In a conversation between Kla.TV and the evolutionary biologist Prof. Dr. Ulrich Kutschera, who
works in Germany and the USA as an active researcher, author and musician, the
topic of "corona madness" was discussed.
Today we want to discuss the current topic "World Climate Conference and carbon dioxide
phobia - global warming or global cooling".
Professor Kutschera, your latest book is entitled: "Der Corona-Wahn.
From virus fears back to climate hysteria".
What do coronaviruses have to do with the climate?
Yes, you might ask yourself that.
I just have to come back to my own scientific work once again.
We have already explained that I have been studying sexual biology, the evolution of
leeches and (their) relatives for 45 years.
Again in connection with disease transmission by medicinal leeches.
Then again in the context of bacteria.
And there again bacteria that grow on plants.
So I am the proud discoverer and describer of two Methylobacterium species
I have shown this picture before.
So these are species that we discovered and described in my laboratory.
And when you work with plants, we work with animals, bacteria,
slime molds, myxomycetes and plants.
When you work with plants, you are of course immediately involved in photosynthesis.
On the subject of photosynthesis, especially the CO₂ cycle.
But then again cellular respiration in plants.
Keyword metabolic scaling, i.e. the theory that the body mass of animals and
plants correlates with metabolic activity.
These are all areas to which I have contributed many, many publications
- hundreds of publications by now.
And if you research something yourself and know the methods, then you
can presume to talk about it and criticize it, as I am doing now.
Of course, everything should be set against an appropriate background.
If there are any critics sitting there, I would perhaps like to point out the following.
That was some time ago, in 2007.
I had a very, very spectacular first-author climate change paper.
It was about the extinction of a very, very, very rare species of leech, which we also researched
in connection with the slight warming that actually took place after the end of the Little Ice Age.
I published the original version myself.
And that's relatively new here.
I was recently invited to a major climate conference where I spoke about the
connection between global photosynthesis and carbon, i.e. the CO₂ cycle.
So this is also an area in which I am qualified through original research work.
What does this have to do with corona?
Yes, well, intellectually of course, of course.
The term delusion, according to Carl Jaspers, as a misjudgment of reality.
I now have a beautiful picture behind me.
So this was distributed during the plague pandemic, which really did exist.
It's practically a skull and crossbones.
Be careful, if you become infected with plague microbes, it can be fatal.
And if a coronavirus pandemic without excess mortality is now being spread worldwide, even referred
to as a pandemic in the major specialist journals, then I simply have to lump it
together with the climate change hysteria.
And that is basically the explanation of what it has to do with each other.
The book cover shows a long strip of color with the year below the Corona devil's grimace
with test kit, disgust mask and syringe.
Summer temperatures Europe, red-blue, warm-cold.
Please explain this very briefly.
Yes well, you all know that in the so-called climate change scene - unfortunately also on Wikipedia (I
checked again today) - only the real measurable small increase in the average earth temperature
since 1850, i.e. basically the beginning of the industrial revolution, is ever presented.
And it did indeed get about 1 degree Celsius warmer.
But that's not at all surprising, because the so-called Little Ice Age was
1 degree Celsius colder than the reference value in 1960.
However, it is completely ignored that before that, I have shown it up to the year 800, there were always
warm and cold periods and there the CO₂ level was at 280 ppm, we will discuss this
in more detail, dangerously low in relation to the photosynthesis of plants.
So the picture on the color cover actually refutes the idea that there was a warm period
in the year 900, for example, which was somewhat warmer than today.
CO₂ levels were low, the human population was minimal and there were no factories.
That actually disproves the whole, I'm going to say climate
hysteria, I can't put it any other way.
In the book text you refer to climate protection organizations, such as "Fridays
for Future", with negative comments.
Isn't climate protection somehow important and good after all?
Prof. Kutschera: I have to say that I have been an active environmentalist since my early youth.
For example, we had this cover story in connection
with slight global warming.
That went through the whole scientific world back in 2007.
And this little worm that we have pictured here is an extremely rare species of leech.
I've discovered and described 15 species, just brought another important Californian species
into print a few weeks ago, so I'm the last person who wouldn't take environmental protection
seriously, very seriously.
The biodiversity research that I do myself, at the level of PCR-generated sequences.
Of course, the research I'm doing is only possible if there is biodiversity.
And if we pollute and mess up the environment, as has happened, for example
in connection with these things here, I'll hold
this up to the camera, the biggest environmental scandal since the Second
World War was the corona mania.
If we mess up the environment, then there will be no more biodiversity research.
