Remove the Words “Climate Change” from the Title of the Greek Ministry for the Environment

The Greek Ministry of the Environment is called “YPEKA”: Ministry for the Environment, Energy and Climate Change. Is the cause of climate change campaigners in Greece strengthened by having the term “climate change” included in the name of this ministry?

The conventional public debate on climate is not a scientific debate. It is a highly politicized debate which appears to be structured around the needs of the two-party political system of the United States, with Republican “climate change sceptics” and Democrat “climate change believers”. Even the accusation that the climate debate is not scientific but political has been misappropriated by one side of the conventional debate, the “sceptic” side, for purposes, again, not scientific but political. The conventional climate debate is misleading because the key issue for governments and citizens is not whether climatic phenomena are “man-made” or “natural”. The key issue is whether anthropogenic climatic phenomena (the kind to which governmental policy decisions can be relevant) are the result of human activity unrelated to climate policy or the result of deliberate policies of climate modification.

If policies of deliberate climate modification are being concealed behind allegations of “climate change”, this is surely adequate grounds for banishing the term “climate change” from governmental and intergovernmental policy documents, and from the titles of ministries. Phenomena should be called by their real name.

On 25th March 2014 the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions ruled that the charges against clandestine climate modification raised the previous year by the active citizens of the Skyguards civic platform are “admissible in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, insofar as the subject matter falls within the sphere of activities of the European Union.”

How desirable it would be if this ruling of the Committee on Petitions could comprise a first step towards Europeans extracting themselves from the paralyzing divide-and-rule scenarios continually being imposed by the United States, a first step towards a Europe of autonomous citizens.

There are climate change sceptics who advocate the abolition of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand says, for example: “The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only ‘reform’ I could envisage would be its abolition.”

Other climate change sceptics make the proposal more persistently and with full documentation. The author and activist Donna Laframboise finishes her book “The Delinquent Teenager” an expose of the IPCC” with a chapter entitled “Disband the IPCC”. She says: “The (anthropogenic climate change) case must be examined anew – with a brand new judge, a brand new jury, a brand new prosecutor. This fresh, untainted group must start from scratch. (…)” “For years we’ve been told the IPCC is a reputable and professional organization. (…) In reality, it’s a rule-breaking, not-to-be-trusted delinquent teenager. Surely climate activists and climate skeptics can agree on this one thing: the future of the planet is too important to be left in hands such as these. Governments should suspend funding immediately. The IPCC must be disbanded.”

So speaks Donna Laframboise. Her bold challenge deserves to be taken up. Are she and her fellow thinkers strongly enough opposed to the IPCC to be willing to try to build “a new IPCC” in conjunction with the Skyguards civic platform and the citizens’ groups that share its objectives?

7th January 2015