by Imi Markos
(English translation by Claes Landin)

- I want to charge all irresponsible scientific researchers of their crimes against mankind during the last one hundred years! This is because of the accusation against myself after the release of my first India letter on my Internet site.

One of the readers mailed the following accusation: Why did you go to Kerala by air? Don’t you know that the airlines are the worst villains of the “climate drama”?

I find this accusation unfair in the long view. Think it over: I am only one single person of thousands or millions of travellers, using a means of transportation, the injurious effects of which have been suppressed by the inventors and product development engineers for more than 70 years; not to talk of those researchers who surveyed the future possibilities of aero dynamics.   

Why just pillary us, the poor travellers?

Why are the honoured scientists not found guilty? Why not take to the International court of The Hague Sir Frank Whittle, the English engineer, who in 1930 patented the jet motor? Wouldn’t it be fair to accuse him retroactively of crime against mankind, why not together with all the honoured air plane constructors of Boeing, who are now boosting their new airliners with eight motors.
Please note that over the years these so-called genious men have simply and solely concentrated in beating the records in speed, in height, and in security, almost exactly  according to the classical Olympic legend: “citius, altius, and securius (instead of fortius)”.

They have been working with blinkers, completely without glancing at the injurious side effects, caused by the jet motors, i.e. effluents of carbon dioxide, which is a major contribution to global warming.

The British airplane constructor Geoffrey de Havilland was totally unaware of the unavoidable environmental pollution caused by industrial development.  He was one-sidedly focusing technical improvement, which is “the younger brother” of natural science, and the key to the success of the industrial age. The aircraft industry produced pilots, air hostesses, airports, business travels, global tourism etc, i.e. a giant trade for millions of employees round the world.

As early as 1941 de Havilland could apply Whittle’s patent and used his sons as test pilots, in fact ”guinea pigs”. The elder son Geoffrey was killed in a high speed test with Havilland DH 108 Swallow, trying to break through the sound barrier. But it was the plane that was broken to pieces by the futile effort.

In the early fifties the de Havilland family was at last ready to introduce the first jet-propelled passenger plane. For 50 years on, however, nothing was revealed concerning the deleterious environmental side effects… 

On the contrary the British nation keeps on honouring Sir Frank Whittle och Geoffrey de Havilland as heroes, the former like a king with a statue outside the Aviation Museum in Coventry.

Is it right to call Whittle a hero?

Yes of course, referring to historical standards of yesterday that are only measuring the technical development. Using to-day’s or to-morrow’s value scale he is indeed a questionable hero.

We must not forget that “the Victor always writes History”, and I am convinced that the present scientific Establishment, more and more losing credibility, will not be allowed to write the history of to-morrow. If, against expectation, we are going to avoid the imminent climate catastrophe, maybe the serious environment protection NGOs will be the new historians. In their history books Sir Frank Whittle may stand out as one of the big climate villains.

Whittle & Co may escape with the extenuating excuse that they didn’t know of the injurious side effects of their innovations. But in that case they will be dethroned as men of genius. A responsible comprehensive view is a must to deserve a honorary title of that dimension.

Unfortunately, another scenario also exists: Whittle & Co had the comprehensive view and knew of the side effects, but they withheld it deliberately in order to please the economists, and the politicians. The short-term competitive advantage, and the big profit forced them to be silent!

This scenario is the most probable – when we are now facing the most recent piece of news regarding the ultimate climate villains, i.e. the nice cows! The fact is that neat cattle together with other meat-and-milk animals in the industrial production discharge a lot more carbon dioxide than all means of transport in the whole world, i.e. aircraft, cars, buses etc. The meat consumption puts Whittle & Co in the shade, indeed! 

The specialists and researchers within biology, medicine, and biomedicine are at a loss, and say: “We have not a slightest idea!”


Presumably they are lying

All the time they have known of the detrimental effects of the modern animal production. But whether they are employed researchers or faithful consultants they are sure to obey their employers: the farmers’ union, the food industry, and the pharma industry. Profit always beats ethics… And they have never informed the medical profession or mass media of the carbon dioxide menace, though it has been imminent ever since the 1960’s. You might say that the catastrophe started in the middle of the 19th century with the slaughterhouses of Chicago.

The biomedicine profession has got a lot more on its conscience – if you let me make a slight digression from the main theme. For the moment they have great trouble in defending the myth of the “highly dangerous fatty food” that practically all doctors have been warning for with strict diet instructions.

