Recent years the theme of global warming — one of the most talked about in the world. We are told that factories and cars make the temperature around us higher and higher — blame carbon dioxide, or CO2. But is it? It's time to learn the truth.
We present strong evidence that the guilt of man in climate change on the planet does not really exist. Channel viewers know who and why came up with the great myth of the man-made global warming. And how to make this …
We will tell you how and why in fact changes in climate. Throughout history, the land has been warming and cooling. When it was much warmer and much colder than it is today. When most of the planet was covered by tropical forests or the huge glaciers. The climate is changing, and he did it without our help. These observations show that in the nineteenth century ended with the coldest period of modern history. It is called the small ice age.
The truth is that man-made global warming is not scientifically proven theory. However, fears of future disasters were a convenient tool in the hands of politicians. And the struggle for the defense of nature turned into a political tool.
The film will bring together scholars from around the world and leading environmental specialists:
Patrick Moore, co-founder of "Greenpeace"
Konstantin Simonov, director of the National Energy Security Fund,
Roy Spencer, Ph.D., University of Alabama,
Herman Gusev, a senior fellow of the Institute of Physics,
Philip Stott, professor of biogeography at London University,
Paul Wright, a professor at the Pasteur Institute (Paris), the UN Climate Change
Vladimir Klimenko, head of the laboratory of global energy problems of the Moscow Power Engineering University,
Patrick Michels, professor at the University of Virginia Commission on Climate Change,
Tim Ball, a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg,
Frederick Singer, professor, head of the State Service of the U.S. weather satellite, and others.
Throughout the history of the Earth was warming and cooling, when it was much warmer and much colder than today, when most of the planet was covered by tropical forests or the huge glaciers. The climate is changing, and he did it without our help. These observations show that in the XIX century ended the coldest period of modern history, which began in Europe in the XY century. It is called the "little ice age". In Moscow, a few hundred years ago, according to historians, snowfall, even in summer. But our ancestors did not know about the theory of warming or cooling, and therefore belonged to them calmly. If you look further into the century, we see the golden era, when the temperature was much higher than now. Climatologists call this time "medieval warming."
Chief conductor of the theory of global warming — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. This is a group of international officials who hire scientists to get their interesting findings. The UN Commission scares the whole world for its incredible forecasts. Ostensibly to 2020 a third of Russia will become uninhabitable. The disappearance of the Gulf Stream lead to disaster. Summer temperatures can rise to 50 degrees. Professor Klimenko — one of the leading climate scientists in Russia, he regularly receives reports IPCC. Scientist ironically notes that current forecasts of the UN Commission different from her own predictions a decade ago. It is a unique organization, whose activities can say every few years it appears that its previous forecast was a mistake.
The theory of man-made global warming claims that the main problem — the carbon dioxide that we emit due to the growth of industry. Meanwhile, over the past 150 years, global temperature rose by only a few tenths of a degree Celsius. But the strange thing — that the warming started long before cars and planes. Most warmed up to 1940, when we hardly polluted atmosphere. After World War II, when the temperature, in theory, should increase, on the contrary, it decreased. Throughout the post-war industrial boom, the temperature dropped and ceased to fall just as the economic crisis when it was 70. These facts refute the theory of global warming.
According to the University of Winnipeg climatology professor Tim Ball, "year after year, asserting that the warming is the growth of CO2. But all scientific data, all studies of ice to the contrary, and thousands of scientists are well aware. And in general the whole theory of human factor in global warming — just a mistake. "
The theory of greenhouse gases states that heat must, above all the atmosphere — where these gases accumulate. The greenhouse effect is the following: the sun's rays are sent to Earth, and if there were no greenhouse gases, the heat from the sun would return back into space. But greenhouse gases trap the sun's rays reflected from the planet's surface. For all climate models should be so: if the basis of warming — greenhouse gases, the warming should be most on top.
