimacy, because the public supports us, because we have done a public opinion poll and our policy is actually supported, that industry must be liquidated, that the policy of the European Union is the most correct and the best. It could certainly be interpreted in this way, what I de facto answered.
So that’s quite a serious problem. And I say, I’m also curious how the artificial intelligence will process it, whether the artificial intelligence will somehow reproach me for questioning some scientific consensus, that I will say that I have questioned some scientific consensus. So whether it will try to misinterpret this whole lecture in some way. I’m really very curious if it’s ideologically neutral. Of course, I will at least enter that it should be ideologically neutral, but the artificial intelligence doesn’t always listen to you, that it really processes this podcast ideologically neutrally. We’ll really see about that.
No, another quite important hypothesis that could be responsible for global warming is an increase in the intensity of solar radiation. The only problem is that we are not able to reliably determine whether the intensity of solar radiation has increased or decreased in recent years, in the last 100 or 200 years. We do not have this data and we are not able to find out. This could really only be found out in the last few decades, when some satellites started to be launched into orbit. Only from these, or in the solar system, whether from the orbit of planet Earth or even beyond it, only from this boundary are we really able to objectively measure the intensity of solar radiation. So it has been measured for the last few years, and although, of course, Wikipedia says that the intensity of solar radiation is decreasing, this may also be a misinterpretation of research, because such information cannot really be found out. It probably came from some astrophysicists. But the astrophysicist, he certainly understands how the sun works and on the basis of what physical laws, and perhaps it is assumed in some way that to a certain extent, from a long-term perspective, that is, within the range of several million years, the intensity of solar radiation should actually weaken on average. But that doesn’t mean that the physicist really knows exactly whether the intensity of solar radiation was lower or higher 100 or 200 years ago. Nobody really knows that. Such things are not really measured. They have never been measured until the last 10 years or so, but they have not really been measured in the long term. So, we really cannot rely on any reliable data, and we do not have such detailed information about the sun as such, so that we can definitively and 100% determine and say whether the intensity of solar radiation was greater or less 100 or 200 years ago. We simply do not know.
No, another thing is why we shouldn’t make a bogeyman out of CO2, carbon dioxide. The thing is that sea algae also perform photosynthesis, just like trees. And the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster it is broken down, because the plant has more food. That’s why it can grow faster.
No, another thing, which is my personal opinion, that is really responsible for global warming, is, in my opinion, the huge increase in the population on this planet and, logically, urban agglomerations. Certainly, when the surface of the planet simply changes and changes unfavorably, it is not good. There is some deforestation, and logically, due to the huge increase in population, it is logical that much more agricultural land is needed, much greater intervention in nature, in natural ecosystems, the liquidation of some swamps. Logically, if you want to have agricultural land, you have to liquidate the swamp. You have to actually modify the rivers in such a way that you eliminate or destroy the meanders, destroy the swamps, so that you can really have as much agricultural land as possible, which adversely affects the climate. So before there could have been some forests or swamps and now there are simply drained fields, dry fields. So that, of course, affects the climate negatively and adversely.
Well, actually, every plant, every tree has the property that it simply releases water into the atmosphere very slowly, so the water doesn’t evaporate immediately. Indeed, we also know from scientific knowledge that the forest has a very strong water retention function, which is a very positive, very favorable thing. By retaining water, the forest means that the greenhouse gas, water vapor, is released more slowly into the atmosphere. So, very gradually and slowly, the tree actually releases that water, that water vapor back into the air as part of photosynthesis.
