[...] d’études climatologiques de référence du GIEC. Ce centre de recherche, dénoncé par Vincent Courtillot, qui était incapable d’obtenir d’eux, les données brutes concernant le réchauffement [...]

[...] d’évoquer le superbe travail, du professeur français Vincent Courtillot (voir le torchon rédigé à ce sujet, ainsi que les vidéos associées), membre de l’Académie des sciences, [...]

Bonjour,

A l’appui de votre dénonciation du « mensonge du GIEC »,je vous joins la copie de ma lettre recommandée avec accusé de réception adressée au GIEC le 22 octobre dernier.

Toutefois, si la longueur de ce courrier ne me permet pas de le reproduire ici, je vous saurais gré de m’indiquer où vous l’adresser, en écrivant à cette adresse :

sylvain.saint-martory@cegetel.net

Je vous en remercie et vous adresse mes sincères salutations.

Sylvain

Lettre du 22 octobre 2009 au GIEC
October 22nd, 2009

Objet :
« 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 and 6th of this year, I sent you an e-mail, forwarded 17 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 well to notice that it always remains without answer this day – and for cause!

Indeed, I intended to denounce the concerning contemporary global warming « swindle », not a possible global warming as such, because the Earth has already known of the others in the course of the centuries and the millenniums, but the arrogant person claim of the human beings of the XXIth century, which will make the laughing stock of our more or less distant descendants, if by any chance, they had knowledge of it. Plainly, the current earthlings imagine themselves capable of dictating their law to the eternal strengths of the nature, on which depend in particular the climatic variations, and to dominate them in the point to succeed so, at the end, in establishing on the planet a customized” climate for all eternity.

However, if such was not the real looked for purpose, I would be grateful to you for indicating me the end aimed as well as its possible term, and I thank you all the more in advance that for it I always 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 – this day, however, only the postal receipt holds place of opposite argumentation, as it goes away moreover of the mail of September 18th, 2008 to Nicolas Sarkozy on this question, since only the official receipt of the Élysée also acts as opposite arguments solidly supported !

Certainly, the day followers of scientism, relieved without too many flats by the media, the intelligentsia (claimed intellectuals and pseudo-philosophers) and the environmentalist associations, the spokesmen of the superstitious scientism, have no respite to persuade with some success in this « miracle », as gave evidence of it the recent European ballot. Nevertheless, if I speak, on purpose, of superstitious scientism, in other words of the science led astray in its current environmentalist hypothesis, quite as it claimed about beginning of our world from a hypothetical big-bang, it is because the materialist metaphysics is characterized as the other diverse modes of expression of the Superstition [religion, idealistic metaphysics, or spiritualism, ideology and moralism] by the  » the relative taken as absolute ».

This process, intellectually dishonest and philosophically absurd, consists in making pass fictitiously – deceitfully ! – for absolute, for reality or the absolute Truth, the only « relative » contents thought in and on (about) our world. This trick of the superstitious thinking results only from the confusion of the faculties of our human understanding, which confuses the thinking of the Abstractions, or fictitious auxiliary constructions (theory of atoms, genes, etc.), and the real spiritual thinking. However our practical understanding, the one which serves us for living and for directing us in our world of things, is confined for ever in its « relativity », and thus it can never claim to say whatever it is of absolute, contrary to the real spiritual thinking, which is the way and the voice of the absolute ONE.

This real spiritual thinking expresses itself through the authentic mystic (cf. the Buddha and the Christ, among others, in their Word not corrupted by the religious superstition which, by usurping their name, made it wrongly the founders of a religion which they did not want to create), and in the « true » philosophy of the absolute ONE (cf. Platon, Giordano Bruno, Spinoza and the German Jewish philosopher Constantin Brunner (on 1862-1937), their spiritual heir.

