4.10.THOUGHT POLICE AND THE FLEDGLING OF ECO-DICTATORSHIP

4.10.Thought Police and the Fledgling of Eco-Dictatorship

«The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and buming of fossil fuels - the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming - has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science». Paul Johnson439

«Lord Kelvin’s understanding of the earth’s age was limited by his ignorance of nuclear interactions. The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the medieval warm period at the time of the Viking settlements of Iceland and Greenland from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “little ice age,” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by man-made changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Subtle changes of the sun’s output and perhaps other poorly understood factors must have been much more important in causing those large climate changes than changing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide». William Happer

Roger Revelle at the end of his life will co-author with Fred Singer (Singer at al., 1992) an article denouncing the extravagant predictions of climate alarmism; after the death of Revelle, Al Gore, then vice president will try by pressures, threats and legal procedures to make withdraw the name of Revelle from this article; Fred Singer will stand firm and win a lawsuit against the minions of Al Gore. But ecologists as Brendan Montague are ready to go as far as claiming that Singer abused Revelle who given his diminished physical ability could not pay attention for many minutes because his intellectual capacity was severely diminished. What an insult for Revelle, as reminded by Lindzen (2012) «To be sure, everyone who knew Revelle, felt that he had been alert until his death». Some as Lancaster (2006) go as far as claim that Revelle never agreed nor did work with Singer, but contradict themselves « My understanding, from conversations with Roger in 1991 and Christa in 1992, was that Roger was pressed and worn down in a single multihour session on a single day in February of 1991. This was a time when Christa and I limited our own working sessions with Roger to 15-20 minutes, because he would fatigue so quickly. Apparently the session with Singer was hours long. Shortly after publication of the Cosmos article, Roger showed it to me, saying, with clear embarrassment: S. Fred is a rather persuasive fellow» (Lancaster, 2006). Lancaster went as far as «He later added the charge that I had pressured an aging and sick colleague, suggesting that Dr. Revelle’s mental capacities were failing at the time. » as reported by Singer. A complete account of that shameful story is given by Andy May in his book, May (2020).

Lindzen (2012) goes on and mentions that «occasionally, prominent individual scientists do publicly express skepticism. The means for silencing them are fairly straightforward. Will Happer, director of research at the Department of Energy (and a professor of physics at Princeton University) was simply fired from his government position after expressing doubts about environmental issues in general». His case is described in Happer (2003) «In my own case, I lost a federal position because of citing scientific research findings that undermined a politician’s rhetoric…, but my dismissal surely serves as a warning to other government scientists and, perhaps more importantly, to non-government scientists who act as advisers to the government, that politics can trump science even in purely technical topics ». Happer (2003) explains how dissident scientists are stifled and funds made unavailable to any idea that dissents from the mainstream «At the present time, it is very difficult to obtain funding, either from U.S. governmental sources or from private foundations, for research that does not presuppose impending environmental doom. Suggestions that moderate global warming may actually be a good thing for humanity are treated with ridicule and hostility». Of course, this is hijacking tax-payer monies and funneling it in an arbitrary manner so as to try to get the conclusions the power expects. But as recalled by Happer (2003) in his paper in the section dealing with Lysenko «The Lysenko episode shows that an entire scientific discipline can be destroyed if the attractions of false science are great enough and if its proponents are ruthless enough». Happer became director on the National Security Council under the Trump administration and has fought CO2 demonization as much as he could based on his exceptional credentials in Physics440 .

439https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer) 440https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer

it is reported that Happer disputed in June 2019 basic climate science (i.e. Lysenkoism) in the testimony of Schoonover (2019), a senior analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and called it a "propaganda slogan for the scientifically illiterate" Schoonover later resigned over the incident. It is so funny to read on Wikipedia that «Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist». It would be better that climate scientists demonstrate correct understanding of basic physics, starting with the understanding of the second principle of thermodynamics and of a proper usage of the Stefan-Boltzmann law which does not apply to the gas. Congratulation and respect to Will Happer for fighting for the truth at 80 years old, what a strength!