So this is actually another problem. Also, a large part of that energy – photosynthesis is a so-called endothermic chemical reaction. This means that it consumes that energy, it consumes that heat. Although the efficiency with which the plant converts solar radiation. The plant converts solar radiation with very low efficiency, only about 1-2% is actually the efficiency of converting solar radiation energy into chemical energy, so that carbon dioxide becomes pure carbon. So that’s just, it’s a relatively low efficiency, because photosynthesis works directly only with a very narrow wavelength, I think only with green light, with the green spectrum, as long as only that plant works, but even that is something, it is still a much stronger factor when the plant can convert some 1-2% of the energy from solar radiation. So it is still a much, much stronger factor than some CO2 global warming factor, of which there is ridiculously little in the atmosphere, only 0.04%, which is completely, completely ridiculous. So this must be a stronger factor. And in fact, even the plant, although even from the official scientific research it is even said as something positive, that agricultural land compared to forests, that it is even better for global warming, because the soil is a little paler than the color, the dark color of those leaves. Just as forests are very dark and thus attract a lot of solar radiation, agricultural land, on the other hand, reflects a lot of it, it simply reflects much more heat, which is a somewhat misleading hypothesis. Because the scientists who came to such conclusions, and this is openly written on Wikipedia, must have been mistaken, because they did not take into account the so-called transformation, the energy required for the change of state from liquid to gaseous, to water vapor. They completely forgot what that actually means. It has many different names. It is the so-called heat of fusion or so-called latent heat within the so-called thermodynamic laws, which means that during the evaporation of water, during its change of state, a large amount of thermal energy is consumed and a very strong cooling effect occurs. Just for the change of state from gaseous to liquid, you use as much energy as if you heated water to 500 °C. Just a small, tiny physical curiosity. So, forests or forest cover certainly have a positive or beneficial effect on climate change. The more afforestation there is, but in Europe there is certainly no deforestation. This really mainly concerns developing countries, where there is simply a very, very radical increase in population, such as South America, South or Central America, and Asia. This really concerns such continents, but not Europe. So there must certainly be a huge expansion of agricultural land to somehow feed those hungry mouths, and the ecosystem must simply be destroyed, and some of those primeval forests must also be removed.
So, and also, of course, in addition to photosynthesis, in addition to that very, very narrow part of solar radiation, a narrow spectrum, it also consumes thermal energy, because it is an endothermic reaction. The plant consumes that energy, including thermal energy, so to a certain extent, a significant cooling effect occurs in the plant. Certainly much stronger than any CO2 emissions.
No, another such thing, actually another very important theory or hypothesis is from a very well-known hydrologist, climatologist Michal Kravčík, who is actually a person who does not speak so ideologically about the issue of climate change, that CO2 is to blame for everything, but he speaks mainly about the issue or topic of water retention. He says that it is not right and not good if we immediately and instantly drain the water away. Through sewers, but on the contrary, the water should be absorbed as much as possible. And this applies to urban agglomerations, the countryside, the built-up areas of municipalities, as well as agricultural land, and forests themselves, where quite significant measures can be taken to simply retain the water there in some way. It is possible to build several dams somewhere in the forest, where you can create good conditions for water to seep into the soil. This certainly has a very significant, very positive environmental impact, so that the water does not run off and also has the longest and strongest cooling effect, so that its cooling effect is fully utilized. Because then the trees can cool much more effectively if they have enough water. If, during those very short but intense precipitations, the ecosystem or soil can absorb as much water as possible and then gradually release it, then photosynthesis is also much more significant, because photosynthesis actually stops in the event of a huge drought, when the plant does not have water, it does not work. If photosynthesis simply stops and cannot function, it primarily needs sufficient moisture, sufficient water.
Well, I think Michal Kravčík definitely has far more rational or reasonable ideas or proposals than some dubious eco-fascists who only see CO2 in everything and are literally obsessed with carbon dioxide. I think this man, Michal Kravčík, really deserves a Nobel Prize for such ideas, which are far more realistic and far more reasonable, and are not things that would completely destroy the economy.
And I think that at least in some parts of Austria, I really saw some very interesting solutions regarding agricultural land, where I saw infiltration pits. Literally, I don’t know if it’s all over Austria, but at least this is really the right thing that perhaps the entire European Union could pursue, so that the water infiltrates as much as possible into the agricultural land and it doesn’t happen that the water simply flows very quickly into the sewage system and quickly into the sea, but that the water is really retained as much as possible and the cooling effect of the land, of the water, is manifested as much as possible. The more we retain water on the land, the more it will cool, the more the cooling effect will be. Based on thermodynamic phenomena or the thermodynamic law, I think, it is also based on the so-called latent heat, which is expressed not in temperature, but in joules. This heat, this energy, is expressed in joules and is needed to change the state of matter.
