About the so-called "global warming"

por Jorge Figueiredo

The disinformation campaign about the so-called "global warming" of human (anthropogenic) origin goes on and on. It is intended to confuse people by blurring the distinction between truth and lies. This promotion of irrationalism is an imposture and a stumbling block to science. In order to maintain a minimum of sanity, it is appropriate to recap the matter and establish facts. The following questions and answers try to do this.

Is human being responsible for the climate on planet earth?

The answer is no. We cannot control the climate of our planet, which is determined by factors totally beyond our reach such as intensity of solar activity, clouds, planet's rotation angle, volcanoes and many others.

Is climate the same as environment?

The answer is equally negative. Environment refers to the thin layer of air we live on the surface of the earth and the sea, while the climate covers the entire planet to the stratosphere. Confusion between environment and climate is very common, especially from ignorant journalists and politicians. Human beings can (and must) preserve the environment, but they can do nothing about the climate.

Is carbon dioxide (CO2) a polluting gas?

It is absurd to say that CO2 is a pollutant because it is a gas not only harmless to human health but also indispensable to life on planet Earth (indispensable to photosynthesis). However, the IPCC has resolved to erect CO2 as the great universal villain responsible for global warming – but such a cause and effect relationship is not even demonstrated. CO2 is not the climate "control knob". Moreover, it is equally absurd to reduce a science as complex as climatology – in which a multitude of variables intervene – to just one single variable, CO2. It is recalled that the total proportion of CO2 in the air we breathe is only 0.03% to 0.04% and that part of it of anthropogenic origin is absolutely negligible.

Are global warming and climate change synonymous expressions?

The ambiguous expression of climate change is a retreat from the original expression used by the IPCC of global warming. The new formulation is mellifluous because there has always been "climate change" since the Earth exists.

Why did the UN create the IPCC?

It seems that the UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at a time (1988) when it was relatively weakened and somewhat demoralized. To compose his secretariat was looking for a major mobilizing cause and adopted the hypothesis of global warming of anthropogenic origin. Bodies such as the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program have been convened for this purpose.

Is it true that the IPCC consists of about three thousand scientists?

This is false. The IPCC consists mainly of officials appointed by the participating governments, ie bureaucrats. Its management is political and the major conferences organized by the IPCC (in Copenhagen, Bali, Paris and this year in New York) are attended mainly by politicians.

Do IPCC periodic reports deserve credibility?

The IPCC's extensive reports (which few read) are usually leaked in confusing and unintelligible language. Most audiences read only the introduction of a few pages, the "Executive Summary", which does not always match the content of the report.

Is the climatological theory on which the IPCC bases its claims correct?

No, it's outdated. The theory of the "greenhouse effect" and the hypothesis of global warming was devised by Arrhenius in the late nineteenth century, long before the existence of meteorological satellites. The modern climatological theory of polar moving anticyclones was elaborated by the great scientist Marcel Leroux (1938-2008). There is a summary of your theory on resistir.info/climatologia/impostura.cientifica.html . Anyone wishing to specialize in climatology will need to study his book "Global Warming – Myth or Reality ?: The Erring Ways of Climatology" (Springer Verlag, 2010, 510 p.)

Is it true that 97% of scientists support the anthropogenic global warming thesis?

First, scientific questions are not decided by majorities or minorities – science is not democratic. Galileo's contemporaries believed that the earth was the center of the universe, but this does not prove the truth of their belief. The "majority" argument is one of the weakest that may exist for the demonstration of a thesis.

Is computer modeling a valid method in the study of climatology?

No. To be useful, models must have a relatively limited number of variables. Complex problems involving thousands of variables, such as climate, do not lend themselves to mathematical modeling no matter how powerful computers are. The IPCC attempt to model climate is futile and lends itself to countless cheating because there are a multitude of variables that have to be estimated more or less arbitrarily and inputed into the model. Therefore, IPCC models are not for predictive analysis. They are "black boxes" where no one knows well what is inside and whose results are subject to the discretion of their creators, who freely manipulate the variables they contain. However, modeling is useful in meteorology and allows for a predictive capacity of a couple of weeks (never decades as the IPCC intends).

Is fighting global warming / climate change a "left" position?

As with any science, there is no "left" or "right" climatology. As for the belief in the anthropogenic origin of global warming, there are people from both right and left who embark on it. At the institutional level, there are right-wing organizations (such as the European Union) that advocate this belief and campaign against CO2 emissions, and equally right-wing organizations (such as the Trump government) contest it. Symmetrically, there are right and left people who dispute the validity of the IPCC theses. This does not necessarily mean that they deny the possibility of warming, a fact that has already taken place in the past (the European Middle Ages, for example, have experienced a warmer period than today). There is no point in politicizing science in terms of the left-right.

