GIEC : « J’ACCUSE ! »

Publié le par Sylvain Saint-Martory

 




Avant-propos

 

Comme je m’y étais engagé dans le post publié ici le 23 septembre, et ayant pour objet « Le MENSONGE DU GIEC », la lettre dans sa version anglaise va être envoyée par courrier recommandé avec accusé de réception à l’organisme officiel mondial regroupant les sommités scientifiques chargées de manager la folle tentative des humains du XXIème siècle de réguler « à leur guise » le climat de la planète pour, selon l’expression de Claire Chazal sur TF1 après la récente « Journée pour l’environnement », enrayer les variations climatiques,  par quoi il faut entendre établir sur la planète un climat sur mesure pour l’éternité - sauf à quiconque, évidemment, d'établir le contraire en précisant tout autre but recherché !

 

L’avantage de la traduction anglaise est que ce courrier pourra être communiqué à de grands leaders internationaux, notamment Barack Obama, Ban Ki-moon, Secrétaire général des Nations Unies, Manuel Barroso, Président de la Commission européenne et Jerzy Buzek, Président du Parlement européen, mais également aux faiseurs d’opinion de l’hexagone, à commencer par Nicolas Sarkozy, pour les mettre nommément, une fois de plus, face à leurs mensonges et à leur lâcheté intellectuelle.

 

Pour mémoire, mon courrier antérieur, portant en objet « Pour information », avait été communiqué aux destinataires ci-après, dont aucun n’a jugé utile, à ce jour, de faire part de ses objections, ni de démontrer d’éventuels points de vue contraires. Il comprenait une lettre adressée à Nicolas Hulot le 29 juin 2007, à Jean-Louis Borloo le 20 janvier 2009, et à Daniel Cohn-Bendit le 1er juillet 2009, ainsi que le texte, Mensonges et lâcheté des élites

Destinataires

 

Associations

 

Europe Ecologie

Fédération Environnement Durable (FED)

Fondation Nicolas Hulot

Les Verts


Médias

Acrimed

Arte

BFM

Canal +

Europe 1

France 2

France 3

France 5

France Culture

France Info

La Dépêche du Midi

La Montagne

La Voix du Nord

Le Figaro

Le Monde

Le nouvel Observateur

Le Parisien

Le Point

Le Progrès

La Provence

Les Dernière nouvelles d’Alsace

L’Alsace

L’Est Républicain

L’Express

Le Républicain Lorrain

Libération

Marianne

Nice-Matin

Nord Eclair

Ouest-France

RMC Info

RTL

Rue 89

Sud Ouest

TF1

Valeurs actuelles

VSD

 

Philosophes et intellectuels

André Comte-Sponville

Axel Kahn

Claude Allègre

Michel Onfray

Régis Debray

 

Politiques

Front National

MoDem

Mouvement pour la France

Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste

Parti communiste

Parti de Gauche

Parti radical de Gauche

 

ANNEXE : Lettre du 31 octobre 2009 au GIEC

 

October 31st, 2009

 

Object:

« I ACCUSE: Enough lies and manipulation of the world’s opinion ! »

 

                                                                                     
C/O World Meteorological Organization      
7 bis, Avenue of the Peace     

C.P. 2300

CH-on 1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland                                                                                      
Email:
IPCC-Sec@wmo.int

 

 [To the attention of Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman]

 

Ladies, Sirs,

 

On September 2nd, then 6th, of this year, I sent you e-mail, forwarded on the17 of the same month, to ask you a question based on an argument with eternal validity in relation to the climate generally and to its variations in particular, but I am obliged to notice that this communication remains without answer to this day - and for good reason, no doubt! Indeed, I intended to denounce the contemporary global warming "swindle.”

 

However I do not mean the eventuality of global warming as such, because the Earth has already known of such phenomena in the course of the centuries and the millennia, but rather the arrogant claims of the people of the 21st century, which will be a laughing stock to our more or less distant descendants, if by any chance, they have any knowledge of it. Plainly, today’s earthlings imagine themselves capable of imposing their laws upon the eternal strengths of the nature, on which depend in particular the climatic variations, and of dominating them so as to, at the end, establish on the planet a "customized” climate for all eternity.

 

Nevertheless, if such is not the real intended purpose, I would be grateful to you for indicating to me the end aimed for, as well as its possible term. And I thank you all the more in advance in that I still wait on this precise point for the answer of Jean-Louis Borloo, French Minister for the long-lasting  Environment, to my letter of last January 20th sent in registered packet with acknowledgement of receipt – to this day, nevertheless, only the postal receipt holds place of refutation, as it goes moreover with my postal mail of September 18th, 2008 to Nicolas Sarkozy on this question, since here also the official receipt of the Élysée acts as the only solidly supported refutation! 