So, there are actually scientific studies that talk about how to predict or forecast the weather based on that. The models in weather forecasting are already very good, very accurate. For example, this company, the ECMWF organization, has very interesting scientific studies on how they can predict the weather based on forest cover, based on whether forests are present or not in certain locations. This simply has a huge impact on the weather as such, on the microclimate and on the weather, so that even such things are actually put into the computers that predict the weather, they are taken into account. And I say, it’s just quite questionable whether these scientists can freely express their opinion, because it is also, of course, in connection with the CO2 policy. That is, when they say that CO2 can do everything, if the plant has more water, if the water is really captured in that forest, and the forests don’t dry out so quickly in those summer days, but have enough moisture, then logically, the forests will grow much faster and at the same time capture much more CO2. On the other hand, it must be openly said that old forests, when they are too old, are not right, they are not good, because then the growth of the forest slows down. The older the tree, the slower it grows, the slower it captures CO2. There are also quality scientific studies on this. This means that there is not always such environmental fanaticism that we have to declare forests everywhere, everywhere without intervention. That’s just not a solution either.
And then there’s another thing, which is the official policy of the European Union itself, which is not only to fight CO2, but also to do so-called adaptation to climate change. And that is, of course, a very positive and very noble idea, and there are also very good things there, such as some insulation projects, some subsidy support, some insulation that protects not only against cold, but also against heat. A very high-quality, very good thing that comes from the European Union, but there are also a lot of all sorts of nonsense. Of course, there is, as it were, some, although he is not a member of the European Commission, but he is probably one of the most influential MEPs ever, Michal Wiezik, who is one of the most active MEPs ever. Michal Wiezik, a Slovak MEP, who, for example, and this person certainly has a huge influence on the climate policy of the European Commission. Even this literally crazy, mentally ill person, who actually has many such very extremist views. For example, he says that in principle we should, agricultural land should automatically go without intervention. This means that nothing will simply be worked there, only some subsidies will be received and the farmer and suddenly it will simply become a forest according to him, which is absolutely naive. Simply, trees will not plant themselves even on that agricultural land, and those environmental fanatics are so fanatical that probably 10% would not be enough for them, that they would want more than 10%. At first, these eco-fascists will use a salami-slicing method, saying that 10% is enough, then it will be more. But then the question is whether we will be like Brazil, whether Europe will import all its food from Brazil if we destroy our agriculture here. That is another very serious matter and a serious topic. But these eco-fascists don’t care at all. They are complete idiots and complete lunatics. These eco-fascists are never satisfied. In the Netherlands, they are not content with just fighting against CO2. They have already declared war against another gas, which is ammonia, which is actually another gas. The condition for farmers to be considered harmful by ammonia emissions, i.e., ammonia emissions, was that there were very serious problems, and I think farmers had to literally block the entire Netherlands and block all transport in the entire Netherlands, only then did some local government come to its senses and start, it really canceled a proposal that they did not want to completely destroy agriculture, or rather a large part, I think they tried to destroy only 1/3 at the beginning. Just with a salami-slicing method, that only 1/3 of agricultural production would be enough for them to destroy, or rather, they wanted to destroy another 1/3 of cattle farming in the Netherlands based on some one-time compensations. They wanted to destroy agriculture in this way. So, it’s like, well, with these eco-fascists, they will never have enough, they will never have enough. Even if they somehow manage to reduce CO2 emissions, they will start coming up with other restrictions.
No, it’s like this, well, it really, really, really corrupts, really, really corrupts people. Indeed, power corrupts people in a very, very, very dangerous way, and politics corrupts people. And politics is about power, and power corrupts people. Simply, why is there war? Russia is waging war against Ukraine, but why? Because of power. Because power is the most dangerous drug. Because Putin simply got a taste for great power and perhaps wanted to prove something to himself with some military expedition against Ukraine. He wanted to somehow flex his muscles with that war against Ukraine. That Putin.
These are very interesting things, that not everything that a human mass thinks is really proven or demonstrated and is also really true.