Professor John Christy is responsible for measuring the temperature on Earth. In 1991, he was awarded the NASA Medal for Exceptional Merit. In 1996, he was awarded the prize by the American meteosoobschestva "for empowerment climate measurements." The scientist said that in most parts of the world the air is not heated as much as the Earth's surface is warming. Rising temperatures in the troposphere does not coincide with the predictions of climate models, constructed in accordance with the theory of greenhouse gases.
These data suggest that the current warming is not due to greenhouse gases. So, the current warming of the planet was in the wrong place at the wrong time. As the scientific observations, it occurred mainly at the beginning of the century and on the surface — which contradicts the theory of the human factor.
Very emotional film about former Vice President Al Mountain "An Inconvenient Truth" is seen by many as the main proof of the theory of human culpability in global warming. Gore lost the election found the perfect way to bring the attention of the world community — ecology. His arguments are based on the drilling and exploration of the centuries-old ice in the Russian Arctic station "Vostok". Gore said that a direct correlation between the concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature.
Professor Ian Clark of the University of Ottawa — one of the leading paleoclimatology, which looks at hundreds of thousands of years ago, the climate history of the Earth, studying the Arctic ice. He actually discovered the relationship between temperature and CO2. But this relationship is reversed. "Temperature is really increased in ancient times, — professor — when reduced continental ice. Following the temperature increases and the level of CO2. This carbon dioxide is behind by 800 years." That is, CO2 can not cause temperature changes, he himself — the result of changes in temperature.
But how to actually increase in temperature leads to an increase in the concentration of CO2? The answer to this question lies in the bottom of the oceans, which emits about 80 gigatons of carbon dioxide a year. Human seven megatonnes drab. Professor of Biogeography, University of London, Philip Stott said: "Even schoolchildren know that the ocean and the atmosphere exchange carbon dioxide. Heating a surface of the water, then start the active CO2 and vice versa, if the cool surface of the ocean, it will absorb CO2".
Assiduously promoted version that CO2 affects climate change, is completely refuted by new scientific data with meteosharov, satellite studies of Arctic ice, and finally, historical research temperature on Earth. But if not carbon dioxide leads to global warming, then what is? Is the Sun, and all the energy of humanity — is nothing compared to the energy.
In the late 80's Heliophysics Piers Corbyn decided to try a completely new way of predicting the weather. Despite the power of the state weather bureau different countries, technology Corbin gave the most accurate results. The press called it supermeteorologom. The secret of his success — in solar
activity data. "The idea of long-term weather forecasting by the sun came after were studied sunspots, — says the scientist. — I later realized that the sun can be perfectly used for the prediction and more interesting things."
Sunspots — a powerful magnetic fields generated during high solar activity. For many centuries, astronomers counted the number of sunspots and thought: the more sunspots, the more warmly. In 1893, the British astronomer Edward Monder said that in the "Little Ice Age" in the sun spots were not. It was a period of solar inactivity, which is then called "minimum Mondera."
But Corbin is not the only one who explained the climatic changes in solar activity. In 1991, the best scientists of the University of Danish Meteorological decided to gather all the information about sunspots XX century and compare the reading with the changing weather conditions. They found between solar activity and temperature of a direct link. Solar activity grew rapidly until 1940, declined over the 40 years to 70, and then again increased.
Then the head of the Danish University Professor Fries Eygil Christensen and his colleagues studied the astronomical data from 400 years to map the solar activity with temperature fluctuations. Again, they found a close relationship. It became clear that it was the sun, and not gas or anything else, primarily affects the climate of our planet.
In 2005, an astrophysicist at Harvard, published in the official journal of the American Geophysical Union schedule. If you analyze his data, it can be concluded that the change in temperature in the Arctic over the last 100 years and changes in the level of CO2 over the same period is not too connected to each other. Whereas fluctuations in solar activity chart for the same period, according to data compiled by independent scientists of NASA and the U.S. National Office for Ocean Affairs and the atmosphere is closely related to the testimony of the ice and Arctic temperatures with an interval of ten years. This implies the conclusion that the sun drives climate change and CO2-only consequence.