I do not enter here however an exhaustive philosophic debate allowing to establish the reality of the superstitious human thinking, the one which takes the relative for the absolute – but without refusing for all that to discuss, if you were arranged there. I restrict to underline that all the modes of expression of the superstitious thinking base themselves on claimed coexistence of « two » absolute, namely a God, or a creative principle (primus motor of Aristote, first Agent of Avicenne and of Averroès, even so-called Big Bang of the contemporary scientism), AND our world considered wrongly by the quasi-totality of the human beings as an “absolutely absolute” reality – but, two absolute entities philosophically speaking, it is an absolute impossibility by definition, as demonstrated more geometrico by Spinoza !

So the scientistic superstition, or materialist metaphysics, is also characterized, today as yesterday, by taking as absolute the theories and hypotheses of the Science, while this one is for ever condemned to express only « relative » truths, susceptible to be ceaselessly questioned till the end of the times ; and that, in spite of the blind trust of the quasi totality of the human beings in the certainties of the science to » absolutely » know and understand our world – regrettably TOMORROW, always TOMORROW and only TOMORROW, in saint Glinglin !

This badly placed trust is completely similar to that put formerly in the advent of the communism, and in the efficiency of human rights, today, to reach a freedom and an equality  » so-called absolute « , what everything denies in the state of the world. That is why, to paraphrase Yves Montand speaking about the socialism, I assert about the Science:  » They believe in the science in a religious way, as I believed in it myself in a religious way.  » ; but it is forbidden neither nobody nor yourself, obviously, to demonstrate the opposite ! From here there, 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 it, what is your most justifiable right, not only it will be necessary to demonstrate the opposite, but I let you imagine, on the basis of the evolution of the scientific knowledge during the last millennium, what will be, in thousand years, hypotheses and theories of our contemporary science, of which we are so proud and so trustworthy, precisely because we fictitiously consider them as “absolute” truths. Nobody, obviously, has and can have, today, the slightest valid idea of the scientific knowledge of coming distant periods for which our time will represent nevertheless, in his turn, the « obscurantism » of the thought in its religious, ideological and moralist superstitious beliefs – but also scientistic !

Besides, as the ecologist speech is for the main part a cross between environment and politicking, as it can be even noticed to the European Parliament, I cannot lack of making the analogy of the scientism with the ideological superstition, all the ideologies without any exception. Indeed, the same confusion of the faculties, confusing the relative and the absolute, allows the scientism and the ideology to let believe in the possibility of introducing the absolute into the relative, of transposing the Ideal into the everyday life, in point to reach so, 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!

Regrettably, as it always goes away of all the  » beliefs in the miracle  » of the superstitious thinking, not only the hoped result is always dismissed in TOMORROW, necessarily, but by waiting for saint Glinglin, we shall have lied a lot and deceived a lot the opinion, as it is the case of the current ecologists, who, besides, will have remained naïve, cuckold and deprived until their last day ! If you also dispute this point of view, not only it will also be necessary to demonstrate the opposite, but I can certify you that you will not see personally – and not more all our contemporaries – the advent of your climatic fancy. Feel reassured, nobody will ever see it, but it is not forbidden to you of bringing the proof of the opposite, even a robust demonstrative argumentation in favour of your thesis, in answer to my fundamental question reminded below !

For lack of reaching that, due to the lack of robust opposite arguments there, as I already take the bet, this should be enough to end all the superstitious « nonsenses » of the period about the means to remedy the global warming thanks to the « miracle » of our only so-called free will – it is nothing other than a supplementary deceitful intellectual and philosophic « aberration » ! Indeed, contrary to the belief shared by the quasi totality of the humanity, the future of our world does not depend of our imaginary « free will », by virtue of which it would be enough to want to be able to, but it depends of what Spinoza names the « necessity », and which led a politician intellectually honest, namely Mikhaïl Gorbatchev, to declare: « Nothing can be made outside the frame of a superior necessity.  » [cf. Le Point, n°901, week from 24 till 31 December 1989]

Gorbatchev’s superior necessity, it’s nothing of the other one than the Spinoza’s « necessity », and it invalidates definitively the common idea, according to which our human will would be enough for being able to do what we want – but it is forbidden neither nobody nor yourself, obviously, to demonstrate the opposite! And it is not the lie of presidential election campaign of Barack Obama, his  » Yes, we can  » exactly, that brings some credibility to the efficiency of the action of our so-called free will in the becoming of the world, as the facts already seem to confirm that on the internal and outside plan.

