460 media groups from 57 countries that have joined forces to not print people
who deny that CO2 is warming the climate.
What the data there said, in other words that data from measuring stations
that were not compliant had been deleted.
Scientists who have therefore objected that they were not published.
So it's really about setting up a world government with a bureaucracy that is ultimately
dependent on global financiers.
That is one goal.
And population reduction is the declared aim of the Rockefeller Foundation.
I assume that if these theories prevail, society
will actually collapse.
And I believe, because I am an optimist, that we are on the verge of a breakthrough.
Dr. Helmut Böttiger, born in Berlin in 1940, widowed, father of two children.
After his military service, Helmut Böttiger studied comparative religious studies and theology.
In 1969, he studied education, followed
by sociology in 1973 and a doctorate in 1975.
From 1970, Dr. Böttiger worked as a teacher
at a comprehensive school, which he left in 1973 to work as an assistant
in economics at the PH Bielefeld.
After 1980, he was an independent publishing director and author of 15 books and
numerous essays and newspaper articles.
In 2015, Dr. Böttiger spoke at the first anti-censorship conference in
Switzerland on the topic of climate
change - certainty or political machination?
His published books include
Climate change - certainty or political machination?, The biggest political errors of our time, Agenda 2030: The
compass to a world worth living in?, Energy of the future:
nuclear, fossil or renewable?, New energy technology for the future:
On the way to a new civilization, Who is interested in scarce energy?
Below you can see the interview with Dr. Böttiger about his book, which will be published in 2023:
Who is interested in scarce energy?
Welcome to Kla.TV,
Dr. Böttiger.
You have already been with us in 2021.
Today we are continuing.
You have written another new book. In other words: who has an interest in scarce energy?
Yes.
You are very welcome.
Thank you.
The topics of energy shortages, global warming and CO2-induced climate change are
headlines that are constantly in the headlines in politics and the media.
We have even been paying a CO2 tax in Germany since 2021, which has now been significantly increased in 2024.
And I would like to start with the first
question: In your opinion, what is this CO2-induced
climate change all about?
Or: How scientific do you think this thesis is anyway?
Well, the media and politicians always say it's scientifically proven,
but there are 44,000 scientists in the US who say it's not
scientifically proven.
And there is also...
Recently, another 1,600 specialists have said that there is no proof
that CO2 is warming the climate.
And it is very surprising that it is still claimed everywhere.
For example, Paul Crutzen, the Nobel Prize winner, has also said that there is already so much
CO2 in the air that an increase in CO2 can no longer have any effect on the climate!
And that's why I think that the scientific aspect is simply no longer true.
I can tell you a bit about the content.
Life on Earth is dependent on carbon and, above all, solar energy.
And we originally had 92% CO2 in
the air, like Venus,
and the 92% has gone down to 0.04%. That means:
There are four CO2 molecules per 10,000 air molecules.
And CO2 is the element that plants use to feed themselves and animals.
They break down the CO2 and release oxygen, i.e. O2, and
without this oxygen we could not live.
Originally, it did not exist in the atmosphere at all.
About 3 billion years ago, blue-green algae started to split
CO2 and polluted the air with O2, i.e. oxygen.
And in the meantime, all this CO2 has disappeared from the
air, and most of it has come into contact with the water in the sea, from
which lime has formed.
Lime is important for the skeletons of animals and humans.
And it is very important that if the CO2 content of the atmosphere falls below 400
ppm, i.e. below 0.02, i.e. to half again, then life on earth will cease,
because plants cannot exist without CO2.
You have to imagine: To obtain one carbon molecule, the plant has to
filter through 10,000 air molecules.
And if they drop to two - so then at 10,000 she gets four,
and if they drop to two, if she only gets two, then she can no longer manage that.
We also had times around 1800 and a bit where we had 600 ppm, i.e.
0.06 percent, in the atmosphere.