To understand the true power of the theory of global warming, it is necessary to know where it all began. In the 90 major bugbear for the common people were the ozone hole. Then guilty appointed Freon gas. It is negligible in the atmosphere, but who have cared. U.S. manufacturers of refrigerators, did not use freon, seized the idea. Manufacturers deodorant launched a war against pshikayuschih cans competitors. As a result, the European manufacturers of refrigerant lost and customers forced to change all refrigerators and deodorants all the more expensive.
This fight won, above all, an American company "Dupont". We thought that we pay for a peaceful future for their children. However, the forgotten one thing: the ozone hole were delayed by themselves. It turned out that they are growing all the time then, the decrease depending on the activity of the sun and without any dependence on our deodorants.
The story is reminiscent of many scientists today campaign on global warming. When, in the mid-90 hole in decline, a lot of environmentalists and climate scientists felt threatened unemployment. No one would pay for the boring forecasts that the weather all in general order. They are constantly looking for something global and frightening and always found. Even with the 70 climate science all the time terrified humanity. For example, before ozone holes was the "theory of global cooling." In the 70 years of the Swedish scientist Berg Bowling first uncertainly that mankind produced CO2 can warm the planet.
Then the scientists thought it wild fantasies. But their views have changed two things. The first — the temperature began to rise, and the second — the miners in Britain began to strike, and Margaret Thatcher became a political power issue. According to Lord Lawson Blebskogo, who served as energy minister, Thatcher "was concerned with the promotion of nuclear energy, energy independence, her care. She did not believe in any coal, no oil, and believe that we need to promote atom. Therefore, it drew attention to the problem of global warming. She decided that this could be a strong argument to favor nuclear energy. "
Nigel Calder, it was at this time was the chief editor of the magazine "New Scientist". He remembers Margaret Thatcher appealed to scientists: "This is your money, that you prove the theory of global warming." "Of course, they took the money, all proved — the journalist said. — As a result of the participation of politicians money river flowed in that direction: research, development, scientific research centers. All of this began to grow like a snowball. They began to investigate the climate, but particular direction, namely, to show the temperature dependence of CO2, that is from human activities. "
In the early 90's the problem of global warming because of man evolved from a simple theory about the climate in the large-scale political campaign. The campaign has gained huge media interest, and most importantly — public funding. A great deal of the money went to the climatic development of computer models. They had to predict climate change. However, they are not accurate enough. Dr. Roy Spencer — one of the leading climate scientists Space Flight Center NASA — claims that "models can not generate data not provided by its creators, and such unexpected variations hundreds and thousands. Most models are built around the postulate that the main reason is the change in the weather CO2, and not the sun, not a cloud. " Professor Ian Clark of the University of Ottawa has worked with these models, and it is certain that, "changing the settings, you can get anything from warming to cooling." But today, these models are provided with a press shocking forecasts.
Now the guilt of a person in any hurricane, storm, or global warming, which confer on mankind media, become the norm. Professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen argues that this is no evidence, "This is propaganda pure water. Any book on meteorology, you will find that the main cause of such disasters is the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles. And we know that the warming will decrease the difference so it will be fewer natural disasters will be less storm. But we all the time, day after day, say the opposite. "
News is often said that even a small increase in temperature always leads to disaster. For example, the melting of the polar ice. Scientists is laughable. Professor of the UN Commission on Climate Change John Christy says: "We have the temperatures in Greenland over a thousand years ago. There was much warmer, but melting ice did not cause any catastrophe." Head of the Laboratory of global energy problems of the Moscow Energy Institute, Professor Klimenko, in turn, noted that "there is little evidence that the volume of ice in the Antarctic ice shield is reduced, in fact, against the background of global warming, the ice cover of the seas surrounding Antarctica, over the last decade has increased ".
