Slovenia's top meteorologist gets her county fined 80 million Euro



Vladislav Bevc:
Deceptions Indeed!
Lučka Kajfež Bogataj, the Primadonna of Slovenian Meteorology
delivered herself of her definitive article on global warming hysteria
in the Thursday, 27 August issue of Delo supplement “Polet.”
As a starter she observes that scientific evaluation and questioning
of the predicted global catastrophe awaiting our planet is akin to
maintaining that the Earth is flat.
Whoever finds the assertions of flat Earth similar to critical
evaluation of often hysterical predictions of a warming catastrophe
will obviously have difficulty in making any comparisons at all. As is
well known Eratosthenes, Magellan as well as photographs from NASA’s
space rockets have established the roundness of the Earth beyond
doubt. But alarmist predictions of catastrophic heating up of the
Earth which can be averted only by destroying our technological
civilization can hardly fit into the category of proven facts.
Contrary to what Kajfež-Bogataj writes it is incorrect that the Earth
is heating up right now. Measurements made by NASA’s satellites show
that there has been no warming since the year 2001. Indeed, it is
interesting that this, perhaps temporary plateau, has not been
predicted by the famed computer models of climate written around 1995
which predicted steady heating throughout the last decade. Obviously
such models and programs are worthless if they could not predict for
what we now have measurements.
Climatic changes have been occurring since the time immemorial and
long before the advent of man. The physical laws that control the
climate are known. However, because of the complicated nature of the
atmosphere meteorology cannot predict the natural phenomena with such
reliability as the more exact sciences such as theoretical physics and
chemistry.
As an example we can think of the electric discharges in clouds. All
the physical laws that come into play here are known yet we cannot
predict between which clouds and where the lightning will strike.
Everybody knows that weather is hard to predict and from that
experience one may draw conclusions how much less reliable are
prediction of weather that is supposed to set in fifty years from now.

A weather expert observed (Simpson 1939—40), p. 191 that while
meteorology is a branch of physics, physics makes use of two powerful
tools: experiment and mathematics. The first of these is denied to the
meteorologist and the second is not of much use in climatological
problems. Meteorologists thus never had such standing as scientists in
other branches of physics. However, now they discovered that they can
be important and indeed quite lavishly funded by making alarmist
predictions and posing as potential saviors of the world.
A famed professor of physics in Ljubljana, known for his direct
statements, disappointed over a poorly prepared student of
meteorology, even ventured the opinion that it is questionable if
meteorology should be considered a science. That might have seemed a
little overdone at the time but I think that he was right. As the
meteorology primadonna imputes ignorance of physics to skeptics who
dare doubt her dogma on impending climatic catastrophe one may, in
view of the unscientific tenor of her article, suggest that she would
do none to well with that professor.
That results of meteorological theories are often questionable is well-
known as are all predictions of complicated and not fully understood
systems such as the atmospehere. Reliance on unreliable theories does
not justify draconic measures that would damage the economy far more
than any of the so far unproven global warming predictions indicate.
Global warming theories can so far show only temperature differences
of the order of magnitude of one degree. In general humans do not
sense temperature differences less than two degrees Celsius.
Solar radiation most likely contributes to the increases in
concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2). If the oceans which contain
fifty times more CO2 than the atmosphere warm up they can contain
less carbon dioxide than at lower temperatures. In comparison with the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (about 3 million megaton)) there is
much more of carbon dioxide boiled out of the oceans than a few dozen
megatons that might be produced by the human economy.
It is important to realize that the Earth is still a large planet,
that the mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 billion megaton, mass of the
atmospheric CO2 3 million megaton (381 molecules per million), a
value which annually fluctuates by up to 50,000 megaton or 6 parts per
million. These figures dwarf the amounts of CO2 produced by human
activities. All five billion of people on this Earth exhale 5,000
megatonnes of CO2 annually.
In the United States the annual consumption of coal produces 3,500
megaton of CO2 , while the annual consumption of petroleum produces
3,100 megaton of CO2, passenger cars (of which there are 160 million
in the United States) production of 653 megatons CO2 is included in
the contribution from the consumption of petroleum.

