Warm is better than cold

Published in Expansión

Spanish believers in the new global religion of climate change are puzzled and unease by this freezing cold here and in Beijing, where historically low temperatures have been reached[1]. A year ago they blamed a particularly mild January on global warming, as they always do. However, when we suffer a cold wave and snowfalls with few precedents in the last century, they repeat until exhaustion that the culprit is poor storm Filomena, who happened to pass by. That is, when it is hot climate change is to blame, but when it is cold it is simple meteorology. There is no doubt that as propagandists they are insurmountable.

It is essential to understand the origin and political background of the theory of anthropogenic global warming which, under its apocalyptic and “pseudo-scientific” (in the words of a Nobel Prize winner in Physics) alibi, actually aims at imposing an impoverishing ideology and a global power concentrated in very few hands. Alexander King, cofounder of the Club of Rome and one of its main prophets, described it candidly: “Democracy is no longer adequate for the tasks that must be accomplished in the future (…). The problem lies in inventing instruments of governance capable of mastering change without violence (…)”. King then tries to avoid suspicion by assuring that “global governance does not imply a global government, but institutions of cooperation, coordination and common action among sovereign states”. As is well known, coordination is an euphemism for domination, as Tolkien masterfully explained: the sovereign states would receive the nine rings of power for mortal men, but the Dark Lord (“the coordinator”) would receive the One Ring, “one Ring to rule them all, one Ring to find them, one Ring to bring them all in and bind them in darkness”. And here’s what’s relevant: Alexander King is aware that he needs something to unite everyone, and he finds it. Please read carefully: “In the search for a new enemy to unite us, we found that the idea of the threat of global warming (…) would adequately fulfill the role”[2]. Remember that when King published this in 1991, human influence on climate was viewed with some skepticism (and debated in freedom, unlike what happens today). Even the IPCC at the time argued that the magnitude of warming observed in the 20th century “is consistent with the range of natural climate variability, so the observed increase may be largely due to this natural variability”[3]. Therefore, it is politics that has stimulated, financed and preceded the supposed scientific “consensus”. Thus, the push for the theory of anthropogenic global warming has not come from universities and labs but from the center of world political power (the UN), and has traits that point to totalitarianism rather than science: the abuse of propaganda, the crushing of freedom of opinion, and the intimidation and persecution of dissidents. Remember that lies can only be imposed through violence.

The climate of our planet has varied naturally since the dawn of time with successive glaciations and subsequent warmings, and is a complex, non-linear and chaotic system whose multifactorial character (including the human factor) far exceeds the current level of scientific knowledge. Proof of this is that for 30 years observable data have stubbornly refuted the catastrophic predictions coming from mathematical models: the Arctic still has ice, the seas have not swallowed anyone and the population of polar bears is happily increasing.

We have had reliable satellite measurements for only forty years which indicate that the rate of global warming since then, after three decades of slight cooling (despite the increase in industrialization and CO2 after World War II), is roughly 0.14°C per decade[4], or just over one hundredth of a degree per year. It is therefore easily understandable that it is absolutely impossible to notice a warming of this magnitude and that it is dishonest to attribute the evolution of local temperatures to the planet’s climate. The reason for the current low temperatures, which began before the arrival of the Filomena storm (which caused the snowfall), is weather-related and may be linked to the La Niña phenomenon (after last year’s hot El Niño, of opposite sign). As with other natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions, this cyclical (rather than periodic) succession of heating and cooling of the equatorial Pacific called ENSO, documented at least since 1888, temporarily influences the temperatures of the planet in a much more accentuated way than the mild trend of recent decades.

The only certainty we have about the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that it makes the power junkies salivate with enthusiasm, attracts the anti-capitalist orphans of references since the fall of Soviet Communism like honey attracts flies and allows many a charlatan to make a living. In fact, self-appointed “experts” have found a vein and find it far more lucrative to defend the fashion slogans rewarded by politicians, magazines and supranational organizations, to be invited to give lectures and write articles, than to give boring classes in the university or to lock themselves up in an obscure laboratory. In order to intimidate the layman, some exhibit a university degree from a career in Sciences completely unrelated to Physics or climate issues (biologists, the traditional breeding ground of radical environmentalism and the most recalcitrant left, are particularly known for this activist intrusiveness). They will be identified by the style of their lectures, of little scientific rigor, where the Stalinist use of the word “deniers” (to mark the dissident) and “consensus” (to intimidate the unwary) is common, and where pamphlet-like slogans and pictures of natural disasters abound deceptively linking global warming to it, even though extreme weather events have not increased at all in recent decades, as the UN’s IPCC itself acknowledges: “Data indicate that there is no significant trend in the frequency of hurricanes over the last century (…); there is still no evidence regarding the sign or frequency of the trend of floods on a global scale” or regarding droughts (“some regions have experienced more intense or longer lasting droughts, but in others droughts have been less intense or have lasted less”)[5]. What does exist is a hurricane of falsehoods, a flood of spurious and cheeky interests and a drought of critical thinking.

As we have seen these frosty days in Spain, a global cooling, a new Little Ice Age that would ruin crops and cause deaths from famine and disease (cold kills 17 times more people than heat) would be much more frightening than a slight increase in temperatures whose real cause (and future duration) we do not know. I’d rather be warm. And you?

Fernando del Pino Calvo-Sotelo


[1] Coldest December in Beijing casts shadow over epidemic control – Global Times

[2] Alexander King, The First Global Revolution.

[3] ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_full_report_sp.pdf p.6

[4] Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)

[5] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf Cap. 2,6 p.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on google
Share on email
Share on print