 

Certainly, the camp followers of scientism, spared from too much scrutiny from the media, the intelligentsia (self-proclaimed intellectuals and pseudo-philosophers) and the environmentalist associations, the spokesmen of the superstitious scientism, none of these ever pause from their campaign to persuade, with some success, in this "miracle,” as evidenced by the recent European ballot. Nevertheless, if I speak deliberately of superstitious scientism, in other words of science led astray by this current environmentalist hypothesis, quite like the claims about the beginning of our world from a hypothetical big-bang, it is because I identify this materialist metaphysics as one of the modes of expression of Superstition, like religion, idealistic metaphysics, or spiritualism, ideology and moralism, by "the relative taken as absolute".

 

This process, intellectually dishonest and philosophically absurd, consists in making pass fictitiouslydeceitfully! - for absolute, for reality or the absolute Truth, the merely "relative" contents thought through and about our world. This trick of superstitious thinking results only from the confusion of the faculties of our human thinking: 1) the practical understanding, which serves us only for living and for directing us in our world of things, and  2) the spiritual thinking, which is the way and the voice of the absolute ONE. The first faculty, indeed, is confined forever to its "relativity", and thus it can never claim to say anything whatsoever about the absolute, as contrasted with real spiritual thinking - nevertheless, it continues to superstitiously mix its relative points of view with the eternal absolute Truth !

 

Spiritual thought expresses itself through the authentic mystics like the Buddha and the Christ, in their authentic words, not as corrupted by Superstition usurping their names for falsely making the great spiritual thinkers out to be founders of religion, which they did not want to create. IT is also found in the "true" philosophy of the absolute ONE, and foremost amongst its great philosophical thinkers are Plato, Giordano Bruno, Spinoza and, more recently, the German Jewish philosopher Constantin Brunner (1862-1937), their spiritual heir.

 

I do not enter here, however, into an exhaustive philosophic debate to demonstrate and justify the reality of superstitious human thinking, where the relative is taken for the absolute, but I do not refuse to discuss it, if you were prepared to so arrange for it. I restrict myself for now to underlining that all the modes of expression of superstitious thinking base themselves on the claimed coexistence of "two" absolutes, namely a God, or a creative principle (primus motor of Aristotle, first agent of Avicenne and of Averroès, even the so-called big bang of contemporary scientism), AND our world considered wrongly by the quasi-totality of the human beings as an “absolutely absolute” reality. Nevertheless TWO absolutes coexisting, that is an absolute impossibility by definition, and as demonstrated more geometrico by Spinoza in Ethics I.

 

So the scientistic superstition, or materialist metaphysics, is also characterized, today as yesterday, by taking as absolute the theories and hypotheses of Science, while, in actual fact, it is forever limited to express only "relative" truths, susceptible to be ceaselessly questioned until the end of times. In spite of this obvious fact, scientism enjoys the blind trust of the quasi totality of the human beings, believing in the certainties of the science to "absolutely" know and understand our world - regrettably TOMORROW, always TOMORROW and only TOMORROW, in Saint Glinglin!

 

This misplaced trust in science is exactly the same as that put formerly in the advent of communism, and, today, in the efficiency of human rights to attain a freedom and an equality "so-called absolute", which everything about the state of the world refutes for ever. That is why, to paraphrase Yves Montand speaking about socialism, I assert about scientists: "They believe in science in a religious way, as I believed in it myself in a religious way." - but it is forbidden to no one, obviously, to demonstrate the opposite! From there to here, the naivety, the credulity, the "intellectual debility" of our period will continue to base itself on the medieval slogan: "Credo, quia absurdum "!

 

If you dispute all this, which is your most justifiable right, it will be necessary at least to demonstrate your opposite point of view. Indeed, I let you imagine, on the basis of the evolution of scientific knowledge during the last millennium, what will become, in thousand years, of the hypotheses and theories of our contemporary science, of which we are so proud and so trusting, precisely because we fictitiously consider them as “absolute” truths. Nobody, obviously, has or can have, today, the slightest valid idea of the scientific knowledge of the distant future in which our time will represent nevertheless, in its turn, the "obscurantism" of thought in its religious, ideological and moralist superstitious beliefs - but also scientistic!