The goal is always the same, intimidate scientists who disagree and treat them as political opponents rather than disagreeing colleagues, and by all means make them practice self-censorship, which is more convenient than to silence them by other dints when they overtly dare to speak. In the end, targeted people demonstrate well conditioned Pavlovian reactions and practice self-censorship as they know that they have no chance to be heard or published. Whenever someone dares develop divergent views, like François Gervais (2016b) in: "L’innocence du carbone", defenders of the AGW theory jump start to discredit the imprudent dissident and argue that «By completely distorting the words of climatologists, by presenting the data in a totally biased manner, or by making it appear that certain fundamental questions are being ignored, Mr. Gervais does not fuel the scientific debate, the debate of ideas, but fuels distrust and discredit. He is not in doubt or skepticism, but in deception and bashing» (Dufresne, 2019). Some journalists with no scientific training have even gone as far as claiming that François Gervais, an emeritus professor of Physics at a French University, had no knowledge in «Climate Science». Everybody knows that their climate science bears no relationship with real Physics and needs to resort to «forcing», «feedbacks» and the like. One would laugh if it were not so sad.

John Christy, who maintains one of the most reliable temperature data set at the University of Alabama in Huntswille (UAH), a set of observations that make visible in plain sight how the computerized fantasies that prognostic 3 times more warming at least than observed are disjunct from reality, reported during his testimony before U.S. Senate House Committee on Science, Space and Technology that “Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves. As a climate scientist I’ve found myself, along with fellow likeminded colleagues, tossed into a world more closely associated with character assassination and misdirection, found in Washington politics for example, rather than objective, dispassionate discourse commonly assumed for the scientific endeavor. Investigations of us by congress and the media are spurred by the idea that anyone who disagrees with the climate establishment’s view of dangerous climate change must be on the payroll of scurrilous organizations or otherwise mentally deficient”. As if attacks and disparagements were not enough, criminals shot bullets at Christy's office windows at the University of Alabama in a terror attack (Spencer, 2017; Goldstein, 2017).

The first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, Dr. Joanne Simpson441, declared she was “skeptical” of catastrophic man-made warming, but had to wait to say so... “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly” Simpson, formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies, wrote in a public letter on February 27, 2008. Simpson was described by former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. as among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts” Simpson explained. “But as a scientist I remain skeptical” she added (Inhofe, 2008), (Watts, 2008). One will notice the decency and discretion of Simpson as compared to the permanent use of Hansen’s position at NASA to push to the forefront his opinions.

As Laframboise (2016) reminds us: «Policymakers, journalists, and members of the public need to abandon the idea that peer-reviewed research is a sound foundation on which to base public policy». Therefore, the reader will easily understand that I have preferred from the very beginning of my involvement in this subject the e-book format rather than trying to slice what I had to say in various papers and to waste my time trying to submit to journals (Morano, 2008b), especially as the objective was to bring a comprehensive vision on this multidisciplinary climate topic. This book was written for free download for the benefit of the scientific community to inform and involve everyone for proper dialog and discussion. Beyond the initial peer-reviewed process performed by volunteer colleagues who provided constructive criticism, it is also very positive to enable each reader, whatever their take on the subject, to formulate observations and critiques so that the document be improved as an on-going process. It looks like a

441https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Simpson

significantly more modern way of doing things that the “bet the ranch” on a couple of anonymous reviewers when submitting to the traditional process. Peer-reviewing and publishing of scientific productions will certainly have to evolve to adapt to the changing XXI century world with more transparency, more flexibility, more benevolent involvement of the review process in improving research rather than barring non-conforming ideas.

This e-Book has been written to the best of my knowledge and scientific honesty and all corrections and improvements brought by the constructive reviewers who have contributed their time and efforts have been taken into consideration to make it the most accurate as possible, but censoring it for ideas that would not fit with the «consensus» or the editorial line would not have been acceptable to me. Second, the idea of being deprived of my intellectual property rights and to contribute to the business of some publisher who will establish a pay-wall that will remain in place for decades, does not seem to be the best way to ensure a wide dissemination to the ideas developed here. Some of the papers we wrote 30 years ago still remain inaccessible to a wider audience (Poyet and Detay, 1989), (Poyet, 1990), (Poyet et al., 1990) to name a very few, and whatever the impact factor of the journal, this situation does not seem to increase the readership nor justifiable as the publisher did not contribute at all to the work done in the first place, it is just a business. By publishing an e-book and encouraging each reader who considers that some good points were made to widely share and make the document viral, I anticipate having more of an impact than through journals which remain confidential to a limited audience.