Today we have four. And a second part is apparently even more important:
Water in the sea has 60 times the CO2 content of the entire atmosphere.
60 times as much!
And the second point is that water can store more CO2 when it is cold than when it is warm.
1 Liter cold water can contain 3.4 g Store CO2.
When it heats up to 20°C, it can only store half as much.
It can therefore be assumed that it is the other way around than is generally claimed.
First it gets warmer, and then the CO2 content in the atmosphere increases.
And these are things that are not taken into account, because the whole discussion only ever compares
the increase in CO2 and the increase in heat, and
this is based on model calculations that are also not verifiable.
And from this it is deduced that CO2 and warming are increasing at the same time.
And the whole thing...
Such models can explain something, but they can't prove anything.
One example: If the return of storks had been compared with the birth rate in the
Middle Ages, it would have been possible to prove that the stork brings the children.
And such analogies are simply nonsense.
Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has described CO2 climate
change as shock journalistic pseudo-science.
An extremely strong term shock-journalistic pseudo-science.
In your opinion, does that hit the nail on the head?
That pretty much sums it up.
I mentioned earlier how many scientists are actually against it.
Now there are 1,600 new specialists who disagree, and
44,000. The table can be found on the Internet, and it is quoted in the book, which also addresses this.
But they are not mentioned.
Yes, that brings us to my next question:
There is now a very large number of scientists who have come together to speak out very
clearly against this thesis, and yet it is
still a constant topic in the media.
How do you see the role of the media in this whole thing, in this thesis?
Let's call it a thesis.
Yes, it's very interesting that these media have organized themselves.
There is an organization called Covering Climate Now.
That's 460 journalists, 460 media groups from 57 countries, who have joined forces to ensure that
they don't print people who deny that CO2 is warming the climate.
You have to imagine that.
The media and journalists must have an interest in deciding this.
There must be a lot of interest.
460 media cartels from 57 countries. That's a crazy number.
So we are talking about cartels. We are not talking about individual media outlets, but about cartels.
That's really crazy.
Well, there was a hacker attack in 2009 before the 15th Climate Change Conference.
A very, very large number of e-mails were released there, made publicly accessible, where it
was shown, so to speak, that all this data was in some cases heavily exfiltrated.
So they simply decommissioned measuring stations that might have shown:
there is no CO2-induced climate change.
How did the media react?
Was that taken up?
That was so, they said this hacked data came from the Climatic Research Unit East Anglia University
That was a committee of the IPCC.
in the community of the world organization behind this climate change.
And the director, one Phil Johnson, has admitted that this was indeed
data taken from the institute.
However, I personally can't prove it, I rather believe that these were employees
with a conscience who wanted to fight the lies.
Because Johnson admitted it, de Boer, who chaired the 5th climate
conference, I think it was 1971, also had to resign.
And this was briefly reported in the media, causing the 5th climate conference to fail.
But a short time later this disappeared completely from the media discussion and the old
chestnut that CO2 warms the climate continued.
What the data there said, i.e. that data from measuring stations that were not compliant
were deleted, that scientists who objected were not published.
So that's what the leading media said: Not that one, you're not allowed to print it!
And that, of course, was a great thing.
As you have just mentioned, this theory that CO2 causes climate change has been around for
quite a long time.
I would like to take a look at the story.
How did this thesis come about in the first place and who makes it so credible?
Well, it all started with Arrhenius, who
in 1885 hoped that CO2 would warm the climate in view of the impending ice age.
At that time, it was believed that an ice age would return.
And Arrhenius said that CO2 can act like a gas roof so that it stays warmer at the bottom and
we don't freeze as we did during the ice age.
And Arrhenius' thesis was then refuted by the physicist, Wood was his name, in 1909.
But later Callendar, an engineer, discovered (he took private measurements)
that it was slowly getting warmer.
From 1880 to the 1920s, it was around 0.3 degrees.
And he attributed this to industrial society.