Professor Shun-Ichi Akasofu — Head Master of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska — claims that the polar caps all the time it increases and decreases naturally. "Journalists always scare you pictures of huge blocks of ice that refuse the coast of Antarctica, — professor Shun-Ichi Akasofu. — But it has always been. Just now, thanks to satellites, we find out about it and spread it all over the TV, and it is perceived as news. "
Another pugalka — warming will cause the spread of tropical diseases that insects will transfer to the north. Such as malaria. Professor Paul Reiter of the University of Paris Pasteur recognized as a leading world expert on malaria and other insect-transmitted diseases. "Mosquitoes — not tropical insects, in fact, they are mostly in t
he Arctic, — he says. — And the worst epidemic of malaria was 20 years in the Soviet Union. 13 million cases, 600,000 deaths. Terrible disaster reached Arctic Circle. in the north in Arkhangelsk were 13 thousand cases of malaria and 10,000 deaths. This is not a tropical disease. "
A longtime opponent of the idea of global warming, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Andrei Kapitsa said that his colleague and former head of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, Professor Seitz after work in the Committee on Climate Change has accused the committee of censorship and silencing uncomfortable conclusions. He writes: "This report is not a version that endorsed scientists who wrote the original. At least 15 key moments were cut from the report. Including saying that there is no evidence that increased levels of greenhouse gases could result to climate change. There is also no proven scientific evidence that ongoing climate change is linked to human activity. "
Movement to protect the environment — it's a political movement. Now these people have a huge impact on the world level. All the politicians are afraid of them. Whether you're left, middle or right, you still have to look to the conservationists. Western governments, with the exception of the main pollutants, China and the United States, under pressure from "green" signed the Kyoto Protocol to limit production in developed and developing countries. But what is the price of the protocol? Almost a third of the world's population do not know electricity. In Africa, there are coal, oil, but environmentalists oppose the use of these low-energy and agitate for wind and solar energy. As a result, the environmental movement has become the biggest obstacle to the developing world.
During administration of the rules of the Kyoto Protocol, few argued with his foundation — emissions are fixed at the level at which they were in 1990. This meant the legalization of the fact that the average American would deal damage to nature is the same as 15,450 people in India. This meant that Russia's attempt to increase the manufacturing cost us much more. And all of this — despite the fact that the main source of greenhouse gas emissions is no industry, cars and livestock.
It seems that Russia's control of emissions promised considerable benefits. After the decline of 90th we hoped that we could earn by selling quotas for greenhouse gas emissions. However, the expected billions because no one has received. Russia was lucky that the energy of the USSR in the 90 th year that the Kyoto took as a starting point, the maximum emissions produced in the history of the country. After Russia experienced industrial decline, and we complied with the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol without any effort. But the second time we may not be so lucky. At the end of 2009 in Copenhagen will be a new conference, and the participants are ready to call it a new starting point that could transform Russia from a potential buyer to the seller of quotas.
Director of the National Energy Security Fund Konstantin Simonov does not understand "why it was necessary to join the Kyoto Protocol, if not going to trade these quotas." "Soon to be a summit in Copenhagen — he recalls. — Many countries have realized that the 90th year — not the best year for them, while we have something he's the best. If 92-Year will be selected starting point of the new, it will be us already quite profitable. This will radically change the situation. "
Head of the Laboratory of the Institute of Oceanology Professor Sergei Gulev argues that the Kyoto Protocol — "first of all, the economic document, not the climate", for his appearance was "a set of political and economic interests." Agreement on emissions of CO2 were made by politicians. When that happened, no one listened to the scientists who say that the implementation of this protocol does not affect the climate. We've all been victims of anti-scientific trickery and propaganda, based on forecasts of doom made by those who struggle for attention and funding, those who do not want to ever developing countries reached an industrial success.