Really, « ALL » what happens in our human world (natural phenomena, historical events, collective actions, decisions and individual acts) results only from the infinite chain of the infinity of the causes and effects – a connection only caused by 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, the universal movement is the UNIQUE cause of all the ceaseless modifications of all the things of our universe, including the human beings.

To believe that our only so-called free will would be enough to introduce whatever it is of our world, it is to take itself for God, or first cause, and so becoming the first link of the infinite causal chain, while, even ignorant of the « necessity », the « inescapability » of the future of the world, we are ceaselessly subjected to the infinite determinism of the infinite causality – but it is not forbidden of demonstrating the opposite !

What precedes 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 the effects of any phenomenon, while the hard-line ecologists indicate clearly, without ambiguity, they consider the carbon dioxide, or CO2, as the unique factor responsible for the global warming. It is labelled as the enemy number one of the planet, the billy-goat emissary (bouc- émissaire ?) in a sense, since all the envisaged solutions aim only at its reduction – obviously, it is forbidden neither nobody nor yourself to demonstrate the opposite !

Besides, how the CO2, which cannot – not more than all the other things of our universe – be cause of itself, could-it be the “first cause” of whatever climatic disorder it is? So, imputing its origin and its action to the only industrial or automobile pollution of our time, it is forgetting a little bit fast that Greenland and Great Britain knew an exceptional reheating during the IXth and Xth centuries, in the point that there were meadows and dairies in the one, and vineyards in the other one, while the causes incriminated today were non-existent.

I do not extend here over the gaps of our current scientific knowledge, already evoked, but I cannot nearly raise inaccuracies advanced by the ecologists on the polar glaciers for example, because there is in Antarctica exactly an opposite phenomenon of 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, about El Nino, or about the magma in fusion under our steps, etc., and of their precise implication in the evolution of the ground climate ? After all, towards the future scientific knowledge, we do not know about it much, even blunders refuted by the future, and about the absolute truth, we know NOTHING, as also shows of it this comment of Claude Allègre: « The scientific official truth, that does not exist !  » – confirming so the distinction of 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 the scientism from its current mathematical models, but also fictitiously taken for absolute, what they will be in a century or more ? Everybody can notice that these forecasts are not absolutely reliable in fortnight of interval, even much less, exactly because of the perpetual universal movement which your mathematical models boast nevertheless of knowing in its infinity of forms and degrees of speed. And above, 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 no more there to verify – this prophetic scientism is to be moved closer to the superstitious religious belief in a paradise and a hell, where from nobody, necessarily, ever came to bring the proof !

Besides, we have to admit that the Superstition in its diverse modes of expression bases itself, of any eternity, on the fear and the hope, as it goes too about the celestial paradise or an imaginary paradise on Earth ! I want for proof the catastrophic comments of Jean-Marc Jancovici, whom you certainly know in his inventor’s quality of the carbon assessment – if I am not mistaken. He draws 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 day superstition, if the human beings failed in their of stabilizing the climate – without forgetting, obviously, the disaster movies of Al Gore and Yann Arhus-Bertrand based on the fear of the future too !

For lack of enumerating in its entirety all the arguments of the same vein, based on the fear of the uncertain future of the planet, to summarize all the ideas uttered on the origin of the global warming and the means to remedy it, I cannot nearly highlight that the scientism and the ideological environmentalism confuse the theory, the Ideal, and the practice, the ground reality, but without ever caring about THE absolute eternal Truth. Certainly, it is easier to deny it than to establish really, as far as your tricks present as such your only relative truths, that is deceitfully set up as absolute – absolutely absolute !

