Translation of an American article.
Anyone who considers himself a modern "civilized" person must believe in global warming. Its functions also include, to make a martyr's expression at the sight of factories operating on combustible fuel, and spread into a blissful smile next to even the dwarf windmill itself.
It doesn't matter that he has no idea about the scientific foundations of renewable energy, nor about the evidence for the theory of climate change. The main thing is to be in trend and on the crest of the wave, keeping up with the vanguard of humanity - Western civilization.
Noticeably lagging behind the vanguard of the population, I decided to slow down even more and take a closer look at the thermometer. Where are the signs of a lit fire under the frying pan? Isn't it time to add oil to form an even golden brown crust?
The question turned out to be so global that the thermometer did not take responsibility for determining the range of problems and demonstratively demonstrated -10 outside the window, clearly hinting that frying was postponed.
For those who earnestly believe in the vine-bearing essence of man and the abomination of all his creations in the form of factories and factories, I suggest reading a little note by Neil Frank.
He is already a personal pensioner, he has nothing to be afraid of, to fawn on donors too. Enough for the coffin, okay. Therefore, he can speak the truth. And with a share of understanding of the processes, in contrast to the ubiquitous hatched "ecologists".
He is a former director of the Institute for the Study of Natural Disasters, Doctor of Science, a meteorologist, who does not leave his scientific career even on vacation.
Promotional video:
Does carbon dioxide (CO2) have positive aspects?
While most Americans remain silent, the headlines and TV news are shouting accusations against CO2, attributing to it responsibility for the catastrophic man-made climate change.
To understand the essence of the problem, you need to abstract from the screams and turn to face the facts. Just four questions will help us make significant progress in understanding the situation.
Is the climate really getting warmer?
Is the person involved in this?
If we accept the hypothesis that carbon dioxide (CO2) is to blame, what is the cost to mitigate the damage?
Or CO2 cannot be blamed for anything and we will go hand in hand with it for many years to come?
So, is there global climate change? There is! The earth has been getting warmer for over 150 years. Since the end of the Little Ice Age. CO2 in the atmosphere is also increasing. It started at the end of World War II.
Well, what other picture can I place here?
Who is the catalyst for climate change? Despite the loud howl of the adherents of the anthropogenic theory, the question remains open.
In 1980, meteorologists sweeping their stings around the world discovered a widespread rise in temperature across the planet. Out of the corner of my eye, we noticed the excessive presence of CO2 in the air. There was more of it than usual.
US NASA has concluded that CO2 is the culprit for the change. They developed a digital model of the atmosphere and, based on it, calculated that the ambient temperature was alarmingly rising. They immediately bungled the presentation and made a public statement about the impending catastrophe. All hysterical fits of "green" and "scientific" statements are still based on this model.
In early 1998, the Earth's temperature suddenly stabilized (paused). In the meantime, CO2 continued to increase its concentration. And not anyhow, but by leaps and bounds.
Some of the scientists, who kept a sober mind and did not fall into hysterics about the imminent end of the world, decided to understand the problem deeper. The results turned out to be somewhat different from the established point of view.
Having examined the meteorological data, the "skeptics" found that CO2 was wrongly accused of damaging the planet. And that's why.
First, the “pause” that the thermometer entered in 1998 has been going on for almost 20 years, although the CO2 content in the atmosphere is only growing.
Second, the correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and Earth's temperature is so weak that it can be seen with the naked eye. The proof is the above-mentioned "pause" and the data on climate changes in the past. It began to warm up long before the penetration of "terrible" CO2 into the lungs of the planet's "alarmists from science".
Well, the third, important factor - the numerical model created by NASA has crumbled, which, like a mad printer predicts either double or triple warming "just yesterday", which does not correspond to the real readings of the planet's thermometers. Hence, the role of CO2 in these models was also erroneous.
Well, come on, let's forget about common sense. Let's take the alarmist side and imagine that CO2 is to blame for global warming. How much will it cost us to slow down the CO2-related cataclysm?
Let's go back to 2015 in Paris, where 194 countries under the UN Convention agreed to reduce CO2 emissions to unrealistic levels.
It immediately became clear that developing countries needed to be helped with money. Otherwise, they will not be able to actively fight CO2. Organized the Green Climate Fund to help the beggars.
The idea was to raise $ 100 billion in it by 2020. Of 194 countries, only 46 agreed to contribute money there. This means that the remaining 150 have decided to enroll in a rogue and have already opened their pockets for upcoming infusions.
At the first meeting of 46 donors, it was possible to raise only 10 billion, with 90% of this amount contributed by England, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden and the USA. The latter did not regret it, as much as 3 billion. We agreed that contributions will be collected for another two years. The term has expired, 3.4 billion in the piggy bank.
In 2017, President Trump announced that the United States was withdrawing from the agreement. Without American infusions, "Green Climate" is not viable and by 2020 it will not be able to collect 100 billion.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance has calculated that the Paris agreements will be worth $ 7.4 trillion to the world by 2040 and from 70 to 140 by 2100.
Apart from all sorts of international initiatives, the United States annually at home spends astronomical sums on the fight against this warming. The Capital Research Center has estimated spending from 1993 to 2014 at $ 166 billion. To this figure it is necessary to add the budget allocations for 2015-2017 of 20 billion every 12 months.
What is the use of the money spent? Some estimates say that it will be possible to slow down the warming by 1.5 C by the end of this century. Others, more accurate, based on IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) data, indicate that 0.2C can be achieved at best. Some kind of modest result for that kind of money.
Well, if the "skeptics" are right and CO2 is not the main factor in temperature changes, then all the Paris agreements will mean even less, and the costs will remain the same.
Now let's find out if you can benefit from rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Absolutely, you can!
CO2 promotes plant growth. More than 1000 studies document this. Attempts are now being made to calculate the economic effect of such a gift.
Dr. Greg Idso, a renowned researcher, used data on the growth rate of 45 types of crops from 1961-2011. They make up 95% of the food supply of the entire population of the planet. Then he translated the gain into dollars. In 50 years, CO2 has increased agricultural product by $ 3.2 trillion.
Dr. Idso extrapolated the results to 2050 on the assumption that CO2 would continue to help crop growth. It turns out that the world can get, as a free bonus, $ 9.8 trillion!
And nothing needs to be done! The main thing is not to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.
As a result, we are now at a fork in the road and must make a choice in favor of one of two paths.
We can follow a trillion dollar plan of "alarmists", the effect of which is comparable to the statistical error.
Or we can accept the proposal of the "skeptics", which assumes trillions of dollars in profits from increased crop growth. And perhaps even more valuable, developing countries will be able to continue to use abundant, affordable and reliable sources of energy - the very ones we call fossils - to achieve prosperity, escape poverty and the myriad other problems that come with it.
Neil L. Frank, Ph. D. (meteorology), a fellow of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974-1987) and chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV, Houston (1987-2007). In retirement, he continues studies on hurricanes and climate change.