I have no need to accumulate any «impact factor points» and this document is intended to be as widely distributed as possible and therefore free of charge: I wrote it out of simple scientific conviction, and do not expect any remuneration from it. Make it known and spread it around you: it will be my greatest reward. I am of course open to criticism, as it enriches the scientific debate, but I will defend my scientific positions with the utmost conviction against any illegitimate disparagement, as such ad-hominen attacks have often been noticed against the now dubbed «climate confusers» as if skeptical was not enough. We are just climate realists 442. No funding for the work done has been granted by anyone and certainly not by the petrol, gas, coal or nuclear industries, nor by the IPCC, climate NGOs, governmental bodies and climate alarmists as you would also expect! It won't be an easy angle of attack as it was illegitimately used against Courtillot. Finally, I am ready to be treated as incompetent by all journalists and climate ayatollahs, especially those who have never obtained a science degree, as I graduated in geology, geochemistry, remote sensing, data analysis and processing, applied computer science and as a professional computer scientist developed for decades computer programs and models and as I perfectly know the limitations (and interest) of these representations of some reality and I do not confuse them with THE reality as Dyson reminded us. Anyone can disagree with what has been written here and the sources I used, but their utmost responsibility if they respect science, is to convince us of why and where we are mistaken. In the meantime, I can tell all my detractors and future foes, and I anticipate them to be many, their onslaughts will not prevent me from sleeping. To the contrary, I feel relieved to have told the truth and tried to empower people so that they can better decide of their own fate not relinquishing their destiny to schemers.

Dwarfed in the on-going battle, I should at least avoid the worst and strange fate of deathbed conversion to global warming alarm only reserved to prominent dissidents. Lindzen (2012) recalls these awkward events: «One of the more bizarre tools of global warming revisionism is the posthumous alteration of skeptical positions. Thus, the recent deaths of two active and professionally prominent skeptics, Robert Jastrow (the founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, now headed by James Hansen), and Reid Bryson (a well known climatologist at the University of Wisconsin) were accompanied by obituaries suggesting deathbed conversions to global warming alarm. The death of another active and prominent skeptic, William Nierenberg (former director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute), led to the creation of a Nierenberg Prize that is annually awarded to an environmental activist. The most recent recipient was James Hansen who Nierenberg detested».

However, if I am not converted post-mortem, the AGW theory and its proponents will have succeeded to steal the dream of my life. I remember as a kid watching Neil and Buzz landing on the Moon on a black and white TV set, absolutely bewildered, then in 1976 watching the first images of Chryse and Utopia Planitiae as something unreal after having seen Mars so many times and so small through a telescope, later in the 80s the Voyager probes were to reveal us, amazed, the outer solar system and all these great achievements were the success of a distant spatial agency, in a far country, the United States, the land of the free, the land of discoveries, the land of the XXI century science. The way the AGW theory has led to extreme politicization of science by so few who happen to be supported by powerful intergovernmental organizations, by the mainstream media and research laboratories having a stake to keep running the game, all this to push their ideology and a liberal agenda has had a depressing effect on my vision of the world. The

442https://www.climato-realistes.fr/

respect that I had for all these research organizations, NASA included, these prestigious universities was considerably eroded and I began to understand Steve Jobs who did not want to have his adoptive father go into debt for him to attend an expensive university. My wonder for science and my will to try to understand and participate in this great adventure of mankind was dashed. My illusions have gone, only remains the desire and the strength not to give up, if only for István Markó (1956-2017) [see Watts (2017)] and all those who have fought for the correctness of their ideas. Let these survive them and let’s hope that fall into oblivion the fraudsters, manipulators and other ideologists blinded by their certainties. Mascart (1925), the astronomer who made a monumental work on climate, already regretted then “that researchers cherish the hope of finding simple and unique origins to climatic variations”. Thus, he would certainly be appalled by the convenient but illusory hypothesis whereby CO2 explains everything upon which relies entirely the very weak AGW theory. It also reminds us of the excellent work of Feyerabend (1978) in his book “ Science in a Free Society” where he defended the idea that the separation of church and state should therefore be supplemented by the separation of science and state. Feyerabend (1978) proposed that the citizens and not the government would exert a control over science (SEP, 2020), but this appears to lead to an inefficient kind of circular reasoning, because the political offer, acting as a market, already proposes choices that are backed up by the majority of the voters through the election process. Thus the political agenda that determines where the public funds go to support some research directions and stifle others is already baked into choice of the citizens. The dismal effects of a science under entire control of the governments is well addressed by Andy May (2020).

