Much ado about climate

Lubna Abdel-Aziz
Tuesday 24 Jan 2023


On our annual pilgrimage to Hollywood Award Season, we were tempted to sidetrack. A left turn took us to the exclusive Swiss ski resort of Davos where the world’s elite were convening. That seemed like a more lofty purpose; besides all the powerful will be there, even movie stars. Leonardo Di Caprio? We made a wise move, or did we?

The World Economic Forum (WEF) was having its annual meeting to make this world a better place, with a “sustainable future”. Does that mean to eliminate all wars, improve the food supply, and end the economic crisis? If all those bigwigs like Bill Gates, Al Gore, leaders, statesmen, scientists, presidents, business and economic experts cannot solve the world’s problems, who can?

Viewing their agenda, naturally the Russia-Ukraine war headed the list. Within the blink of an eye it switched to the rising cost of gas and oil due to the war and how to get rid of them — not the wars, but the nasty fossil fuels that are ruining our planet, our economy, our existence.

We are back to climate change, a subject that simply will not go away, thanks to the media, social or mainstream, as well as a few alarmists with bad data in their briefcases.

Are all these intellectuals unaware of the 31,000 scientists who insist there is no scientific evidence that there is global warming outside of Nature’s course?

How is global warming a major threat to our survival when we are all cowering under thick blankets surrounded by heaters trying to fend the record cold of recent winters? Our heart goes out to those who have little means to keep their blood flowing. In Afghanistan, 78 people died due to the severity of the cold wintry months.

Even the elite attendants of the forum suffer from sub-zero weather, so how do they justify global warming?

Now, they claim that global warming can cause winters to get colder and more severe. How many faces do they wear?

It is no longer “global warming” retorts the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN, it is climate change of any kind. The IPCC looks better, sounds better and will cover all facets of scientific knowledge on climate change. Well, “what’s in a name” anyway? The purpose is to provide a “sustainable” future for our planet. That word “sustainable” keeps popping up. Has life not been sustainable so far?

Their answer is ready. There is a 97 per cent consensus among scientists on climate change. The 97 per cent is so misleading. They are 97 per cent of believers in fossil fuel dangers, totally disregarding the view of sceptic scientists, that are far more numerous.

Does anyone remember the “Climategate” scandal of the University of East Anglia that rocked the scientific world? In 2009, scientists at the university falsified data on the severity of global warming; their documents and data were leaked out for all the world to see. Holy science. How can there be trust when zealots in the scientific world deceive us?

They made a habit of it during the Covid-19 crisis, leaving the public disturbed, shocked, and traumatised. How can we trust scientists again?

Fortunately, there are a number of true blue scientists who have attempted to curb this avalanche of misinformation that has swept the minds of young students, their professors, eager investors in renewable energy as well as uber-ambitious scientists ready to do and say whatever advances their careers.

We refer to Stephen Wayward of Hillsdale College and his famous lecture “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Global Warming” — most convincing, laden with scientific evidence that refutes the apocalyptic theory of doom and gloom of fossil fuel believers.

“Global Warming: Fact or Fiction” by prominent geo- scientist, astrophysicist, PhD with distinction, University of Southern California, Willie Soon, famous for his hilarious presentation at the Independent Institute that left his audience in stitches, rolling down the aisles, convinced there is no such thing as man-causing climate change.

Soon explains why the forecasts of CO2 climate models have been so wrong and why solar influence on clouds, oceans and wind drive climate change and not CO2 emissions. Every sceptical scientist not only agrees with Soon but is convinced that climate is naturally variable, regardless of human activity.

Had the elites at WEF stuck to ending wars, humanity would have been better served.

Protesters to climate change activity were many at Davos, laughing at the ranting and raving of an Al Gore speech, raging at a world that abandoned his “inconvenient truth”.

One of the protesters’ banners read “People not climate”. Amen.

Caught between two visions, one thing is crystal clear: we cannot survive without oil, gas, coal, and other fossil fuels. Man cannot live on solar energy alone. The “renewable energy”, be it solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc, provides 17 per cent of the energy we use. The rest is provided by fossil fuel.

Investments in global oil and gas sectors have risen to $4 billion, from $2 billion in five years. Most people dismiss this hysteria over climate change, fuelled by the UN, the media, the elite, and progressives.

Why can we not have both? Why are we required to eat insects instead of meat?

Why sacrifice today’s lifestyle for a distant, uncertain tomorrow?

What good is an uninhabited clean planet?

The subject is tired and tiring. We took the wrong turn to the WEF.

Hollywood, here we come.


“Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”

 Mark Twain (1835-1910)

*A version of this article appears in print in the 26 January, 2023 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly.

Search Keywords:
Short link: