by Jorge Figueiredo
Some readers have asked why
has given so much emphasis to exposing that legendary global warming, which
would be a problem seemingly esoteric and far from the objectives of this
website. Some have even said that such an accusation would deviate from the
"Left" political position because progressive publications and
personalities (such as
and Fidel Castro) have endorsed the heating concerns. For this reason, some
clarifying is in need to establish some facts and make them clear.
Let us begin with some facts we think are established:
1) Carbon dioxide is neither toxic, nor pollutant. Its emission is an
inevitable and necessary result of any combustion with composites of carbon
(oil refined, coals, natural gas, etc). It is also an essential gas to life on
earth because when they breathe, all living beings inhale a mixture of oxygen
and CO2, and then exhale the latter.
2) There is no evidence that CO2 emissions of anthropogenic origin (i.e.,
man-made, which excludes all other natural emissions of this gas) have any
significant effect on global warming. Many scientists consider that the human
contribution to global CO2 emissions occurring on the planet is absolutely
3) Empirical data has shown that the renowned global warming foreseen by
computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
has not been happening since 1998. So, opportunistically, they have changed the
expression "global warming" which no longer corresponded to
the factual truth to the more ambiguous term of "climate
change" (which always existed throughout the history of the Earth).
4) Computer models are themselves unreliable. The modelling theory tells us
that, to be useful, models should be relatively simple, with a limited number
of variables. Trying to apply modelling to the climate is a pathless effort
because then the number of variables (and the assumptions that have to be made)
is huge. In climatology, little use can be obtained from computer modelling, no
matter how powerful the computers may be (although the same does not apply to
the weather forecast).
5) It becomes even worse if a bad method such as computer modelling is based on
an obsolete theory. This is precisely what is happening with the climatologic
models used by IPCC, designed in the early twentieth century (thus, before the
existence of Meteorological Satellites). The modern climatologic theory was
established by the great French scientist Marcel Leroux (1938-2008), from the
Université Jean Moulin in Lyon. Professor Marcel Leroux's opinion about
this supposed warming is summarized in his article "A scientific sham
6) The IPCC is not an organization of scientists but of bureaucrats appointed
by governments and usually well-paid. It is a lie that the IPCC has three
thousand scientists specialized in climate, as has been so often proclaimed.
And it is also a lie to say that there is a "scientific consensus" in
regard to the heating dogma.
7) It would not be bad for mankind if there was some degree of global warming
on Earth. Many regions of the world would start having fruitful farming.
Greenland, for example the "Green Earth" as the Vikings called
it had agriculture in the Medieval Warm Period. One might even say that
the cradle of Western civilization on Earth was in an extremely hot land:
Mesopotamia (now Iraq) between the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Egyptian and
Aztec civilizations flourished in warm climates.
But why should we worry ourselves with such issues, which are mostly of a
strictly scientific agenda? Because based on the theoretical and practical
mistakes of the IPCC, a huge global hysteria was spread which inoculated
politicians around the world and has led to all kinds of opportunism,
manifestations of ignorance and treacheries. Swindlers such as Mr Al Gore (Vice
President of the United States during the Clinton administration) contributed
for this, and his book and movie
"An Inconvenient Truth"
actively promoted climate terrorism.
Instilling fear in order to sell the solution has always been the tactic of
guileful fellows. This case is no exception, because Gore and others invented
the new business of selling the rights to carbon emissions and Wall
Street bankers obviously rejoiced. Some people became specialists in these
crazy doomsday predictions. Such is the case, for example, of Mr James Hansen,
the father of all this, who even talks about rising sea levels in terms of
dozens of metres.
Moreover, the absurd intensity of publicity given to the false problem of
global warming and of the devilish CO2 has triggered a chain of problems, all
of them somewhat interrelated. The first is to divert attention from the really
important issues. And above all the most important of our era, one which will
affect our evolution and have harsh consequences in our future way of life: the
reaching of peak oil. This fact is systematically silenced by the so-called
"reference" media and ignored by politicians whose time horizon does
not go beyond four years (for this matter one can take into consideration the
current Portuguese government which is conspiring with bankers in order to
build a new airport in the country at the exact moment when a
stagnation/decline in air transport is made public).
The second problem is the huge embezzlement of financial and human resources
caused around the world by global warming rubbish. Imagine the amount of
actions that could have taken place with the money spent on conferences such as
the ones in Bali and now in Copenhagen! This is true also for Portugal, where
Mr Socrates's governments have poured lots of money into organizations such as
SIAM I, SIAM II NCCP, CAC, FPC, consulting firms and many others created ad hoc
for the use of this budgetary manna. An industry of global warming has been set
Thirdly, there is a deformation of the energy policies, from the moment they
were attached to the climate myth. Consider, for example, the fact that the EU
imposes restrictions on CO2 emissions in cars manufactured in Europe today.
That is, instead of setting minimum levels of income for the engines or
imposing restrictions on really pollutant emissions (for example, SO2, nitrogen
oxides, particulate matter, etc.), the restriction is imposed on a non-polluting
gas. That is, once again, an example of systematic confusion between the
environment and climate, in which the first is damaged without any benefit to
Fourth, all this immense global hysteria that will culminate on 7
December, at the Conference of Copenhagen is a defeat for science. The
public scepticism that this can cause is an unprecedented crime in the history
of scientific thought. We are not taking into consideration only the recent
scandal with the British and American researchers who lied about statistics and
censored their colleagues in peer reviews, the Climategate. It is much more
than that: it is a possible demoralization of science in general, as such,
paving the way for the irrationalism. A ridiculous example of this is that in
Portugal a study was carried out to fight "climate change" at
municipal level (!).
In fifth place is the deformation of the energy policies of many countries.
This is visible in Portugal, where governments have encouraged and subsidized
irrational solutions in economic and energetic terms, based on the fallacy of
global warming and the ill-fated CO2 emissions. Just remember, for example, the
unfortunate policy of subsidies on liquid biofuels and, more recently, electric
vehicles (when Portugal is a net importer of kilowatt-hour); not supporting
possible good solutions in transports (such as natural gas vehicles, which can
use biomethane, compressed natural gas or liquefied natural gas); the ruinous
promotion of the so-called renewable energies at the expense of tariff
equalization subsidies, etc., etc.. The (deliberate?) ignorance of Peak Oil and
the fallacy of the Kyoto Protocol lead to such aberrations. We live in a time
when energy planning should be used to promote an "escape" from oil,
as quickly as possible. Farsighted governments such as in Sweden have
discovered what the Portuguese have not. But the mistakes of today will be paid
tomorrow and the price can be expensive.
Finally, there is the curious claim that the position of
in not a "left" political position. However, scientific issues are
not "left" or "right" because what must prevail is the
search for the truth. Science is also achieved by trial and error. A scientific
theory that was valid at one time (as the climatology theories developed in the
early twentieth century) can and should be subject to criticism and overcome by
a better one (as Marcel Leroux did). There is no "left" or
"right" climate, for the same reason that neither physics nor
mathematics deserve these epithets. But the insistence on applying an already
expired theory when there is a new and better one and with more explanatory
power is certainly a reactionary stance. It is only natural that those whose
scientific beliefs conform to their personal interests (jobs, business of
carbon finance, financing, etc) insist in applying the old theory. But it is
less understandable that progressive personalities and publications, perhaps
due to ignorance, still rely on this theory. It is possible that the recent
Climategate scandal opens their eyes.
The Portuguese original version is at
This article is at