Euro courts violate the liberty of science … Local weather science is set by courts moderately than proof – okay?

Reposted from the NoTricksZone

By P. Gosselin on June 19, 2021

An outstanding essay …

An extremely dangerous political development is in full swing in Europe: courts are now deciding for themselves on scientific issues.
===============================================

Europe’s climate courts violate the freedom of science

While they keep claiming that they are “following the science,” the climate change advocates are actually suppressing them.

By Fred F. Müller

This is blatantly shown by a ruling by the Karlsruhe Federal Constitutional Court on March 24, 2021. “Climate Chancellor” Angela Merkel had the opportunity for many years to fill this court with her loyal supporters. The latest ruling by the federal government on the Climate Protection Act will certainly set an example in history. Although the word “climate” is nowhere to be found in the current version of the German Basic Law, “climate protection” and even “creating climate neutrality” have been elevated to constitutional articles. According to the highest German court, compliance with the “2-degree target” and, if possible, even the “1.5-degree target” of the Paris Climate Agreement even justifies considerable state intervention in the civil liberties enshrined in the Basic Law.

The first freedom right that is now being marginalized is the freedom of research and teaching, as documented in the written statement of court president Stephan Harbarth and his seven fellow judges in the first chamber: The Federal Constitutional Court sees itself as empowered to decide on scientific issues by judgment rather than scientific evidence, as is usually the case. This could be viewed as a kind of throwback to the Middle Ages, when people who relied on their own intellect were considered a thorn in the side of the religious and political rulers of that time. Such independent spirits dared to question everything that was presented to the people by princes and priests.

In the centuries of conflict between the natural sciences on the one hand and the religious and secular elites on the other, the judgment of the Catholic Inquisition against Galileo Galilei – an outstanding founder of modern science – marked a turning point in some ways. In his trial it was essentially about whether a subject was allowed to clarify the processes in nature through experiment and logic or whether the rulers – at that time the Catholic Church with the help of inquisition courts, which also exercised secular power up to the stake or imprisonment – had the last word on this matter too. After the scandalous verdict against Galileo, the church lost more and more of its reputation.

The natural sciences, on the other hand, were able to gradually prevail in a long, hard struggle, although it took the Catholic Church until 1992 before Galileo Galilei was officially rehabilitated. Secular courts, on the other hand, were much more reluctant to attempt to legally “clarify” scientific questions. It was traditionally accepted that in physics, chemistry or mathematics neither majority nor court rulings apply, only logic, experiment and evidence.

illustration 1. Henry’s Law in action: CO2 dissolved under pressure in sparkling water degasses when pouring and forms bubbles (Photo: Author)

It is all the more surprising when today a secular court wants to elevate the views of only two scientific bodies to quasi-binding constitutional requirements. First and foremost is the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which has been presented as the global authority on climate issues for years. The second source of justification for this epoch-making decision is the Advisory Council for Environmental Issues (SRU). This body has been staffed by the government with hand-picked specialists, all of whom have professor titles. They have expertise in numerous areas such as medicine, biology, waste and recycling, environmental law and research, and political science. Only one member – a physicist and geographer – has the necessary background to assess climate science issues. The deputy chairman of the SRU is Prof. Kemfert. This telegenic economist and staunch supporter of “climate change” was hailed as a media and talk show star. Although she is presented there as highly competent in energy issues, she is de facto just a staunch lobbyist for the solar and wind energy industry. She occasionally draws attention to herself with terms from the vocabulary of an obscure neo-Marxist sect.

Henry’s law declared irrelevant

The scientific victim of the Karlsruhe judgment is the Heinrichsgesetz, which hardly anyone could describe if asked about it on the street. But its effect is well known, because every time you open a bottle of mineral water or a can of soft drink, it is visible and audible: gas bubbles form in the drink over a long period of time with an intense hissing sound. This gas is CO2, which the bottler has previously added to the drink under high pressure, causing it to dissolve in the liquid. When the bottle is opened, this pressure drops and the CO2 is pushed out of the liquid again in the form of gas bubbles.

Figure 2. This statement by the Federal Constitutional Court contradicts Henry’s law

Henry’s Law also explains why fish suffocate in midsummer because the oxygen content of the warming water drops below the minimum threshold, or why divers can suffer serious health damage from nitrogen bubbles in the blood if they appear too quickly.

