In flight ( no CO2 TRACE. 0,004%)😀

3.2 Scientific error versus scientific fraud
Recently, the German climatologist Graßl emphasized that errors in science are unavoidable,
even in climate research [116]. And the IPCC weights most of its official statements with a
kind of a “probability measure” [2]. So it seems that, even in the mainstream discussion on
the supposed anthropogenic global warming, there is room left for scientific errors and their
corrections.
However, some authors and filmmakers have argued that the greenhouse effect hypothesis
is not based on an error, but clearly is a kind of a scientific fraud.
Five examples:
• As early as 1990 the Australian movie entitled “The Greenhouse Conspiracy” showed
that the case for the greenhouse effect rests on four pillars [117]:
36 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
1. the factual evidence, i.e. the climate records, that supposedly suggest that a global
warming has been observed and is exceptional;
2. the assumption that carbon dioxide is the cause of these changes;
3. the predictions of climate models that claim that a doubling of CO2 leads to a
predictable global warming;
4. the underlined physics.
In the movie these four pillars were dismantled bringing the building down. The speaker
states:
“In a recent paper on the effects of carbon dioxide, Professor Ellsaesser of
the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, a major US research establishment in
California, concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide would have little or
no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the
surface to cool.”
The reader is referred to Ellsaesser’s original work [118].
• Two books by the popular German meteorologist and sociologist Wolfgang Th¨une, entitled The Greenhouse Swindle (In German, 1998) [119] and Aquittal for CO2 (In German,
2002) [120] tried to demonstrate that the CO2 greenhouse effect hypothesis is pure nonsense.
• A book written by Heinz Hug entitled Those who play the trumpet of fear (In German,
2002) elucidated the history