Winter is close

Sunday morning in Lima after the completion of the UN conference on the problem of climate change, I read the accumulated thematic news. At the first link, five dozen American scientists and popularizers of science, including the star and favorite of the nation Bill Ny, leading the cult scientific program of the 1990s “ Bill Nye The Science Guy ” , wrote an open letter to the American media. They are asked to resolutely stop calling the skeptics of those who consider the climate change nonsense, and the works of the intergovernmental group of experts to change the climate (MGEIK) are the fruits of the UN conspiracy. Like, skepticism is a respected and integral part of the scientific method, and these comrades simply deny the facts, as some kind of “society of flat land” there. Therefore, they ask to write as it is - Deniers , "RENECTIVITIVE".

However, “negatics” are somehow not quite Russian, so for the second link you have to make a familiar note. There, in the Kommersant’s commercial application, the director of the Russian Arctic national park Roman Ershov says that he does not really trust the theory of global warming - because “for example, they are constantly talking about him, and this summer was very cold.” The tone with which the word “theory” is pronounced here can be heard through the distance and time-you think, there is some kind of theory there. Ershov emphasizes that there is no reliable evidence of the connection of global warming and human activity (which I also want to send a gift edition of the second assessment report of Roshydromet on climate change and their consequences in Russia - from the summer of 2014 to the national park.

In Russia, HAARP is accused of “calling” the abnormal heat of 2010, floods in Crimean and, in order not to trifle, in the failure of “phobos group”.

He is not the first, he is not the last, of course. In Russia, there are all conditions for “climatic skepticism”. On the one hand, the country does not threaten to drown entirely in the ocean, as island states like Vanuata: the risks are more complex and not so obvious. On the other hand, a very incredible level of scientific literacy, which goes hand in hand with conspiracyology. Hence the tender love for the American “installation” of Haarp in Alaska, which in its country, probably, is not so popular as ours. Haarp is such a program of research of the ionosphere, the upper part of the Earth’s atmosphere, and it was a little unlucky with the name and the country (just say that a similar Russian multifunctional radio complex Sura is more powerful, and there are two of the Europeans). Like other attitudes, the main Haarp tool can locally stimulate the sections of the ionosphere (in order to see what is happening). For this, he was immediately accused of “calling” the abnormal heat of 2010, floods in Crimean and, in order not to trifle, in the failure of the “phobos group”. In theft of the library of Ivan the Terrible, too, would probably be accused if they could. And to the scientists themselves - to those who work on these installations, and to meteorologists - it is not customary to apply for comments on this.

But the main problem is the fundamental, almost one hundred percent “divorce” of the word and deeds of the state. Which, by the way, has international obligations to enlighten their citizens in terms of climate change.

(As such an operational likbiza: out of 13.9 thousand past reviews of articles in the Web database of Science for 1991-2012, according to Global warming and “Global Climate change”, the influence of a person as a leading factor is denied by 24. In the words: twenty -four articles, or 0.17%, 34 author out of almost 33.7 thousand - so much counted by American geophysicik James Powell, who was tired of constantly arguing about whether there is a consolidated scientific position or there is a consolidated scientific position or here “The truth is silent, the authorities are hiding.”

10 years ago, the RAS announced the Kyoto protocol with anti -scientific, and warming - beneficial for the "coldest country in the world."

Other similar studies give approximately the same scale. MGAIK, where Russian climatologists also work, this year was released by the fifth evaluative report, generalizing scientific information on the problem, and Roshydromet is the already mentioned second report for Russia. Brief conclusions of both of them and the other, as well as many millions of reviews and articles in the media can easily be found on the network, I highly recommend, extremely exciting reading.)