Figure 3. Henry recognized that there is a constant exchange of gas molecules at the interface between water and air, which leads to an equilibrium between the “internal pressure” of the gas in the liquid and its partial pressure in the atmosphere (graphic: author)

The basics of Henry’s Law are easy to understand: The interface between water and air is well permeable to gas molecules that are constantly migrating from the atmosphere into the water and vice versa from the water into the atmosphere. After a while, an equilibrium is established in which the number of molecules migrating in each direction per unit of time becomes the same. The whole thing can be imagined in such a way that the gas in the liquid is under an “internal pressure” that balances out its pressure component (partial pressure) in the atmosphere. For example, if the nitrogen content of the atmosphere were to increase suddenly, additional nitrogen would dissolve in the water until a new equilibrium is established. This law also applies to all other gases in the atmosphere. The results can be calculated very easily with the help of the so-called Henry constant.

These relationships were recognized and scientifically examined by the English doctor and chemist William Henry (1774 to 1836) as early as 1802/03. Henry’s law describes the influence of pressures and temperatures on the amount of gases dissolved in water. He could never have imagined that his findings would be challenged by top courts in distant Europe more than 200 years later. But that is exactly what happened in Karlsruhe.

Figure 4. This court testimony also contradicts the findings of William Henry.

Key messages of the Karlsruhe judgment

The key statements in the Karlsruhe judgment are:

– Only small proportions of anthropogenic emissions are absorbed by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere …

– Most of the rest of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions, however, remain in the atmosphere in the long term, accumulate, contribute to increasing the CO2 concentration and thus affect the temperature of the earth.

– In contrast to other greenhouse gases, CO2 does not leave the earth’s atmosphere naturally for a period of time that is relevant to humanity. Any additional amount of CO2 that penetrates the earth’s atmosphere and is not artificially withdrawn from it, thus permanently increases its CO2 concentration and leads to a further rise in temperature.

The more water there is, the more gas it can hold

The ratio of the total amounts of a given gas in the atmosphere and in the ocean depends on the total amounts thereof in the water and in the atmosphere. This is easy to understand: as you increase the amount of water, you also increase the amount of gas it must hold in order to restore pressure equilibrium at the same pressure and temperature conditions. Since our oceans are huge in relation to the atmosphere, they contain many times more gas than the atmosphere itself.

Figure 5. The more water there is, the more gas has to dissolve in the oceans before equilibrium is restored (graphic: author)

Figure 6. With its testimony, the Karlsruhe court contradicts not only Henry’s law, but also statements such as the NOAA (US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Organization)

Since it is known which amounts of CO2 are contained in the atmosphere or in the ocean, assuming constant temperature and air pressure conditions, it is easy to calculate which proportions of an additional amount of CO2 are released into the atmosphere by humans and remain in the atmosphere how much of it dissolves in the ocean. In 2008, the earth’s atmosphere contained around 3,000 gigatons of CO2 (1 gigatonne = 1 billion tons). The equilibrium amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is around 140,000 gigatons, around a factor of 50 higher. This results in a ratio of 98 to 2. According to Henry’s Law, approx. 98% or 980 kg of each additional ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere is permanently dissolved in the oceans. Claims about a climate catastrophe due to “pollution of the atmosphere with CO2” by humans, which leads to a “self-immolation” of mankind, as well as calculations of “residual CO2 households” on the basis of this false claim contradict elementary scientific knowledge. This misjudgment is also the basis of the most recent judgment of a Dutch court against Shell. And more lawsuits of this caliber are pending, Europe thought.

Figure 7: The exchange of CO2 between the ocean and the atmosphere is assessed quite differently by scientists such as Prof. Andrew Watson than by the Federal Constitutional Court, which, however, has given its interpretation quasi constitutional status.

Swell:

• https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/03/rs20210324_1bvr265618.html
• www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html
• https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris_de
• https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/climate-change
• https://www.ipcc.ch
• https://www.umweltrat.de/DE/SRU/Ratslösungen/ratsträger_node.html
• https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
• https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry-Gesetz
• https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake#:~:text=It%20takes%20about%20one%20year%20to%20equilibrate%20CO,the%20oceans%20due%20to % 20biology% 20and% 20ocean% 20circulation
• https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlenstoffdioxid_in_der_Erdatmosph%C3%A4re
• https://phys.org/news/2020-09-ocean-carbon-uptake-widely-underestimated.html
• https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339

Like this:

To like Loading…

connected