To make this video truly high-quality, I primarily studied several articles from the English Wikipedia on the topic of climate change. I believe they have around 900 or even over 1000 cited sources when all articles are considered. So, it’s really not “shoddy.” In any case, the fact is that I haven’t come to any clear conclusion about what the scientific consensus is on this matter. In any case, one thing is certain: it would be worth one big, honest, ideologically neutral review if some experts really had the time for it. This could be evaluated either by some very powerful artificial intelligence, which would be clearly instructed to be ideologically neutral and where it would not be clear in advance what results should be correct. I also tried it with classical artificial intelligence, but it is too imperfect, too weak, too low-performing, and also too ideologically biased. Especially about ChatGPT and also about Microsoft’s Copilot, it is said that they are very ideologically biased because they also are based on ChatGPT. And ChatGPT is known for its very high and strong political and ideological left-wing bias. So there, I really felt from the questions that very clear instructions were given to that artificial intelligence, to ChatGPT, that it must be clearly politically colored and not neutral. So there, the artificial intelligence would really have to be set up for very powerful hardware computing capacities, plus at the same time, ideological neutrality would have to be very clearly specified. Perhaps it would bring very high-quality conclusions. But honestly, we can’t express ourselves very clearly on this.
Something I should have mentioned at the very beginning is what percentage of CO2 is in the atmosphere. I really thought at the beginning that it was a pretty decent percentage of CO2, carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. What is the reality, what is the truth? The truth is that there is currently exactly 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere. Which is a really ridiculously small number, and now you really have to realize what a very bold hypothesis it is that such a ridiculously small amount of CO2 can somehow be responsible for so-called global warming. This is a really very bold hypothesis that needs to be considered very seriously and approached very critically. And certainly not to pursue overly bold and overly destructive policies based solely on the fact that we must declare war on CO2. Also, official statistics say that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by a ridiculous 50% in the last 200 years. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1.5 times, which is not that much. So if you really take it, to imagine it in a common way, what is that 0.04%, it is a ratio of four parts to 10,000 parts. 4:10,000, which is really a very, very bold, very extremely bold hypothesis that such a ridiculously small amount, such a ratio of 4:10,000, could do huge miracles with the atmosphere, such as global warming. This is a really, really, really bold hypothesis. So this is another important thing, which is simply an unambiguous fact.
Another interesting thing is that there are also proponents, or there is a hypothesis of so-called planetary cycles, that the planet can cyclically cool and heat up. Over the course of some cycles, it is also indicated in Wikipedia that it has not been possible to prove these things in some way, that it can be like this. However, something that quite significantly supports this hypothesis is, for example, Greenland. And Greenland is etymologically derived from the word Greenland, green land. And it is really true that archaeologically, scientifically and historically it is proven that in Greenland, I think, if I’m not mistaken, it was settled by Vikings, a large part of Greenland was simply green. Which even today Greenland is not green in the sense that it was green, that they could raise livestock on large and extensive meadows. They could simply raise cattle and had really good living conditions there, when they had enough greenery and could also raise livestock. Which is also a great mystery, and climatologists don’t really deal with it, nor have they been able to explain it. Somewhere I heard a hypothesis that it was just some terribly tiny, small part of the planet, some local climate, that just somehow warmed up. But even at that time, in the Middle Ages, most of the planet was much colder. Such a hypothesis has also appeared somewhere. But whether it was confirmed by any scientific studies, or whether it was just said by some very strong ideological political fanatics who wanted to defend the CO2 policy, I don’t know. I just heard such a hypothesis a long, long, long time ago. But it is also a very interesting thing that even scientists still can’t explain why there was such a warmer climate in Greenland in the past. And to this day, we don’t even know why it was like that, and what factors could have played a role in causing that warming there, at least for a few years, maybe hundreds of years.
Another very important thing is how scientific research and scientific studies should be interpreted correctly. Not just anyone and not everyone can and is able to interpret scientific research correctly. I will also address this, but before that, I would like to give another example that not everything that a mass or a majority thinks is true.
Another very interesting example is that, for example, 99.9% of believing Christians do not even know their own history. Despite this, people think that a scientific discipline like history does not contradict Christianity as such, but the opposite is true. For example, in the past, Christians did not believe in original sin. And there are high-quality expert scientific studies by highly qualified and respected academics, especially at Cambridge University, which deals with this. A common Catholic priest studies theology, but even theology teachers are precisely dictated by people from the bishopric who can and cannot teach there as a result of the unfortunate Vatican agreement. This is how it works. So even the Catholic priest does not know the most basic things about the Catholic and Christian church in general. For example, that in the past Christians did not recognize original sin, which is an absolutely existential thing for Christians. Without original sin, Christianity would not be Christianity, because 90% of the teaching of the Christian faith comes from the philosophy or theology of original sin. And we could continue in many other things like this.
