The fight with the bureaucratic changes

The financial crisis became an obstacle for the ambitious plans of the EU to fight climate change. On one hand many people would not like to talk about climate right now, on the other the crisis itself is forcing the governments to be very careful, particularly about decisions which directly affect the economic life in their country. Italy and Poland already threatened to veto the package to fight climate change, claiming that their economies could not handle the problems which would be caused by reducing the emissions. Regardless, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the Chairman of the European Commission Jose Barroso are more decisive than ever to fight the global warming.

In practice, the specific "bureaucratic" arguments about the emissions and the degree to limiting them are about to crystal clear positions. According to some, everything in the World is warming up and in general things are going "to hell". Their position naturally is, decisive measures now, at this moment. According to others, the fight against warming is too expensive (in other words it would become an obstacle against the development of the present generation), and in addition is not leading to any results (in other words we are right to think about the future generations, but we would not be able to help much).

Both positions are based entirely on the fundamental ideas of the "religion" of global warming. More and more frequently the movement in question (proclaiming the global warming) is being referred to as religious, since it is based not on facts but on the faith of its followers. The faith in question leads also to the widely proclaimed "consensus" about the existence and the reasons for the global warming. The same "consensus" to which have come "the thousands of scientists" from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The fact itself that a group of scientists agree about one general opinion does not mean a thing. In the past there was a consensus that the Theory of Relativity of Albert Einstein is not true. When Einstein was asked to comment on this "consensus", his response was the following: "If they are actually right, let them send one scientist, who could prove it". The truth is that up until now no one has proven anything about the global warming. 

Let us see what the foundations of this theory are. The foundations on which the bureaucrats are standing, after which they have taken different positions (but based on the same propositions – the fundamentals in question) and began to argue. It is appropriate to say that the foundations are extracted from the so called "consensus" of the scientists from IPCC (the existence of such "consensus" itself even among the IPCC is a completely different topic). Everything is based around the following claims:

• Global warming is a fact
• Global warming is caused by the humans and their activities
• The key element are the greenhouse emissions (CO2) – they are causing the warming

Simply stated, human activities are responsible for the greenhouse emissions, which than is the cause for global warming. Every element is fundamental and it is sufficient that if only one is false to bring down the entire "religion" or in other words, if the warming is a fact, but is not caused by the CO2 emissions, the religion falls. There many other scenarios where the "religion" would be shaken to its foundations but let us now look at the relation CO2 ßà temperature. At present we have the following data and claims:

• Even the scientists from IPCC are not brave enough to claim that the emissions of CO2 influence the temperature levels – their bravest claim at present is "very likely"[1].
• More and more scientists are taking the firm position that the correlation is reversed – the higher temperatures lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere.[2] [3] [4] This practically means that CO2 is not affecting the temperatures in any way.[5]

The followers of the global warming tenaciously claim that the debate on this topic is over. May be they are right, bearing in mind that they (including Al Gore) refuse to enter open debates and avoid awkward questions. However, the bureaucratic machine is activated already, but the attitude of the people, the mass-media and the scientists towards this topic is beginning to change significantly during the last year. More and more media (including the New York Times[6]) are after the "faith" of Al Gore and opened their pages or their shows for the alternative opinion. The debate is not finished, but it just beginning. Keeping in mind the fear of Al Gore's followers to face the facts and the scientists with alternative thinking, as well as the fact the temperatures themselves are sick and tired of rising and there are serious indications that we should expect a cooling off period, than the outcome of the debate may be very near.   

It would be interesting to see with such development how would the bureaucrats react? Even now they are ready to spend billions of dollars without any certainty about what they are going to achieve. There is a danger all measures, which would be accepted now (with the fear of global warming) to remain into effect even after the complete failure of the "religion" (the bureaucratic and administrative measures have the property of complete detachment from reality and often follow an illogical path).  

Who was right and who was wrong would be known after many years (the difference from IPCC is that we could not see into the future). In spite of that we firmly defend the following 10 principal positions and claims:

• The climate is changing at present, the climate had changed in the past, and the climate would be changing in the future.
• There were times when it was significantly warmer than now.
• There were times when it was significantly cooler that now.
• The atmospheric conditions, into which our generation lives, are not extreme.
• When there is a warm up it is not provoked by the emissions of greenhouse gasses, but by … the Sun.
• The people have always taken into consideration the climate changes; the climate does not take into consideration the people and their activities.
• The climate is affecting our lives; our actions have almost no effect on the climate.
• The whims of the climate (warming, cooling, floods and hurricanes, at cet.) never took fewer victims than now.  
• We have never been richer than now.
• We have never lived longer than now.

[1] "Climate Change 2007" – the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4); http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

[2] Lowell Stott, professor of earth sciences, University of Southern California – "Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO₂ Rise and Tropical Warming"; http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

[3] ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, ANDWILLIE SOON – „Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide"; http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

[4] Climate myths: Ice cores show CO₂ increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming; http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

[5] Dr David Evans, "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming"; http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

[6] Global Warming: New York Times versus Gore; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFv6ckKE5So&feature=related