In society

Climatocracy

April 8, 2010 Julia Latynina

Consensus is the first refuge of villains.

This is a way to avoid discussion by saying
that the issue has already been resolved

Michael Cruiton

In front of the climatic summit in Copenhagen, the head of the IPPC, the railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri, said that in order to save humanity from warming, it is necessary to adjust the number of personal cars, electricity used by guests in hotels, and even cold water supplied in restaurants. Mr. Pachauri was going to regulate his personal life and world economy on a scale comparable to the “city of the Sun”. In 2007, the former US Vice President Albert Gore, whose house consumes 20 times more electricity than the House of the average American, received the Nobel Prize of the World for the fight against global warming. The alternative candidate was Irena Sendler, who saved 2500 Jewish children from the Warsaw ghetto. At the summit in Copenhagen, African countries demanded from the West 67 billion dollars. Compensations for climate change.

How does Mr. Pachauuri plan to seize power that Hitler and Stalin did not possess? Why is the idea whose truth is proved by roaring crowds with posters is called “scientific”? Why are people who distribute billions of dollars and belong to the elite elite, like Albert Mountains, are considered “fighters against the Establishment”? What is this - global bureaucracy or global democracy?

On environmental pollution by carbon dioxide

As soon as I began to criticize the teachings of global warming, indignant letters fell me. “Don't you see,” they asked me, “that, fighting against CO2, we fight for a pure planet?”

“Even if there is no global warming,” Vladimir Ryzhkov told me in a private conversation, “you still have to fight against him.” Although the air will become cleaner.

Many are really convinced that the struggle for reducing CO2 is a struggle against environmental pollution. Indeed, in almost all works of climatic alarmists, the thesis is repeated that CO2 is "the most important in size anthropogenic pollutant of the environment." The Kyoto protocol regulates exclusively the content of the CO2 and other greenhouse gases in emissions, without being distracted by such trifles as formaldehyde or lead.

So, gentlemen, I want everyone to firmly understand that CO2 is not a pollutant .

Water, for example, can be contaminated with a variety of substances. It may include acids and alkalis, dioxins and heavy metals, pesticides and oil products, radio -rolling substances and E. coli. There is only one substance that certainly cannot pollute water. This is CO2 - carbon dioxide.

Every time you drink soda, you drink water with CO2. The soda is specially done with the help of CO2, because it is absolutely safe. “Dry Ice”, which lies in a tray with ice cream, because it lies there that it is completely safe. CO2 is part of the natural cycle, exhausted by people, absorbed by plants, and we drink soda and store ice cream in “dry ice” for the same reason that we do not faint from our own breathing.

The same is the air. All air pollution is locally. Norilsk throws 2 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 2 million tons of copper oxide, 19 million tons of nitrogen oxide and 44 thousand tons of lead. Acid rains going over Norilsk, eat asphalt like a sponge. BRAZ and KRAZ poison the air with fluorine. Astrakhan GPZ - hydrogen sulfide. The chemical enterprises of Dzerzhinsk are thrown into the air the entire list of fighting poisonous substances. Somewhere they poison chlorine, somewhere with ammonia.

There is only one gas, thrown out by all these factories, which is completely harmless, has no color, no taste, nor smell, does not pose a danger to humans and is an integral part of the biosphere. This is carbon dioxide, CO2.

When you are shown by smoking pipes and they say that it is CO2 and that you need to limit these emissions in order to restrain global warming, they lie to you twice. Firstly, CO2 is transparent and brave. Whatever the tail is over the pipe is not CO2, because CO2 is invisible. Secondly, if sulfur dioxide (as in Norilsk or Mednogorsk) is thrown out of this pipe, then these emissions, theoretically, cool the atmosphere, because sulfur dioxide reacts with water steam, forms sulfate aerosols that reflect the sun's rays. If our main trouble is warming, then emissions in Norilsk must be increased. So that the asphalt does not eat half a meter, but a meter.

I emphasize once again: any pollution is locally. In one trash, mercury, on the other - dioxin. Therefore, it is necessary to fight pollution at the local level. But the fact of the matter is that the local struggle is not a task for a global bureaucracy. The United States returned purity to its cities without any UN. China returned a clear sky over Beijing without any UN. Therefore, the global bureaucracy came up with the idea of ​​regulating something global. What is everywhere. Therefore, the Kyoto protocol regulates emissions of CO2, not lead.

But the fact of the matter is that the chemical compound, which is everywhere, cannot be poisonous. It is built into the Earth's biosphere. CO2 is the basis of life on Earth. We are from CO2, processed by plants or those who ate these plants.

Our nose cannot sniff CO2 not because it does not smell at all. It is very possible that if we breathed a fluorine, then we could sniff alien to us CO2. We do not have receptors for CO2 recognition precisely because it is not a marker.

Therefore, if you hear how CO2, the gas that plants feed on and which we exhale, the gas that is gasped and in which they hold products in supermarkets are called “anthropogenic pollutant”, you can safely laugh and leave.

This “anthropogenic pollutant”, along with hydrogen sulfide, methane and ammonia, made up the Earth’s atmosphere 4.5 billion years before the appearance of a person on it and is still one of the foundations of life.

