Link: https://www.fpcs.es/en/climate-change-give-me-a-break/
Please see link above for source text.
Climate change? Give me a break
Fernando del Pino Calvo Sotelo
November 16, 2017
The mother of all fallacies in the current environmental movement, and by far the most threatening of them, is so-called climate change, probably the greatest ideological-political hoax of all time or, if you prefer, “the worst scientific scandal in history”, in the words of Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an expert in Environmental Meteorology at the University of Yokohama.
There are four pseudoscientific premises to explain climate change: the Earth’s temperature levels are at present at historical highs, temperature is caused exclusively by CO2 emissions resulting from human activity, the results of temperature increase shall be catastrophic, and there is a vast “consensus” in the scientific community in defense of the above. Each one of these four premises is false.
Ice ages have alternated over the last million years with interglacial periods -such as that in which we fortunately find ourselves now- during which temperatures on the planet Earth are much warmer. Since the last ice age some 12,000 years ago, the Earth has been as warm as it is today for approximately 4,000 years, including the Holocene Thermal Maximum (during the time of the Ancient Egyptian empire), and more recently, during the Medieval Warm Period (between the 10th and late 14th centuries). In the 20th century, temperatures rose until 1940, decreased between 1940 and 1975 (the emerging environmental scaremongering of the time forecasted the arrival of a new Ice Age obviously caused by… human activity), increased once again between 1975 and 1998, and have
undergone no statistically significant change since then (the so-called warming “hiatus”). Satellite data show a total warming of 0.4°C in the lower troposphere since 1979, a cold year, but, surprisingly, a slight cooling in the stratosphere. Thus, if climate has been in constant change since the dawn of time, how can recent industrial activity be responsible for climate changes?
If over millions of years, through to the middle of the 20th century, climate changed because of natural causes, how then, inexplicably, can this be all of a sudden the result of human activity?
CO2, or carbon dioxide, has been outrageously stigmatized by environmental propaganda as a “pollutant”, but it is indeed one of the basic pillars of life on Earth, providing nourishment par excellence to the trees, plants and cereals that we eat (in fact, thanks to CO2 the Earth has become significantly greener, as confirmed by NASA’s satellites). CO2 accounts for no more than 0.04% of the atmosphere and humans are estimated to contribute only to 3% of that amount (that is, 1 molecule in every 85,000). For every breath we take, naturally and harmlessly, we exhale CO2 at a concentration 100 times that present at atmospheric levels – are we human beings polluters merely because we breathe? Environmentalists would not hesitate to answer in the affirmative. Its greenhouse effect is scarce; in fact, the most important greenhouse gas, never mentioned in environmental propaganda because it is so difficult to attack, is innocuous water vapor, which holds a concentration level 50 times higher than that of CO2 (note: there is no empirical evidence to prove the so called positive feedback). Paleo-climatic evidence indicates that, historically, CO2 levels tend to increase some 800 years after temperatures rise, which – in case correlation would imply causality – means that CO2 levels increase because temperature levels have previously increased, and not vice-versa. Therefore, defending that human-originated CO2 is the main factor in explaining variations in temperature levels denies scientific evidence about CO2 and omits factors of much higher significance and correlation such as solar activity – the galactic heat source –, oceanic oscillations or the role of clouds, and indeed “is not settled science, it’s actually not even science,” states Alan Carlin, physics expert and 35-year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In fact, as explained by Dr. Tennekes, former
Director of Research at the Royal Meteorological Institute in the Netherlands, “we understand only 10% of the causes for climate variations”, a complex, non-linear chaotic system.
Were it not for the fear resulting from an apocalyptic hazard, which is nothing but a death threat, it would be inconceivable for the population to accept some outcomes of anti-climate change policies that are never mentioned, i.e., an increase in the power of politicians, a substantial impoverishment of many and a significant loss of freedom for everyone. However, the purportedly catastrophic results of global warming are nothing but far-fetched, sci-fi inventions of no scientific value that, once again, challenge data and logic. By way of example, every year cold temperatures kill 17 times more people than warm weather does (The Lancet, 2015), and biodiversity is obviously much richer in more temperate climates, so why should we fear a slight, natural and gradual increase in temperature in what seems a millenary interglacial peak? In reaction to this commonsensical approach, the environmental fear-mongering campaigners have pulled yet another rabbit from the hat. We must bear in mind that the initial watchword, “global warming” soon morphed into “climate change” (due to the unexpected warming “hiatus”), a much more vague and comprehensive term (hot or cold, rain or drought, it is always man’s fault). Today’s catchphrase is the purported increase in extreme weather disasters (hurricanes, floods and droughts, among others). This is so false that even the biased and politically controlled UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – IPCC –recognizes that “there is no significant trend in the frequency of global tropical cyclones on a global basis (…) nor is there sufficient evidence regarding the magnitude or frequency of global flooding (…) or droughts” (IPCC Assessment Report 5). In spite of this fact, environmental propaganda makes use of the extensive media coverage always assured to extreme phenomena (even if they are as cyclical as El Niño or the hurricane season) so as to continue to link them with climate change.
What about consensus? There has never been such a thing, but rather an
unprecedented intimidation campaign addressed at silencing the thousands of scientists shocked by the kidnapping of science perpetrated by environmentalism and political power. I would like to provide an example. In 2014, Swedish meteorologist Professor Bengtsson agreed to join a British foundation that was skeptical about the human-caused global warming theory. He had to resign, as he explained in his resignation letter, because he was subjected to “such enormous pressure, virtually so unbearable for me, that if it goes on I will be incapable of continuing my work and I will even have to worry about my health and safety.” That was the shameful bullying to which a 79-year old professor was subjected. However, empirical evidence is making headway in the face of political oppression: just over the last three years, over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers appearing in scientific publications have defended that variations in climate are essentially natural and not mainly the result of human activity, as agreed by Nobel Physics Prize winner Robert Laughlin (“…Please stay calm, we have no power to control climate, whose variations are an issue pertaining to geologic time scales which the Earth routinely executes without either asking anyone’s permission or giving explanations”) and his colleague, also a Physics Nobel Prize winner, Ivar Giaever (“…I am skeptical: global warming has become a new religion”).
Richard Lindzen, another scientist and eminent atmospheric physicist who has authored several books and taught for over 20 years at prestigious MIT, is categorical: “Global warming is more about politics and power than it is about science.” Indeed, the real threat is not a future cataclysm but a harmful totalitarian ideology lurking behind pseudoscientific superstition that, as we speak, is indoctrinating children via text books and their parents via the constant barrage of media propaganda. Totalitarianism at its best before our very eyes.