National AssociationBulgarian Black Sea

Follow us!

News

01/05/15

Environmentalism - a threat to freedom

 

Neno Dimov was born in 1964 in Sofia. Master's degree in mathematics from the University "Sv. Kliment Ohridski" 1991 PhD in Physics Academy of Sciences since 1997 Member of the Working Group on UN / ECE in emission inventories. Secretary of the Ministry (1997-1999), Deputy Minister of Environment and Waters (1997-2001), member of the Board of the European Environment Agency (1997-2002), a member of the negotiating team for the accession of Bulgaria to the European Union MP from the Democrats for Strong Bulgaria (2005-2009). Since 1996 developing their own business. From November 2014 is Chairman of the Institute for the right policy.

When people gather to talk about economy, circulatory system which is energy, ecology and sustainable development always leads to conversation about carbon emissions and so-called "Global Warming" as a curse hanging over our heads.

I will also dwell on this question because he began to acquire sizes that can not be ignored. Mankind has repeatedly suffered from gullible and naive attitude towards seemingly absurd theories that were not only costly and sometimes lethal and devastating. Let us only remember the hot war of the middle of last century and the subsequent cold.

I will discuss three aspects of the question, scientific, economic and political. Based on these findings give that I think are reasonable.

Scientific approach required to set clear questions and find the most convincing answers to them. No claims of originality, I'll use set by Patrick Mitchell (former president of the American Association of climatologists) and prof. Singer (scientist from the US) questions:

1) occurs at all you global warming?
2) If the answer is "YES", the action of man there is reason for it - whether evidence "ON" and "ProTV"?

To answer the first question, I will use the data and opinions of the world's scientists and international organizations.

The American scientist James Hauser provides that in the XXI century due to rising temperatures, sea levels will rise by six meters. I quote him precisely because it refers and world leader of environmentalistite - Al Gore. That sounds catastrophic and rightly afraid. What does the UN on this issue - political organization similar to the purpose of Gore and company receiving funding from them? The first International Working Group on Climate stated in its report of 1990 rise in the XXI century with 66 cm. The second working group in 1996. reduced estimates of 49 cm. (ranged from 13 to 94 cm.), the third in 2001. abandoned prediction, but reduce the range of 9 to 88 cm., and the fourth from 2007 define limits from 14 to 43 cm. In such limits are assumptions and a number of independent UN scientists. Moreover, the third UN report admits: "the climate is only partly predictable", "state of the art today is such that it can only be illustrative examples of possible consequences," "long-term climate projections into the future are not possible ".

Do not accidentally begin to UN reports, because they themselves are unscientific, unsystematic and manipulative. I will only recall that 3 it report from 2001 illustration of the unprecedented warming in the XX century was illustrated by graphic type "hockey stick" and report in 2007 graph disappeared without explanation. The approach to the scientists involved in the working groups The UN is also incorrect - in the final report them express gratitude without mention of their objections, which creates the false impression that they agree. This finding made 10 eminent scientists from 6 countries, in a document prepared in Canada in 2007 . and prompted a review of 54 other scientists from 15 countries.

What does a purely scientific approach? For the past 150 years from 1860 to today, the temperature has risen by about 0,60-0,75oS (instead of 2, 5 or 10!). But as noted in the literature, half of the measured increase in the period to 1940 From 1940 to 1980 gimame fall and then rise again. This does not correspond to the activity of human activity - the burning of solid fuels, for example. The regional approach is also interesting - in the US that can be called "big furnace for solid fuels" warming is registered to 1930, and then started cooling, far greater than in the rest of the world. In Central Europe measurements show increasing temperatures for 100 years by about 0,3oS with temperatures in 2001-2006 are similar to those ot1920-1940g.

Besides sea levels and temperature differences, interest and behavior of glaciers. Scientists say there are cycles (spores on their duration) during which the behavior of glaciers is easily predictable. Looking Alpine glaciers, which have lost about 60% of its volume since 1850, we see that 20% are lost during 1855-1890, the new 25% losses during the 1925-1960 year and only 5% in 1980 That is, the, melting ice has no connection with the so-called "greenhouse effect".

What are the concentrations of CO2? For the past decades the levels of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.036%. Data on CO2 levels over periods of millions of years back in time show that CO2 levels are now among the lowest ever. Moreover, considering the graphs of temperature variations and those of CO2, over a relatively long period of around 400,000 years, it is seen that changes in temperature preceded (with over 500 years) changes in levels of CO2. This correlation is not necessarily causal, but if one still sought, it is logical to conclude that no CO2 levels cause temperature changes, and vice versa. Now is the time to note that CO2 is not among the main causes of the greenhouse effect. In fact, water vapor is a greenhouse gas with the largest share in the Earth's atmosphere and contributes to about 95% of the greenhouse effect, and it is almost entirely natural origin - 99.99%)

Since 1998, out data on global warming of at least 3 planets of the solar system (Triton - according to scientists from astrophysical observatory Wallace for 10 years from 1989 to 1998 the temperature has risen by 1,7oS, Jupiter - in 2006 . assumption is made that the temperature in different parts of the planet can be increased by 5,6oS, Pluto - receding planet from the Sun has risen in temperature to 2 ° C over the last 14 years).

If these planets have fever, if this means that a significant portion, if not all the warming of the Earth over the past 100 years due to the sun and other cosmic forces, and has nothing to do with people?

From the foregoing it is clear that even minor warming of the Earth seen, but clear evidence that human activity causes it, can not speak. Moreover, there is strong evidence in favor of the opposite view.