Well, now we come to the term climate.
Climate is defined as a statistical value that records the average
weather over the last 30 years.
And climate factors are, for example, the average temperature,
of course, but also humidity, wind speed and
other parameters.
This means that climate is a statistical variable.
And statistical values that relate to the past can neither
be saved nor protected.
That's just "Balla Balla", that sort of thing, yes.
It's like giving a "side-effect-free" vaccination to children.
Children are much more at risk from car accidents or flu viruses - and
the side effects are concealed.
You just can't accept that.
So climate, the term is occupied, because Alexander von Humboldt already defined it that way.
I can protect the environment and, of course, influence possible negative climatic
changes. No question about it!
But I can only see the whole climate thing as a pseudo-religious cult.
However, as much as I am in favor of environmental protection and thus also of possible
protection against future climate change.
That is my clear answer.
They emphasize that "Fridays for Future" and other climate activists
ignore the photosynthesis of plants and present carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Please explain that.
Prof. Kutschera:
That's one of the reasons why no sensible person, especially if they are a PhD level Scientist, can take this seriously.
So, as I said, environmental protection is absolutely important.
The climate in the sense of an increase in the earth's temperature, for example, is of course
getting warmer after the last little ice age.
Of course, we don't want this to have a negative impact on the biosphere in any way.
I don't want to either. I am a conservationist.
The problem is that the concept of photosynthesis in this world of thought,
which, according to Carl Jaspers, is ultimately a misjudgment of reality.
So as a "delusion" in the sense of Jaspers, 1922, that's how he defined it.
Of course, that's also somewhere, ... something's not right.
I would like to briefly explain how photosynthesis is measured.
I have the devices in California, I don't have them here.
I'm in Germany at the moment.
So, for example, we have an alder here.
There you see the first very important thing.
Every plant, every person, including bacteria, is naturally attacked by harmful organisms.
Bacteria are kept small by viruses, which are bacteriophages
And alders in particular show symptoms of disease caused
by fungi and, in some cases, insect pests.
And there's more: alders are currently under threat from a Phytophthora infection.
What is Phytophthora?
This is the pathogen that causes potato blight, but it's not a fungus, it's a special
microbe that originally came from the ocean.
We found this out using molecular gene sequences.
So all living things are threatened by viruses, bacteria, microbes and harmful organisms such as insects.
It's simply part of it.
Now, if we take a crisp, fresh leaf.
Photosynthesis is measured using the so-called leaf chamber technique.
So these are leaf chambers.
Let me explain.
A defined light intensity is then applied.
And then carbon dioxide - now we turn on the light - carbon dioxide is chased through the leaf chamber,
so air is chased through the leaf chamber, I say, a certain CO₂ level is put in here
and measured in the exhaled air.
And the difference in light is the CO₂ absorption in relation to the leaf area,
in relation to the light intensity, which we measure again as photon flux.
In the dark, so if we were to darken it completely, completely dark here, that's where the plants breathe,
that's where the plants release carbon dioxide.
In the light, plants absorb carbon dioxide through diffusion processes via the stomata.
Photosynthesis is extremely complex.
The products are sucrose, cane sugar, which is transported away, starch
and many, many other carbohydrates.
This is the primary or primal food.
And this CO₂ absorption capacity, this oxygenic photosynthesis that is also oxygen-free,
does not exist in this crazy world.
The word does not appear anywhere.
I can tell you, for example (sometimes you can still laugh yourself to death),
people are talking - this was in the "Handelsblatt" - about CO₂-free air.
If they make the CO₂ in the air, the air CO₂-free, we are all dead.
Because the plants can no longer assimilate, because there is no more primary food, because
the animals have nothing left to eat and the people have nothing left to eat.
So that's an ideology.
I really wonder what's going on in people's heads?
I don't know.
I can't explain it.
You have also published Stanford research on global greening.
Is CO₂ therefore a blessing for humanity?
Well, that's a very, very interesting, exciting question.
A little more information, have a look.
What are greenhouse gases?
Greenhouse gases are molecules in the air that consist of three atoms.
Like H₂O, i.e. water vapor, which the leaves release via the stomata,
i.e. H₂O, or CO₂ - carbon dioxide.
They absorb infrared light.
Photosynthesis can also be measured in the same way by using infrared gas analyzers
to determine CO₂ absorption.
So photosynthesis measurement in the sense of leaf chamber technology, which
I use in the USA, works by detecting carbon dioxide via infrared absorption.
