By Peter Haisenko
Who would want to rely on the “expertise” of adolescent adolescents, especially when it comes to existential issues? So why is Greta invited to climate conferences and then allowed to give speeches there? Isn’t that a declaration of bankruptcy by science?
If you are sick, would you rather seek advice from an experienced physician or prefer one fresh out of university? Or even a student who hasn’t even completed his first semester? Especially in medicine, rules have been established that complicated operations should only be performed by surgeons who have already gained sufficient experience with a minimum of these operations. Would you ask your teenage children for advice on how to invest your money or what to spend it on? Many examples could be given and each time the answer would be clear: For advice, one prefers advisors who deserve trust due to their education and experience. When it comes to climate, it’s obviously different.
Let’s remember our own youth and the following “apprenticeship years”. Who of us could retrospectively claim that by the age of thirty he was mature enough to give qualified instructions that will determine the future of humanity? In the 1960s and 1970s, we learned in high school that the oil will be used up in 30 years; that then none can be funded. Yes, nuclear power was the solution to this elementary problem and logically, we were ardent supporters of nuclear power. This could take away the fear of the future that had been wrongly instilled in us by the teachers.
Qualified action requires knowledge and experience
If one had not listened to scientists from Russia, who already in the 1950s propagated a completely different theory of the origin of crude oil, one would not have drilled for oil in new places and found none more. Because if the oil had actually run out, no one would have come up with the idea of even questioning nuclear power. Without them, it just wouldn’t have worked. But the reality has been quite different. More and more new deposits have been discovered and the oil is still flowing and more and more. So the doctrine in schools had to be corrected and suddenly the teachers were “green” and against nuclear power. From about the 1980s, the students were taught that the hell kilns had to be switched off. Immediate and irretrievable. And now? Oh wonder, some climate hysterics are suddenly calling for a renaissance of nuclear power – because of the climate. In Germany, however, still very restrained.
These examples make one thing clear: science must constantly question itself. This is exactly what was once taught at the universities. The more experience one has gained in one’s life, the clearer the realization becomes of how many dogmas were vehemently advocated by the “vast majority of scientists”, who then proved to be wrong. Too often it has turned out that the reviled “lateral thinkers” were right, at least more correctly than the representatives of the “majority opinion”. Oh yes, the earth is not a disk….
But could we have recognized this as young people? Would we have been able to come up with our own qualified point of view that deviates from what the postulated “majority of all serious scientists” presents as the incontrovertible truth? Yes, would we have been able to convincingly represent and justify the theses that have been taught to us? Could we have withstanded a discussion, against a well-founded dissenting thesis? No, we could only have used the same “arguments” that we “learned” like a record player, without bringing our own and perhaps new arguments into the field.
Postpubescent girls tell scientists what to do
As a flight captain with already 10,000 hours of experience, I have often experienced that a young co-pilot was overwhelmed by the situation and how I treated it and led it to success. Some of them subsequently confessed that they did not agree with my approach, had assessed the situation differently than I did, but have now learned how to deal with this situation, just if you have enough experience and the associated skills. They themselves then had more experience and knowledge. Mind you, these young pilots are personnel who are solidly trained in a way that enables them to fly an aircraft themselves, but there was a lack of experience. This is precisely why a pilot must have accumulated a minimum of flight hours before he can qualify as a captain with sole responsibility. To be clear, if the inexperienced co-pilot had been in command, these flights would not have landed on time at the place for which they were intended.
There are simply good reasons why older, i.e. experienced, workers and civil servants are paid better. Experience and accumulated knowledge can only be replaced by experience and accumulated knowledge. That’s another reason why there are journeymen and masters. And now let’s look at what the “vast majority” of scientists who present themselves as experts in climate and corona are doing. They get the post-pubescent Greta and have their forecasts “confirmed” by a 16-year-old, now 18-year-old. Other young people who have just graduated from high school are quickly added, if at all. They are presented to us as role models, given wide space in the media and no one asks them to present their concerns in their own words. They happily parrot what they have picked up from their pre-worshippers without even being able to question it. Is there a single one of them – yes, it’s mainly girls – who has even a clue about meteorology or thermodynamics? Or even the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere? You don’t have to, if you just repeat like a turntable what you just want to have recognized as “in”.
Lack of expertise is compensated by external “consultants”
What level must “scientists” have to have, who do not even choose semi-educated young people as witnesses and amplifiers in order to carry their crude theses into the world? Of course, the same applies to politicians, but which of them already has the right expertise. This can also be seen in the fact that tens of millions are spent on “consultants”, although one should assume that ministers themselves have so much expertise that they should be able to lead their department with their state secretaries alone. Incidentally, this also applies to managers and board members, who have rightly been identified as “rivets in pinstripes”.
To stay with politicians for a moment, let’s take a look at Ms. Baerbock. They, too, have not acquired any specialist knowledge that can qualify them to even talk competently about climate or energy. Is it any wonder when she speaks of “goblins” for batteries and wants to store energy in the network? An aborted degree in political science simply does not help at all. But that’s enough to see how and who to put forward to spread your ideology. With Barbock, I can still see that she thinks the FfF youngsters are great, because they could actually have even more knowledge of the topic than they do. But seasoned scientists?
Anyone who courtes Greta has already given up his own competence
Whoever in whatever area demands that the voices of young people or children be more involved in decision-making, let them vote at 16, has either never grown up or wants help from those they can easily manipulate. Precisely because he knows that they are not able to have their own well-founded point of view from their own knowledge and experience.
So whoever invites a Greta and her disciples to speak at large conferences, applauds them, infantilizes himself, denies his own education or has only received it confirmed on paper. Or he engages in brutal propaganda by exaggerating and thus abusing these infantile parrots. Any serious scientist should be ashamed to death if he uses uneducated young people to support his theses. Whoever does this, who courtes Greta, has already given up his own competence. He has infantilized himself and his profession and deprived himself of any scientific credibility. Such “scientists” can at best still be used as kindergarten teachers. At least they move in an environment that corresponds to their level and follows their crude theses unconditionally. Unchallenged, because they cannot withstand qualified opposition.