And one of the people who took this up was a German, Hermann Flohn, who worked for the
Luftwaffe.
He wrote an article in 1941: The ability of humans as a climate factor.
And this Flohn was then subsequently courted and rewarded by the IPCC - he was very young at the time - and continued
to be represented in the IPCC with his theses.
Then, of course, it was supported from all sides.
Rockefeller also supported this
line in 1952, but this had little impact.
Then came an ocean researcher (I can't think of the name now) who feared that
if it gets warmer, the ocean might not absorb as much CO2 as before.
He wrote a letter to US President Johnson and said that there were concerns.
Johnson's advisor was a Lorenz Rockefeller, who then wrote Johnson a speech, whereupon
environmental protection must be pursued above all because of global warming and
because of radioactivity in the air - global warming should be suppressed.
There was hardly any public reaction to this, but his successor Richard Nixon,
also US President, picked up on it.
Nixon had two reasons for taking this up.
The first reason was that Nixon said in his inauguration speech in 1969 that environmental protection
with climate and atmosphere was the main issue.
That was in 1969.
As a result, NATO also set up a new governing body in December 1969, I can't remember exactly what it was called.
But importantly, Nixon had two reasons to address this climate
or environmental issue.
The first reason was that the '68 revolt prevailed at the universities,
triggered by the Vietnam War.
And that was about diverting attention from this topic to another.
And the topic that was newly propagated was environmental protection.
And that's why Nixon proposed Earth Day in 1970.
Earth Day.
This was very much propagated by the
media and the New York Times - the article was published in November - then made it quite
clear that this could actually be used to redirect this movement at universities.
It was explicitly stated that this was the goal.
That was in the New York Times, which then also praised Earth Day for it. But the
main target was actually another one of Nixon's, and that
is perhaps much more important.
The USA ran out of gold in 1969.
And gold was used to back the dollar, the value of the dollar.
And now they had no more gold.
And with that, Nixon canceled the gold backing.
The gold backing of the dollar.
And what took its place?
Kissinger had prepared this.
The oil price took its place.
The following has now been done.
The price of oil quadrupled in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War.
The oil sheikhs had allegedly demanded this.
But that was not true.
The Saudi oil sheikh then said in a US magazine in 2001 that we were coerced by Kissinger
and the US Treasury Secretary at the time.
And the goal was to negotiate the oil price and, because oil was only to be negotiated, the dollar.
This was determined at the time.
The oil sheikhs were also lured into taking part.
And they were lured into getting involved by the rise in oil prices.
And so the dollar was hedged, so to speak, via the oil price.
But here's what happened:
Since then, new sources of oil and gas have been discovered, causing prices to fall.
And if OPEC had stepped in to curb the production of oil and gas so that the price of oil and gas would
remain high enough to safeguard the dollar.
But then it got so bad that you couldn't do it anymore.
And that's when they came up with the idea of bringing in global warming.
And I would like to briefly explain that the oil industry was (also) so concentrated there. There is a reason for this.
In 1880 there was a big competition between Rothschild and Emanuel Nobel.
That was a relative of Nobel, who then won the Nobel Prize.
He was an oil magnate.
They mainly had oil in Russia, in the east.
And in the West, it was Rockefeller and others who controlled the oil in the West.
And there was a lot of competition.
And then in 1882 Rockefeller, David Rockefeller, met with Rothschild in the USA and agreed
that something like this must never happen again.
And since then, the corporations, the global corporations, have been working together.
And that was also the prerequisite for carrying out these oil price controls.
But because an oversupply of natural gas and oil depressed prices to such an extent that even OPEC could no longer
cushion the blow, a new problem was set in motion around 1980, and even before that in 1972.
And that was this book, Limits to Growth, which was distributed everywhere, worldwide.
It was written on behalf of the Rockefeller, not the Rockefeller Foundation, which put up
the money, on behalf of the Club of Rome.