In words, everything is fine with us: the times have passed when the Russian Academy of Sciences announced the Kyoto Protocol anti -scientific, and warming - beneficial for the “coldest country in the world”. This story, which seems incredible from 2014, happened 10 years ago, when Russia discussed whether or not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Advisor to President Andrei Illarionov, who believed that joining Kyoto would prevent Russia from doubleting GDP in a decade (someone else remembers about it?), Then asked the Russian Academy of Sciences to speak in his dispute with supporters of ratification. As a result, the Council-seminar of the Russian Academy of Sciences in May 2004 made a judgment that can still be found on the network. There are some kind of sound thoughts that corresponded to the uncertainty in climatic science at that time, but there are some savagery that raise questions about whether all the participants in the seminar saw the final text of this judgment. For example, the Kyoto protocol has a discriminatory nature in relation to Russia, in particular, because during its preparation, "the temperature regime of Russia, the coldest country in the world is not taken into account."

I am even lost, thinking how to take this into account - legally prohibit warming everywhere except the Russian Federation?

Now scientific bosses say the same as active scientists. Experts regularly gather in the presidential administration, Roshydromet, the Ministry of Economic Development, “Business Russia” and a lot more.

In fact, when the head of the energy efficiency and ecology department, the Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Maksimov, makes a presentation in Lima, on the slide on successes and failures all three points in the progress column begin with the words “a decision” - they have not yet gone beyond decision -making. But in the column of failures, more and more specifically: the goal of reducing the energy intensity of GDP by 2020 has been achieved, apparently, there will be no, the goal of increasing the share of “green energy” in the energy balance is also.

For the Western media, Putin is still a person who "once said that the climate change will benefit Russia, because the Russians will be less likely to wear fur coats."

And the day after the adoption of measures to limit the growth of CO 2 emissions in Russia until the end of the decade, the government, as if nothing had happened, approves the development plan of the Russian coal industry until 2030 - with an increase in production and import substitution.

Oil Production in the Arctic, again, is meaningless and merciless - why conduct the prey of fossil fuel (which will be burned with CO 2 emissions) where it does not even have economic meaning without state subsidies? De Jure Russia seems to be aware of the threat to humanity and the climate familiar to him, de facto, except for people who write performances for negotiations in the UN, and the groups of sympathetic, none of the officials, it is quite possible that I have not heard anything about this. So, when journalists pester their global warming, it seems safer to be talked out just in case. No matter what happens.

Why “what” can go out is a question for Putin. He on the topic of climate change in recent years, if it has been expressed at all, is only in one way, quite sensible: that Russia will support only a global new agreement, under which each country will subscribe. But for the Western media, he still remains a person who "once said that the climate change will benefit Russia, because the Russians will be less likely to wear fur coats." I am afraid to forget this joke, no number of performances by his climate adviser Alexander Bedritsky will help. Allegedly, the climatic skepticism of the first person and inside the country serves as a reason for the professional humor of the parties to the “party” and the alleged true motive of certain actions of the authorities. When in 2011, after a year and a half, the State Climate Doctrine finally acquired a plan of actions for its implementation, the experts and ecologists, with whom Kommersant spoke, saw in this “evidence that [at that time] Prime Minister Vladimir Putin believed in the anthropogenic change in climate.”

Probably not everyone read that release of the newspaper.

That is, skeptic officials can assume that it would be like subordination, but what about scientists? Firstly, the offer in the market of alternative views is not as great as you can sometimes think, looking at the Yandex.Nera. Almost in half of the cases, “Russian scientists” promising a new ice age next year/century/tomorrow (emphasize the necessary), is one specific person - the head of the Sun Sun Sun Sun Sun (read: not climatologist) Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who is discovered by new and new journalists every year. Like Abdusamatov, most other public skeptics are physicists, chemists, economists and so on. That is, many of these revolutionaries, whose circle in Russia is still not so narrow, are quite far from the area that they judge.

Secondly, all such notes are the same as happy families: they either have frankly funny arguments like a cold summer or an increase in the sea ice cover in the Arctic in one or two years (against the background of a descending trend of 30 years), or the topic of the “pause” in warming is pedaling, which allegedly cannot explain (not true, they can: at the moment the most true-like hypothesis - that the world ocean is to blame for everything;

Russian Neftegaz quite learned to use the topic of climate change in its interests.