Economic analysis:

The Kyoto Protocol seeks to limit to 1/3 the use of electricity in order to reduce the temperature of 0,05oS in 2050. I do not dare to estimate the direct and indirect costs aimed at extremely dubious result.

Insofar as there is only conjecture what would have happened in 2050 or 2100 years, the approach is now reduced to a caution. Any reasonable person tries to minimize the risk, ie cautious. The question is where is the limit of reasonable caution. It is prudent to abandon the expensive insurance unlikely to risk. Just the contrary evidence Kyoto Protocol.

Requirements for energy from renewable sources is another example of an unreasonable approach. Today's technological development allows the extraction of this energy, but it is very expensive. Moreover, the claim that this energy is inexhaustible and therefore well available is not correct. To build solar or wind power or crop biomass needed huge areas of land that is not inexhaustible (to replace the energy of Kozloduy NPP Burning biomass we will need about 10% of the entire territory of Bulgaria). Unreasonable approach is to burn biomass instead of coal - both process produces CO2 emissions. The production of electricity from hydropower plants is not without environmental impact, but is less effective than thermal power plants.

With this I want to show that such caution is unprofitable. In life everything is paid. It pays for precaution.

There hypothesis of economic dependence between the level of income, ie richness and quality of the environment, which shows that growth only to a certain point deteriorates the environment. The further increase of wealth helps seriously and improve the environment, ie wealth and technological progress to solve rather than create environmental problems. This hypothesis is not rebutted by environmentalistite - they do not like to deal with the details.

Political analysis:

I mentioned about incorrect approach the UN to scientists involved in the working groups. I left a comment on the political part because the UN is a political body and serves certain interests - in this case the interests of environmentalistite.

What are they actually - environmentalistite? At the end of XX and beginning of XXI century is no longer socialism is the biggest threat to the freedom of man. The most serious threat to freedom today is the ideology of the political movement embarked with the theme of environmental protection, but gradually becoming environmentalizam nothing to do with nature. This political ideology puts man as an 'external and harmful factor, "along the lines of another ideology that put certain races as" harmful ". Applied in the past, this ideology would accuse people of induced him permanent environmental disaster, turning the existing flora and fauna in crops, which has led to climate change. Environmentalistkiyat approach to nature is similar to the communist approach to the economy - replacing the free development of the world with centralized. Any such approach is utopian and leads to quite different than originally conceived results. These utopias are accomplished only by limiting the freedom and dictatorship of the minority "knowledgeable" than the majority "outsider." For them it is important to create a sense of uncertainty, anticipation of danger or an external enemy. Then it has to act quickly - without the slow democratic procedures without analyzing the effects, costs and possible alternatives from the perspective of a single source of truth, and so on.

The aim is to sow fear among the people so that they are willing to give their time, money and power environmentalistite. Fear is the worst counselor, this is a fundamental truth that pops in every sphere of human activity. In practice, this is more refined version, substitute disclosure to a "bright future" with the fear of catastrophic future. If people are not there willing to sacrifice today to live better tomorrow, it certainly accept privations today to exist tomorrow . This is a way to dramatically increase the state system well remember the recent past. The methods also do not differ much.

Professor Richard Lindzan the Massachusetts Institute of Technology warned: "Scientists who deviate from" the only correct line, have witnessed how their funding disappear, their work is ridicules and vilification of themselves and made a laughingstock earned fools or more bad. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credibility, even when they go against science, which is supposed to be their base. " One of many examples is the attitude of the Danish Committee on Scientific bad faith, who anathematized scientist Bjørn Lomborg for speeches arguments that a global warming may be useful to mankind (vindicated a year later). Environmentalistite use financial resources to guide in their desired direction results of science, trying to create a scientific monopoly - a situation in which there is only one buyer and that is the state. Then the money goes only those scientists who are supposed to confirm forecasts of dangerous climate change. For safer summaries of research reports are written by the most politically active and therefore biased members of research teams. For this approach certificates and former finance minister Norman Lamont Britain, which defines as "shocking" attempts to stop funding those climatologists who do not uphold "causing panic position."

As in any dictatorship is noticed creeping censorship. The media do not write anything in Heidelberg Appeal since 1992. In Leipzig Declaration of 1996. Which they discover that "contrary to popular belief, there is no scientific consensus on the importance of warming." Do not speak of Oregon Petition of 1998, which says: "..ne there is no convincing evidence that greenhouse gas from human leads to catastrophic warming of the earth's surface and climate change." Said Heidelberg Appeal was signed by 425 scientists. To date it is signed by more than 4,000 scientists, 72 of them Nobel laureates.

I take the liberty to quote four paragraphs of this appeal:

"I fully share the tasks of scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be analyzed, monitored and protected.
We insist, however, analysis, monitoring and preservation be made based on scientific criteria and not based on irrational prejudices.
So warn authoritative leaders in whose hands the fate of the planet, the danger of making decisions based on pseudo-scientific arguments and erroneous or non-existent data.
The greatest evil that hinders the development of our Earth are ignorance and limited thinking, not a science, technology and industry, as they solve the problems of mankind. "

conclusion:
If you ask someone who lived 75-80 years on a farm, whether climate change is most dramatic experience affect the way it operates the most likely answer would be "NO". The transition from the plow to the tractor from the oil lamp to electricity is far more important. All potential resources become economically only by man through his ingenuity and his efforts. Limited, limiting future human can be only be "human resource" with its unique ability to turn potential resources in real. To realize however that "human resource", needs the freedom to be himself. Today, this primarily means freedom from environmentalistite.