About environmental change

A person differs from animals in that he changes the environment.

People who believe that a person lived in harmony with nature before the invention of the internal combustion engine confuses a man with macaque. The man snouted channels, burned the forests, pass the herd, was engaged in frying-hot agriculture and always violated the ecosystem that existed before him, creating his own, comfortable in its place.

Sometimes this led to disasters. This is understandable. The opportunity to think is the opportunity to make mistakes. And the ability to change the environment is the opportunity to destroy it. In the XIII century, the troops of Genghis Khan destroyed the complex irrigation system of Afghanistan, based on the use of underground channels - Kyarizov, and turned the country of flowering valleys and wealthy cities, which everyone conquered into the country of barren deserts and deserted mountains, which no one could win after Genghis Khan. In the twentieth century, residents of fertile Haiti, without electricity, cut down all forests on firewood, and any rain leads to landslides in which thousands of people die.

It is very important to understand two things.

Firstly, the catastrophic impact of man on nature has always been local. Because the Mongols destroyed the ecology of Afghanistan, nothing changed in Quebec.

Secondly, this catastrophic effect is in no way associated with the level of civilization . The Haitians made an ecological disaster not because of a high level of development, but because of the lack of one. The deserts of the Middle East and the forest of Latin America hide the ruins of cultures, which have died, including because of environmental disasters. The probability of an environmental disaster is much more likely in an undeveloped society than in developed, and the GPZ in Astrakhan clogs the sky much more than the chemical complex in Ludwigshaffen.

Thirdly, as civilization develops, we burn less and less carbon per unit of energy. For millennia, a tree has served the main source of heat for humanity, in which there is one hydrogen atom at ten atoms. When we burn natural gas, we burn fuel, in which there are four hydrogen atoms on one carbon atom. Michael Cruiton, author of The State of Fear, in one of his speeches sarcastically noted that this decarbonization trend has been operating since the beginning of the 19th century and that here, as in other similar cases, the authors of the artificially created panic ideology are trying to present a long -existing trend as their merit. If humanity wants to return to the paths of its ancestors, preserving the existing level of energy consumption, it will not only cut down all forests, but will also release much more CO2 into the atmosphere than now.

In order to fight environmental pollution, you need to fight phenols and wastewater, sulfur dioxide and heavy metals. Do not fight against CO2, which we drink with soda.

It’s like with the rights of workers: in order to fight for an 8-hour working day, we must fight for an 8-hour working day. No need to fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat. As experience shows, the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat does not lead to an improvement in the life of workers. She leads to the immense power of those who led the struggle. This is the first sign of totalitarian ideology - when they lie to you, and brazenly, about what you are fighting against.

How the climate of the Earth has changed

Obviously, any scientific theory, in order to predict, should explain. If you ask you to be 5 billion dollars so that in the future the moon does not fall to the ground, ask: “Why would the lunar eclipse the day before yesterday?” If you are not answered, do not give 5 billion just in case. Drive the petitioner in the neck.

The Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, and during this time the glacial periods on it were periodically replaced by interglacial.

The previous interglacial, or the Eem period, covered the gap from 130 to 115 thousand years BC. At this time, the world was significantly warmth of the present, the sea level was 4-6 meters higher, there was no ice at the North Pole in the summer; Scandinavia was an island, hippopotams were found on the Rhine and Thames.

114 thousand years ago, new glaciation began. The level of the ocean dropped 120 meters. At the end of the Pleistocene, the glaciers retreated, however, in the early Driassic, about 12,900 BC, a sudden cooling fell on the ground, which lasted about 1,500 years.

The importance of this cooling is difficult to overestimate. The fact is that one of the most important events in the history of mankind is a Neolithic revolution, a person’s transition from gathering to agriculture. This is not just a transition to another system of life - this is the transition to another social system, and above all, to the concept of private property. The wheat that you collect in the field is a draw; The wheat that you grow is your private property.

There is good reason to believe that this transition in the early Drias made four civilizations independent of each other. At this time, in Central Mexico they began to cultivate corn, in the middle reaches of Yangtza - rice, in the current Ecuador - pumpkin, and in the Middle East - wheat. Four cultures completely independent of each other, three different cereals and a vegetable have domesticated with completely different future; This process was global, and the only thing that was global at that time was a sharp cooling. It also caused the death of Clovis culture, which could not adapt to new conditions.

Then the climatic optimum of the holocene came: from 9 to 5 thousand years BC. The world was warm again than now. (The summer temperatures of Siberia were, apparently, 2-9 degrees higher.) The temperature rise ceased in 6200 BC. Due to some sudden incident, which led to a sharp cooling, but after 400 years the temperature began to grow again; Around 5600 BC The salt water of the rising ocean burst through the Gibraltar Strait into the former Lake Mediterranean.

