By Carlos Esteban
(Opinion) The European Parliament has just approved a ban on the sale of internal combustion cars (your car, in our understanding) by 2030.
For the planet’s sake.
Because we are in the middle of a climate emergency due to CO2 and other emissions, we will all die.
Such is the emergency that, because of it, we are asked to resign ourselves to be poorer and to live substantially worse, as well as to be controlled and watched and to give up the most common freedoms.
They have been telling us this since the late eighties of the last century, when the apocalypse was still called “global warming,” so that today we all know it, we are all very aware, and the young generation even suffers from “eco-anxiety.”
The most radical ones react by blocking roads and throwing soup at works of art.
It’s just not true.
At this time, the great news is that what was announced is neither here nor expected, that the earth is more or less as it was, and that there is no reason to be alarmed.
Nor to go bankrupt or give up rights that we have worked so hard to achieve.
This is the story of a gigantic swindle involving governments and international institutions.
The oceans have not risen to the point of swallowing the Maldives and flooding port cities, as was threatened forty years ago.
The ice at the North Pole is still there, to the headache of those seeking the Northwest Passage, the glaciers are still there, children still know what snow is, hurricanes and other climatic disasters occur exactly as before, if only with less frequency and fewer victims, as anyone can see.
There has not even been a significant extinction of living species.
Everything, in short, is always put off until the day after tomorrow, as has been the case for the last four decades.
But the “experts” who make a living from this continue to preach, with increasing success, the end of the world; they continue to say that, although none of their forecasts have come true, this time it is for real, now we really have to listen to them.
The debate is over, they insist.
But, after forty years and a lot of measures that have led us to the current energy crisis, it is normal that the citizens of the planet, those of us who are not on the ICCP payroll, demand some concrete and indisputable proof of what they are selling.
The usual trick (of the media, rather than of real scientists) is to pretend that every extreme weather event is somehow exceptional and the result of the emissions of their SEAT Ibiza.
Every hurricane, every drought, and every flood is incontrovertible proof of climate change.
But are they?
Let’s look at the case of the United States, a huge and advanced country where weather phenomena monitoring is exhaustive.
Hurricanes, for example, one of which caused devastation in Florida at the end of the summer.
Well, hurricanes have not increased significantly compared to before the alleged climate emergency.
In fact, their destructive capacity has decreased, as has their frequency.
The same can be said of major storms, all in line with the normal for the historical record.
The same can be said of major floods, whose damage, as climatologists are forced to acknowledge, has decreased worldwide.
This is not to say that the opposite phenomenon, droughts, is now worse: the worst droughts in recent US history occurred in the 1930s and 1950s.
But we are always left with the theory’s core, rising average global temperatures.
According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), global temperatures have risen less than one degree Celsius in 100 years, and all it takes, they say, is an increase of 1.5 °C to trigger a “tipping point” event that could destroy the Earth as we know it.
There is no proof that this is the case or historical record to confirm it.
In fact, temperatures have not been measured with any reliability since the 1880s, a ridiculously small time frame to draw meaningful conclusions.
In any case, the data prove that man-made carbon emissions have no discernible effect on weather phenomena.
Even if they were right about everything – and we already see that there is no real indication – it would not matter.
The West can afford, to some extent, to do experiments because it is (still) rich.
Still, these experiments have very little effect if giants like China or India continue to burn fossil fuels at will, which they will do because they do not want to be poor forever.
With information from LGI