Dúo Dinámico: Climate Change a 'Swindle,' Says Arcusa

Arcusa: Climate Change is 'the Most Universal Swindle'

Two interviews and two sentences. That was enough to reopen a discussion that almost always ends in shouting matches. Ramón Arcusa and Manuel de la Calva, the two members of Dúo Dinámico, have suddenly called into question three pieces of the institutional narrative: the 2030 Agenda, climate change attributed to human activity, and feminism. The surprising fact is not their age —87 and 86 years old— but the echo they are finding.

What Arcusa and De la Calva Say Exactly

Arcusa attacks the 2030 Agenda, describing it as the narrative of a UN experts committee that decides how we should live, think, dream, or eat. In the same passage, he labels human-origin climate change as "the most universal swindle ever perpetrated" and links it to a specific interest: wind and solar businesses versus oil. He adds that the narrative is so widespread that contesting it sends you, he says, to the gallows.

De la Calva changes targets. He argues that radical feminism has led many women to see all men as aggressors and that this mutual distrust compromises the continuity of the species. He also rejects empowerment as a recipe, because he understands that women have had power since time immemorial. Two theses and a common structure: something is imposed from above and should be said out loud.

The 'So What' Carries More Weight than the Data Itself

Here, analysis splits. Some argue that debating whether the planet is warming is a waste of time, because the real issue is what is being justified by it. The reasoning would be: let's even accept that the phenomenon exists, the question is the "so what". From this premise come policies that, according to this view, yield a net negative result even measured by their own promoters' indicators: what is not emitted in Europe is emitted threefold in other places, and the only return is sarracena.

The counter-argument is the usual one. If the diagnosis is correct, inaction also has a cost. And there the disagreement lies, with neither side seeming willing to move a millimeter.

Does a Definition of Planet Temperature Exist?

The most technical part revolves around an apparently simple question: what exactly is rising. One position demands a closed definition of "earth temperature" and argues that without it, the statement means nothing. The other responds that the relevant magnitude is the planet's thermal equilibrium, the lag between the energy that enters and that which is returned, and that measurable indicators derive from there, such as lower troposphere temperature.

In this struggle appear the Charney Report, 1979, commissioned by the US government to evaluate the robustness of studies that then warned of warming, and a compilation of failed catastrophic predictions. The relative weight of CO2 is also discussed, with one side placing it as a minor factor within an greenhouse effect dominated by water vapor.

Models, Survivorship Bias, and Moving Averages

Another line of attack points to how successes are presented. With dozens of models in circulation, it would be rare for none to hit; exhibiting the one that got it right and forgetting the rest is survivorship bias, argues one side. The response is that the moving average is designed precisely to blur the noise and make the trend visible, and that one cannot reverse the path — deducing changes in the frequency of extreme events — without data.

Here is the fine material: temperature series, smoothing windows, and thermal equilibria discussed in detail and which do not fit in a headline.

From Climate to Pandemic: The Wear of the Word 'Consensus'

The parallel with the health crisis looms over the entire conversation. It is recalled that during the pandemic there was a scientific consensus presenting vaccines as barriers to transmission, and those who questioned it were singled out; subsequently, it is argued, things were not exactly so. From that episode is drawn a lesson: the word consensus has lost value as an argument of authority. From the other side, it is responded that mixing both issues is a comfortable way to avoid getting to the bottom of it.

Who Decides How We Live

The third axis is the 2030 Agenda understood as a form of governance. The objection is not each specific goal, but the method: experts no one has elected setting the framework. That the diagnosis is endorsed by international organizations does not resolve the complaint; rather, it fuels it, because that is exactly what is being discussed.

With climate, feminism, and the 2030 Agenda in the same package, the interesting question is no longer whether two music veterans are right. It is how many people agree with them and, so far, were not saying it out loud.