This is false alarm!
The cholesterol danger is a myth that was born about 55 years ago in consequence of two negligent observations. 1) Fat food (rich in cholesterol) caused arterial damage in rabbits and 2) Decrease of mortality in arterial sclerosis in those countries where during World War II people had to eat low-fat food. They didn’t die in heart attacks!     
Now we know that these observations were futile and lacked scientific evidence. In spite of this the false prophets of this myth have been able to manipulate the so-called Health Care Authorities in many countries. NIH  (National Institute of Health of USA),often regarded as a guide to the world, surrendered to the myth already in the 1950’s.

Since then the American health care has “bought” all the commandments, blazoned abroad by Jeremiah Stamler (to he left), who is the most powerful prophet in the pseudo-religious mission for the cholesterol myth. They have even accepted Fred Matson’s biased research, maintaining that trans fats are more healthy than animal fat.

Fred Matson was R&D manager (1948-79) in the giant company Proctor&Gamble and was deeply involved in the “refinement” of vegetable oils, i.e. production of margarine. Now we know that polyunsaturated fatty acid is carcinogenic. We also know that obesity and diabetes type 2 are not caused by cholesterol but by excessive consumption of those carbohydrates that consist of starch (sugar chains), i.e. food like pasta, potato, and bread.

This is overwhelmingly documented in modern nutritional science and well-tried experience. The new diet advice is captured in the book title: ”Eat Fat, Lose Fat; The Healthy Alternative to Trans Fets”. The authors are the expert American nutritionists Sally Fallon and Mary Enig.

Now there is a bitter war going on between friends and enemies of so-called “quick carbohydrates”. Ordinary people, consumers and patients, are amazed and feel betrayed, while governmental organizations have difficulties in finding unbiased experts to intervene, since practically all researchers are linked to food or pharma industry. A war of this kind is nothing less than a crime against mankind. Why are they not accused: the false prophets Jeremiah Stamler and Fred Matson – and their colleagues within “Big Pharma”, as well as stubborn nutritionists and doctors within Internal medicine.

The scientific society is not reliable

I have found this digression from the main theme essential, since it shows so clearly that science is ambivalent: it makes progress – and it betrays us., above all within the core of natural science: physics, chemistry, biology, geophysics, astronomy, and medicine.

When this goes on with consent of approved scientists and elected representatives, the ordinary citizen will of course be disillusioned, since he has imagined natural science to be purely rational research and fancied the scientist to be more collected and unbiased than other people, and thus be worthy of playing an important part in world politics.
But it is just the other way round! The scientific society is not reliable enough to give people moral support and ethical guidance.

Just behold how the scientists are now acting in connexion with the ”Global Warming”. Twiddling their thumbs they look at the trend of events, when the “pundits” in tribunes and in the media are harassing the lesser members of the community, making them responsible for the criminal process.

“The little man” is supposed to be ashamed of using plastic bags and bottles, which have actually been invented by irresponsible scientists, and been fobbed off on them by covetous and ruthless business people.

No natural scientists will ever apologize for their failures (not to say crimes) during the last 100 years. On the contrary, they deliver new items of research, and they are still asking us to believe them. How are we guaranteed, this time, that they tell us the full truth, and that they are not suppressing certain facts for economic and political reasons.

Don’t forget that science has constantly served the machinery of power. Some 70 years ago we regarded as enemies of development all those who protested against belching chimneys that poisoned the atmosphere. Factory chimneys were the symbol of industrial progress. Countries without belching chimneys were considered backward and underdeveloped.

Owning two or three cars was as late as in the 1970’s the peak of prosperity for an American family. The car was a real status symbol. Not before the end of the 1990’s the car became one of the villains of the climate drama, and we were not warned by the science people but by the growing environment movement. “The green ones” have made the researchers aware of the situation. Now the latters try to deprive the ecologists of the credit by means of bombastic reports that are conveyed by a goodly number of too well paid “Call Girls”. Yes, I call them the Call Girls of science, who travel from country to country and, without commitment and responsibility, give moralizing talks on the end of the world…

Why weren’t we warned?

Why weren’t we warned in the 1950’s by the Call Girls of that time?  

It was the Hungarian born science journalist Arthur Koestler who coined the denomination Call Girls and wrote a book about them with the same title. Koestler stripped these experts, mocked with their pretentious expoundings, and debunked the coldness and cynicism behind their theories and experiments that are brought about by private envy and aggression as often as by commitment for the humanity that they pretend to be saving.

