Whether through the newscast of the Swiss Romande TV[1] or the Economist[2], a new communication wave has been initiated by the IPCC[3] even before the announced report is published. Look at this media factotum: he has not yet read the Bible but it’s already gospel for him; finger on the edge of the pants he took his orders and is running the errand accordingly, tell me why! And the guru on duty – like a magnificent old Brahmin ascetic – does not fail to pose as the ultimate wise man whose criticism will be called racist blasphemy.

These announcements of inevitable catastrophes are based on no new facts. And they are wrong because:

• climate models on which they are based have proved invalid, in particular the question of the effect of the concentration of carbon dioxide on the temperature of the atmosphere , which was vastly exaggerated;
• the frequency and intensity of natural disasters (cyclones and hurricanes, tornadoes, heavy rains , etc.) remain chaotic and in no way correlated with any climate change. It’s proven, but ignored because it does not serve the cause;
• extrapolations on socio-economic effects are pure speculation, a morbid way of wishful thinking;
• the effects on health are of the same sort: either by warming or cooling there will always be a serious disease for which the culprit shall be designated.

The only factual matter that cannot be disputed is that carbon dioxide emissions are increasing. Its concentration in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm before the industrial era and is 400 ppm today. When all known fossil fuel reserves[4] will have been burned we will arrive at 900-1000 ppm. The dispute is whether the warming that it may cause will have catastrophic consequences, or simply moderate effects on which humanity will adapt in a reasonable manner, taking the necessary time, without panic. Climate activists refuse this debate and immediately refer the skeptic, one who doubts and asks questions, or the heretic, one who interprets the facts in a different way, like irresponsible and dangerous deniers.

The IPCC is no more dealing much about climate because it has lost its credibility. It profiles itself as an expert for health, economy, agriculture, and even armed conflicts. It attributes to itself skills that it hasn’t, takes on mandates that nobody has entrusted it, and poses as a dictator of thought, “pensée unique” of course.

They are fascists, well directed by activist NGOs and followed by scared epigones.

Their methods are well known: a small circle of scholars and activists imposes their vision to the masses which, if they do not adopt them or if they deviate, shall be submitted by force. The dissident is a criminal, not for what he does but for what he thinks. He who doesn’t walk in step with the movement it is an enemy to be shot down. All political leaders have understood this, they all have “energy transition” as a leitmotiv and none dare say that he or she would prefer that we do not engage in such an insane adventure. They are scared by the threat of political death in case of apostasy.

Disinformation[5] is such that communication professionals have now taken up the evangelical mission to demand drastic changes hic et nunc, and to curse and ban those who don’t agree.

When are we going to wake up from such a nightmare?