 

Besides, as the ecologist discourse is for the main part a cross between environmentalism and politicking, as can discerned even at the European Parliament, I cannot help but make the analogy of scientism with ideological superstition, all the ideologies without any exception. Indeed, the same confusion between the relative and the absolute allows scientism and ideology to foster belief in the possibility of introducing the absolute into the relative, of transposing the Ideal into everyday life, and so to obtain on Earth a "customized", or ideal, climate for the one, and an ideal society for the other one - and this, in a world, where EVERYTHING is relative, and NOTHING is absolute, except, obviously, contrary demonstration!

 

Regrettably, as it always goes with all the "beliefs in miracles" of superstitious thinking, not only the hoped result is always remitted to TOMORROW, necessarily; but by waiting for saint Glinglin, we shall have done a lot of lying, and falsified a great deal of opinion, as it is the case with the current ecologists, who will remain naive, deceived and deprived until their last day! If you also dispute this point of view, not only will it also be necessary to demonstrate the contrary, but I can assure you that you will not see personally - and nor will any of our contemporaries - the advent of your climatic fancy. Rest assured, nobody will ever see it, but it is not forbidden to you to provide proof of the contrary, or provide even a robust demonstrative argumentation in favour of your thesis, in answer to my fundamental question repeated below!

 

The absence of robust arguments, which I am already betting on, should be enough to end all the superstitious "nonsense" of our times about the means to remedy the global warming merely through the "miracle" of our so-called free will. This free will is nothing other than a supplementary deceitful intellectual and philosophic "aberration!”. Indeed, contrary to the belief shared by the quasi totality of humanity, the future of our world does not depend on our imaginary "free will", by virtue of which it would be enough to merely wish for being successful. It depends rather on what Spinoza names "necessity", and which led an intellectually honest politician, namely Mikhaïl Gorbatchev, to declare: "Nothing can be made outside the frame of a superior necessity." [Cf. Le Point, n°901, 24 - 31 December 1989].

 

Gorbatchev's superior necessity is nothing other than Spinoza’s "necessity", and it invalidates definitively the common idea, according to which our human free will would be enough for doing what we want - but it is forbidden to no one, obviously, to demonstrate the contrary! And the facts, both internal and external, already confirm that the Barack Obama’s lying slogan of the presidential election campaign, his "Yes, we can" to be precise, does not confirm the effectiveness of our so-called free will for changing the world. It changes enough without us, permanently!

 

Really, "ALL" that happens in our human world (natural phenomena, historical events, collective actions, and individual acts) results only from the infinite chain of causes and effects, depending exclusively on the perpetual motion of our universe and all the things which constitute it. So, in its infinite transformations and the infinity of its degrees of speed, universal movement is the SOLE cause of all the ceaseless modifications of all the things of our universe, including the permanent transformations of the human beings – according to Brunner, in our world, NOTHING is constant, except the changing !

 

To believe that solely our so-called free will would be enough to initiate anything whatsoever into our world is to take it for God, or first cause. Thereby we are becoming the first link of the infinite causal chain, while, even ignorant of "necessity", the "inescapability" of the future of the world, we are ceaselessly subjected to the infinite determinism of the infinite causality. In our world we get absolutely NOTHING under control, neither our loving life nor the climate, and you would master the natural strengths, according to your will ! However you can at least try to demonstrate the contrary­! ! !

 

The preceding leads me to raise a major objection against the current environmentalist thesis. I assert, indeed, that the future of the world generally, and that of the climate in particular, depends on the infinite connection of the "infinity" of the causes and effects of all phenomena, while the hard-line ecologists, on the other hand, indicate clearly, without ambiguity, that they consider carbon dioxide, CO2, as the unique factor responsible for global warming. It is labelled as the number one enemy of the planet - the scapegoat, in a sense -, since all the envisaged solutions aim exclusively at its reduction, as proved it the recent "Day for the planet" aiming to lock the climatic changes – but, obviously, it is not forbidden for you or anyone else to demonstrate the contrary!

 

About my major objection, I put the following question: "How could CO2, which cannot - any more than any other thing of our universe – be the cause of itself, and then the real “first cause” of climatic disorder? Besides, imputing its origin and its action only to the industrial or automobile pollution of our time, is to forget a little too quickly that Greenland and Great Britain knew an exceptional reheating in the 9th and 10th centuries, during which there were meadows and dairies in the one, and vineyards in the other one, while the causes incriminated today were non-existent.

