In this essay I have described facts, and presented underlying phenomena, correlations, and a simple feedback model.
All are correct, although incomplete, and extrapolations and evaluations of future scenarios are obviously wrong.
Nevertheless, by doing this I could gain an understanding of the orders of magnitude that are in question, and I found that they are manageable.
But contrary to what many sceptics do, I'm not inclined to investigate every titbit of error or misinterpretation made by scientists and claimed by warmists; why quibble when it’s irrelevant?

I have also presented the political context in which the whole debate is taking place. This is scarier than temperatures anomalies.

Aside of catastrophe warning if nothing is done to prevent climatic variations, apologists aim at changing our society and at shaping it according to their preferred higher order.
Being inaccurate on the facts, biased in the analysis and exaggerating impact on the negative side, they reveal a distinct preference for a tyrannical collectivist organization of our society, this time not just a third Reich or a Soviet empire, but a World “consensus” to which their twisted logic would be leading us.

When I write “they” I understand very concrete political constituencies and action groups from alternative movements that are nowadays pretending to be outside of the establishment, but in reality totally immerged in it.
Dedicated NGOs, groups of “concerned” scientists, intellectuals and jesters, and the habitual useful idiots are contributing to this opinion building from within the establishment.
They are wrong and they have been quite successful.
It is high time to reverse this tide.

Many published findings have been false, or grossly exaggerated, or even outright lies.
I don’t like entering in a debate with dishonest people (this is why I even don’t cite the name of a former vice-president of the USA, Nobel Prize laureate, what a shame!) who claim to be standing on the moral high ground; this is a farce!.

I would like to encourage policy makers and the media to be less ingenuous in believing everything served to them under the wrong pretext of scientific consensus (sic).
They are being instrumentalised (which is a euphemism for manipulated) by well-organized modern tribes who justify the use of any mean by the ideal value that they attribute to their goals.
Leaders should at last begin leading rather than to remain lagging behind dishonest gurus disguised as experts.

The climate is varying as it does since billions of years.
Our human societies also change, faster and sometimes more erratically.
Our cultures are diverse and our social and economic situations are different.
Why should we adopt now a monomaniac view on how to govern the World and to control a climate that we don’t own?

Should human suffering be subject to the higher value of a so-called 'Nature Conservation'?
Is there anything that should be conserved in a museum-like fashion?
Is biodiversity something that should never evolve?
My answer is a triple no.

Even if the climate would be significantly varying, I’m asking: so what? Slow and slight shifts in fauna and flora that are already taking place are neither good nor bad.
Would it be a catastrophe to establish beach resorts on the Kamchatka peninsula, to move ski stations from the Alps to Kyrgyzstan, or to cultivate wheat fields in Siberia?

It is urgent to stop calls for urgency.
Other more important and pressing issues should capture our attention, instead of being terrified by those who pretend that the sky will fall us on our heads.

Kaiseraugst, October 2014