So water vapor and carbon dioxide (there are of course others, such as
ozone) are of course greenhouse gases.
And the greenhouse effect, i.e. a slight warming due to this infrared
absorption, of course exists.
So I am not a climate denier, the climate is changing.
I'm not a corona denier either - corona wouldn't exist - I illustrated it in the book, and of
course I'm not someone who would deny the importance of greenhouse gases, for example.
But here comes the crucial point.
Up to around 1850, we had roughly measured 280 ppm CO₂, which is 0.028 percent by volume.
So mini, mini, mini, mini, little,
a trace gas.
CO₂ has now increased to around 420 parts per million ppm, which is about 0.042 CO₂.
So percent CO₂ by volume.
The exhaled air contains 100 times more carbon dioxide.
Therefore, if you breathe on plants, talk to plants, if I breathe
on the plant, then it assimilates better.
You can therefore fertilize plants by fumigating them with CO₂.
This is how the entire greenhouse culture works.
So you don't have to pump carbon dioxide into the earth as a devil, you
can use it to create plant yields.
We have a research paper here in my area, in which Mr. Enes also played
a decisive role, which was published.
We were able to show that the exhaled air from humans causes the plants to shoot to the ceiling.
Plants are hungry for carbon dioxide, they need CO₂ and the level of 280 ppm
was dangerously low, because plants go to their knees at 150 ppm.
These are hard facts that you can read up on.
In addition to the Corona book, I have also published a 700-page textbook "Physiology
of Plants", where you have all this in great, great, great detail.
But more for experts.
Keyword
Decarbonization or carbon dioxide-reduced air, also known as climate neutrality:
How do you rate that?
Like everywhere
else, look: plus-minus.
At the moment, we have a situation globally where CO₂ is rising, but a positive effect, global greening, is taking place.
At Stanford, we published a research paper - I'm the first author on it - in which we
were able to show that from 1850 to 2020, net primary production via
photosynthesis increased by 30% worldwide.
So we have a global increase in photosynthesis, a global greening, which massively
benefits people in India and China.
In some of these countries, we have seen yield increases of 20
to 30 % over the last 30 years.
Global greening.
But now you have to consider that at some point photosynthesis will of course be saturated.
So in the short term - CO₂ fertilization again - we have a positive effect,
but in the long term we have to make sure that we reduce CO₂ emissions.
That is the situation.
That's my assessment of the situation.
In your book, on page 49, there is a graph showing global
cooling over the next few years.
Of course, this contradicts the global warming thesis in the media.
Yes, the situation is as follows:
The question is - now we are going back to "Fridays for Future" and
all these others who are involved.
The question is:
To what extent is the increase in the CO₂ level, which is measured and takes place in real terms, from 280 to 420, perhaps going down to 500, then further.
To what extent is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas like water vapor, but less significant, and
to what extent is it causally responsible for the low warming of about 1°C since 1900?
That is the question.
And I'll answer the question now as follows: Carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse gas, no question, like water vapor.
Carbon dioxide also causes an increase in global warming to a certain extent.
However, there are many, many very good facts to suggest that the CO₂ effect on temperature
increase has long been saturated.
We don't even know, there's enough, more is not enough.
And then there is the fact that there is no continuous correlation, i.e. temporal relationship,
between CO₂ level and average earth temperature.
There is no such thing, you can see it on the book cover.
In the year 1000 it was warmer than now, CO₂ was much lower.
In the 60s and 70s we had global cooling, which brings me to
the topic of global cooling.
I experienced that as a child.
CO₂ went up, CO₂ goes up, CO₂ goes down.
That's why these climate hysterics, these climate maniacs, only ever show their color scale 1850.
What was before must not be, must not be.
So there is no consistently positive correlation between CO₂ levels and the
slight warming of the Earth's atmosphere.
Now to cool down.
We had this phenomenon in the 1960s ... and now there are very good studies on surface
water temperatures in the North Atlantic.
Take a look:
Even the word world climate is crazy, there is no world climate, there are climate zones, there is no world climate.
If there was a global climate, the Germans wouldn't fly to the South Seas at Christmas when
it's cold because of the different climate.
And when climate activists leave the cold climate in Europe at Christmas to recover somewhere
else while increasing CO₂ levels, it just shows how crazy the whole thing is. Okay?
You leave the climate zone here, go to a warmer climate zone, but talk
about the global climate, where should that be?
That's just crazy.
That's how I see it. Now to cool down, to finish off very briefly.
So we had this cooling [in the] 1960s and now these surface water
readings - which are very solid and good - show that there is now a cooling
again in this slight warming trend.