The Club of Rome was
founded in 1968 in the Villa Pelagio on the Krummer See, owned
by David Rockefeller, together
with Alexander King and another.
They had founded the Club of Rome.
And the Club of Rome then published the book Limits to Growth in 1972.
And this book stated that raw materials - oil and gas in particular - but also others, were becoming
scarce and therefore had to be limited.
So that was in advance.
And because this shortage became increasingly unfeasible due to the newly discovered
gas and oil fields, the climate issue was brought up again.
That was
around 1980, when it became public.
And there's a nice quote from Haber, Professor Haber, from Bild der Wissenschaft.
At the time, he then explained the matter, this transformation process, so to speak, of how to deal with
scarcity and also climate change - until 1974, it was expected that there would be an ice age.
The CIA still has ... there is a study by the CIA
... Various studies are printed in the book.
It's not from the CIA, the book, they print them.
They said - as late as 1974 - that a new ice age was looming.
And that was then reduced and from
1980 the ice age was forgotten.
And there's a nice quote from Haber, Professor Haber, Professor Heinz Haber was the man's name.
And he published Bild der Wissenschaft and had a program that was broadcast
on ARD on 6.12.1979, i.e. before 1980.
And I want to read that out:
Today, climatologists are unanimously of the opinion that the natural rhythm of a global
climate fluctuation towards the cold will be overtaken by a man-made warming of our planet
at the beginning of the next century.
The forecasts for this danger are quite alarming.
So if our opponents of nuclear power want to go back to coal, they won't
be doing our grandchildren any favors.
For their climate concerns, which they will have, they would certainly be very happy to swap
our concerns with the nuclear power plants.
This story was broadcast on all ARD stations at the time.
And that was the change that made global warming public in Germany, so to speak.
And the background, as I said, hedging the dollar.
Well, you've already mentioned it - all
this energy has actually been a huge issue since the 70s.
We also talked about the energy shortage in our last interview.
Well, we also live in a time when we have an ever-increasing demand for energy.
You mentioned figures in one of your books:
I mean, in 1945 we had about six million barrels of oil per day
and now we're up to almost
90 million barrels of oil per day.
The energy consumption is extreme.
The energy has to come from somewhere.
But since the 1970s we have been told that energy is becoming scarce, that energy is becoming scarce.
But it's not true.
So there seems to be enough energy.
And you have a very exciting chapter in your book called:
Who is actually bothered by too much energy?
Let me come back to why energy is not necessarily scarce.
And I said at the beginning that most of the CO2 has disappeared into the sea,
so to speak, and has sunk into lime.
Yes.
And there, with the bones of the fish and so on, it becomes limestone mountains.
And tectonics has brought these limestone mountains to the surface, the Alps, the Jura.
Yes.
But
it also brought them further, back into the earth.
And when the lime gets into the magma - high pressure, high temperature - it dissolves.
And in 2004, a group of researchers in Indiana led by - I think his name
was Scott - exposed lime with components of
the magma, i.e. mainly iron, to these temperatures and this pressure.
And what was the result?
Hydrocarbons were released.
And that means the hydrocarbons that come out of the ground, not just drilled,
but that also seep through, as Thomas
Gold described quite
well in his book, where everywhere,
even through water, it jumps out, it bubbles out.
And where it doesn't get through, deposits accumulate.
Where the surface is too dense.
And they are then also refilled.
This means that when the oil or gas is pumped out, it is
replenished from below.
So they fill up again.
This means that the shortage is not necessarily real;
We do not have a consumption, but a use that transforms into the cycle.
If this were not the case, this CO2 would not follow, then there would
no longer be any life on Earth.
Because then we would no longer have this 0.04%.
And so that is very important,
important to have in mind.
And now the question: Who has an interest in
the high oil price?
If energy is scarce, you can produce less.
And if you put less on the market, you can siphon off people's money better through prices.
Especially in concentrated industrial areas.
Car, what else.
And that is actually the motive behind it.
