One of the tasks of science is the formation of a forecast for the near future of mankind, as well as the determination of priority areas of development and research. This is necessary in order, firstly, not to be scattered over trifles, wasting resources on obviously irrelevant projects, and, secondly, in order to protect humanity from the possible consequences of technological progress. The first case is obvious to everyone; as an example of the second, one can cite the activities of scientists from all over the world to study nuclear danger, which ultimately led to a complete ban on atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons.
The second industrial revolution, which began about 200 years ago and is taking place in our time, is the most powerful anthropogenic factor affecting our planet. Over the past two hundred years, we have changed the face of the Earth so much that sometimes it becomes scary from the results of our activities, the consequences of which can be catastrophic. These are changes in ecosystems on a local and global scale, environmental pollution, the emergence of deserts and territories that are inconvenient for life, and so on.
One interesting problem that coincides with the second industrial revolution is the increase in the average temperature on the planet, which some scientists call global warming. Indeed, over the past century, the average annual temperature of our planet has been growing, and its increase even by several degrees can, if not put humanity on the brink of survival, then at least significantly complicate our relatively carefree life.
Many people see the cause of global warming in human activities. Say, an increase in energy consumption leads to an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is a greenhouse gas and prevents the removal of excess heat from the Earth. Since our energy industry is mainly hydrocarbons (oil, gas, coal), their combustion leads to an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which cannot be absorbed by the natural mechanisms of its regulation. Studies carried out in the 90s of the last century were the basis for the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, which calls on the main "pollutants" of the atmosphere to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
And everything would be fine, if not for one "but". The fact is that a serious question arises whether the scientific conclusions about the causes of global warming are really impartial. Didn't the scientists who announced the danger of global warming (among whom, for some reason, mainly representatives of the United States and Great Britain), had any personal interest? After all, the Kyoto Protocol poses serious constraints to the economies of developing countries, which are already dependent on the “developed” countries. A special piquancy to the protocol is given by the possibility of trading in quotas for greenhouse gas emissions, which further calls into question the unbiasedness of research by climatologists screaming about global warming.
Another interesting fact is that all research was carried out in the United States under the supervision of Vice President Albert Gore, a well-known "environmental activist", author of books and articles on global warming, and even a Nobel Peace Prize laureate for this activity. And somehow, too, everything is fine, but Gore, alas, is not a climatologist, he is just a bachelor of arts, however, the image of an official-scientist fighting global warming is much more interesting, isn't it? At one time, the "grandfather of American climatology" Professor William Gray, without hesitation in expressions, walked through the Mountain and his work on global warming, calling it "ludicrous" and "not worth the paper on which it is written."
The events of 2009 at the University of Norwich in England were no less interesting. There, a fired employee posted correspondence between the Climatology Department of the University of Norwich and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The same one who inspired the Kyoto Protocol. It was with her that Albert Gore received his prize.
The disclosure of information about the correspondence shocked many followers of the "global warming sect." It turned out that the Intergovernmental Group recommends that climatologists hide information and publications of opponents of the theory of warming, distort research results to confirm global warming, delete any correspondence with opponents of the theory. The scandal was so loud that it got the name "Climategate" and led to the fact that the head of the climatology department voluntarily left his post.
Promotional video:
Currently, most climatologists adhere to the point of view that the human influence on climatic processes is small. Despite the seeming seriousness of the anthropogenic factor, we are not yet so powerful as to somehow influence global processes in the atmosphere. In addition, carbon dioxide is not the most “serious” greenhouse gas, its contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 20%; water vapor has a much greater effect on it. What is happening to our climate, why are the average annual temperatures rising?
Firstly, do not forget that we are living at the end of the next ice age, and, in fact, the temperature at which we live is “abnormal” for the Earth - our planet is warmer. Secondly, there are the so-called subboreal climatic periods, in which warm and cold periods alternate.
The duration of these periods can be up to 1000 years. So, for example, over the past three thousand years there have been two cold snaps, called "pessimums" and two warming, called "optima". The last two climatic optima helped mankind a lot: one made it possible for the Roman Empire to conquer Europe (since there were no glaciers in the Alps), the second made it possible for the population of Europe to grow in the X-XIII centuries AD (the climate was so warm that in Scotland, for example, they grew grapes).
The observed increase in temperature is a consequence of the onset of the next climatic optimum. And its coincidence with the human industrial revolution should not mislead scientists and, moreover, should not be used in political circles to terrorize the population and influence the economies of other countries.
Well, a little conclusion: in 2015, the same Intergovernmental Group recognized the existence of thermal anomalies with periods of optima. The funding has obviously run out. Will we still hear the opinions of the supporters of "global warming"? Perhaps, because the world is changing so rapidly …