Nor is there any possibility that increased concentration of CO2 would
lead to some kind of runaway problem such as a snow avalanche on a
slope on which the snow is not firmly bound to the ground where a
small movement can trigger progressively larger masses of sliding
snow. Re-radiation of infrared radiation by molecules of CO2, however,
is not such a runaway phenomenon, especially not at present
concentrations. Added quantities of CO2 do not cause proportionally
larger increases of temperature. A phenomenological description of
the situation is like this: The Sun radiates a given quantity of
energy, a given number of photons to the Earth which in turn
reradiates these photons back to the atmosphere. Molecules of CO2
absorb these photons, get excited, and after a while emit such
infrared photons back to the atmosphere thus heating it up. But if
there are more molecules of CO2 than there are photons radiated from
the Earth’s surface some of them do not get any photons to absorb and
consequently they re-emit none. Increased concentration of carbon
dioxide thus cannot increase re-emission of received energy if the
emitted energy is limited as is the case with solar radiation.
Increase of temperature is a logarithmic function of the concentration
of CO2 .
Concerning the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) one
need not to be some kind of Sherlock Holmes to discover its objective
– that is clearly apparent from its actions. (Yee shall know them by
their deeds.) If the demands of that committee were carried out the
dream of Karl Marx, viz., destruction of capitalism in the free world
would be finally realized. That is something that The Soviet Union was
not able to achieve in the seventy years of its existence and which is
now the objective of the Greens. There is no doubt that today’s high
standard of living in the industrialized states of the free world is a
direct result of the availability and abundance of energy which makes
a better and longer life possible. These are correlations to which
more reflection should be given.
The meteorologist primadonna cited no “constructive critics” who
supposedly acknowledge that civilization has a role in influencing the
climate changes. Megalomanic approaches to controlling nature have
been around since the time of the Persian warlord Xerxes who had the
Hellespont flogged with chains because the strong surf interfered at
the embarkation of his troops poised for the invasion of Greece.
Proof that any changes in climate are inflated and played up by the
media is the article of Slovenia’s primadonna of meteorology in Delo’s
supplement Polet of 27 August 2009, where the editors could not line
up someone who would prepare a balanced presentation of the issue. It
is the same with the American weeklies Newsweek and Time. The San
Francisco Chronicle, a paper known for its alarmist reporting on
practically everything had recently published a front page article
predicting that by the year 2100 the sea level will have risen by six
feet because of the melted Arctic ice and that as a consequence all
Bay Area airports will be flooded. A quick examination of the map
shows, however, that none of the Bay Area airports are lower than six
feet, Oakland airport alone being at exactly six feet. The latter
could easily be fixed by raising the runway somewhat. This, of course,
would be needed only if at that time the Greens will still allow
airplane travel.
Another thing worth knowing about the melting of Arctic ice over which
such fuss is being made. Arctic ice is floating on the ocean. If all
of it melted the sea level would theoretically not rise an inch. That
is basic physics. One can verify this by putting some ice in a glass,
mark carefully the water level and wait until the ice melts. After the
ice melts the water level will be the same as before. For showing that
one needs no “proper education in physics.” The ice on land such as on
Greenland or Antarctica is, of course, another matter. Greenland had
once already been green. As for Antarctica, the temperature there is
not rising but falling at present.
The leading meteorologist rather caustically attacks the “skeptics” of
whom she says that they have no education in physics or natural
sciences. Of course they are a threat as they might break her rice
bowl.
Implementing the demands of IPCC and her colleagues would undoubtedly
severely and cruelly lower the standard of living and devastate the
well being and liberty of the “common” people who “have no education
in physics or natural sciences.” The fact, however, is that many
people who “only” have intermediate education and who can think for
themselves understand quite well the representations on climate in
popular literature (assuming that any critical writing can be
published there) and even those appearing in professional literature.
Thus, for instance, the reader of McKittick’s and McIntire’s paper
showing that Mann’s infamous “hockey stick diagram” purportedly
predicting exponential growth of temperature is a result of erroneous
methodology applied to data and indeed that any input date would
produce the same result if Mann’s method were applied to it. Even the
IPCC had recently backed off somewhat from the “hockey stick”
prediction of catastrophe.
Who are the “employers,” who the primadonna claims are lavishly
supporting the skeptics and critics of catastrophic predictions? None
were identified in her article but in private communication she
mentioned a few reputable American corporations. It is not accepted
practice for American businesses and organizations to retain experts
and tell them to prepare reports promoting professionally unsound
positions. Such reports, as well as careers of their authors, would be
very short lived when exposed to professional criticism and peer
review. It is understandable that someone brought up in a socialist
system cannot understand this.