We also have very beautiful and high-quality academic scientific studies showing that Christianity is nothing more than an improved form of paganism. The divine trinity actually originated from philosophy. The entire theology of the divine trinity was long known in paganism, and many Christians do not know this, although these things have already been published in very beautiful and high-quality professional historical studies by quality historians and recognized academics. Nevertheless, it is an absolutely unknown fact for the absolutely “stupid masses” and the majority of people, but it is an absolutely existential problem for Christians. The average Christian would have a mental breakdown if they found out that Christianity is nothing more than modified paganism. The philosophy of the divine trinity actually comes from the philosophy of “Homoousion”, which refers to the gods Hermes and Thoth. These two gods were a kind of divine duo, which is completely identical to the philosophy of the divine trinity. That’s probably all there is to it, just as a point of interest.
Furthermore, what a large mass of people believe is not always true, and what the media hysterically spreads as propaganda is not always based on truth. Not to mention that there is targeted media propaganda in this area within the European Union itself. Quality Dutch investigative journalists have demonstrated and proven this, and I can confirm it as well.
Just a small, minor point of interest – it’s a bit of a digression from the main topic, but it’s a very interesting reason why energy in the European Union is so complicated and expensive. Why so-called alternative energy sources, like the sun and wind, don’t work. You have a huge number of problems with price fluctuations, as the price of energy is always governed by supply and demand. A big problem, for example, somewhere in Germany, where they have a lot of alternative energy sources, is the fluctuation in the prices of these energies. And that is a very dangerous and bad thing. If the price of energy fluctuates, when it is sometimes in extremely negative numbers and other times in extremely high and positive numbers, it is a very dangerous thing. Because sometimes the producer, when the sun is really shining very strongly, it’s summer, the summer period, clear weather, the sun is shining very brightly, solar power plants are running at 100%. But then the price starts to be a huge surplus of electricity on the market. No one knows how to store that energy. And now the solar energy producer is going to go bankrupt economically, because he simply has to pay some money for producing that energy. I think in Germany it works somehow like this, that in order for the solar energy producers not to go completely bankrupt, the government pays them something extra as part of some special subsidy program. There was also talk about whether the German government would start saving money on itself and thus these subsidies would cease to exist. Only in that case would the solar energy producers probably go completely bankrupt. And when the sun is not shining, when that energy is not producing anything for you, then you have big problems again, because you also do not earn anything as an energy producer. So it is economically completely suicidal and economically devastating. Personally, I think that if the European Union continues with such a policy, then only some IT companies that are not energy intensive will be based here in Europe. All industry will be moved to India, China or some Kazakhstan, and we will probably buy all industrial material from such countries. Because all those industrial companies in the European Union will simply go bankrupt thanks to this absolutely suicidal policy of the European Union.
And conversely, if there is a lack of energy, if neither the wind blows nor the sun shines, then energy prices on the market will rise to astronomical heights. So again, consumers, whether they are companies or manufacturers, need energy, but ordinary households also need energy. And these people are really hurt by this, it’s a deep blow to their wallets, because they have to pay too much for that energy. You won’t read this anywhere in the media, because all the media are bribed and paid for by “ecological fascists”.
Now let’s go back to scientific studies. How should these scientific studies be interpreted correctly? It may turn out statistically well that many, even in Wikipedia, you will really find that there were scientists who did a purely survey of what percentage of scientific studies support the hypothesis that all global warming is exclusively due to CO2. But it must be realized that such things are very misleading and can be manipulated very badly. And it must be realized that not every scientific study is of the same quality. It is also quite questionable whether the person who did this survey of scientific research interpreted them correctly. Another thing is, not every scientific study has the same value. Sometimes it’s really just some – I also studied a huge number of scientific studies, especially in the field of pharmacology and healthcare, but also in various other areas, so I know what it’s about. A large, huge part of these scientific studies, or I would say at least half, if not most, are based on a so-called hypothesis. In essence, a scientist knows how to do something similar to a diploma thesis, a condensed diploma thesis, that he just creates a hypothesis from some already existing scientific studies. Based on the fact that it logically follows from previous scientific studies, they propose such a hypothesis, and a group of scientists expresses the opinion that it makes sense to further and more thoroughly examine this hypothesis in order to either confirm or refute it. This is de facto the case for the vast majority of scientific studies. So it really needs to be interpreted correctly.