Even if you deny it, THE absolute Truth shows itself, of the only fact of containing « in itself » its certainty, such as it already results from its Uniqueness, and also from the absence of contradiction and from incoherence. So, if exists two opposed truths, all the more if there are more, none of them could be really absolute. That is why the only true debate of ideas cannot consist to oppose between them,  » in the infinity « , partisan relative points of view against the others so relative and partisan, but in confronting them, ALL without exception, with THE absolute eternal Truth, which is enough for invalidating 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 by the absence of any contradiction and the slightest incoherence, it is far from being the case for the environmentalist thesis, as already established about the infinity of the causes, but it is also obvious as regards the later future of the world. To suppose, indeed, that conceited current human beings would succeed « by magic » in establishing on the planet a customized climate by the only reduction of the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere, who can deny, because of the perpetual universal movement, that it would not last for all eternity ? And this would involve for our more or less distant descendants to get down again to the task, since, that you agree or not, the climate of the planet will remain changeable till the end of the 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 any hesitation a global « swindle », which, chronologically speaking, is to be classified after the « invention » of the religion and that of the so-called contemporary universal catechism, to which I confront the innate egoism of the human beings making them unable of unanimously acting in the same direction – climatic warming or not ! Nobody, indeed, escapes his natural egoism in his affairs of love, whatever the object, of ownership of goods or persons – where from the importance of the money as the instrument of exchange – and of glory or honor-vanity, through the search for titles, for distinctions and for medals of all kinds.

And it is on these human beings such as they really are, and not such as they should be, that you trust to act unanimously against a mortal presumed danger, but the term of which is pushed away in saint Glinglin, while, besides, they are incapable to settle local conflicts between lilliputian territories, lasting for more than six decades, even only to pacify Afghanistan, while the climatic work to be undertaken, according to your wishes, exceeds widely the twelve Hercules’s gathered works, and their possible financing.

I go even farther by basing me on the natural egoism of the human beings (to begin with me), and I can thus assert without big risk of deceiving me that, if you assured the human beings a 8 % growth rate a year on decades, their fear on the planet’s fate would immediately stop bothering them.

For lack of being able to bring the proof of that, necessarily, it is not forbidden to everybody, you included, to establish the opposite by showing unanimous actions, here or there, for the planet, while so many others testify especially of actions pulling in different directions, as only shown by the thrifty reactions on the principle and on the amount of the carbon tax.

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

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

Assuredly, it is fashionable to speak today about « long-lasting environment », but without speaking here about the possible depletion of natural resources, which we cannot prejudge for distant one future, HOW whatever it is could be « sustainable » in a universe which moves ceaselessly, and where EVERYTHING changes permanently?

Looking forward to your possible opposite demonstrations on very precise points of discord, for lack of which your silence and your refusal to discuss would show your intention decided to continue to the lies and the « beliefs in the miracle » of the contemporary world, I thank you for your attention and ask you to approve, Ladies, Sirs, my best regards.

P J : 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 the XXIe century’s human beings 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 it, otherwise it is only a question of faith like in religion, i.e. scientist religion, or materialistic metaphysics in fact.

So, without a demonstrative answer of yours at 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 :
…., the 6th of September

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 by your scientifically and philosophically argumentative answer to the following question :
« In an universe, which is perpetually in movement, and where EVERYTHING is in a constant movement, that is the 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, excepted by stopping this movement itself, precisely ? »
They are very strong these humans of the XXIe 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 demonstrated explanation, the human beings will cease to be handled on the climatic warming and the so-called means to remedy it – but until proof of the contrary, it’s not for to-morrow !
Up to there, I inform you, that I am always waiting for an answer on the same question to my letter addressed to Nicolas Sarkozy on September the18th 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