It has become warmer on Earth - this can be seen with the naked eye. Not every winter spoils with frost and snow, the Arctic thaws, eternal snows recede in Greenland …
It would seem that it is no secret to anyone that the greenhouse effect is the result of human activity. Recently, however, the voices of skeptics have been growing louder, trying to deny the obvious. Who benefits from this?
Why deny the obvious?
Unprecedented amounts of carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere, causing global warming. The average air temperature on the Earth's surface has increased by 0.8 ° C over the past hundred years. At present, the climate is changing even faster: by 0.2 ° C every decade.
If this continues, the end of the world will soon pass from the category of myths to the category of an inevitable reality. Climate warming by an average of 4-6 ° C will lead the planet to a global catastrophe. It is not difficult to calculate how long there is to wait …
Such a forecast always had opponents in scientific circles, but each time, under the influence of indisputable facts, they radically changed their opinion. There are discrepancies in numbers, dates, but in the main, scientists around the world have come to a consensus: if you do not take action now, the threat to the very existence of mankind will increase.
The question is, why deny the obvious? The answer is simple: suspension of harmful effects on the atmosphere is fraught with the loss of superprofits for industrial capital.
Promotional video:
And sponsoring climate research is too expensive. In world scientific circles, it is believed that the most reliable way to finance developments in this area is to create a new separate science that confirms the theory of global warming. However, the funds allocated for scientific research disappear without a trace, the conclusions of climatologists are ridiculed by journalists who are far from science, and in government circles they are increasingly called alarmists.
More terrible than terrorism
Officially, Western scientists have not yet announced that they are under pressure, but they constantly experience it on themselves. Where does this pressure come from? From the very top.
Back in 2002, Phil Cooney, appointed by the White House as head of the Council for Environmental Control, made about 400 (!) Changes to the report on climate change. This completely emasculated the meaning of the document. As a result of the scandal that erupted, Cooney was forced to resign, but did not stay aground: the very next day he was offered a well-paid position in the Exxon Mobil oil corporation.
The George W. Bush administration even tried to introduce censorship that would control all the speeches of climatologists in the media, especially after the catastrophic hurricane Katrina. Leading climatologist James Hansen said NASA officials openly interfered with his contacts with the press. He confirmed that he was threatened with “dire consequences” if he did not stop giving interviews.
In 2007, the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee concluded: "The Bush administration has attempted to systematically manipulate the science of climate change by misleading the public." A similar case took place even earlier, in 2004 in the UK. Only after a series of similar revelations did Western politicians have to admit that climate change is one of the most serious problems of our time. More serious than the threat of terrorism.
More "serious" problems
But it is not only the White House and government circles in a number of countries that are trying to hush up the truth. Big business sets the tone. Naturally, the one that pollutes the Earth's atmosphere. Over 15 million dollars was spent by the same "Exxon Mobil" on the publication of a series of "scientific" articles that no climate threat exists. But as soon as British scientists demanded to stop funding the mendacious bacchanalia, right-wing politicians started talking about the violation of freedom of speech. The very same "Exxon Mobil" cynically stated that it was only trying to draw public attention to "more serious" problems.
An environmentally hazardous business is trying to enlist the support of politicians (it's not hard to guess on what basis). The British journalist Melanie Philips, known for her skepticism about climate problems, claims, for example, that the UK Treasury is using global warming to levy new taxes, and the warming itself was invented (!) In the Prime Minister's residence. As they say, comments are unnecessary.
Just as the big tobacco companies once tried to prove that there was no link between smoking and lung cancer, energy companies are now trying to undermine the link between human activities, carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Here's how to do it.
Politics and business: a conspiracy of the doomed
In 1991, the US National Mines Association, the Western Fuel Supply Association, and the Edison Electrotechnical Institute donated $ 500,000 to create a New Environmental Information Council. It would seem like a good thing. But the true mission of the pseudoscientific organization was to brainwash the public into proving that there was no warming. Suffice it to quote the highly publicized motto of the council: “Some say the temperature on Earth is rising. Some said the Earth was flat …"
The newly-minted council was quickly disbanded on charges of scientific fraud. But a business is not wasting time (and money). In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute tried to repeat the attempt of its predecessors. A stakeholder group including skeptic scientist Fred Singer, notable politicians and leadership - what do you think? - That's right, all the same Exxon Mobil met to draw up a secret plan.
"We will achieve victory," the final document said, "when every average citizen realizes all the ambiguities of the climate threat and believes that it is contrary to common sense." It couldn't be clearer.
Before this controversial group was disbanded in 2002, it included such giants as General Motor, Ford and other well-known companies that fought and still fight against the Kyoto Protocol.
The price of silence
One of the most famous skeptics - Myron Ebell appeared for the first time in the scandal associated with the name of Phil Cooney. But he reached the climax of notoriety with his statement on the BBC Today program in 2004 that European scientists, unlike American ones, cannot work independently, since they are state sponsored. They say, everything is simple: the state needs money, it inflates the "myth" of global warming, and scientists, in order not to be left without funding, support this invention.
"Isn't it a grandiose deception that human activity leads to global warming?" - echoes Ebella one more opponent of environmental protection, US Senator Jim Inhofe.
Melanie Phillips is also working out solid fees, who in her conclusions went even further: "The myth of climate change is nothing more than a hidden ideological strategy directed against America, big business and capitalism in general."
Perhaps the aforementioned ladies and gentlemen, large industrial companies that poison the atmosphere of the planet, and would have succeeded in their inventions, but their chatter is refuted by melting ice, and the frequent natural disasters, in which tens of thousands of people die and billions of dollars in damage to the economy are inflicted, and daily forecasts weather.
And yet, skillful suppression and denial of obvious facts significantly impede the adoption of effective measures against large industrial capital, which has put the very existence of the population of our planet at stake.
The more the consequences of the greenhouse effect are hushed up, the more carefully the growth rates of destructive climate change are hidden, the more mankind will have to pay in the near future for the inevitably impending global catastrophe.
“Secrets of the 20th century. Golden Series No. 51-from 2011