However, this presupposes that we have a relatively highly concentrated economy.
What makes it highly concentrated?
We have a lot of corporations and so on.
The real concentrator is the financial sector.
Because the big banks are also owned by oil companies.
Yes, that is very exciting.
I would like to add a question right away.
You may have already answered part of it, but I would still
like to go into it again.
In your opinion, what is the purpose of this whole campaign that CO2 is warming the climate
and that we are facing an energy shortage?
What other motives do you think are behind this?
Yes, we say that the prerequisite is that higher prices have increased concentration,
especially in the financial sector.
And the big financiers, I always call them the trillionaires, i.e. Rockefeller, Rothschild.
You can't name Rothschild, then you become anti-Semitic.
But there are others who actually have a concept that has three levels.
The first is to control the economy through finance.
They already do that to a large extent anyway.
But they want to establish world domination, i.e. a bureaucracy in their hands that will shape world politics, so to speak.
And climate issues, environmental issues - climate issues in particular - cannot be solved
in one country, they need an international body.
Rockefeller addressed this as early as 1952, when he said that we must have international
governments, otherwise we cannot deal with environmental issues.
In other words - this is published - you will find the quote in the book.
So it's really about setting up a world government with a bureaucracy that is ultimately
dependent on global financiers.
That is one goal.
Another goal, and this has been Rockefeller's since 1952: There
are too many people on earth.
There is also a study by Kissinger from 1974. This is the so-called Kissinger Report.
And it says that this is limited to 13 countries that are populous and underdeveloped.
And in this secret report, which was secret until the 1990s, then it came
to light, some people uncovered it.
The report states that in 13 populous countries, it is necessary to ensure
that there is a population reduction or that there is no population growth.
Why?
If population growth takes off, governments may be more committed
to their interests than ours.
And we have an interest in these countries.
Why?
Because we need raw materials.
When these countries develop, they consume the raw materials themselves.
So, we have to make sure that we keep the population low and the raw materials low.
This is of course a very dramatic story.
Today, this is no longer limited to 13 developing countries, but has become global policy.
And population reduction is a declared goal of the Rockefeller Foundation, the various foundations,
of which there are three: the Family Foundation, the
Rockefeller Brothers Foundation and the original Rockefeller Foundation. They want that.
And the third goal is actually... of course there is no evidence for this, but you can think
about it... The world leadership naturally wants to maintain and concentrate power.
And how can you do that?
We are currently experiencing a development in which people are being talked into
more and more in order to keep business going:
You need a bigger car, a bigger house, new fashions, a new fashion
every quarter if possible, etc.
And that has led to many people, especially younger people who earn well, saying,
I don't have to do that to myself, I want
a work-life balance: work less,
but do more mountaineering or traveling or whatever.
Or write novels or make
music and whatnot.
And this was already written by a person - I can't remember his name
- back in the 1960s that too much free time is a danger.
He was referring to nuclear energy.
We must not develop nuclear energy because it gives us too much free time.
That would be harmful.
That's quoted in the book, it's no longer in my head.
But this, ultimately population reduction and time reduction, means that you have to make
sure that people are so burdened with earning a living that there is only a little
left over for leisure and fun.
And that leads to price control and a reorientation of the bureaucracy, because
the new technology makes it possible to supply people with less labor.
That means you also have to create jobs.
And we have this through the development of bureaucracy.
And these are, I believe, the three objectives behind this climate story.
When you hear that,
you have to come back to the question somewhere, even if you look
at the entire technical development
of our human history: Do you think we have reached an end point?
Have we reached a point in society where we have to say we can't go any further?
Yes, it is even admitted that the ruling trillionaires are propagating population
reduction. You hear that more and more often.
In other words, they say that the earth can no longer feed a growing population with
our technology, i.e. without
oil and gas, without nuclear energy.
And there is Nixon, for example, who demanded it,
and his advisor, Meuner:
No more additional CO2 and no more nuclear energy.
