Whether will become warmer on our planet?
C of 1995 when at intergovernmental conference in Madrid the UN proclaimed global warming the scientific fact, hundreds of researches and articles confirmed it. Mass media predict mass troubles and urge the countries and the population to take effective measures for prevention of accident. But despite the settled public opinion, not all scientists consider warming as real threat and call into question its existence. In the west of such scientists call “ sceptics of climate change “.
One of sceptics - the corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences A. P. Kapitsa. According to him at decision-making in Madrid a number of the documents submitted by opponents of a hypothesis of global warming was not read. Approach was obviously one-sided, and the alternative interested nobody.
Andrey Kapitsa considers that on Earth, on the contrary, there is a slow cold snap, and the fact that we observe in recent years - only temporary effect, cyclic fluctuations of temperatures.
Supporters of a hypothesis of warming believe that the greenhouse effect which arose generally as a result of activity of the person and shown in growth of the contents in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and methane is guilty of it. But according to A. P. Kapitsa with carbon dioxide all in accuracy “ to on the contrary “.
Warming - not a consequence, but the reason of increase in content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the gas share caused by activity of the person is too small to have significant effect. Besides, increase the content of carbonic acid - not harm, but the benefit as promotes growth of productivity of crops.
Other competent skeptic - the full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences K. Ya. Kondratyev, considers that the agiotage reason that it was succeeded to convince politicians of threat of warming, but there is no scientific confirmation of a hypothesis.
So it turns out? The UN for the unclear reasons maintains interest in a nonexistent problem while just nobody listens to competent scientists? Not everything is as simple as can seem first.
In a camp of sceptics there are not only singles fighting a losing battle but also solid scientific research institutes. In 2004 - 2005 results of the researches conducted by the American Institute of George Marshall were published. According to these researches, the problem of global warming is strongly exaggerated. The nuance is that researches were conducted on money of oil giant ExxonMobil. In case of signing of the USA of the Kyoto Protocol directed to fight against emissions in the atmosphere, similar “ petrol kings “ will suffer first of all.
According to many sceptics, pressure is put upon them, their works are suppressed, financing of researches stops. But " magazine; New Scientist “ claims that on the American scientists press absolutely in an opposite occasion, limiting the state subsidies to those scientific centers which consider reasonable existence of a problem of global warming.
Among scientists disputes, and not only on pages of scientific magazines do not cease. The British researcher James Annan argued with the Russian colleagues from Irkutsk Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev for 10 000 dollars. The dispute reason - change of climatic conditions in the next years. If becomes warmer - will pay ours if is not present - the Englishman.
Well this sum also limited damage from global warming. Good luck.