Where things become even more worrying is that, when I started this e-book, I had never imagined that in this section “Thought Police and Dictatorship of Thought” I would have to deal with another matter than the ostracism that has struck the academics and the pal-reviewing system. This is in itself a very serious subject, but is nothing comparable to what comes next. While this e-book was not far from being finished I came across a number of extremely grave stories; one of them very representative of how far the delirium has gone, is the latest to be German motto “you shut up for sake of freedom of speech” and this should have special resonance in this particular country, given its History and the immense cost paid by its citizens, neighboring Europeans, the Jews, tsiganes, etc. to give again to the word freedom some meaning. In Germany, hiding behind a rogue law, as was the case in 1933, the police of thought is now targeting all citizens, a recent appalling example is provided by the problems that Naomi Seibt met when she was summoned, for the sake of freedom of speech, to remove videos from her “Youtube” account.

What is the offense?

A functionary wrote to her that she is not “climate-friendly” (sic !), understand she is not struck, like her indoctrinated generation, by blind hysteria leading to ask for immediate political action, green-inspired, compatible with the watermelon agenda, requiring to destroy our industries, our energy production system and our standard of living for 0.01% of additional CO2 over two centuries in the atmosphere, most of it not being even anthropogenic anyway. The Landesanstalt für Medien NRW confirmed to Reuters (Reuters, 2020) via email that: “Ms. Seibt was requested to delete two YouTube videos because they violate German law. The basis of our decision is the prohibition of third party influence on the editorial content in audiovisual media according to articles 7 para. 7 sentence 1 in connection with 58 para. 3 sentence 1 of the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag-RStV). Ms. Seibt was heard on the facts of the case. Her statement was not able to invalidate the accusation of illegal thematic placement (in German „Themenplatzierung”). Unlike in America, in Germany it is prohibited by law to provide media content, if a third party has exerted influence on it and if the cooperation is based on a compensation. Unlike in America, in Germany Freedom of speech is not touched by this ban”.

Figure 121. Landesanstalt für Medien NRW443, i.e. State Agency for Media NRW, slogan: Der Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet, i.e. Committed to freedom of expression (sic!), Orwell would not believe his nightmares have become everyday truth as per his dystopian social science fiction novel, see Orwell, G., (i.e. Blair, E. A.) 1949.

If we were to believe the State Agency for Media NRW and its motto “Committed to freedom of expression” she has to remove the videos for the sake of Freedom of speech, what a shame, Germany revisiting its own History 87 years later

443https://www.medienanstalt-nrw.de/ send your emails there to protest.

after the promulgation of the infamous “Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat” see footnote461, p. 381. Reuters (2020) state “Regional German telecommunication regulators have not fined Seibt, but have requested she delete two YouTube videos for violating German law. Seibt has appealed this decision and the matter will now be decided by a court”. What would be funny if it were not tragic, is that Reuter's fact checkers just confirm the very essence of the non-sense, Seibt has to remove her video for the sake of freedom of speech and had to cease her relationship - for her good - with the Heartland Institute presented as a Alt-right organization when they are libertarians and considered by the climate-communists as scientifically illiterate whereas Fred Singer 444 (1924-2020) used to be the director of Heartland's Science and Environmental Policy Project, the rest being just menial details about the fine or not. Take care the climate-totalitarianism is going to crush us all very soon now, they are all getting mad!

