HEAT WAVES 2023

My wife’s British great-grandmother was an elegant and spartan lady, and when her young daughters complained about the weather, she would reply undaunted: “Little girls, little girls, in winter it’s cold and in summer it’s hot”. Well, when climate change propagandists take advantage of run-of-the-mill heat waves to repeat their tiresome catastrophist litanies about the apocalypse that, like Godot, never arrives, I feel like repeating to them: “Little girls, little girls, in winter it’s cold and in summer it’s hot”.

To my regular readers this opening paragraph will have sounded familiar. Indeed, this is how I began my article “Heat Waves” in June 2022 in the face of the usual summer campaign of climate alarmism, which hibernates like bears only to re-emerge with a vengeance each summer, taking advantage of the season’s normal heat waves. Since this campaign arrives every summer with the punctuality of an atomic clock, I have decided to keep the same title every year.

Great news: the planet is in good health

The climate change hoax – the biggest scam in history – needs recurrent scaremongering to keep us in a permanent State of Fear (like during covid) and also to keep the “save the planet” slogan alive. However, the planet is in good health – a phrase that delights normal people and angers the abducted – and the so-called climate emergency simply does not exist except in the imagination of a few. One by one, the great icons of climate alarmism have proven to be propagandistic fallacies. The polar bear population is growing happily[1], to the extent that in the 2017 sequel to his famous documentary, Gore made no mention at all of the bloodthirsty predator that had been its star ten years earlier.

Antarctica’s continental ice (reservoir of 90% of the planet’s ice with an average annual temperature of -57°C), remains stable[2] as does the sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent[3], the usual star of climate propaganda that, after its 40-year maximum reached in 2014 (which went unmentioned in the media) is today similar to what it was in 1966[4]. Also, the corals of the Great Barrier Reef are at 37-year highs[5], Greenland’s ice is higher than historic average[6] and its slight decline in the previous decade would have been due to natural causes[7]. Logic indicates that the main factor in the variations of sea ice is not the very small variations in atmospheric temperature, but the temperature of the sea, affected by ocean currents, both horizontal and vertical.

Finally, sea level rise continues at its snail’s pace since the end of the last ice age at a rate of 2-3 mm per year (one meter every 500 years), forest fires have been reduced by 25% in recent decades[8] and extreme weather events (droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes) show no significant trend[9]. Good news, right?

But despite the planet shrugging its shoulders and even enjoying the very slight rise in temperatures (at a rate of 0.14°C per decade since 1979), policies aimed at ” tackling climate change ” are indeed having devastating real and tangible effects that the population is (finally!) beginning to understand. Indeed, not only are they suffering from rising energy costs, but in Europe people will no longer even be able to choose which car to buy, just as was the case in the USSR.

Finally, the increase in atmospheric CO2, that mind-bogglingly demonized source of life, food par excellence of trees and plants, is having clearly positive effects, such as the increase in cereal production – key to eliminating hunger – or the end of the deforestation problem. Thus, the planet is significantly greener thanks to the increase of CO2, that is, in a tiny and irrelevant part, thanks to cars, BBQs and factories. Bless them.

The temperature of the planet has always changed

Fact is the temperature of the planet has been varying throughout its history for purely natural reasons. The following graph shows the temperature reconstruction of the last two thousand years in the Northern Hemisphere (Ljungqvist, 2010[10]):  

What conclusions can we draw from this graph? First, that the temperature of the planet is extraordinarily stable: as you can see on the y axis, the variations are measured in tenths of a degree, which is not bad for the atmosphere of a small planet lost in space and heated by a medium-sized star such as the Sun. Secondly, we note that the small temperature differences are cyclical, and that these cycles occurred for natural reasons long before the industrialization of the planet. Indeed, from the temperature peak of the Roman Warm Period at the beginning of our era we passed to a colder period around 500 AD to rise again around 1,000 AD (Medieval Warm Period) and suddenly fall again until around 1,700 AD, in the so-called Little Ice Age (which coincides with the Maunder minimum). Since then, the temperature of the planet would have risen again to figures slightly higher than those of the previous peaks. Obviously in 1700 human activity was not generating CO2, which remained stable until about 1950, so how do anthropogenic climate change advocates explain that global temperature increased from 1700 to 1950 in a world with no industry and no increase in CO2? How do they explain that temperature declined from 1940 to 1975 despite the rise in CO2? The lack of correlation is also often present in geologic time scales, which calls into question any cause-and-effect relationship.

Let me let you a little secret: science is currently unable to understand the climate, a multifactorial, non-linear, and chaotic system “that makes long-term prediction impossible[11]“, as the IPCC itself acknowledged in 2001. Scientists are stumbling around in a highly complex field that exceeds their knowledge, and the pollution of money and politics has only further muddied atmospheric science. Let’s use common sense: the same meteorologists who are unable to predict the weather in my city for more than a few days, can they really predict the planet’s climate 100 years from now? Which meteorologist predicted the persistent drought we are suffering from in Spain? Indeed, the planet’s climate is subject to a multitude of factors whose interaction is poorly understood by scientists. Moreover, I would not be surprised if man could never understand the intricacies of climate, a blasphemous statement for the prevailing scientism, which assumes that man-scientist is an omniscient god.  