It is absolutely essential that the public – including its members who
have no education in physics or natural sciences – whose living
standard and liberty is endangered become engaged in active opposition
to the demands of Kyoto, IPCC and the Green shirts (allusion to Black
shirts and Brown shirts). It is clear that limiting the use of fossil
fuels can have no influence on the climate. Therefore it is not
necessary to burden the people with rationing and similar vexations.
And it is even more dangerous to interfere with the free market
economy of the free world and cripple it with the inaccessibility of
fuel by which it is driven. International agreements would limit the
sovereignty of Australia and the United States. It would be positively
dreadful if we were subjected to the dictates of Kajfež-Bogataj and
her colleagues. Therefore it is particularly important to persuade the
political leaders about the irrationality of limiting the use of
energy.
Positions of people who think and research various problems must of
necessity be changing as the road to new discoveries is strewn with
errors. This is hard to understand by people like Bogataj who have
been brought up in dogmatic totalitarian systems which upbringing
interferes with their functioning as objective scientists. One of the
first principles students in reputable universities are taught is that
of doubt on principle introduced by Thomas Aquinas. Namely when one
thinks that he has found something new and not known he must make
every effort to prove himself wrong. And only when he cannot show that
his finding is wrong he may hope that he has indeed discovered
something new.
Professor Fred Singer ranks high in primadonna’s demonology. She
appears to show some envy for the publicity given to Singer at the
Bled conference last Summer. Singer’s book is well documented and
makes possible to a broad range of readers including politicians to
form their own opinion about the purported climatic changes. Among
other things he shows that the glaciers have been receding since the
year 1820 at the same rate as after 1950 when fossil fuels began to be
used at a higher rate. (See for instance Robinson et al, J. Amer.
Phys. Surg., 12, 2007) Similarly he shows that arctic temperatures
follow the incident solar radiation and not the use of fossil fuels
9ibid.)
The Oregon petition also troubles the meteorologist primadonna.
Incorrectly she characterizes it to the effect that its sponsors
maintain that the global warming is a myth. In fact the petition
maintains that it is a myth that there exists a threat of an
approaching thermal catastrophe and that in case of such a threat
there is anything that humans could do about it.
That signing a petition addressed to the government of the United
States would require some specialized education is a hallucination due
to upbringing in a totalitarian socialist system. The right to
petition the government is guaranteed in the Constitution of the
United States. We no longer live in a time when the blacks in some
backward regions of the South were not allowed to vote “because they
lacked education.” Demands are being heard from primadonna’s
colleagues that those who doubt their predictions be haled before some
kind of thought control court organized along the lines described by
George Orwell. In such courts, the primadonna’s would preside and
perform in a manner similar as that of the inept and slothful female
Slovenian judges.
The English did not quite want to put up with Al Gore’s Hollywoodish
product and have produced the film “Global Warming – a Big Swindle”
which deals with the hysterical agitation about global warming.
Revealing for the mentality of the meteorologist primadonna’s are
expressions such as “culprits of global warming” viz., carbon dioxide,
as if one were dealing here with some kind of a criminal act
attributed to inanimate matter. Natural phenomena are unfolding as
they must and there are no agents, protagonists or other players in
these processes to whom one could attribute responsibility or concern
as to whether they are causing inconvenience to the primadonna’s.
Thus the English movie was “persuasive because of its technical
sophistication” for the majority of the people whose grasp of the
problematics the primadonna’s dismisses as the thinking of ignoramuses
who know no physics. Translated from her jargon: those who do not buy
her dogma.
Moreover, many parents in England did not like their children to be
propagandized in schools with Al Gore’s piece de resistance and they
took the matter to court. High Court Justice Barton established that
at least nine of Gore’s assertions were either in error or not proven
and ordered that the movie may not be shown to the captive audience
without presenting at the same time an opposite point of view or an
explanation of errors.
The judge is a lawyer trained in logical thinking, drawing conclusions
and examination of evidence but he probably does not have a degree in
physics. His understanding of the relevant problems is a living proof
that any intelligent person who wants to make a small effort can make
his own evaluation of the conflicting claims concerning climate
changes without requiring an approval from some meteorologist
primadonna’s. Such judges are almost impossible to find in the current
atmosphere of political correctness in the United States let alone in
Slovenia where most judges are communists. Still there is some hope
that the political leadership may in time recognize what is going on
and reject the malicious demands for limiting America’s productivity
and lowering its standard of living.
