We are
living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough – irrespective
of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature
increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers
to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it
right now.
In the past
year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide,
Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth
report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put
together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something
about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The
dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not
for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is
denounced.
The author
Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is
the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I
feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example
of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the
“established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists
– see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against
the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it
to human activities.
As someone
who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I
see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity
now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to
replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now
global) planning.
The
environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not
believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the
technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the
proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of
the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.
The
scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of
their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political
and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and
interpretation of scientific evidence.
Does it
make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the
context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years?
Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice
ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes
occur (in both directions).
Due to
advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of
institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the
adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to
increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.
I agree
with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally
averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of
gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into
implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the
industrial age”.
The issue
of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man
and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global
temperature.
As a
witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:
Small
climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
Any
suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
Instead of
organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
Let us
resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific
consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent
majority
Instead of
speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal
behaviour
Let us be
humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us
trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction
Let us not
scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote
irrational interventions in human lives.
Copyright Vaclau Klaus. Published in Financial
Times June 13 2007. Reprinted with permission. |