Also, even if a scientist measures some values on some very expensive instrument, it does not mean that the scientific research is sufficiently relevant and it must be interpreted in the right way. For example, there is also dating of rocks based on radioactive isotopes. I have heard quite strong criticism that it is simply not as reliable as it might seem at first glance. That the age of a rock can be measured, because it can be influenced by a huge number of factors. Yes, the fact is that you can really measure very accurately some amount of some radioactive isotope in some rock. That’s perfectly fine, that’s perfectly correct. But whether it is possible to determine the real age of the rock based on that is very, very hypothetical.
For example, we also have a scientific hypothesis about Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Although there is really no evidence for this theory, the so-called intermediate links are missing, yet it has become a scientific consensus. More or less, it is argued that we cannot explain the origin of all life on this planet in any other way than by Darwin’s evolutionary theory. So, in principle, there is such a scientific consensus that it is simply so. I don’t really want to explain what a scientific consensus is. If anyone doesn’t know, please google what a scientific consensus is. It is a very important concept. A scientific consensus de facto means that some scientists agree that in some way – sometimes it is based on really very serious, serious evidence – they agree on something, that things are this way and that way in science. Or sometimes it’s just that “we have nothing at hand, nothing better, no other better hypothesis that would explain it to us in a better way”. So, in principle, even if we don’t have any evidence for it, we somehow agree that it will be more or less so. It’s just based on more or less perhaps some scientific agreement.
By the way, archaeology is also quite an interesting thing, where you really have to interpret based on very indirect evidence. When you find a piece of metal or a piece of bone, or I don’t know, some other object, or a piece of pottery buried somewhere in the ground, and based on that, purely on the basis of some hypothesis, some scientists, a group of scientists, more or less agree on what it is supposed to be. Although we have no direct evidence that, I don’t know, to which nation, to which ethnic group the given object belonged. How to interpret it, that is also an extremely subjective interpretation. However, it works more or less on the principle that sometimes there is really very serious evidence, when some things can be dated very precisely. For example, radiocarbon dating is very precise, very high quality, very good on the one hand. On the other hand, there are also things in archaeology where even the archaeologists more or less really only work on the basis of how a group of archaeologists agrees, that’s how it will be interpreted.
“Well, for that reason, he simply decided to declare war on Ukraine, and so Putin is occupying Ukraine. Something similar, in a different way, is also corrupting the European Union, the European Commission. In another way, it has corrupted those politicians, in such a way that they constantly need, it somehow sexually excites them, and they have some kind of fetish in constantly restricting people with new environmental bans. So, I’m not saying it sexually excites them. I said that very exaggeratedly, that it’s a fetish, but power also corrupts those politicians. And actually, a very important eco-fascist for a very long time was Frans Timmermans, he was even the Vice-President of the European Commission for a very long time. He was in this position, now fortunately he has withdrawn from politics, thank God, voluntarily. That Frans Timmermans. Well, that man simply pushed through a huge number of these various environmental insanities. So, I’m saying, there are some good things there too. Personally, I think there is some future in hydrogen. Although in practice, science is quite difficult to advance in some way. There are also some, in the field of ecology, a few small good things, but there are mostly really very dangerous stupidities, which are really from some eco-fascists. Who really, in essence, Michal Wiezik is very well known for twisting scientific research, scientific studies.” He is de facto a professor at some environmental school. I don’t know if he still teaches there, since he is a member of parliament, whether he still teaches or not, but he is really an associate professor in the field of ecology. I never take that into account, but even among educated people, there are fools. The fact that someone has a nice title is not a guarantee of good mental health. That person is really a complete fool. He has no respect among his colleagues at the university. Even there, his colleagues speak very badly of him, because they know very well what a fool he is. So it’s difficult there, but he is the kind of person who very, very much likes to misinterpret scientific research, scientific studies in his own ideological benefit, so that he can spread some crazy, eco-fascist disinformation.