The Heartland Institute has published an extensive documentation of
situations where temperature measuring equipment was placed in
locations where it was interfered with machinery or environment, such
as e.g., transformers, air conditioner compressors, parking lots and
the like. When the Soviet Union was reorganizing, weather stations in
northern Siberia simply had no personnel to operate them for a
prolonged period. As a consequence data from those cold locations
simply could not be included and the resulting averaged temperatures
might have been distorted because data from colder regions were
missing. In any case, data from satellites are most reliable.
We are not told by the meteorologist what methods are used for
determining the temperatures of Mars, Pluto and Jupiter. The
meteorologist attributes the warming of those planets to “astronomic
causes” or even volcanic activity. Obviously there are no SUVs there.
Milankovic’s hypothesis of astronomical effect on the energy received
by the Earth is well-known.
The meteorologist states that in the distant past changes in the
concentration of CO2 lagged behind the changes in temperature. This
appears to be still the case but it in Al Gore’s parlance an
inconvenient fact as it would indicate that CO2 cannot be the cause of
warming. Then the meteorologist says that what comes first and what
follows does not matter at all in so far as cause and effect are
concerned because the processes involved have feedback effects where
it is not important what is the cause and consequence in an ongoing
process. This “theory” will undoubtedly be carefully listened to by
the specialists for electronic control and perhaps even pilots who on
landing try to put the aircraft in a nonflying position just before it
touches down. These people undoubtedly are not qualified to absorb the
profound wisdom of the meteorolgist’s speculations.
Concerning the “accusations” that anthropogenic emissions of carbon
dioxide are negligible in comparison with the natural ones it has
already been pointed out that the atmosphere contains 3 million
megaton of carbon dioxide and that this amount annually changes by
about 50,000 megaton representing 6 parts per million of the molecules
in the atmosphere. In the United States the entire annual use of
fossil fuels produces in the worst possible case 6,600 megaton of
carbon dioxide of which 50 percent remains in the atmosphere for some
ten years or so while the rest is absorbed by the oceans and the
plants. The meteorologist did not tell us what kind of a chemical
composition of CO2, and possibly other gases, could be indicative that
the increased amounts of CO2 are generated by human activities.
Humanity produced CO2, of course, cannot be marked as CO2 is CO2
regardless of where it comes from.
Concerning the forests it is well-known that in the United States
alone the forest have increased by 40% since 1952 and that CO2 works
as an enhancer of growth in proportion with its concentration while
the increases of temperature attributed to it cannot be proportional
to its concentration at the present levels. Doubling of the carbon
dioxide concentration would have only a negligible effect on the
increase of the temperature.
About water vapor which according to Slovenia’s leading meteorologist
has no effect on the climate we know the following: The present state
of warming (over the temperature the Earth would have if there were no
atmosphere) is 33 degree Celsius (see for instance Physics of Climate,
Springer, 1992, page 118). That is to say: if there were no
“greenhouse gases” the Earth’s temperature would be —18 degree (minus
18) Celsius. (See: Radiative transfer in the Atmosphere and the Ocean,
Cambridge University Press, 1999, page 441.) Of these the water vapor
is most important. Its effect translated into temperature is 30 to 31
degrees Centigrade which represents 95% of the total so-called
greenhouse effect. (See also: The Satanic Gases, Cato Institute, 2000,
page 25). Carbon dioxide although present in much lower concentrations
than water absorbs more of the infrared radiation as water vapor with
respect to the molecules involved and contributes from 4.2 to 8.4 % of
the total greenhouse effect.
Although the larger part of the so-called greenhouse effect is caused
by water vapor we may attribute to the carbon dioxide 1 or 2 degrees
of the present empirical temperature (15 degree centigrade).
Water is at least 99.99% of natural origin, that is to say, that no
limitations of industry or agriculture can reduce the concentration of
water vapor in the atmosphere. Therefore the climatologists are for
now limiting themselves to carbon dioxide and methane. In recent
years, however, noises were heard about human activities which
supposedly increase the concentration of water vapor in the
atmosphere. Perhaps exhausts from hydrogen powered cars? If the
demands of the saviors of the planet are acceded to by placing limits
on the use of fossil fuels we may well expect that they will get after
the water use next.
The skeptics, to be sure, are not required to “prove” anything.
Proponents of a hypothesis have this burden as has been found by
Martin Luther. The United States Air Force likewise is not required to
“prove” that it is not hiding the remains of an extraterrestrial
spacecraft and its occupants who crashed or were shot down near
Roswell.