 

I will not elaborate here on the gaps in our current scientific knowledge, already mentioned, but I cannot resist mention of inaccuracies advanced by the ecologists regarding the polar glaciers for example, because there is in Antarctica exactly the opposite phenomenon to the north hemisphere, judging by a comment of Claude Allègre on France Inter, on October 11th, 2007. What do we really know, besides, about the internal functioning of the sun, for example, about El Niño, about the magma in flux under our feet, and about a lot of others things, or even of their precise implications in the evolution of the terrestrial climate? After all, regarding future scientific knowledge, we do not know a lot of things, and certainly nothing about how current blunders are to be refuted in the future. Concerning the so-called absolute truth in science, we can know NOTHING, as also confirms this comment of Claude Allègre during the same broadcast: "The scientific official truth, that does not exist! He confirmed so the distinction made by Brunner between the relative and the absolute, the confusion of which is at the origin of our superstitious thinking!

 

As for weather forecasts established by scientism on the basis of its current mathematical models, which are fictitiously taken for having absolute validity, what will these models be in a century or more­? Today, anyone can at least notice that these forecasts are not absolutely reliable over a fortnight, and usually even much less, exactly because of the perpetual universal movement which your mathematical models boast nevertheless to know in its infinity of forms and degrees of speed. In spite of this complete impossibility, you come to announce to the world, as absolutely certain, some of the forecasts to be verified in hundred years, when none of the current human beings will be there to verify. This prophetic scientism moves ever closer to superstitious religious belief in a paradise and a hell, from which nobody, necessarily, ever came to bring the proof!

 

Besides, we have also to admit that Superstition in its diverse modes of expression bases itself, in all times and places, on fear and hope, as we see with the celestial paradise or the imaginary paradise on Earth! I cite for proof the catastrophic prognostications of Jean-Marc Jancovici, whom you certainly know in his capacity as inventor of the carbon assessment, if I am not mistaken. He paints an apocalyptic future of the planet, and does not hesitate to foresee "war in the world", "loss of democracy", etc. in connection with the scientistic superstition of the day, if human beings fail to stabilize the climate. And let us not forget, obviously, the disaster movies of Al Gore, Yann Arthus-Bertrand and Nicolas Hulot, also based on the fear-mongering about the future!  

 

I cannot detail here all the arguments in the same vein that exploit fear of an uncertain future for the planet. In summarizing all the ideas on the origin of global warming and the means to remedy it, I must simply emphasize that scientism and ideological environmentalism confuse the theory, the Ideal, and the practice, our earthly reality; but without ever caring about THE absolute eternal Truth. Certainly, it is easier to deny the absolute Truth than to truly establish, with your tricks, your merely relative truths that are deceitfully set up as absolute - absolutely absolute!

 

Even if you deny IT, THE absolute Truth reveals itself by the only fact that it contains "in itself" its certainty, solely based on its absolute Uniqueness. Indeed, if there existed two opposed truths, all the more if there were more, none of them could be really absolute, and that is why any true debate of ideas cannot consist of opposition "in the infinite" between diverse truths. Real true debate lies in confronting all partisan, relative points of view, ALL without exception, with THE absolute eternal Truth, which is enough to invalidate them in their claim to express the Absolute - a good reason, consequently, for not ostracizing the upholders of the inverse ecological thesis generally, and Claude Allègre in particular! 

 

If THE absolute Truth reveals itself also by the absence of any contradiction or incoherence, this is far from being the case for the environmentalist thesis, as already established with consideration of the infinity of causes, but it is also obvious as regards the future of the world. Suppose, indeed, that arrogant humans would succeed today "by magic" in establishing on the planet a customized climate merely in reducing the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere, who can guarantee, in view of the perpetual universal movement, that it would last for all eternity? And thus our more or less distant descendants would need to apply themselves to the task once again, since, whether you agree or not, the climate of the planet will remain changeable until the end of times, and according to the infinite connection of the perpetual universal movement, it will continue, sometimes to be warmer, sometimes colder!

 

That is why I denounce without hesitation a global "swindle", which, chronologically speaking is to be classified after the "invention" of religion and of the so-called contemporary universal catechism, or Declaration of human rights in 1948. It does not take the innate egoism of human beings in account, while our egoist nature make us unable to act unanimously - climatic warming or not! Nobody, indeed, escapes his natural egoism, whether in matters of love, or wealth or honour-vanity, in which all people are subject to their egoistic interests.