As put by Monckton of Brenchley (2020a-b) “I have seldom come across so striking an example of Orwellian Newspeak. To Orwell’s 'War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength' we can now add 'Silence is Free Speech' “. and adds “The new law in Nordrhein-Westfalen, being defiantly incompatible with the Convention 445, is itself unlawful. The Convention expressly defends freedom of thought (Art. 9), of expression (Art. 10), and of assembly and association (Art. 11), as well as freedom from discrimination on ground of any opinion (Art. 14). The Authority’s prosecution offends directly, materially and flagrantly against all these Articles, as well as against Article 6 (Right to a fair trial).As further mentioned “To add insult to injury, Naomi has just received a package from the Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung 446 (the Federal Agency for Political Re-Education). Inside the package were two magazine-style propaganda tracts rebarbatively regurgitating the Party Line on global warming”. The package is just a complete set of hogwash, from the classical “-18° without an atmosphere” (how could such an absurd hypothesis make sense), to the cow farts endangering our presence on Earth. If I would subscribe to reducing meat consumption because of cruelty in the way the animals are processed (like goods), my qualms have nothing to It with CH4 emissions. But the litany of indoctrination goes full steam, forgetting that leaking old soviet pipelines are just in competition with termite ants for the CH4 budget (Nauer et al., 2018). One will also notice that Nauer et al. (2018) are also surprisingly vague for a PNAS paper, as they report “20 to 80% of termite-produced CH4 being mitigated before emission to the atmosphere”, euh..., 20% and 80% that's not exactly the same, no?

In fact, what we see now in Germany, i.e. an outright trampling of the freedom of speech, could even go further and a hint to future rogue and dystopian policies could be sensed by the drift trying to criminalize discourse that does not suit politicians and do not comply with political correctness and what Spakovsky (2016) reported is simply spooky “In news that should shock and anger Americans, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called “climate change deniers,” but she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.”. Imagine that Lynch was responding to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. (71st Attorney General of Rhode Island from 1999 to 2003), who urged Lynch to prosecute those who “pretend that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled”. Would Sheldon Whitehouse be a grassroots activist from an agitated organization missing any understanding of the most fundamental U.S. constitutional rights of the American citizens, one would not even notice such deviations to the essential values of this great nation. But with a BA from Yale University and a JD from the University of Virginia, that sort of excuse certainly cannot be raised. Let's remind that “ In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. ... In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship”. There might be some exceptions447, and the most troubling though also interesting are related to false statements of fact. In United States constitutional law, false statements of fact are an exception from protection of free speech under the First Amendment following Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974). First, false statements of fact can lead to civil liability if they are "said with a sufficiently culpable mental state". The second category is a subset of the first: knowingly false statements (deliberate lies). This includes things like libel and slander. These sorts of statements are specifically punishable because they contain malice (intent to do harm). A third category are "negligently" false statements, which may "lead to [some] liability" and there exists two others sorts. Even though these exceptions are legitimately based on the observation that “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact” one should notice that it opens the door to many interpretations. For example, the intent expressed by Sheldon Whitehouse to prosecute those who “pretend that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled” means that he is asserting with the strongest certitude that, at least in that domain “science is settled”. If it were not

444https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer 445European Human Rights Convention

446Federal Center for Political Education https://www.bpb.de/ 447https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact

the case, simply because science is never and has never been settled in any area, what should be thought of that statement? Simple mistake as the Senator is not a scientist or can one consider that there is an intent to harm dissident scientists labeled “climate change deniers” by U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch based on false statements. Notice that the term “deniers” is not only distasteful, sneaky and spiteful as it intentionally tries to associate those scientists who legitimately question the rationale of a fragile and so far unproven theory with obnoxious people who denied the Holocaust but also plain wrong as everybody agrees that climate warmed since the end of LIA and that climate has changed and ever changed but not primarily as a result of man-made emission. Is there an intent to harm in doing so? Would referring in that way to honest scientists pursuing in their most inner conscience the quest for truth and wondering whether an additional 0.01% of CO2 could have the effects claimed, to be an example of false statements of fact?

Along those lines, Pandora's box is opened. Science and societies have only progressed when ideas could be freely expressed and confronted to realities. The reality is that there are not 60 millions of climate refugees, that the sea level rise is minimum and started 170 years ago long before man-made emissions, that Arctic bear populations are thriving and not in danger, etc. and that none of the catastrophic forecasts made, based on the AGW theory, have never ever materialized so far and that the only damages observed will be the result of inadequate policies enforcing rogue decisions that will hamper citizen's life to no effect on the emissions and certainly no result on the climate which cannot care less.