We also have explicit quotes in the book.
And that means that ultimately it can't develop any further.
And I assume that if these theories prevail, it will actually
lead to the collapse of society.
Today there are signs of world wars, today
there are signs of the collapse of the dollar, for example, and so on.
In other words, a real social crisis situation may arise here that does not ensure
that the climate bureaucracy, world domination so to speak, can prevail.
But it can also mean doom if it comes to a world war with nuclear weapons and so on.
And I believe, because I am an optimist, that we are on the verge of a breakthrough.
In other words, we are seeing a change in the structure of society.
And I see a number of prerequisites: One
is that there is a fusion technology that is already quite successful, so it is
on the verge of a breakthrough.
Which is not subsidized by the state, but privately.
From an acquaintance of mine, Eric Lerner in the USA.
And there is a Mr. Höss in Munich who is working on it.
This is the plasma focus machine.
Electric currents flow in a plasma.
And this leads to filamentation, i.e. vortex structures.
And in the stellarator and tokamaks, this has to be suppressed with powerful magnets, otherwise
the plasma goes to the edge and destroys the machines.
And the plasma focus machine can use these vortex structures to trigger
the fusion process in the first place.
This means that there is an anode on the inside and a cathode on the outside.
A discharge creates plasmas and magnetic
fields, which are propelled
forward quite quickly.
And where the end is, that's where they knot together.
And this knotting process generates the density and the energy that trigger the fusion processes.
And you can increase that.
You no longer need tritium-deuterium fusion, but can combine hydrogen with boron.
And the result is then a hydrogen and a boron nucleus, together there are three
helium nuclei that fly away in a beam.
And if you send it through a coil, such as from a transformer, you can generate
electricity directly and don't have to boil water to drive any turbines.
And the second advantage: this device is relatively small and cheap.
They say it could be as big as a fridge. I can't prove it.
Of course, you also need large capacitors on the outside.
Because on the other side, where these nuclei fly away, the electrons fly away on the other side.
And these can then be charged directly onto a capacitor plate.
Then the current can also flow directly.
Double, from the cores and through the capacitor plate.
The capacitor is needed again to charge this machine.
In other words, that would be energy generation, which has a new quality.
And the second would be that 3D printing can also be used to decentralize
production, the production of goods.
This means that in a village or small town you could make your
own forks, knives, spoons and so on.
And that would lead to a decentralization of society.
And there is a third element:
The change in agriculture, that you don't have to grow crops on a large scale and destroy the soil with fertilizers,
but that you can take advantage of the cooperation between plants, the cooperation
between different plants.
This improves the soil and increases yields, but
also increases the amount of work required because you have small areas rather than large ones.
And so it could be that work-life balance can actually be achieved
in a new society.
And a citizen would then do something for the municipality, as a traffic helper
or another helper, water fitter or whatever.
He would spend a third of his free time farming, and he would
spend a third of his free time communicating with people internationally via the Internet, be it making
music or inventing something or whatever.
And that would be a new social perspective, which of course is now my fantasy, but
I am confident that we can help this society, which is heading towards a bottleneck,
to make a breakthrough into a new society.
And I would like to talk about that soon.
You're working on a new book, you've already told us that.
Yes, thank you very much.
This is very, very exciting,
also for the viewers: anyone who wants to learn more about this topic:
Anyone with an interest in scarce energy can of course take a look at your book.
You mention many, many names.
It is very complex, but also very to the point.
And what we will definitely remember when it comes back: global warming, CO2, we will remember:
shock-journalistic pseudo-science.
We take this catchphrase with us.
In 2024, we will examine this on the basis of this.
40 Nobel laureates.
Exactly.
Thank you very much, Mr. Böttiger, for your time.
And we wish you all the best and every success with your book.
Thank you.
Dr. Böttiger provides a short summary of his book as a flyer.
You will find the download link in the blue box below the program.