Natural phenomena and climate

Although no one would have guessed it from the headlines, July in Spain has been significantly less hot than last year. Meanwhile, the maximum temperatures of heat waves do not register any significant trend in the last few decades (source: AEMET):

As I have so often repeated, local meteorology can never be used as a proxy for the world’s climate, as Australia has experienced in these same months of boreal summer (austral winter) record freezing temperatures[12], but the truth is that on the planet this July has been extraordinarily warm (a few tenths of a degree Celsius above normal). Nobody really knows why, but it is intriguing that months ago several experts predicted an increase in global temperature due to the eruption of the underwater volcano Tonga in January 2022[13].

I will never cease to be fascinated by the effect that natural phenomena have on the climate, far greater than that caused by that small but pretentious creature called man. Usually, volcanic eruptions release ash and gases into the atmosphere that cool the planet, but not in this case. In what may have been the most significant climatic event of our era, Tonga injected megatons of water vapor into the atmosphere like a giant geyser. Since water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, some scientists warned that this could cause a temporary rise in temperatures that would bring us closer to the 1.5°C “anomaly” that propagandists say would be the tipping point that would unleash the Apocalypse. Hopefully we will reach it soon, because then we will be able to see that absolutely nothing happens, since humans and Nature survive with complete peace of mind at temperature differences of 20°C between day and night or 40°C between winter and summer.

“A man who does not think for himself does not think at all”, wrote the great Oscar Wilde. Common sense should be surprised to hear that we should worry about a hypothetical increase of 1.5°C compared to the temperature during the Little Ice Age (I repeat, “ice age”). Cold is a synonym for death and kills at least ten times more people than heat, synonymous of life[14]. Tropical ecosystems are infinitely richer than polar ecosystems, birds migrate south in winter in search of warmer climates and northern Europeans spend their vacations in the south in search of more temperate climates. What does nature prefer, warmth or coolness?  

Apart from volcanoes (and the Malkovitch cycles, and a long etc.), another example of hugely influential natural phenomena is El Niño and La Niña (ENSO), which show the enormous and still misunderstood influence of the oceans on the planet’s climate. With an average depth of 3,500m, oceans are made up of a thin layer of 100-200m of warm water (the only one human beings have contact with), and a large mass of very cold deep water, to the extent that the average temperature of the oceans is only 4°C. These two masses exchange flows constantly, but when the flow in the Pacific Ocean slows down (for largely unknown reasons), the thin surface layer is not renewed and gradually warms up, leading to an increase in atmospheric temperature, greater evaporation, and higher rainfall, among other effects. This is known as El Niño. When the process is reversed and the flow exchange between the two layers is accelerated, the effect is reversed: the thin surface layer cools more than it should and cools the atmosphere. This is known as La Niña.

Who benefits from the climate hoax?

But let’s forget about science, since climate change has nothing to do with science and everything to do with power and money. As Richard Lindzen, professor at Harvard and emeritus professor of atmospheric physics at MIT for 30 years, wrote, “the so-called climate crisis is not a scientific issue, despite the immense attempts to invoke the supposed authority of science, but a political issue[15]“. Indeed, climate change is just a pretext for a full-fledged coup d’état perpetrated by a small group of megalomaniacs who intend to transform the model of society based on freedom, population growth and economic progress into a claustrophobic tyranny characterized by the massive impoverishment of the population and the coercive reduction of the population, their greatest obsession since the Club of Rome.

The falsity of the Soviet-style scientific “consensus” on the anthropogenic origin of climate change and its catastrophic consequences is already evident. Recently, the statement of 1,600 scientists[16] was joined by the 2022 Nobel Laureate in Physics John Clauser, who stated at a major scientific conference that he could “confidently” say that “there is no climate crisis and climate change does not cause extreme weather events[17]“. He also called the IPCC “one of the worst sources of misinformation” and climate change “pseudoscience”, i.e., “a corruption of science that threatens the welfare of billions of people”. He is not the first Nobel Laureate to make similar statements[18].  

Who are the great beneficiaries of this reactionary movement, the greatest enemy of Humanity since the totalitarianisms of the 20th century? The first beneficiaries are the misanthropic elites of Davos and their supranational umbrella organizations, who dream of their diabolical Great Reset. For them it is utopia; for the rest of us it is dystopia at its worst. So, every time you hear “climate change”, think of Davos, the real mastermind of the scam.

Another big beneficiary is the giant renewable (expensive, intermittent & inefficient) energy industry, created in the shadow of subsidies and political impositions intermittent (500 billion dollars invested in 2022 alone). Thirdly, there are the politicians, who find an excuse to create new “green” taxes and restrict the freedom of their citizens. We could also mention the big geopolitical winner of “climate change,” China, which controls the global electric vehicle business and watches with satisfaction the suicide of the West as it continues to build cheap coal plants.

Finally, and without prejudice to those who are genuinely convinced by climate alarmism and who act in good faith, we could mention the innumerable activists often bearers of the “scientific” passport (biologists, etc.) who have found in climate change a new form of expression of their anti-capitalist political ideas and, above all, a vein of gold that promises much more money and notoriety than lecturing in a classroom or publishing articles in some obscure magazine.

And who are the big losers? You and I, dear reader, the European citizens whom our national politicians and the inept EU bureaucracy plunge us into the abyss of servitude and poverty.