The conversation about this cannot be seriously conducted, but we will be happy to listen to any other arguments, why not - only articles and links forward. And if the scientist suddenly objects not to climatology, but to the economy, then there is no longer anywhere from the alarming notes of the conspiracy against Russia.

Where does all this come from? Finn Veli-Pecca Tunkekenin from the University of Helsinki studies the features of national climatic skepticism-in Russia, because in Finland this research object is somehow not very good. The topic abroad is interesting, because Russian skeptics, a rare species, are fundamentally different from Western comrades: no one else in the world loves talk about the fact that in fact a global cooling awaits us all. Tunquyunen believes that skeptical books themselves do not publish themselves and exposing television tesets also do not take themselves away-it is not only a pursuit of journalists for sensation, someone orders all this music. And the heads of all varieties telling the federal media about the animal grin of world "green" in conspiracy with the UN are actually protecting the interests of the country - the second oil exporter in the world and the leader in gas export.

In the United States, local scientists have found the “ends” of financing the main public organizations of skeptics in intermediary funds that do not disclose information about their donors. In the public reporting of skeptics after 2008, cash flows from Exxonmobil Or the Koch brothers, energy and industrial magnates, magically evaporate, and in their place there are all sorts of completely impenetrable Donorstrust , or even simply unknown sources of money. This is believed by researchers from the University of Drexel in Philadelphia, the issue of democracy: American voters, they say, deserve the right to know who and why supplies this anti -fiction steam locomotive.

It is difficult to study Russia with its level of development of civil society (which, right, public organizations of skeptics and voters with the right to know) and complete opacity from this point of view. The Finnish geographer, as far as I know, has not yet been able to find evidence that, for example, some evil oil and gas company pays for Russian scientists, often nameless, regularly “refuted” Roshydromet, VMO and 99.83% of articles on Web of Science since 1991.

The most funny thing I came across is the 2013 study in the magazine, it’s scary to say, the Gas Industry. The authors of the energy of the coming cooling caused by a minimum of solar activity were needed only in order to substantiate the increase in fuel need and primarily in Russian gas. Because it is clear that if warming, it will become warmer, that is, it will be less than fuel, and if it becomes colder, more (it is funny that the same problem could be solved without using the words “stubbornly exaggerated in the West from the perspective of marketing”: the climate is changing, everyone is very worried that it will not work out to completely abandon the fuel and emissions of CO 2 in the foreseeable future, the gas will not work much better Coal, let's fill the whole world with good Russian gas! It is curious that the researchers mention in addition to global cooling and another “strong argument” - the cyclic nature of climate change, referring to the other work of one of the two co -authors representing Gazprom VNIIGAZ LLC and, I don’t go a bun, “Vestnik Ren” (Raen is the same academy where Ramzan Kadyrov and historian Anatoly Fomenko are consist of). Now I am interested in: is it not the same sources, by chance, Mr. Ershov read?

For that matter, Russian oil and gas has learned to use the topic of climate change in its interests: it opens the way to the future alone, to deposits and transport routes in the Arctic (however, these, as we see, can not be determined yet), others help to justify why Russian vehicles should be transferred in the massive fuel. In addition, if even from the “shale revolution”, the sector-gap of the Russian economy was contemptuously dismissed, the climatic issue, especially taking into account the actual priorities of the Russian energy policy, can be neglected completely.

So I am almost sure: all these nonsense are not told for the salary after all, but sincerely, from the heart. On the other hand, a link to the cold summer of the “Russian Arctic”, decorated with the Gazprom-Neft logo on top, the geographer should be sent.

P.​ S.​ Since then I met a variety of “negative” views in Russia and the USA, I have no idea left me. If Russian skeptics believe that the Kyoto Protocol and the climatic policy in general are all the capitalist conspiracy against Russia, and the American ones are “green communism”, is mutual annihilation possible at their meeting? And do they understand how funny it is?