For example, this person is very strongly pushing this European Union policy to put the largest amount of agricultural land into so-called non-intervention, meaning that an absolute miracle will happen, that suddenly, when you put some agricultural land into non-intervention, it will suddenly become a primeval forest, it will suddenly become a wilderness. This is simply amazing, amazing, simply, amazing intelligence of this person. This is really something that should be addressed at a psychiatric level. And it is very dangerous if such a person has enormous political power. He really abuses it, and that is very dangerous. In the past, we have to take it positively, we have moved forward somewhere. In the past, we, as Europe as a whole, had to fight against, whether communism or even before that against Nazism. That was an enormous evil. Nazism was an enormous evil. And now we can be glad that we are not fighting with weapons, but rather fighting on some other level against some, simply all normal and all decent people are really fighting against some crazy eco-fascists from the European Union. So, it is a very serious matter, and so, when we really look at history, at history some 100 years back, when there was also the Second World War, we have to say that we have moved forward somewhere. It is still better to have the industry liquidated under the pretext of some eco-fascism than to have a war sweep across Europe. Fortunately, the conflict has not yet spread beyond Ukraine. Let’s be really glad that the war is only in Ukraine, that Russia is only waging a direct war against Ukraine, it is waging a hybrid war against several countries, but the so-called hot, full-fledged war is only being waged against Ukraine by Russia. We can still be very glad that we have moved forward in the last 100 years, that we do not have to fight against Nazism, but only against some crazy eco-fascists. That is still, we have really moved forward a lot. That is very good. Well.
Now, I’ll just digress a little bit from the topic and talk about how weather forecasts work nowadays. They are done by so-called supercomputers, which are extremely powerful computers, and they are truly enormous. I think weather forecasts work based on so-called global models. Large countries and large organizations create these global models, and among these global models, the ECMWF is probably the highest quality, as it truly covers the entire world, not just Europe. This organization, the ECMWF, has one of the largest supercomputers in all of Europe. So, it’s an enormous amount of data. I think several, maybe 500, maybe a few, at least a terabyte of data is processed there. And then, for an hour or several hours, these supercomputers process the data every few hours. It always takes several hours to process the data, and only then do some results come out of that enormous amount of data, which they actually process from satellites, from all sorts of things, from weather stations, from radars, and so on and so forth. They simply process an enormous amount of data in this way.
This is something completely different from supercomputers, there are so-called quantum computers, which work on a completely different principle, which also have some advantages and disadvantages, but so far, they are many times, several times, even thousands of times more powerful and efficient, and also more energy-efficient, these quantum computers, which work on quantum physics, but so far they have not found much application. That is, really, if quantum computers find use on a large scale, then artificial intelligence will really advance radically. Really, artificial intelligence will advance radically. And so far, I think that quantum computers do not really do artificial intelligence, or only in a very small way, but when quantum computers really have the potential to do so, then it is something completely different. It is a completely, completely different level in terms of performance. There, perhaps, these computers have a thousand or a million times higher performance, but they also have some disadvantages and so on, so it is not so easy to implement. On the other hand, there is a huge number of possibilities for misusing this technology. There, for example, there is talk of some cyber security, that it can be a very serious problem, because all passwords will be very easy to break with the advent of quantum computers, so there is simply a huge concern about security, how it will be solved, whether some other way will be found to protect one’s passwords and so on. So it will also be a bit of a challenge, right, in terms of cybersecurity, when quantum computers really start to be used more widely. Even ECMWF is only just starting to use quantum computers now, and they haven’t really found any quality use for them yet. I’m not an expert in this matter. Maybe it will take several years before quantum computers can be implemented or used in some way. I’m not an expert in this matter, but it works in a very, very interesting way.