This means that the next 20 years will be associated with cooling, as you can already see
from the cold winters we've had recently.
In spring, for example, I had huge problems finding annelids.
I didn't find anything because it was too cold.
As a biologist, I can confirm all this.
Surface water has now warmed from 16.0 degrees Celsius in 1900 to
16.4 degrees Celsius in 2020.
And if someone talks about the heat of the earth, I would ask them: "Why don't
you prove that you can make coffee with water that is 16.4 degrees cold?
When you boil with 16.4 degree cold water, that's the heat - the heat!
If you make coffee with it, you've convinced me.
What do you think of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?
Is this organization neutral or rather politically colored like the WHO?
I have to go back to my Stanford experience.
So we had researched this global greening with colleagues from other Californian
universities and wanted to publish it in "Nature".
That didn't work for two years.
Why?
Because the experts said, they were IPCC colleagues, they said: "Yeah,
hey, if these guys at Stanford can prove that net primary production, i.e. photosynthesis,
has increased globally, that's a good thing..."
That must not happen.
This contradicts the fairy tale of man-made climate change
and the bad, bad, harmful CO₂.
That took two years.
We are playing into the hands of the climate change skeptics if we find out something like this.
You can see how crazy that went.
This is similar to the corona craze, where the side effects are
still being swept under the carpet.
Where to this day the deceived, suffering people are left alone.
It's exactly the same.
And I'll tell you something else: I heard a long time ago that a girl, a twelve-year-old
girl, comes home and starts crying.
Then the mother asks: "What's going on?".
She says: "Yes, our social studies teacher told us that we're all going to die
of climate change and thirst soon."
I mean, that's completely crazy, that kind of thing.
That can't be allowed to happen.
So the IPCC, like the WHO, is a political organization.
A dogma of man-made CO₂-mediated climate change is being propagated.
You pick out the studies that fit.
The picture alone that I have on the Corona book doesn't exist.
Of course, this exists in the literature.
In other words, temperature changes before 1850 are denied.
Correlations that do not fit are denied.
And so this narrative is maintained, although CO₂ is of course
a greenhouse gas, of course.
And of course, in the long term, we should be able to bring about a reduction in anthropogenic
emissions through great solar technology, perhaps even new nuclear power
plants that are less vulnerable.
Because, of course, photosynthesis will eventually be saturated in the long term.
And then there will certainly be effects on the biosphere that we don't want.
But at the moment, for the next 20 years, we still have plenty of time.
We still have a fertilization effect.
The plants thank us by photosynthesizing more
and producing fatter potatoes.
And in India and China there are poor people who have nothing to eat.
They benefit from anthropogenic CO₂ because land yields there have increased by
up to 20, or even locally 35 percent.
And you can read everything I'm going to tell you in the book, including the source.
Denied, swept under the carpet.
Just like these vaccine injuries, which still do not officially exist today.
These are always just side issues.
Every now and then one in 5,000 and so on.
Exactly the same.
That's why the corona craze fits in with the climate change hysteria, in my opinion.
You co-signed the declaration "There is no climate emergency" - as a German
professor and US researcher.
Is there no climate emergency, no tipping points?
Yes, that was a few years ago.
I had just finished that thick book for your plants.
I received an e-mail from a colleague.
"There is no Climate Crisis", they said at the time.
So that was a merger, and we are now almost 1,000 colleagues, of qualified biologists, chemists,
especially biologists, chemists, physicists, including superstars like MIT professor
Richard Lindzen, for example, one of the smartest people I know.
So back then, Fritz Vahrenholt, here in Germany, we evaluated the
facts and came to the conclusion:
A climate emergency cannot be postulated.
There are problems, especially environmental problems.
We also have to go back to solar energy and perhaps also nuclear power, new generations of
nuclear power, in the very, very long term, but this whole - I'll say it now - hysteria that is being stirred
up, above all the fear that is being instilled in children, the whole "Fridays for Future"
ideology, that is not tenable if you objectively evaluate the facts.
I am a climate change realist, a realist.
Climate change, essentially measured as an increase in temperature, really does exist:
This is essentially of natural origin.
You have to bear in mind that the effect of changing solar activity is of course
ignored or downplayed by the IPCC.
You have to think about that:
The temperature measurement, you can laugh your head off... Look, if you live outside the city, get in your
car in the morning, look at the thermometer, then drive into the city center, look at the thermometer, then you'll notice:
"Oops, one degree warmer."
