Over the last twenty years, since the Rio Summit in 1992, the opinion that the climate is warming, that this is due primarily to human activities, and that this will have catastrophic consequences for humanity during the 21st Century was erected in an almost absolute dogma. The on-going activism seems now unstoppable.

Despite, or even because of, the reactions of deniers who do not want to know anything, or of skeptics who would like to know more and better, the experts appointed by the States have continued to abound in the same direction, supported by intensely powerful NGOs having quite specific political interests. There is no day when, usually without checking their sources because they are always considered as trustful¹, the media are not churning out information on any aspect of global warming, almost always with a negative sense, of course. There is virtually no balanced contribution about this because the one who would dare do so would immediately be vilified as a support of skeptics. By its very definition a dogma shall not be discussed. And there is now great concern that the dogma has won.

The purpose of this post is not to revisit the debate, declared closed by experts and their supporting NGOs. But the fat lady has not yet sung. The evidence and the magnitude of the temperature increases is not definitively set, neither the mechanisms that contribute to it, especially the part played by greenhouse gas emissions, nor the consequences in the medium and long term of potential climate changes, nor the effectiveness of measures to reduce or capture emissions of CO₂. Also, assessing the potential economic impact of possible climate changes remains a very uncertain conjecture.

It is now highly probable that alarms developed by the IPCC and the NGOs infiltrated in this organization, and relayed uncritically by the media, are vastly exaggerated². It is not here the purpose to negate the underlying physical phenomena, what the deniers do, but to appreciate the relative magnitudes and to remain open to all possible causes and consequences, as skeptics and heretics are aiming at. While today’s climate is still very poorly described by the models prepared by “experts”, what credibility do you give to future projections made with these same models? Basic dimensions are distorted, the intrinsic stability (overall negative feedback) of the climate system is not or poorly taken into account, scenarios are chosen arbitrarily. Spooky extrapolations are made, based on which a false sense of urgency is created. This is called fear mongering. And it works: we love to scare ourselves, and it is well understood and exploited.

Faced with contradiction the major argument used is that of authority: how an honest man or woman can afford to challenge an opinion that is said to be supported by over 97% of the scientists involved in climate research? Yet since the Inquisition and Lysenko we might expect that scientific arguments should prevail, taking into account the elements of doubt surrounding a still fragmentary knowledge. Also, to question the personality and integrity of his opponent, and for these reasons to avoid to openly and fairly addressing the real issues, are tactics worthy of totalitarian regimes, or of dirty electoral campaigns³. The position of the alarmists must be quite weak as they are compelled to use the authority stance, ad hominem invectives, and exclusion. They have even turned to lies and falsification of data (climategate, the famous hockey stick shaped curve) and documents (recent fakegate).

The incompetence of politicians and media is normally compensated by the consultation of experts. In the climate case it is obvious that the selected panel is significantly biased. Even the Nobel Prize committee fell in the trap for the peace prize, which is still a lesser evil than if it had been for the physics prize. Yet it is with good faith that international agreements aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions were concluded (Kyoto and others), that cap and trade mechanisms were created (CO₂ certificates), that new taxes are raised (climate cent), that technical standards were promulgated (grams of CO₂ per km emitted by cars), and that subsidies are granted for renewable energy (feed tariffs at production cost, tax deductions, support for “cleantech” business creation). And immense means are provided for research, ranging from biodiversity to space exploration, and involving supercomputers.

All this is made to save the planet hic et nunc, an awesome moral high ground.

Responsiveness of politicians has been quite strong as the danger of political retribution in case of failure will remain low because the target horizon extends over a period much longer than that of a pair of electoral mandates. And you cannot resist statements that are continuously milled on you, they become a new truth that, if you want to be a leader, you are compelled to follow. It’s fair noting that some synergy with the need to become less dependent on fossil fuels also plays a role because of the geopolitical risks associated with producing countries, and of the fear of depletion of reserves. It seems that in the United States these arguments have prevailed in convincing the Republicans and the energy companies to also ride on the carbon horse.

Over time, enormous interest groups were created, from the scientific community to the finance world, with manufacturing, construction and transportation industries involved, not to mention the organizations, governmental or not, whose whole life are devoted to this crusade. Strong economic commitments and policy decisions were made. To say “Stop, secure, exercise interrupted!” would put countless people in unemployment, destroy financial values, and break a lot of egos. Is it still possible to reverse this trend?

There is no CO₂ problem to solve, no negative externality to be corrected. This statement is not a dogma but an observation that may be revised in light of new evidence. Then, what is now to do?

Promote alternative energy? Yes, provided that the alternative is valid, energetically and economically, without bias and disorientation due to state subsidies.

Promote energy conservation? Yes, of course, as they are profitable to the person who made the investment, regardless of any tax incentive.

Exit nuclear power generation? If it’s too dangerous now we must leave immediately, otherwise why leave? This is another debate than this post. But note that if the fight against CO₂ has no more importance, the low emission situation of the nuclear industry will no more be a justification as a contributor to the salvation of the planet. Yet nuclear has still a bright future, especially in the growth of more secure processes, such as the thorium route, both in terms of supply and in industrial and post-industrial (waste) safety.

So there is plenty to do, even without being alarmist. But we must stop to lure ourselves and to hold hostage society on behalf of the miserable dogma of an improbable higher good. It’s not in the name of a hypothetical growth or of the maintenance of a certain economic activity that actions should continue; they are at best ineffective and unnecessary, and at worst criminal because they confiscate resources that could be involved in far more beneficial goals such as eradication of malnutrition (13-15% of the world population), the promotion of health and development, and cultivate the science, the arts and culture.

Which party, which leader will have the courage to initiate the necessary retreat, to take time for a reassessment of the situation and of the priorities, and to cease the hubris of pretending that man is the cause and the cure for everything⁴?

For the happiness of people rather than their condemnation.

____________________________________