Just an interesting fact. Supercomputers are even operated by the Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute for better forecasts, because there are global forecasts that have a weaker resolution, and then there are also some local forecasts. So I think it’s a bit of an expensive project for such a small country to have its own supercomputers for weather forecasting. And the Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute also has them, and I think this means huge energy consumption. These supercomputers also have enormous energy consumption. I think that just for the building of the Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute, from what I’ve been able to find and found out, the performance of these supercomputers is so high that I think it’s up to 500 or I don’t know if it’s even up to 800 MW, I think 800 MW efficiency. Pardon, not MW, it will probably be kW, I think about 800 kW. The performance of some transformer station that just leads there for this purpose. That’s for context. Maybe it’s like, how many households would, the consumption of those 800 kW is about the performance that might correspond to approximately 2000 households, something like that. This is probably some average consumption. Of course, it depends very much on whether it’s a peak, a performance peak, or if it’s when hardly anyone is using energy, but approximately, when it’s averaged out, it can correspond to approximately 2000 households’ energy consumption. So it’s the same, huge temperatures are generated there, so a huge amount of energy is certainly consumed for cooling and so on. So I just digressed. But why is it also related to this climate change? That’s why I’m saying that an organization like ECMWF, at least, has the potential to definitively confirm or refute whether CO2 is really responsible for the warming. They already have very sophisticated and very robust software for this, and they use robust computer models that may only need a little bit of programming adjustment, adding some lines of code, removing some lines of code from those huge programs. And based on that, it can finally be definitively concluded and determined whether CO2 can really, based on computer modeling with those powerful computers, from the most powerful supercomputers in Europe, really do it. Based on that, they certainly have the computing capacity to definitively confirm or refute the key role of CO2 in global warming. On the one hand, they certainly have this potential. The second thing is whether there are sufficiently capable managers who would be able to handle it and whether they can even afford to do such research at all, because they could get into conflict with their own sponsors, with dirty politicians and with big jerks and big psychopaths from the European Union, who are completely obsessed with carbon dioxide and its impact on warming. So that’s actually the second thing. Well, there are several obstacles there. Firstly, there must be managerially capable people who are able to organize it at all. And the second thing, even if they were able to organize it somehow, would you even have the courage to organize it, because… So I don’t know how to put it, but some scientific studies that I’ve googled, which are really scientific and really real and relevant, which are not just some wild hypotheses, but which are really confirmed in some way. So really, this is the only, or more or less one of the few organizations, either the ECMWF or similar organizations, these are organizations that really have real means, which really on a real empirical basis, on a real scientific basis and reliable scientific basis can definitively confirm or refute the participation of CO2 in that warming. And although I am quite skeptical, because really the ratio of 4:10,000 is a bit too, too extreme a ratio. Too small a ratio for CO2 to somehow have a key role in global warming. It would rather be confirmed. Well, and another very important thing is to do a so-called revision of all scientific studies that have been published on this topic of global warming, which actually talk about the key role of CO2. After all, as a greenhouse gas it certainly will be, but CO2, on the one hand, on the other hand, whether to a sufficient extent it is a sufficiently strong factor to really be responsible for global warming. That is a very questionable thing and that is another thing. So, and certainly, really, it is really necessary to do what, this, what I am really saying, as I have repeated many times, it is really worth it and it would simply have enormous significance to do a really ideologically neutral and ideologically unbiased scientific study, which would really do one big revision and a very one, very radical and re-examination of all those scientific studies that have actually been interpreted on the topic of climate so far. It is definitely worth revising, checking it.
Of course, one might have come to the conclusion that even the scientific studies were somehow misinterpreted, either by the politicians themselves or by the media. But now, imagine, even politicians are under the enormous pressure of the media. The media simply has enormous power, and most people are very easily manipulated. It has even happened to me many times in other matters, not just concerning top scientists or top experts. They simply fell for some disinformation, when it was proclaimed. It was probably quite absurd disinformation, but even some experts in the field fell for it, because the media has enormous authority, enormous power, even if it’s any disinformation. Or, for example, when Ján Budaj was the Minister of the Environment, a total madman, a total lunatic, a total fool, even he, when he was actually a minister, when a huge amount of such high authority, like the ministry, started spreading, many really serious experts, whom I respect very much, sometimes or very often fell for various disinformation that the ministry spread, because the ministry is simply a huge authority. Likewise, the media, enormous support for that ministry. No scandals were pointed out. The media has enormous support. Not a single hoax was refuted by the media for that minister, even though he spread all sorts of absurd hoaxes on a daily basis, but well, that doesn’t matter. Nevertheless, the media supported him. So there you have it.
https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/dd6a312c701f47778390de50cd052071/
https://www.corso-project.eu/
https://coco2-project.eu/events/ecmwf-annual-seminar-observations
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243962295_Natural_carbon_dioxide_exchanges_in_the_ECMWF_Integrated_Forecasting_System_Implementation_and_offline_validation
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022MS003286
https://www.ecmwf.int/en/about/media-centre/news/2024/three-year-copernicus-co2-project-concludes-ambitious-programme
https://coco2-project.eu/consortium/european-centre-medium-range-weather-forecasts
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50488 r