In this case the burden of proof rests squarely on those who claim
that the civilization’s use of fossil fuels is cause of the present
day’s “disturbance of the atmosphere” and global warming which has
been appearing periodically in the past. A hypothesis must correctly
describe all existing and know phenomena and predict new effects. If
it cannot do that it is useless. (Thus the infamous “computer models”
of the atmosphere in use by IPCC put together around 1995 do not
predict the plateaus in temperature increase between 2001 and today.)
As an example from physics (the real one) the Grand unification theory
SU% unified with great elegance the quarks and leptons and correctly
described all the properties of the standard model. But – it also
predicted the decay of the proton. To date, notwithstanding extensive
experiments no proton has ever been found to have decayed. That is the
end of that theory – it will have to be replaced by another one.
Following are scientifically based objections to the predictions of
catastrophic global warming:
a.- Computer models of IPCC predict a heated zone at an altitude of
about 10 kilometers in the atmosphere. This is supposed to be the
“signature” of global warming. Instrumentation in weather balloons
has so far discovered no such zone.
b. - Research of data from ice cores of glaciers show that
historically the Earth temperature was periodically raising
approximately 800 years before a rise of CO2 concentration. Because
the consequence cannot precede the cause this refutes the hypothesis
that carbon dioxide is causing the warming. Assertions of the
harbingers of warming catastrophe that it does not matter what come
first and what comes next as to the cause and effect relationship are
patently absurd. Because in the Earth’s history increases in the
concentration of carbon dioxide were appearing later in time than
increases in the temperature there must be some other cause than CO2
concentration of the temperature increases.
c. - In the last eight years the Earth’s temperature was not
increasing. Measurements from satellites that circle the Earth twice a
day show that since 2001 the temperature of the planet did not
increase although the concentration of CO2 was increasing. This was
not predicted by the computer models and those models cannot account
for these observations.
D.-CO2 is already causing as much heating as it can. Doubling the
concentration of CO2 would not double the increase in temperature. The
first quantity – the first molecules of CO2 – is very important, while
the additional quantities add increasingly less. Carbon dioxide may be
only one of several different causes of the various causes of
warming. The Sun will not emit more energy if the concentration of CO2
on Earth increases.
Finally a commentary on the impertinent ad hominem attacks on the
critics of alarmist’s predictions of climatic catastrophe and demands
for limiting the use of fossil fuels.
To understand the basic problems of global warming it is not necessary
that someone is expert in the field of geophysics and meteorology. It
is enough that he has some intermediate education and can make a few
rather basic calculations. The main thing is that he can on the basis
of published information make an assessment of the claims of the
harbinger of a global catastrophe. This applies especially for the
politicians who willingly allow themselves to be led by the nose by
alarmists although they could make their own assessments themselves
and chase the charlatans and con artists from their offices. In the
United States prediction of an approaching catastrophe caused all
kinds of spurious economic activity and introduction of bizarre
projects such as electric cars, windmills, use of ocean wave energy,
production of hydrogen with the help of algae and the like, which the
economy has already rejected as economically unfeasible. These
projects seem attractive to some politicasters even though it is not
likely that they believe in their economic viability.
The Slovenian primadonna of meteorology objects to the petition of
scientists requesting that the government of the United States refrain
from entering into accords such as the Kyoto Protocol, a petition
which was signed by 9,029 persons who hold a doctorate, 7,153 who hold
a Master’s degree, 2,585 medical doctors or doctors of veterinary
medicine and 12,711 persons with a bachelor’s degree in natural
sciences. Most of the medical doctors have a basic degree in natural
sciences.
In her article the meteorologist named no one who in her opinion would
not be qualified to assess her hysterical predictions of a global
catastrophe. Later, in private correspondence she mentioned, in an
abuse way, the following prominent opponents of the campaign for the
control of the economy because of the meteorologists’ hallucinations.
Bjorn Lomborg, political scientist, (attacks global agreements. We
think this is a laudable and necessary activity. A political scientist
is certainly qualified in this area because in the United States
libraries screen out books and announcements which are critical of the
global warming theories on grounds that such publications are
political in nature.
Michael Crichton, author of a very interesting, informative and needed
book State of Fear, the publication of which took great courage on the
part of the publisher in the current atmosphere of global warming
hysteria is slandered by the meteorologist – who has never been inside
of a medical school (and who in my opinion could not get into one) –
that he is a failed student of medicine. Crichton might have
interrupted or abandoned his medical studies but the meteorologist
cannot show that he had failed any examinations or been asked to leave
the medical school. Crichton also authored about ten other books.