 

And it is these human beings such as they really are, and not such as they should be, that you trust to act unanimously against a presumed mortal danger, the term of which is pushed forward to Saint Glinglin. Meanwhile, these people are incapable of settling local conflicts between Lilliputian territories, lasting more than six decades, even of pacifying Afghanistan, and they claim to moralize the capitalism or locking the climatic variations, according to your wishes, what exceeds widely the twelve labours of Hercules's in scope, and in financing.

 

I go even farther, basing myself on the natural egoism of human beings (beginning with myself), and thus I assert without risk of self-deceit that, if you assured people an 8% growth rate each year for decades, their fear about the planet's fate would immediately stop bothering them.

 

For lack of proving that assertion, necessarily, it is not forbidden to everybody, you included, to establish the contrary by showing any unanimous actions for the planet, a very difficult task, since so many others testify of actions pulling in different directions, as shown merely by the thrifty reactions to the principle and amount of the carbon tax, without forgetting the difficulties of the twenty seven States of the European Union to agree on the financing of the envisaged measures.

 

For lack of anything better, you can try at least to bring a convincing answer, namely a scientifically and philosophically well-argued demonstration, to the following question already put in my previous e-mails:

 

« In a universe, which is perpetually in movement, and where EVERYTHING is in a constant movement, which is the  SOLE cause of the unceasing transformations of all the things of our world, human beings included,  HOW would-it be possible to definitively stabilize anything whatsoever, and thus establish on the planet a custom-made climate for all eternity, except, precisely, by stopping all this movement itself?»

 

Assuredly, it is fashionable to speak today about a "long-lasting environment", but without mentioning the possible depletion of natural resources, which we cannot predict for the distant future, HOW could anything be "sustainable" in a universe which moves ceaselessly, and where EVERYTHING changes continually?

 

Looking forward to your possible contrary arguments on very precise points of discord, for lack of which your silence and your refusal to discuss would show your decided intention to continue in the lies and the "belief in miracles" of the contemporary world, I thank you for your attention and assure you, Ladies, Sirs, of my best regards.

 

 

P. S. Emails of September 6th and 17th, 2009


 

 C/O World Meteorological Organization

 7 bis Avenue de la Paix

 C.P. 2300

 CH- 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

 Email : IPCC-Sec@wmo.int

 

[To the attention of Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman]


 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

I sent you twice by email, i.e. on the 2nd and the 6th of this month, the following message enclosed with my letter, but I am sorry to note, that it still remains today without answer.

 

However it contained an important question, which seems sufficient for definitively invalidating the pretentious arrogance of 21st century humanity to establish on our planet a custom-made climate for the eternity.

 

Nevertheless, if you really think, that this argument is not sufficient for invalidating your «climatic dream», you do have at least to demonstrate so, otherwise it is only a question of faith like in religion, i.e. scientistic religion, or, rather, materialistic metaphysics.

 

So, without a definitive answer to my question, I will send you a more detailed letter for establishing the definitive impossibility of having a custom-made climate on earth.


In the expectation of your contrary demonstration, I thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen, for your attention.

                                                      

First message :

                                                                                   
September 6th , 2009     

                                                      

                        
C/O World Meteorological Organization

7 bis Avenue de la Paix

C.P. 2300 

CH- 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

Email : IPCC-Sec@wmo.int  
                   

[To the particular attention of Rajendra K. Pachauri]


Ladies and Gentlemen,


I would be very interested in your scientific and philosophical answer to the following question :


«In a universe which is perpetually in movement, and where EVERYTHING is in a constant movement, which is the  SOLE AND UNIQUE
cause of the unceasing transformation of all the things of our world, human beings included,  HOW would-it be possible to definitively stabilize anything, and thus to establish on the planet a custom-made climate for the eternity, except by stopping this movement itself, precisely?»


They are very powerful, these humans of the 21st century, and they surely have no doubts about their pretentious arrogance. Nevertheless, only when you will give a credible answer to this question, i.e. a scientifically demonstrable explanation, humanity will cease to be manipulated on the climatic question and the so-called means to remedy it - but such proof is, no doubt, for tomorrow
 

At this point, I inform you that I am still waiting for an answer on the same question, which I presented in my letters addressed to Nicolas Sarkozy on September 18, 2008, and to Jean-Louis Borloo on January 20th, 2009; but these letters are at your entire disposal. 
 

However, in the expectation of your own answer, I thank you for your attention.


Yours sincerely


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                               

Publié dans COURRIER "Divers"

Pour être informé des derniers articles, inscrivez vous :

Commenter cet article