Is the planet warming up?

One of the most fashionable cliches during the last years among progressive people and backward politicians is the so called Global Warming. All the meteorological upsets, from the floods to cold spells, from droughts to typhoons or gales, are explained by the same pattern. The planet is warming up and, as a consequence of that, we will loose our harvest and our forests, and humankind will die under a blazing and inclement sun. Is this the future for our blue world?, it is true the global warming prophecy?

In fact, we do not know. Neither the scientist, nor the politicians, nobody at all. There are no evidences that point to the global warming, at least in the long run. Less than 30 yeasrs ago, so few that many of the readers still remember it, the same scientific community who today bet their little fingers for their current prediction, assured that Earth was at the doors of a new ice age. Peculiarly they attributed its cause to the same evils that today causes the heating. According to that preposterous theory, in the coming years the polar glaciers and caps would advance inexorably burying the corrupted western civilization under several meters of purifying ice. The forecast failed but then many believed blindly on it.

The story was not new, ten years before, in the sixties, such scientists, or their university professors, had prophesied that a population bomb was being incubating. This bomb would end with the planet resources and would cause an unprecedented famine.The "bible" of that neomalthusian movement was "The Population bomb", a booklet of someone called Paul Ehrlich, a US butterfly breeder, that achieved a remarkable publishing success. In opinion of Ehrlich "the battle to feed all the humanity has finished [... ] In the decades of the 70s and 80s, hundreds of million people will starve", and not indeed in Africa, the entomology expert assured that about 65 million north americans would die of starvation in the seventies, "the majority young" specified with the intention of fright the readers. In that decade, naturally, nobody died of hunger in the United States, whose population has increased in 100 million people from the publication of the book in 1968.

Ehrlich's apocalyptic prophecies were very popular, and the first environmentalist groups, those of the new ice age, joined it enthusiastically. Hippies and idle college students took them like own. They were at least 15 years bothering everybody with their revealed truth to defenceless governments, corporations and citizens through the television and the pretentious scientific magazines. Ehrlich was so convinced of his theory that accepted a bet from the famous classical-liberal economist Julian Simon on his predicted increase of the raw materials. Ehrlich loose and, taking advantage of the defeat, published another book, "The population explosion", in 1990, reaffirming his natural resources end and generalized hunger thesis. Once more, he was wrong, but, anyway, he still have a bunch of loyal readers who, as late as today, repeat like parrots his repertoire of silly things.

Great part of Ehrlich readers and almost all those that in the 70s wrote until the exhaustion to demonstrate the near ice age, are today the defenders of the global warming. With such a résumé is quite difficult to trust its predictions but, as the time does not happen in vain, the apostles of armaggedon have equipped with a new handbook with a appearance, more scientist and more pleasant for the media. Logical, heat scares more than cold, perish asphyxiated, surrounded in sweat and sufferings has a bigger plasticity than the aseptic and painless death by freezing. This way, those who 30 years ago shouted for the reappearance of the perpetual ice, today warn us about the unavoidable planet heating if we do not do what they want.

The fact is Earth can perfectly be warming up or to be cooling off. The tendency, simply, we do not know. If something know the climate experts, since that discipline became science, is that climate is as whimsical as variable, and so difficult to forecast as evasive to the limited human understanding. Thousand years ago, yesterday afternoon in geologic terms, the climate was warmer. About year 1000 vikings reached Greenland and they called this way because the landscape was eminently green. Today the world's biggest island is a polar cap, an enormous ice cube beached in the middle of the north Atlantic ocean and, of course, a human desert.

At that time, in the dawn of the second millenium, we know higher temperatures made possible the extension of farming areas until Scandinavia or, for example, Europe's population grew remarkably. Experts know this time, between 10 and 14 centuries, as the Medieval Climate Optimum. There is a powerful reason to explain why this people has called this age as Optimum (in latin means better): when the planet average temperature raises life blooms, it was always in the same way, since the first unicellular organism made his debut in the first days of our planet.

But, as I pointed before, climate is changeable, and, after the medieval Optimum came a new climatologic age that began timidly in early 15 century and dominated the old world until the 19 century. This period is known as the Little Ice Age. In London, for example, fairs were celebrated on the frozen Thames until Napoleon times, and in Madrid, in the sunny Spain, there was an iceskating track of natural ice in Retiro park until the Reign of Alfonso XII (1874-1886). If today we see the magnificent river that crosses the center of London, or if we stop in front of the rosebushes that today occupy the old iceskating track of Retiro park, we will conclude that the climate has been warmed up, and we will be right. Temperature is higher than in 19 century, but we do not know why. Temperature is lower than in 10 century and neither we do not know. Human condition has these subjections.

Some astronomers have suggested that the cause, perhaps, is in the sunspots, because, after all, the only radiator who warms up the planet is the sun, and only from its rays can come such a big thermal changes. Others look for the changes in the natural climate oscillation. According to this theory, every 10,000 years the North hemisphere gets frozen and enters in a 100,000 years lethargy. This it is known as glaciation. Almost all the european orography is modeled by glaciers, -from the Pyrenees to Scotland- and some parts of the continent have been during several periods completely buried under the ice. If the tendency keeps its traditional run, the logical thing is thinking about the near glacial period, because more or less 10,000 years ago ice began to back down, that is, we are right know at the end of an interglacier period.

With such magnitude evidences, that is, extremely changeable climate, tremendous glaciations and and sweet optimums in which the life flourish, the only one thing that the environmentalist can offer are computer-made researches, yes, with a computer like yours but a litlle bit more powerful. In the data matrix of these computers they play programs called General Circulation Models or GCM. They provide the computer an amount -always limited- of variables. The conclusions are those they want. They create in the memory of the computer an atmosphere in miniature and to the liking of the investigator that, usually, is very concerned with the environment. If the outcome do not confirm the prefabricated hypothesis of the scientist, he will continue modifying the variables until saying "eureka" for display it as a great discovery

All the international meetings on the climate change have been inspired by the extracted data of those models, the decisions of many governments have been taken starting off from those data. And the famous and discussed Kyoto Protocol is, in the real world, the practical application -and on a global scale- of the experiments of these scientists playing God with their machines. Behind the presumed "Scientific Community" consensus comes the propaganda.

Nobody knows about the researches, except the authors of the experiment and two more who love waste their time with these things. About the second, however, everybody knows. In all environmentalist organizations agendas global warming is the star. In addition to this, they are obstinate. If, for instance, we have an unusual warm summer is an unequivocal sample of their theories. If it rains more of the habitual, it means the climate is crazy and this supports the heating thesis. If it is cold, freezing cold, although more difficult to defend, is also an evidence of something fails and, naturally, something is necessary to do.

Environmentalist seem to have in the head an ideal temperature, one degree more or less is suspicious and unnatural. Which is the ideal temperature of Earth?, the present one, the Medieval Optimum, perhaps the one of the Little Ice Age, or perhaps the one of the last glaciation, the same that transformed Europe in an immense ice cap? Neither the most hardened "defender of the planet" it could answer this question, because, behind the swindle of the global warming, is no ecology, nor climatology, nor science, not even curiosity by the thermal happening of the planet.

Behind the hoax there is ideology, and of the bad one. At the back of the 21 century biggest fraud there is a by-product of the ideology that subjugated one third of the human kind under the sickle and the hammer during 70 endless years. The environmentalism is simplified marxism, rejuvenated and passed through the turmix to make it more digerible to the new generations. Use the same tricks; lie, disinformation and propaganda, shielding itself behind a conceited scientific consensus that, as a wise person said, is always the first refuge of swindlers.