Vincent R. Gray, a chemist from New Zealand and expert on coal. A very
pertinent and desirable qualification. He can say with authority that
the annual emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere because of human
activities do not reach much more than one part per million
atmospheric particles and where Carbon dioxide constitutes 381 parts
per million, 3 million megatons by weight which quantity fluctuates by
50,000 megatonnes annually. Perhaps he is the authority who can
provide a professional opinion on the chemical composition of the
emissions in places where coal is used.
Anton Komat (“middle school graduate – with no published scientific
papers”) Middle school education and clear thinking is all that is
needed for evaluating the writings of most of the harbingers of the
forthcoming global catastrophe. We are in fact working on a book which
will make it possible for people with very rudimentary education to
make their own evaluations of the Global warming claims.
The famous American chemist Linus Pauling whose textbook on chemistry
is known all over the world, did not even have a high school diploma
when he started his scientific career which to an extent shows how
irrelevant the formal middle school education is. Pauling also meddled
in politics and once in Berkeley I heard him say that he thought
socialism would eventually prevail in the world. This in the face of
the well-known monumental failure of the Soviet Union and its
satellites’ five-year plans. An example how a great mind can be a
socio-political illiterate.
Mag. Mišo Alkalaj, mathematician -- “has not published one scientific
paper on the topic of global changes or meteorology.” As already
stated it is not necessary to be a specialist for meteorology and
publish in meteorological journals to be able to evaluate and discern
the errors and nonsense of the so-called scientific articles or
computer programs. Where would we be if comprehension of published
papers required that one has published in that specialty? For whom,
after all, are those papers written?
Prof. Peter Novak, mechanical engineer, energy specialist. “Changes
his opinions this way and that way. An excellent specialist for
energetics who did not publish a single paper on meteorology.” One
need not have published in meteorological journals to recognize the
errors in Mann’s infamous article with the ill-fated hockey stick
diagram which Al Gore is swinging. In fact, Mann’s blundering was
exposed and debunked by two experts in statistical methods and
projections who were not meteorologists. As new information appears
opinions of all open minded persons will vary but this is not the case
for persons like the meteorological primadonna who rigidly adhere to a
dogma.
If we know that the mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 billion megatonnes
and the mass of carbon dioxide 3 million megatonnes then we will of
course ask what effect can a few thousand megatonnes of carbon dioxide
per year attributed to industrial emissions change in the general
climate situation.
Anyone can read journals which are not written for people who
specialize in physics but who are able to assess quantitative data and
diagrams which are more persuasive than the hot air of the leading
meteorologist.
Finally, the reader may take a look at the article by Aleš Strojnik
“Who is a scientist?” (Naši Razgledi, Ljubljana, 28 January 1967).
Strojnik finds that a scientist is a person who systematically seeks
for something new and reports on his findings. Apparently he did not
think that all kinds of degrees are absolutely necessary for that
activity. After all, Faraday was a bookbinder’s helper, Edison,
Burbank and many other inventors had no university degrees. In fact, a
university degree is only a measure of an average capability to work
in a given field. After Strojnik published that paper, supported by
documentation on the work of the Slovenian scientists, there was
nothing left for him but to leave for Australia and thence to the
United States where he was professor of physics in Arizona. His
colleagues – as he with his immense courtesy addressed even the
students – were caustically asking him in the corridors what reward he
expects from the Communist party for his writing as Naši Razgledi used
to be a journal of the Communist Party and Mitja Ribičič (Slovenia’s
Comrade High Executioner), his next door neighbor, had encouraged him
to publish that article. For Slovenia that article is of extraordinary
importance and still very much relevant as I have been told by a
physicist who now lives in Germany.
Slovenia has only recently been fined to the tune of 80 million Euros
because of its minute and totally harmless emissions the damage of
which cannot even be measured on a global scale. For that Slovenians
can thank their meteorological primadonna and her cohorts. As Slovenia
is trying to participate in all kinds of international organizations
it is quite likely that Lučka Kajfež Bogataj may weasel herself into
some organization like IPCC if indeed she is not already a member of
it. For what it is worth we appeal to the Slovenian government in the
interest of the well being of the free world that something like this
should not happen.
Vladislav Bevc is author of the book Začetnica o Energiji (The
Energy Primer for Kids), Jutro, Ljubljana 2008 and, inter alia:
Environmental effects of Electric Cars in Wiley's Encyclopedia of
Environmental Analysis and Remediation, J.Wiley&Sons, New York 1998
Slovenian original Published in Ljubljana, Demokracija, October 8,
2009.
.