I'm fully aware that we as humans have to do a better job in caring for the environment but I personally think that the current "we as humans are predominantly to blame for the current climate change" is just part of a huge political machine which is fueled by extreme climate models that don't draw a realistic picture. I always prefer to look at real data and in the Netherlands for example the sea has been rising at the same rate for over more than 100 years (+/- 2 mm a year). But in other places world wide an increase isn't showing either. Satellites show an increase, but there are so many factors that can distort the data coming from these and although satellites are becoming more accurate, they still are very far from tide gauges for example. I understand it, climate change is a big money maker, but if our leaders would really care for our CO2 emissions, they wouldn't be flying in private jets to their climate meetings. I know that the current measures could help with improving our environment, but then just say that you want to do that. Becoming CO2 neutral is an impossible task and apart from that there have been numerous studies that the effect it's going to have will be minimal and the cost will be tremendous. There are so many ways that we can really care for our planet without having to pay so much.
Below I'm sharing an article by Sebastian Lüning a German climate researcher. Think of it what you like, we are all free to believe what we want of course. Here's the original German article for German speakers.
"Who erased the medieval warm period? The latest UN report has distorted climate history. The traces lead to Bern.
By Sebastian Lüning
In the Middle Ages, Switzerland and other parts of Central Europe were as warm as they are today. The so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is scientifically well documented in the region: between 800 and 1300 AD, many Alpine glaciers shrank dramatically and some were even shorter than today. The tree line shifted upward. Permafrost thawed in high alpine areas that are still firmly in the grip of ice today. Those high temperatures are clearly demonstrated by tree rings, pollen, chironomid fossils, and other geological reconstruction methods.
Controversial temperature curve
For a long time it was assumed that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional, North Atlantic phenomenon. But this warm phase also occurred in many other areas of the Earth, for example, in the Antarctic Peninsula, in the Andes, in North America, at the North Pole, in the Mediterranean, in East Africa, China, and in New Zealand. Together with expert colleagues, I have evaluated many hundreds of case studies from around the world in recent years and published the syntheses continent by continent in peer reviewed journals.
Three of those publications are cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its recently published Sixth Climate Report. The Medieval Warm Period was then followed worldwide by an abrupt drop in temperature. During the Little Ice Age of 1450-1850, the climate cooled to the lowest temperature level in the past ten thousand years.
Unfortunately, one searches in vain for this information in the new IPCC report. The IPCC maintains its own view of the climate history of the last thousand years. In the Summary for Policymakers, a controversial temperature curve is prominently displayed right at the beginning, giving the impression that only minimal pre-industrial climate changes have occurred in the last two millennia. With the onset of industrialization around 1850, the curve then shoots up by more than a degree. This method of representation is also known as the "hockey stick": the climatically straight pre-industrial period according to the IPCC forms the shaft, and at the end of it is the hook of the hockey stick, representing the rapid modern warming. It is a case of déjà vu. Indeed, the third IPCC report in 2001 contained a similar hockey stick graph, designed to make politicians believe that the current warming was unprecedented and therefore entirely man-made.
Over the past two decades, however, paleoclimatology has made great strides and data has been diligently collected. From this emerged more realistic temperature trends with a pronounced Medieval Warm Period and a later Little Ice Age. All the more bitter now is the reversion to the old hockey stick times. How could this have happened? What were the possible motives for this renewed distortion of climate history?
The debatable new hockey stick temperature curve comes from the international paleoclimatology group PAGES2k, whose coordinating office is based at the University of Bern. Climate scientist Thomas Stocker, who has collaborated on IPCC reports since 1998, teaches and conducts research at this university. In 2015, Stocker even ran for the general chairmanship of the IPCC, but he lost to South Korean Husung Lee, who recently presented the report of Working Group 1. Stocker co-authored the Summary for Policymakers of the third IPCC report, in which the Hockey Stick played a central role.