How important is this discussion? Does it matter whether or not man is responsible for the climate?

It matters a lot. Firstly, because it distracts humanity's attention from the problems that are really serious and important, such as the threat of nuclear war, the arms race, environmental issues (such as the actual pollution of land, water and air, the desertification of the Amazon, etc), the distribution of wealth, the pauperization of the Third World, etc, etc.

At the operational level , because it introduces a serious distortion in energy policies, which are put in tow of the new heating "religion". This means a brutal waste of scarce resources. Thus, the blessed apology for so-called renewable energies promotes intermittent and anti-economic energies. Example: A wind farm has only about 25 years of life compared to a hydroelectric plant whose lifetime can be up to 100 years. Therefore it will be necessary to invest four times in a wind farm to obtain the same service provided by a hydroelectric. Moreover, because it is intermittent, a wind farm does not avoid the need to invest in conventional generation – which means duplication of investments, unnecessarily burdening society. And this without forgetting that these alternative energies are based on technical solutions also polluting in manufacturing processes (eg poisonous elements inside the photovoltaic panels).

At the subjective level , the heating ideology causes feelings of guilt in the people. They want everyone to feel guilty about "polluting" the environment with the devilish CO2. In Portugal, it was absurd to consider a real crime for the national economy: the scrapping of thermal power plants that are in good and operational condition (such as those of Sines and Pego) due to ill-fated CO2 emissions.

At the environmental level , heating cheating neglects emissions that are really polluting and harmful to health, such as SO2 (sulfur dioxide), NOx (nitrogen oxides) and in particular NO2 (nitrogen dioxide), particulate matter emitted by, for example, Diesel Cycle engines, etc. This, in turn, generates serious distortions in transport policy (and the tax policy that precedes it), driving good, viable and economical solutions away. The subsidy for the electric vehicle is an example of such a distortion (uncontrolled consumption of rare earths for its construction, final disposal of batteries after their useful life, generation of electricity to feed them, etc.). The "descarbonization" of society proclaimed by the António Costa government is a foolish, ruinous and unfeasible project.

At the financial level , the wrong theory of global warming provides good deals for the financial capital that invented the business of selling CO2 emissions. It is something like the "indulgences to sin" sold by the Catholic Church, against which Luther revolted. This business gives bankers good profits but does not benefit humanity. Right now there is a real global warming industry.

Why do so many scholars defend the human origin of global warming and the fight against CO2?

This is a theory that is dominant (because it was enforced through campaigns) and has become an article of faith for the European Union. Thus, there are numerous lines of funding from the EU and European governments that slavishly accept their demands. Much of the academic community fits this in order not to dry up funding. Some, such as those at the University of East Anglia (Great Britain) even churned out statistics to get the results they wanted to deliver. The scandal became known as Climategate (see resistir.info/climatologia/climategate_28nov09.html ). In addition, many scholars are intimidated or discriminated against in peer reviews when presenting different opinions of this dominant doctrine. The University of Porto recently hosted a serious scientific conference on climate change (see www.portoconference2018.org ), which sparked a hysterical rage from believers heating academics.

Can humanity put aside fossil fuels?

The classification of "fossil" ascribed to oil and natural gas (methane, or CH4) can be discussed. Many scientists, such as Thomas Gold ( www.resistir.info/energia/gold_biosfera_cap5.html ) and the Ukrainian school of geology, argue for the abiotic origin of oil and methane. There are planets with seas and oceans of methane. But by answering the question directly, it is almost impossible that the energy consumed by mankind can ever be 100 percent renewable. This is not worrying because even after the planet has run out of oil resources there will still be enough methane reserves for many centuries. In addition, methane can be produced by man (biomethane, which is a renewable energy). The hatred of believers heating against methane delays the necessary and inescapable process of moving petroleum refining towards natural gas, which should desirably be gradual and harmonious.

How long will the heating madness last?

We do not know. But combating irrationalism remains a duty of every lucid person. With the spread of these climate myths we seem to be entering a new dark age, with fanciful theories and people and institutions interested in instilling fear in order to sell the "solutions" and reap their profits. Mr. Al Gore set the example, and after him followed many others.

Humanity has a right to development and faces many problems – scientific, technical, social and political. But the theory of global warming does not lead to their resolution. On the contrary, it threatens to aggravate all problems and inhumanly.

October 6, 2019

See also:
  • external links
  • pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovitch

    This text can be found at https://resistir.info/
  • 02/Dez/19