Because of a single imprecise remark, I have been asked repeatedly about my position on climate change. Allow me, therefore, to set the record straight in the following reflections.
The first and most fundamental problem with the prevailing theory of global warming—or, as it is now more fashionably called, global climate change—is that it has no falsifier. In other words, it does not possess the character of a standard scientific theory. It belongs less in the company of physics or biology, and more in the sphere of gender studies: a field where every possible outcome can be reinterpreted to sustain the initial premise. This absence of falsifiability is a far graver problem than the fact that Michael Mann doctored data to produce his infamous “hockey stick” graph. The exposure of that graph as a fraudulent construction does not, by itself, disprove warming trends. But when the overarching theory is by its very nature untestable, we are left only with our feelings and conjectures. Facts and evidence become irrelevant, since the framework is so nebulous that no result can definitively confirm or refute it.
One of the great strengths of genuine science lies precisely in its transparency. Anyone—even without decades of specialized training—can examine the logical structure of a scientific theory. That is why the rise of empirical science in Europe was historically intertwined with the rise of liberty and democracy. Science, at its best, is accessible, verifiable, and accountable. Ideology, by contrast, shields itself from scrutiny.
Allow me, then, to offer several reflections—mere opinions, if you will—drawn in part from a seminar by Professor Martin Konvička, Green Deal versus True Environmental Protection.
First. The climate does appear to be warming, though at different rates in different regions. Hence the headlines claiming that one place is heating “twice as fast” as another. These reports are technically accurate, yet misleading when stripped of broader context.
Second. There is no compelling evidence that human activity is the driver of this warming. The coincidence of two phenomena—the rise of industrial emissions and a warming trend—does not establish causation. And while it is easy enough to construct narratives about how one might cause the other, such stories have no real value unless they can be rigorously tested against data.
Third. We can be quite certain that Green Deals and similar programs exert no influence on the trajectory of the climate. Even their proponents tacitly acknowledge this, typically confessing that “we must at least do something.” Translated into plain language: they know it will not work.
Fourth. Suppose, however, that the most apocalyptic scenarios of climate alarmists did come to pass. The consequences for a country like the Czech Republic, as Professor Konvička explains, would be far from catastrophic. Some crops would shift to different varieties of wheat, forests would contain more deciduous trees, wetlands might expand along certain rivers, and a few species of insects would change their habitats. For the ordinary citizen, these adjustments would be almost imperceptible.