The Best Thing You’ll Read on Climate Change

Whether you are a climate change skeptic or a true believer, this will be the best thing you’ve ever read on the global warming/climate change hoopla.

James Delingpole at Breitbart:

Maybe the biggest of all the lies put out by the global warming scaremongers is that the science is on their side. No it isn’t. And if you’re in any doubt at all you should read this interview with the brilliant scientist István Markó. It tells you all you need to know about the science of global warming.

Dr. Markó, who sadly died earlier this year aged only 61, was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium’s largest French-speaking university. More importantly for the purposes of this interview, he was one of the world’s most outspoken and well-informed climate skeptics, who contributed to several articles on the subject for Breitbart News.

Before he died, he gave an extensive interview to the French journalist Grégoire Canlorbe.

The whole interview is riveting and I wish everyone would read it. The link to Breitbart gives a shorter summary. The entire interview is also available at Watts Up With That.

What follows here is just a small part of the interview. I’m singling it out here because it explains why so many otherwise intelligent people have swallowed whole, hook line and sinker so to speak, the entire notion of man-made climate change, which I have found, from the beginning of the global cooling flapdoodle in the early 1980s, to be ridiculous and unscientific. I’ve searched  for every argument I could think of to try convince people they’re being duped by charlatans, but Dr. Markó does it better than any I’ve ever found:

Grégoire Canlorbe: Beyond political interests, what then are the feelings that inspire the anthropogenic global warning thesis and that render it so appealing?

  István Markó: As a scientist, I naturally hope that I can manage to confine myself into the field of what Vilfredo Pareto used to call the logico-experimental method, and that I do not let myself be skewed, without my knowledge, by feelings interfering with the seriousness of my theories and the validity of my experimentations. But my feelings are very certainly at stake when I examine the militant’s speech about the thesis of anthropogenic warming and the strange influence it exerts on governments and public opinion.

To begin, I believe in science: I mean that I believe in the possibility of objectively knowing reality through science. I believe that there are truth and falsehood, that science allows us to distinguish between the two, and that truth must be known; that scientific knowledge must be placed in the hands of the population. I also believe in freedom. I believe that every man is entitled to lead his life and to manage his goods as he sees fit, that he is the only possessor of himself, and that statist socio-economic control is as morally reprehensible as it is harmful in its social, economic, and environmental consequences.

I note two things distressing me: firstly, the population is increasingly misinformed scientifically; and secondly, the media and governments take advantage of this to propagate a theory that is doubtful, namely that of anthropogenic warming, and to promote coercive measures on its behalf. Few people take the time to get vital information about the actual CO2 footprint; and few people, more generally, are still interested in science. I deeply regret that our Western societies have succeeded in cultivating such mistrust of science: such a reluctance to have confidence in its capacity to know the world objectively and to transform it positively.

The theory of anthropogenic warming claims to be scientific; but if people accept this theory, if they hold it to be true, it is clearly not out of interest for science. Such a fragile theory, in view of the CO2 facts I have presented to you above, could never have been accepted by people who truly care about science; and who possess a deep understanding in that field. In my eyes, there are two main reasons—or if you prefer, two main types of feelings—that make people let themselves be seduced by the theory of anthropogenic warming so readily. In the first place, the Catholic religion is in decline in the Western world; and what I call ecologism comes to replace it.

In the second place, Westerners have a pronounced taste for self-flagellation; and the theory of anthropogenic warming provides justification for that tendency, possibly anchored in our Judeo-Christian heritage. So, on the one hand, we have religious feelings: faith in a new system of thought, which is ecologism; the veneration of a new divinity, which is benevolent and protective Nature. On the other hand, we have a feeling of guilt, expressed in our conviction that, if the climate warms up, it is our fault; and that if we do not immediately limit our CO2 emissions, we will have sullied and disfigured our planet.

Dr. Markó’s untimely death is indeed a tragedy, not only for his family and friends but for everyone who loves scientific truth. Whether you are a true believer or a skeptic of the whole global warming/climate change hullabaloo, you owe it to yourself to read the entire interview. Warning to true believers: it might change your mind.

The interview contains an interesting tidbit on how Margaret Thatcher used the tendency of people to believe the mendacious account of CO2 emissions as way to win her political fight with the coal miners’ union. She probably never believed it but was willing to use anything that would be useful to her politically, just as the climate scaremongers are doing today. The difference is that Thatcher used it to achieve a victory for the freedman and prosperity of the British people. The current political opportunists are using it to enslave and oppress people they view as standing in the way of utopian socialism, of the sort enjoyed by the people of Venezuela and Cuba.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email


%d bloggers like this: