Climate change is the litmus test by which easily checked honesty scholars

In the ranks of the American space Agency NASA has appeared dissidents. 49 astronauts and NASA officials, former and present, have signed a letter in which is expressed the protest against "politicizing NASA. In their opinion, the office has taken a "political position on the outstanding issue", which is global warming. Opposition workers of the space industry does not agree with their employer that the current global warming is the result of human activities. The employer is based on the results personally conducted scientific experiments. NASA is a very serious scientific organization, there are scientists from around the world - it is enough to remember the late Carl Sagan.

Long-term observations, conducted by NASA and other research centers in the Arctic, Antarctica, in the American West and in other parts of the world, show that although in the Earth's history have been periods of warming, never before temperature values do not grow so fast - it can't be the result of natural processes. This shows the deep samples of ice, a study of the annual rings of ancient redwoods and other studies.

Scientists that are sold...

But the scientist scientist strife. Some incorruptible servants scientific truth, other - sales converters of truth in what you need customers. Global warming is a test, which can easily check the integrity of scholars. How will solve the problem of the government of different countries, depend profit energy and other industrial concerns, and they do not spare money to bribe scientists. They need that from authoritative lips sounded phrase about the absence of danger, the change of cold and warm cycles in the Earth's climate, about the wrong methods of calculation of the timing and scale of the impending disaster, and even better - that no disaster in sight.

The Corporation without a lot of work to find scientists who are willing to say what you want. What can't make money, can make a lot of money. And who has more money than the largest company on the planet - ExxonMobil? This mastodon oil business is generous gifts "climate sceptics". The company financed almost fifteen hundred different organizations that sow the seeds of doubt in the reality of global warming as such or anthropogenic origin. For example, in 2008, The conservative American Enterprise Institute received from the leader counterpart $245 000. How many individual scientists have become the recipients of wealth from the "Axson" - this can't count even alert the activists. Here is just one example: in 2010, "Exxon" issued "scholarship" in $76 000 astrophysics at Harvard University Willie Sung, who actively deny global warming.

Along the way, it is worth noting that in 2006, under the pressure of angry public ExxonMobil has promised to stop the funding of "climate skeptics." But, as seen from the above examples, of his promise, the company is not kept.

Among the favorites ExxonMobil includes such research organization conservative, as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. There is also the independent civil initiatives", located on the content of the "Axson". The names similar movements are designed to convince the General public that this is Amateur associations concerned citizens (for example, "centre for the study of carbon dioxide and global change"). Concerned they understandably, the impact of the economy on the environment, but, on the contrary, "exaggeration" of this impact. They are fighting against the state control over market economy, supporting their struggle with the fact that "bureaucratic interference is injurious". Actually no one except the government (which presses protester public) may not restrict corporate greed and to force companies to spend money on security environment, protection of labour and any other non-productive purposes.

Scientists who sold his scientific authority corporate "sponsors", striving, particularly in lobbying organizations TechCentralStation who leads an active campaign on the Internet, trying to prove the validity of further contamination of the biosphere. For example, here is what he wrote once in the online Bulletin TechCentralStation Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama:

"You cannot think of a laboratory experiment that would show how the Earth will respond to slow (highlighted by me. - IB) rising carbon dioxide levels. Of course, the recent warming can be caused by emission of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as a result of economic activity. But we know so little about natural climate fluctuations, which is impossible, in fact, to judge to what extent the current warming is the result of human activities".

As you can see, Dr. Spencer in passing, unobtrusive investing in our minds the thought that the level of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is growing slowly. Meanwhile, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, established by the UN in 1988, predicts that by the end of this century, the Earth's temperature could rise by 6 (this is the highest mark, the minimum is 1,5-WITH - IB). This is no trifling warming: as a result of melting ice and rising Global sea level of the USA can lose all of their major coastal cities such as new York, Boston, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc.

However, the Professor exclaimed: "are we Really supposed to believe that warming is always the work of human hands, and cooling - always by nature?! Leave!"

Scientists who resist...

Scientists like Dr. Spencer, try to blame it on the nature of the destruction of nature. They ignore the huge amount of natural anomalies, unprecedented and is clearly associated with the pollution of the biosphere. For example, in U.S. coastal waters in recent years have witnessed a record number of shark attacks on humans. Reason: near the U.S. coast exhausted virtually all fisheries (fishing and pollution) are hungry predators and have to swim in shallow water, where previously they never asked about, and there to catch the prey, for which they had not hunted.

Or another "sea" example: pathological abundance of jellyfish. First, they survive in polluted water in which the fish dies. Secondly, many species of fish feed on jellyfish, and the smaller fish, the more jellyfish.

On Earth have become more frequent and devastating hurricanes, floods, forest fires and other natural disasters. In the scientific community, most agree that it is directly connected with the economic activity of the person. Global warming and the greenhouse effect, the rapid destruction of forests, water pollution, hazardous oversupply of hydraulic structures, creating a giant unstable cavities under the ground in the result of pumping oil and gas - people is reaping the bitter fruits of his actions, violating the ecological balance of the planet.

Urgent need to limit the rampant economic growth, to enter it in strict environmental limits. Yes, but how to feed the world's growing population? How to get out of poverty of 80% of the inhabitants of the planet? Even if the main pollutants of the biosphere - industrialized countries - all will agree to live in poorer and to consume less (what the chances are slim), hungry "third world" will never agree to slow down its economic development. And on the environment he has no money - it is necessary to feed the hungry, mother nature will suffer.

And yet: the main polluter remain United States is the largest economy of the planet; they account for a quarter of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And if the US doesn't show an example to the rest of the world, and the others have to wait consciousness. But in America the strong dependence of politicians from money of corporations that spend astronomical sums to bribe Washington lawmakers. As a result, Federal environmental legislation remains relatively toothless, and only some States - "leaders of ecology" adopt their own, more stringent standards of pollution of the biosphere (the main ' front-runner ' - California).

Well at least that the Obama administration does not try, as it was under Bush Junior, down the throats of scientists who are concerned with rapid global warming, such as the NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen. Bush officials tried to stop his contact with the press and the public - until it emerged a major scandal.

Scientists who offer...

Scientists warn - they also propose specific measures to combat global warming. A few years ago, Tom Wigle from the National center for atmospheric research, USA proposed to combine the two methods of combat global warming: will not only significantly reduce the emission of greenhouse gas, but also to do cooling sulfatului injections into the stratosphere (they block solar radiation). Computer simulation has shown the effectiveness of this approach.

According to Wigle, aerosol injections of sulphates in the stratosphere it is necessary to carry out with periodicity of times a year to once in four years, depending on the situation. Only one thrown into the stratosphere sulfate should be equal to quantityestvo, which was the result of the eruption of mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991. This was one of the largest volcanic eruptions of the twentieth century - the volcano had been saving for it forces five hundred years...

The advantage of this method sulfate injection is that these injections, cooling the atmosphere can give humanity a deferral for up to 20 years, so that we can rebuild the global economy, radically reducing its impact on the Earth's climate. Without this grace we will stand before a dilemma: or immediately and dramatically cut emissions of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, or to have what we have, is increasing the scale of climate catastrophe.

But without reducing CO2 emissions no geoingenieria will not help. Wigle writes, for example, that CO2 is the cause of the increasing acidity of the oceans, which pose a threat to its ecosystem. And when you consider that most of the earth's surface is exactly the ocean, the disturbance of the natural balance of the water environment threatens the entire biosphere and life on Earth the most severe consequences.

...And policies that address

Scientists can detect, prevent, to offer, but they are to decide. And for those who decided, nothing can agree. Kyoto Protocol United Nations framework Convention for the prevention of global climate change - does not work: it was signed in 1997 and entered into force it is only in 2005, up until now it has not ratified the USA and several other countries, at the end of last year, got out of Canada... the Copenhagen meeting in 2009 to combat climate change was an empty shell, industrialized countries accused of "third world", and he blames the lack of results developed countries. In General, things are there, and disaster closer: the more recently, scientists predicted the complete disappearance of the polar ice at the end of this century, now speak about the future in 20-30 years.

It came to the fact that because of the climate "Democrat went on Democrat": former Vice President and Nobel laureate al Gore criticized Barack Obama for lack of "bold action" in the field of environmental protection. Gore once said that compared to Bush (which environmental movement considers a "standard irresponsibility") Obama has hardly moved forward. As underlined by the Mountains, "Obama has not presented to the American people about the true scale of the climate crisis -- and not brought under presidential auspices of the efforts of the scientific community, trying to bring to the public the real situation".

What is the real situation, the researchers say, is that, on its background, you can move to the background all the issues in your life - work, education, medicine, housing, food etc. The case goes to the fact that the biosphere of the Earth in this century may become uninhabitable, and then there will be no one to live, work, eat, learn and to heal. TV channel the History Channel once showed documentary and fictional program with participation of authoritative experts about our future in this century - watch was scared to the happy end (mankind, according to the film script, changed his mind).
Make up your mind whether in real life? It seems that come to its senses, when it will be too late...