Dogmas are not good for the advancement of science.

For some time, and as an impartial observer of some of the main scientific paradigms of the last decades, I tried to analyze these ideas in light of my experiences and knowledge.

As we all know, scientific knowledge is relative. What is accepted today as a great truth, tomorrow will be disproved by other "truths", and what is more forceful, by the actual data of reality.

A paradigm that prevailed in the last 25 years is that climate warming is occurring, and that the cause of it is human action through the combustion of hydrocarbons, which has been called (with an appellation at less doubtful) "fossil fuels".

It has logic. The need or greed, has led to use the available hydrocarbons in the crust (oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) to provide energy to industries, homes, cars, railways, ships and other technological means typical of globalized industrial societies .

Due to uncontrolled consumption enormous amounts of carbon dioxide are generated, that gradually accumulate in the atmosphere producing a greenhouse effect, which in turn increases the temperature,`producing a climate change, which, according to this "very logical" approach, is the fault of human beings ( or "man" if we use the dominant patriarchal terminology).

It is all very logical. However, reality is stubborn. The concrete data (raw, NOT modified) show that this reasoning fails in several aspects.

In the first place, as all geologists know, talking about climate change is equivalent to saying nothing. On Earth, climates have changed throughout their history. In different times and places there have been, hot, humid, arid, cold climates, glacial ages, etc. In successive geological periods there are numerous rock formations that bear witness to them. Therefore, talking about "climate change" is like saying nothing new.

Regarding the terminology also used, although to a lesser degree, there is talk of global warming, of melting of the Antarctic, of a rise in the level of the oceans, of tropicalization of temperate climates, of increase in the number of hurricanes and other analogous phenomena which would be (is stated) the result of this “warming” that is predicted.

On each of these phenomena there are contradictory data. To begin with, it is very difficult to demonstrate warming with traditional methods of measuring temperature (meteorological stations of heterogeneous distribution that tend to measure predominantly the influence of urban islands). The temperature of the oceans, has shown to have periodic variations, and in the last years NO generalized warming has been appreciated. Neither measurements of the satellites have been conclusive. The temperature of the lower atmosphere has not increased significantly.

As for CO2, it is noteworthy that the content of the atmosphere of this gas is very small, just 0.04%. Since plants (the sustenance of all life on the planet) require CO2 to carry out their metabolism, their increase, which currently is of the order of 0.0001% per year, has the main effect of helping the growth of plant ecosystems (such as jungles, meadows or algae formations).

Regarding C02 as a "greenhouse" gas, it does not seem to have any influence when compared to the greenhouse effect of water vapor (much more abundant and with more intense effect) and above all with the influence of variations in solar radiation (which is, absolutely, and almost entirely, the main source of atmospheric energy).

For these reasons, it is unlikely that the tiny increases in CO2 in the atmosphere can have an effect on the global temperature, and, on the contrary its main effects ARE POSITIVE, that is, the increase in the productivity of plant ecosystems.

Of course, this is not important for the global powers, who are not interested in scientific truth (of course, beyond their speeches). For them the data of reality are irrelevant.

This includes, of course, the academic authorities (who can not deviate from the paradigm under penalty of losing their grants or tenures), political leaders (who do not know much about the issue and try to accommodate their claims to what is expected of them from the point of view of convenience) and business leaders (who in general manage to extract profits from any prevailing paradigm, whatever it may be).

And on the other side there are the heretics. Those who analyze the facts of reality without prejudices or preconceptions. Fortunately,  in this globalized world there are many heretical scientists and individuals.

Of course, those who disagree with the absurd idea of ​​climate change do not have good press. They are criticized as unscientific, and of course, always criticizing them without taking the discussion to the grounds of the arguments.

In fact, what happens is that the heretics have (myself included) many doubts.

There is no certainty that global warming is taking place in the atmosphere (data are not conclusive), there is no certainty that the inlandsis of Antarctica and Greenland are melting. Rise of ocean levels are very slow (a couple of millimeters per year) and may be the result of geological inertia after recent geological deglaciation.

Things are NOT clear.

When there is uncertainty about the processes, hasty political (and economic) decisions can be double-edged swords.

It is not reasonable to dogmatize the arguments. Do not forget that to a large extent the scientific advances of humanity were the result of the ideas and discoveries of the great heretics. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Lamark, Darwin and many others have allowed us to reach new milestones in human knowledge that can serve as illustrative examples.

Dogmas are not good for the advancement of science.
Danilo Anton