Climatologists were concerned about the rampant climatic extremism, they turned to the UN.
"The climate does not need to be saved" (There is no climate emergency) - this is how 500 renowned scientists - specialists in the field of atmospheric physics, meteorology, biology, chemistry and other natural sciences - titled their declaration. They sent it to the UN - to the Secretary-General, United Nations, to the Secretary-General, United Nations, so that he ordered to discuss the painful - for a start in a narrow circle. And next year, so that I would convene a representative conference under the auspices of the UN, in which both those wishing to "call an ambulance for the climate" and those who oppose emergency measures would take part.
“Climate science should become less politicized, and climate policy more scientific,” the scientists emphasized in their address, which was prompted to prepare by the intensifying fight against greenhouse gases - those that humanity produces in the course of its life.
The cover of the declaration with which the scientists applied to the UN.
The authors of the declaration believe that the demands to rid the environment of carbon dioxide and to impose some additional “carbon” extortions for those who resist them are unjustified. Forgive me for the pun, they smell of extremism - they restrict access to energy resources, restrain industrial and agricultural production, without the development of which the growing population of the Earth is unlikely to survive.
7 contradictions
Here are the main theses of the declaration, which may well be considered a response to Grete Thunberg, an angry Swedish schoolgirl who believes that people are to blame for all climatic troubles:
Promotional video:
1. Human civilization produces incomparably less greenhouse gases than nature - oceans, volcanoes, vegetation. Our share is about 5 percent. Volcanoes emit much more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all power plants in the world. One puny Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull in 4 days "started" as much as all people could not in 5 years.
The Greens propose to abandon livestock breeding so that the atmosphere will have less carbon dioxide emissions.
2. The climate on Earth has always changed. There were times when it changed much more than now - it became very warm, then very cold. The previous warming, which took place in the second half of the 17th and the first half of the 18th centuries, was twice as fast and strong as the current one. In 1850, the last cold snap ended - the so-called Little Ice Age. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that it is getting warmer now. Calling this process catastrophic is hardly reasonable.
3. The temperature on Earth is indeed rising. But not as fast as some predict. It is warming twice as slowly as previously predicted. This suggests that we are far from understanding the causes of climate change.
4. Climate policy is based on models that are hardly plausible even remotely. They exaggerate the impact of greenhouse gases - especially carbon dioxide, which has many benefits.
Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg believes that people are to blame for climate change on Earth.
5. Carbon dioxide does not pollute the environment, so the intention to rid it of it has nothing to do with the struggle for the purity of nature. Carbon dioxide is essential for nature - CO2 is “food” for plants. Life on our planet is based on its cycle.
According to biologists, the ideal level of carbon dioxide would be, which is 4-5 times higher than the current one. Forests and crops would grow faster. There would be something to feed those 8-10 billion people who will live on Earth by the end of the 21st century. This task is much more important than fighting the mythical warming by a couple of degrees.
6. There are no statistics that would indicate that as a result of global warming hurricanes intensify, floods and droughts occur more often. There is much more harm from wind turbines, which kill birds and insects with their blades.
7. There is no reason to panic. Equally, there is no need to take additional measures to protect the climate from greenhouse gases. In this regard, the louder and louder proposals to reduce their emissions to zero by 2050 look, to put it mildly, harmful. If not sabotage.
People, of course, smoke. But they cannot be compared with volcanoes.
BTW
Is it stuffy? This is because you do not eat insects and have many children
Fighters against carbon dioxide, to prove their case, refer to a study published in the American journal Environmental Research Letters. Its authors Seth Wynes and Kimberly Nicholas urge to have at least one less child. And thereby reduce parents' carbon dioxide emissions by 58 tons annually from each. The next step is to give up cars, not fly on airplanes - especially far, and become vegetarians. Or start feeding on insects. For example, crickets and flour bug larvae. Such measures, according to environmental extremists, will reduce carbon dioxide emissions many times more than activities that are traditionally considered beneficial for the environment - namely, recycling waste, using light bulbs that consume little energy, drying clothes on a rope,not in washing machines.
VLADIMIR LAGOVSKY