The new cooling began approx. 2200 BC and lasted almost 600 years; It coincided with the collapse of the Empire of the Sargon of the Akkadian and Middle Kingdom in Egypt. The next 600-year period of cold weather hit in 60 BC and lasted until 600 AD-it was a period of the collapse of the Roman Empire and the Chinese Han dynasty under the onslaught of barbarians, driven out of his hunger, cold and drought. The dark centuries were also cold centuries. The Roman Empire was Roman warming.

By 1000, a medieval climate optimus reigned in the world. At this time, grapes grew up in England, and Airik Red, opening Greenland in 982, called it a green country, because it was green.

In the XIV century, the climatic optimum was replaced by a small ice age. The famine of 1315-1317 and the plague of the 1348th that followed it turned Europe into a cemetery. Some parts of France are still inhabited less than at the beginning of the XIV century. But the catastrophe was even worse than the humanitarian catastrophe: despair and religious fanaticism, “witch hunt” and mass persecution of Jews declared guilty of deaths.

By 1600, it got warmer, and from 1645 to 1715 the world froze again, the 1640th is a date, familiar to historians.

The beginning of the 1640s is the years when throughout Europe-in ​​England, in Catalonia, in Portugal, in Naples, six revolutions and rebellions plus Front in France occurred at the same time. 1644 - the Manchus captured Beijing. The folk uprising that preceded this, Rhine Krueger describes this: “In the northwest, the harsh winter, which followed a strong drought, caused crop failure and hunger ... Cases of cannibalism were even noted in hunger.”

From 1790 to 1830, frosts returned again; The army of Napoleon froze in Russia, and 1816, “a year without summer”, turned around a disaster around the world: in Europe, crop froze from May frosts, snow was snowing in Taiwan. At least 100 thousand Irish died from hunger. It was after the “year without summer”, when Manhattan rode around skates, and oats grew 8 times in price, the Americans moved west.

Since the 1830s, the temperature began to grow and grew until the 1860s. Then she went down again. Then she began to grow again-from the 1910s to the 1940s. Hitler, who attacked the USSR, was unlucky, like Napoleon: German soldiers froze in the harsh winter of 1941-1942, and summer fuel in tanks decomposed into the factions. The temperature fell until the 1970s; Scientists were afraid of the new ice age. In the mid-70s, teleporters explained typhoons and hurricanes with global cooling. But then the temperature was recovering, and it turned out that instead of global cooling, we had a global warming.

Change and there is the norm

Of the above, three things are obvious. First: the climate has no norm. The only climate norm is the change. The current sea level is not the norm - it is an interval between changes. From the point of view of some shell of the Eem period, the sea is now 6 meters lower than normal.

Second: biologically catastrophe for mankind is precisely cooling, not warming. It would be difficult for us to explain one hundred thousand of the Irish who died because of the “year without the sun” that they avoided the horrors of global warming.

However, the most important, as we see, is the answer that this or that culture gives to climate changes. The sudden cooling in the early Driasa destroyed the Covis culture, but it also led to the fact that at four different points in the world other cultures discovered agriculture. The reaction of medieval Europe to the hunger of 1315 was panic, fanaticism, Jewish pogroms and witch hunting. The reaction of America to the “year without summer” was the colonization of the West.

In China, a medieval climatic optimum led to the reconstruction of a single empire and the prosperity of the Tang and Sun dynasties. In Europe, Karl the Great could not do what Shi Min did, the actual founder of the Tang dynasty.

The response of England to the cooling of the 1640s was a bourgeois revolution. The response of China was the bloody popular uprising, which destroyed the Ming dynasty and gave the Celestial and Ilite Nomads to the power.

The only place where for hundreds of thousands of years the climate has not changed was equatorial Africa. It was there that humanity did not evolve.

And, finally, the third: climate changes for 4.5 billion years of the existence of the Earth are absolutely precisely due not to anthropogenic CO2.

Look at the temperature change schedule and CO2 in plywood. Two things are clearly visible from it: firstly, there is no connection between them. Secondly, the content of CO2 in Cambria or Devon was 20-12 times higher than the current one: and this one of the things that can be understood without any graphs, just thinking. We throw CO2 into the air because we burn oil and coal, but where did CO2 come from oil and coal?

He was once assimilated by organisms, which then turned into oil and coal, and it is clear that before CO2 was seized and dead in huge underground halves, his concentration in the air was much higher. The high CO2 in the Cambria did not destroy life: on the contrary, having estimated the existing amount of minerals, it is easy to understand that life is genetically adapted to a much larger concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere than now .

What to be afraid of CO2 growth, with a much greater reason, it can be argued that, burning dead coal and oil, we return to the atmosphere of CO2, necessary for life.

Why does the climate change? Боюсь, что 99% людей, с плакатами в руках требующих «остановить глобальное потепление» и «судить климатических преступников», не смогут ответить на этот вопрос. Очень возможно, что для них откровением окажется тот факт, что график изменений температуры даже в ХХ веке не совпадает с графиком роста концентрации СО2 в атмосфере и что в начале 1970-х перепуганные ученые объясняли ураганы и тайфуны «глобальным похолоданием».

To be continued

Сокращенный вариант напечатан в «Новой газете» за 15.03.2010

Фотография Юлии Латыниной с сайта www.novayagazeta.livejournal.com