Up to now science has never acted collectively and unanimously demanded a break in the dubious progress. One or two “giants” may have whimpered occasionally, but their voices were like cries in the desert. No one outside the inner circle have heard their warning. Two nuclear researchers, Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, were among the few persons who, after the Hiroshima bombing, called on president Truman in a futile effort to stop further development of nuclear processing.

Ten years later (1955) The Russell-Einstein Manfesto was issued, wich was the beginning of the Pugwash Conferences and Movement. And the first Pugwash-conferenc declare clearly: SCIENCE HAS ALWAYS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE RESULTS OF ITS RESEARCH!

On the contrary, Edward Teller and John von Neumann spared no pains in their effort to develop the hydrogen bomb… John von Neumann was a member of the American nuclear energy commission that managed the development of the US nuclear armoury. During the last year of his duty he arrived in a wheel-chair due to the cancer disease that later took his life…

Indirectly he was the model for Stanley Kubrick’s and Peter Sellers’ frightening title character in the film Dr Strangelove or How I  Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Now I want to see a film of the expert army of natural science, commanded by general Strangelove. In the same time I demand  redress for all the despised Red-Indian chiefs, who in their attempts to smoke piece pipe with their white enemies kept on preaching:

“It is highly dangerous to interfere in the Holy Nature. Every interference in Nature is more or less noxious. Palefaces who rush forward ruthlessly in the Nature will be punished sooner or later. Some fine day Nature beats off.”  

The Indian Veda, the Holy Scriptures of Hinduism in Sanskrit, conveys in principle the same message. Mahatma Gandhi, the founder of modern India, and Vandana Shiva, India’s strong environment activist, have both repeated the message. Shiva maintains that R&D does not always mean progress for humanity.

Everything implies that the ancient wisdom and belief turn out to be right. And now even the Vatican joins in the choir. Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti listed in the Vatican daily L´Osservatore Romano the ecological crimes as modern evil. In addition to the Seven Deadly Sins (Envy, Gluttony, Avarice, Arrogance, Indifference, Laziness, Wrath) we now have to avoid also the following “modern sins”:

• Causing Poverty
• Environmental Pollution
• Increasing Absurd Wealth
• Gene Manipulation
• Social Injustice
• Ethically Controversial Experiments
• Drug Abuse

Unfortunately the Catholic Church itself commits several of these sins. Consequently I hope that Science, which in the 16th century divorced from the catholic dictatorship, in the 21st century will be more stringent and will regain its credibility.

With all respect for the religious faith, personally I don’t want the Vatican to write to-morrow’s history. In spite of the fact that they swear that they acknowledge all the proved scientific achievements, and that they do not agree with the creationism of the Free Churches in USA, I still want the world to refrain from a new marriage between Natural Science and the Vatican. The scientists are welcome, however, to make a confession of their sins before the General Assembly of the United Nations.

“The physicists in Los Alamos have known sin and this is knowledge they cannot lose!”

This is a quote by J.Robert Oppenheimer, who was in charge of the atomic bomb-project Manhattan and led it from the headquarters in Los Alamos during the second world war. The statement was made in 1947 after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oppenheimer is one of few scientists within natural science who recognized that there is an ethical dimension in the area of research. One of the Manhattan-researchers Josef Rotblad left Los Alamos before the atomic bomb-project was finished. He had a bad conscience. But he was the only one. Rotblad was secretary general of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs from the founding until 1973, in conjunction with The Pugwash Conferences, he received The Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 for their efforts towards nuclear disarmament.

Despite this, the majority of the scientists keep going on as before, claiming liberty of ethical values without demands on consideration. Therefore they are responsible for climate drama.

Imi Markos
Initiator and Founder and Editor in Chief of Creapreneur®

PS:  By the irony of fate even we six billion people on earth exhalate carbon dioxide. Thus we are worse villains than the cattle as well as the aircraft. What shall we do? Shall we stop breathing, in order to save … what?

There is something very wrong in the scientific catastrophe report. Many people think that carbon dioxide is a poisonous gas, which is wrong. Carbon dioxide is the gas of our life. Without carbon dioxide there is no life at all. Herbs need carbon dioxide, in appropriate quantities. It is when we get to much of it that carbon dioxide is injurious and makes the world a hothouse. My accusation is therefore extremely well-founded!

Imi Markos
Editor in Chief