The issue of anthropogenic climate change has gone well beyond the scientific barrier to enter the political, if not criminal, arena, as evidenced by the recent Climategate case.

At this point, global warming is already a scientific evidence, corroborated by the two cold waves of the freezing American winter. However, there are enough data to suspect that, behind the dummy climate change, there are hidden geopolitical, economic and financial interests in the short, medium and long term deadline. Those who only see war as a mere armed conflict between two opposing parties, of course, grasp its essence, but fail to see the ocean of political, diplomatic and economic nuances that provoke it and, sometimes, prolong it unnecessarily. Something similar could happen with climate change. It is, without a doubt, a certain reality that threatens us with immense ramifications and consequences. It is not surprising, therefore, that in this first stage of anarchic globalization, a financial cryptocracy wishes to exploit global warming in order to obtain the maximum possible political and economic profit.

I am no friend of conspiracies. Nevertheless, I became convinced of the media and political manipulation of global warming by reading a suggestive interview with Freeman Dyson, an eminent scientist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, published last year in the weekly magazine of the New York Times. Dyson, a man of liberal disposition and exquisite simplicity, defined his position on global warming - politically incorrect, of course - using three lapidary sentences: "All the fuss about global warming is terribly exaggerated"; "Global warming is the first article of faith of a world secular religion"; and, to top it off, a caress, "The fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn't scare me at all".

In recent days, an excellent report by Julien Eilperin and David A. Fahrenthold in The Washington Post of February 15, 2010, has put me back on track. award In it, the well-known American journalists bluntly warn of the errors contained in the seminal report on global warming, which won the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. The IPCC is made up of group of experts who, under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, analyze in depth the most relevant scientific, technical and socio-economic information on the risks of climate change caused by human activities, as well as the possible repercussions.

Recent evidence of errors in the IPCC's report undermines the confidence not only of the group, but also of the political strategy itself on topic. "There is an impression that something is rotten in the IPCC," said Richard H. Moss, a scientist at the University of Maryland, who has worked at the IPCC for a number of years. Jeffrey Kargel, a professor at the University of Arizona, also complains because "it's really painful to see what has happened." The report notes that the huge glaciers in the Himalayan mountain range could disappear by 2035. However, Kargel argues that it is "physically impossible for the ice to thaw that fast." The cause of the errors, it seems, may be that the UN expert group cited a report from an activist group , rather than a peer-reviewed scientific study.

The controversial report has heated up the atmosphere in the U.S. House of Representatives in recent weeks. If not, just ask Republican Senators James M. Inhofe and John Barrasso, who are prepared to use every means at their disposal, including the blunders of report, to block mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the money of the powerful energy lobby goes mainly to the coffers of the Republican party (more than 75%) and not to the Democrats (around 25%).

It is impossible to know the full extent of the energy, financial and political interests behind global warming, but some can be glimpsed. Global warming is a good political instrument to increase state protectionism, and with it taxes; it is a strong argument for investing in alternative energy companies and could become the beginning of the end of the empire of the traditional energy lobby. But there is more, much more. In my opinion, at the international level, behind the hysteria provoked by global warming lies a plan to take a step forward, as firm as it is undemocratic, in the establishment of the new world government.

This new world government, of which there has been so much talk in recent years, would begin de facto with the creation of a first global institution, which could dictate binding norms for the States in subject climate and would be economically controlled by powerful magnates of the Anglo-American empire (with capitals in New York and London). If model works well, other similar global institutions would be set up to solve all the problems affecting humanity as a whole (international terrorism, poverty, nuclear weapons, etc.).

There are reasons to think that it is the climatic fact and not another that gives rise to the first global institution. Firstly, because the international rules and regulations and the organizations regulating climate change are very diverse in nature and content, having been established at very different times and by different countries. There is by no means a hierarchy rules and regulations that integrates and harmonizes the variety of provisions in the subject, but rather a fragmented and complex regime, ranging from multilateral treaties such as the United Nations Convention on Climate Change framework , with subsidiary agreements such as the Kyoto protocol or the Copenhagen political agreement , through the Montreal protocol , to bilateral initiatives (between Russia and India or China and the United Kingdom, for example). There are also specialized UN agencies, clubs (such as the G-20). Secondly, because global warming affects all humans equally regardless of race, religion, social position or language. This fact makes things much easier as it avoids ideological tensions, which are sometimes the most difficult to overcome.

Under Obama's control, global warming would be the best instrument to Americanize the globalization process, promoting a foreign policy change in the United States in order to ensure American world leadership in the coming years, always hand in hand with China, which would become, no longer a mere economic ally, but the geopolitical and strategic partner par excellence. The creation of such a global institution was not possible at the Copenhagen summit, but this does not mean that it will not be possible in the relatively near future.

I am a staunch defender of global law, of its necessity and its possibilities. I dream of it, as so many of us once dreamed of a united Europe. That is why I think that, without a global law to order them, the new global institutions are highly dangerous because they will easily become the slaves of those who set them up. I refer to the UN, that tiresome mass. I believe that the strategy must be different: let us first draw up a global urban plan; then, if possible, let us build the houses and skyscrapers, i.e. the institutions. Another way to proceed is to start building the house from the roof up, allowing a policy of fait accompli to be imposed at the global level, at the whim of an unscrupulous plutocracy. If we fall into their hands, everything, absolutely everything, could be lost.