Now, over twenty years later, the "new" hockey stick comes from Stocker's university, where he heads the Department of Climate and Environmental Physics. Just a dumb coincidence? There are many indications that the new climate curve may have been commissioned for the sixth IPCC report. Five of the nineteen authors of the contributions to the new hockey stick curve are from Bern. But a significant portion of the PAGES2k researchers could not technically support the new hockey stick version and left the discredited group.
Evidence thanks to tree rings
Meanwhile, the departed scientists published a competing temperature curve with clear pre-industrial temperature fluctuations. Based on tree rings, those specialists were able to show that summer temperatures in the pre-industrial past had already reached the current temperature level several times. This work by Ulf Büntgen of the ETH research institute WSL and his colleagues was not included in the latest IPCC report, although it was published in time for the editorial deadline. Interestingly, the controversial PAGES2k curve had already been included in the first draft of the sixth climate report, although the corresponding publication had not even formally appeared yet. How could this happen? In the second version of the summary for policy makers, the curve was then shrunk to postage stamp size, at the edge of a larger composite figure. This was the last version available for comment by the IPCC reviewers, of which I am one. So it was all the more surprising when the hockey stick image suddenly appeared in the final version at full size.
The laws of leverage apply
The IPCC is concealing from the public the fact that many experts and reviewers consider the graphic to be highly problematic. For one thing, the new hockey stick contains a whole range of highly anomalous data whose use is difficult to justify. For example, PAGES2k integrates a Bauring dataset from the French Maritime Alps, although the creators of the original case study explicitly advise against using it for temperature reconstructions. On the other hand, it omits data showing strong pre-industrial natural variability of climate. Extensive criticisms made during the report review process and formally published in publications were ignored by the IPCC authors.
In light of this behavior, a peer review process makes little sense. The fundamental problem is that both the IPCC authors and editors are appointed by a politically elected IPCC board. Thus, the selection of researchers involved in the IPCC report already establishes a line of thinking that can hardly be watered down later. The laws of leverage apply here: whoever has the upper hand gets his way.
The arbitrariness of the IPCC is also evident from another example. Even in the first draft of the report, the IPCC explicitly mentioned the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in a summary table in Chapter 1 of " The Physical Science Basis." The erroneous reference to a regionally limited phenomenon in the North Atlantic was removed in the second draft in response to expert criticism. However, in the final version, which could no longer be seen by the experts, both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had been surreptitiously dismissed and replaced by meaningless text under the umbrella term "the last millennium." Three small asterisks explain to the reader that the terms "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age" could not be used in the report because they would be too ill-defined and regionally variable.
That's how easy it is to rewrite climate history, and hardly anyone notices. Why is this important? The pre-industrial temperature trend is highly relevant to the division ("attribution") of modern climate change into human-caused factors on the one hand and natural factors on the other.
Since natural climate factors play a minor role in climate models, those models can only generate hockey stick patterns. Thus, any real pre-industrial warm or cold phase poses problems for the models because they cannot reproduce it. They are designed not to.
This raises uncomfortable questions about their suitability and usefulness for future climate development. Ultimately, they are uncalibrated simulations that really shouldn't be released for future modeling at all until they match the climate record. In other words, if a climate model provides answers to the question of what the past was like, and those answers are miles away from reality, then the prediction of the future is likely to be just as strongly off.
It is particularly curious that the climate models of the so-called CMIP6 type, which were prepared specifically for the sixth IPCC report, turned out to be largely unusable. Due to errors in cloud modeling, they produced temperature graphs that were far too warm. Therefore, the IPCC stated that it would put more emphasis on historical temperature trends in the current sixth report. However, since that historical approach - as described above - is highly controversial, the IPCC has now blown up this "saving grace" as well. In its official press releases, the IPCC largely omits these uncomfortable issues. And in most media reports, the public does not find out about them either.
This will continue to reverberate in the scientific community for a long time. For it is only a matter of time before critical climate scientists systematically address the inconsistencies in this biased IPCC report. The incident demonstrates how political tactics undermine the scientific integrity of the IPCC and undermine trust in the institution."