In connection with the climate summit in Glasgow, I must state that the topic of global warming and the possible defense against it has become amazingly one-sided, and only one possible interpretation, if you like, a paradigm has taken over scientific life and public life, and what is even more alarming , also among global decision-makers.
This is the only possible, accepted and almost required interpretation: the cause of global warming, which threatens the fate of humanity, is solely anthropogenic, i.e. not natural, but the increasing amount of carbon dioxide emitted by humans, which warms the Earth based on the greenhouse effect . In other words, we cannot do anything other than to drastically reduce human carbon dioxide emissions, all the way to zero, and thus life on our planet may be saved. But it is already too late, so carbon neutralization must be brutally fast and brutally drastic.
It should be added here: there are significantly different scientific ideas regarding global warming, which are trying to voice and publicize their views, but their influence compared to the mainstream "culpable carbon dioxide" theory is currently rather small, because the prevailing view is supported by the leaders of great powers as well as global institutions. Among these, the UN stands out and its unquestionable oracle, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the famous IPCC), which has just recently issued a report of several thousand pages - now the sixth since 1990 - which, according to all indications, is the basis of global decisions will serve.
The report was given special weight by the statement of the UN Secretary General, former president of the Socialist International, António Guterres, who declared that "the report of the working group is a red code for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, the evidence irrefutable.” Well, at least he wouldn't have said the latter. "The evidence is irrefutable" is simply not true on this scientific topic.
Academician László Szarka, an outstanding expert on the topic, recently wrote in an article that in 2019, an international group of nine hundred people (!) called CLINTEL (Climate Intelligence), made up of scientists and engineers, drew the attention of the UN Secretary General that "there is no climate emergency". . The group drew attention to the fact that completely different scientific explanations of climate change are possible, which mainly say that global warming is not caused by anthropogenic, i.e. human emissions, but by natural, cosmic processes, the evolution of the movement and rotation of our planet, and mainly the changes in the radiation of the Sun, so there are causes in the background on which humans have a rather modest or rather no influence.
And recently, before the above IPCC report released in August, in May, 23 distinguished scientists published a study in the prestigious journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, and the press release about the article was published on June 13, and as they say, "big said". According to the author team, which consists of renowned international scientists, it was too early to declare the carbon dioxide-based greenhouse gas effect as the main cause of climate change. The results of the study clearly and sharply contradict the latest IPCC report, which reveals that the IPCC's thousands of pages of material simply did not or incompletely take into account the effect of solar radiation on climate change ("total solar irradiance").
In another place, the ordinary member of the MTA described this shocking sentence: "We don't know the future climate change, but the forced curbing of carbon dioxide emissions will certainly lead to a collapse." Furthermore: “While the impact of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions on the climate is insignificant, forced emission reductions are tantamount to giving up efficient energy sources, which could lead to the collapse of Western civilization. In Hungarian: it is not the carbon dioxide emissions, but the forced curbing that will certainly cause a collapse. Based on the logic experienced in the report, even the collapse will be attributed to climate change…”
On October 26, the members of the above group, including László Szarka, addressed an open letter to the president of the IPCC, in which they described that the report that the body presented to the decision-makers of the states "unfortunately does not meet the standards of objective scientific integrity and misinforms the COP26 conference in Glasgow”. Hard words, and not written by just anyone. Why do we pass them by without saying a word? Why don't we heed these warnings? Why? I really don't like it when a seemingly scientific claim has to be accepted as "announced", especially when it has unforeseeable consequences.
I don't like it when certain global circles canonize a narrative about the world and how it works, because with this they want to achieve their specific power goals, as if pulling it onto the world. I don't like them trying to force Great Resets on us all.
I don't know who is right in this very cardinal global debate that is the basis of decisions affecting the future of humanity. The stakes are brutally high, as Szarka alludes to: if we suddenly sacrifice our efficient energy sources (fossils and those from nuclear power plants) due to the all-pervading paradigm of harmful human carbon dioxide emissions, humanity may destroy itself.
László Szarka also emphasizes: there is anthropogenic, i.e. human destruction of nature, environmental pollution, and we must act against it - I would add that it is the basic duty of a conservative person to take care of his environment, nature and its resources. The Earth's energy resources are finite, so we must not exhaust them indefinitely, because there is no more supply: we must protect the forests, we must take care of clean water, we must not pollute our environment, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions is also justified. However, global warming is a different issue, the causes of which should really start to be discussed openly, and at the end, slowly, with difficulty, a well-founded conclusion should be drawn. On the other hand, we are now still at Greta Thunberg's left-liberal, green-climate hysteria, which leads nowhere - possibly to bad, unfounded and infinitely harmful, extreme, destructive decisions. A moderate, slow transition would be much more realistic, with which we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Let us never believe in the self-anointed globalist authorities, but truly in the truth, sovereignly, freely! The globalist world elite wants to lead us into an ugly dance, the end of which is destruction. Let's stand against this too, in the name of common sense!
The author is a political scientist and a research consultant at the Center for Fundamental Rights
Cover image: Climate activist Greta Thunberg - Wikipedia