The "heat island effect", every Lieschen Müller and Hänschen Meier knows the "heat island effect", if you
measure outside the city and half an hour later measure in the city and when he drives
back, you have a temperature difference that can be measured, of one degree or more.
And this "heat island effect" is probably behind these exaggerated
postulated global warming data.
So the measuring stations were built, then it was urbanized, urbanized, urbanized.
Now the formerly external measuring stations are in a heat
island somewhere in the city.
And, as I said, above all the effect that the changing solar activity has.
If you take all this into account, then this CO₂ hypothesis of anthropogenic
climate change, for which the economy is to be ruined, it will all be ruined,
then it disappears into nothing.
I'm not saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, but
the effect is greatly exaggerated.
On December 12, 2023, the 28th World Climate Conference in Dubai came to an end, where there was
again talk of achieving the 1.5-degree target and climate protection by reducing CO₂ emissions, and
the terms energy transition, climate collapse and global warming were mentioned again and again.
Your comment as an active evolution and photosynthesis researcher?
Well, that's just corona hysteria transferred to the climate.
So, the very term, look, the 1.5 degree target, you read that everywhere,
that was just a political fiction at the last IPPC meeting.
It was never intended - there are also sources for this, you can prove everything with sources - it was never intended
that this would be real, by looking at carbon dioxide, ... so there is the assumption:
"The earth has a really big screw, that's CO₂, and if you turn up the CO₂, it gets
warmer and warmer, warmer and warmer.
If you turn the screw down, it stops".
That's completely naive, that's what they believe, so it's like the picture here.
The earth has a fever!
Now you can make coffee with water that is 16.4 degrees cold.
I don't know how this is supposed to work.
No, well, unfortunately this has mixed political slogans with things that are quite correct
in part, not everything it says is wrong.
This mixture of fake and fantasy and cherry-picked facts ... - CO₂
is a greenhouse gas, it's true.
But the increase does not correlate with the increase in temperature, that is the problem.
So then a brew comes out, my comment is simple:
Hysteria is being stirred up again, half-truths are being combined
again, remember the word tipping point.
Look at the scale on the book cover again, the tipping points have existed before,
what happened in the year 1,000?
It was suddenly very warm, nothing tipped over, what's supposed to tip over?
Nothing is tipping, it's just a symbol, you just want to scare people.
Well, I'm just an advocate of climate change realism.
People, live frugally, live sustainably, drive less, ride a bike, then you stay healthy, then
you boost your immune system, eat healthily.
And then we have already solved most of the problems.
So I am for environmental protection, but against this climate hysteria.
Mr. Kutschera, I just have one more question, perhaps we can include it.
Yes.
Where do you see the real drivers for both coronavirus scaremongering and climate hysteria?
So the real drivers behind the corona hysteria or climate change were - you
can exchange that, you can exchange hysteria and delusion.
No, the real drivers:
In my opinion, these are ultimately hard-core financial interests.
Well, Bill Gates, for example, got richer and richer.
Some companies, the pharmaceutical industry, super-rich people like Bill
Gates are simply making a huge profit.
You saw that with this vaccination.
And they don't give a damn about environmental protection.
And nobody cares about their health anyway, the main thing is that they are healthy.
So it's some kind of financial interest.
I just feel sorry for the people, especially the children, who are simply maltreated with it.
And I pursue my quite aggressive, that's my style, quite aggressive,
provocative, ironic educational agenda.
I do this mainly because I want to protect the children from this madness.
The children are our future and it is in no way the case that somehow the earth will die
of heat or that we will all die of thirst.
Imagine that in February or March, the "Spiegel", the German teachers'
magazine, announced - on the front page - "A
drought is coming".
So they were fantasizing about a lack of water in autumn.
We have too much water at the moment, the streams are completely overflowing, so there's
no question of drought or water shortages.
We have quite normal, at the moment quite normal December or November temperatures
of 0 degrees of 1 degree, I can't see anything that indicates a collapse.
So these are financial interests.
And the population simply has to be convinced at some point by people like you and me,
by Kla.TV and many others, including Mr. Bahkdi and many, many others - they simply have to
be convinced by people who still have their heads on straight, there's no other way.
So educational work is very, very important.
Yes, thank you very much.
Prof. Kutschera:
So I would also like to thank you very much for making this possible for me, I mean, I'm also glad that I can somehow
advance my knowledge, that's why you do it somewhere.
Yes, that's right.
Thank you very much, Professor Kutschera, thank you again for this interview and all the best to you.
Thank you, too.
Bye-bye.