Figure 122. Tropical Cyclone Tracks, since 1949 in the pacific and since 1851 in the Atlantic. Mark Hertsgaard must tell the deniers which one they are responsible of? Which cyclone must the scapegoats be accountable of? Does Mark Hertsgaard believe that even if mankind were to disappear entirely from this planet, tropical cyclones would suddenly cease to exist? How come? Appalling.

Of course, the most vocal, aggressive and intolerant are those who understand the least as reported by Jackson (2017) who states for example: 'Mark Hertsgaard typed a screed in The Nation which ran under the headline:"Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us: The victims of Hurricane Harvey have a murderer — and it's not the storm." then "How long," Hertsgaard asked, "before we hold the ultimate authors of such climate catastrophes accountable for the miseries they inflict?" As Mark Hertsgaard is clearly very clever, knowledgeable and prescient and knows that climatedeniers are responsible with energy providers of the hurricane catastrophes, I'll let him show us on the next picture displaying cyclones tracks since 1949 in the pacific and since 1851 in the Atlantic, which one exactly are the deniers

responsible of. I'm sure he'll be doubtless pointing Harvey with great certitude in the spaghetti plot. Does Mark Hertsgaard believe that even if mankind were to disappear from this planet, tropical cyclones would suddenly stop?

Reading the brief Jackson's (2017) paper, one will discover, amazed, that Mark Hertsgaard is not alone on the ranting and future firing squad.

In an excellent paper entitled “The Climate-Change Derangement Syndrome: Undermining Science and Demonizing Skeptics” Jayaraj (2018) details all the dire consequences of such mental disorders and observe that these people “will cause permanent and lasting damage to the field of climate science and stifle progress in our efforts to understand our climate system”. They will in fact ruin science (see p. 296), to which most of them understand nothing of, as they are simply scientifically illiterate, and this will have lasting outcomes undermining for long public confidence in science and scientists. The harm done by these few will be considerable. For those scientists who entrenched in their ideology misled the public and gullible politicians, they will face their conscience to know whether their stance was a forgivable mistake of whether they knew that their shenanigans were intentional, knowingly false statements. From the murky content of the climategate emails revealed, I sense that some might not be at ease with their legacy.

All these Fouquier-Tinville448 of the new eco-revolution seem to have completely forgotten the Article 27 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which states “(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits ”. The right to participate and to share in scientific advancement is certainly not the obligation to submit to clueless injunctions uttered by restless potty activists going to war against common sense and logical thoughts based on observations.

Unfortunately Einstein was more than correct stating “The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything” - Albert Einstein

and “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men” - Abraham Lincoln

Let’s quote István Markó449 to finish:

«To begin, I believe in science: I mean that I believe in the possibility of objectively knowing reality through science. I believe that there are truth and falsehood, that science allows us to distinguish between the two, and that truth must be known; that scientific knowledge must be placed in the hands of the population. I also believe in freedom. I believe that every man is entitled to lead his life and to manage his goods as he sees fit, that he is the only possessor of himself, and that statist socio-economic control is as morally reprehensible as it is harmful in its social, economic, and environmental consequences. I note two things distressing me: firstly, the population is increasingly misinformed scientifically; and secondly, the media and governments take advantage of this to propagate a theory that is doubtful, namely that of anthropogenic warming, and to promote coercive measures on its behalf. If there is one final message I would like to convey, it is that we have to be concerned about the real ecological problems — noxious pollutants, unmanaged waste, untreated human sewage. We have to cease letting ourselves be manipulated by causes that purport to be good for our planet, but that are simply pretexts for enslaving and tying up humanity. The agreement of the Paris COP 21 was not signed to save the planet and to prevent us from roasting due to an imaginary temperature increase of +2°C. Behind all that masquerade is hidden, as always, the ugly face of power, greed, and profit. All the industrialists who are in favor of that commitment, which will ruin Europe and immensely impoverish its citizens, do so for the good reason they find in it a huge and easy source of income. As for NGOs, when they are not simply motivated by greed, their motive consists in a resolutely Malthusian ideology. Their object is to return the world to a very small population, on the order of a few hundred million people. To do so, they impoverish the world, remove the power of fossil fuel energies, and thus ensure that the number of deaths increases.».

Thanks István.

448https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Quentin_Fouquier-Tinville 449https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Istvan-Marko