Global warming

The past year was full of hot discussions about global warming. This is probably the merit of Greta Tunberg, who came from the UN rostrum with a significant speech. Of course, her speech was organized by politicians, of course, this is a PR action, but, I must admit, very successful. Distributing from stylistic assessments and political aspects, it is necessary to thank Greta, which set in motion such masses of gray matter both around the world and (especially) in our homeland. The Nobel laureate is not at the power of sometimes what an emotional girl can do - to move or angry hundreds of millions, influencing the agenda of the world media and the subject of network battles. Many professional climatologists believe that the performance of Greta brought to science more harm than benefit, but it depends on how much the scientists themselves are ready to speak before a wide audience. If you are ready, now their audience will be much more than a year ago - this is precisely the merit of the Greta. In fact, if we talk about the fact of anthropogenic global warming, the subject for disputes is no more here than in discussions about the sphericalness of the Earth or the fact of a large explosion. But fierce disputes go in all directions, there and there are “experts”, claiming that the entire scientific hystblishment is either paid, or politically engaged, or hesitated in worship of mild authorities. Indeed, climatology experiences pressure from politics and economics, and from different sides. External pressure is a very bad factor for scientific research, but does this mean that climatologists in the vast majority succumbed to this pressure and deceive the people in chorus?

The Trinity Option continues the discussion about global warming . Our main goal is not disputes about the presence/absence, but education. We will not “give the rostrum” to speakers who deny the fact of anthropogenic warming for the same reason why we do not publish the negative explosions and the theory of relativity. Nevertheless, the answers to the common myths in discussions will sound, since this is a very effective way to explain reality.

The second question, besides the very fact of anthropogenic warming, is the question of its possible consequences. Maybe it is useful and nothing to worry about? Or will someone have to be tight from him? But maybe someone else, and not us? And maybe figs with him, with someone who will have bad? Or maybe still humanity is one, and you should not distinguish, by whom the bell calls? And what is the optimal civilization strategy in the face of global warming? There is less certainty and more subject for disputes. We expect to go to this issue in the second turn.

We are forced to express regret that a sharp criticism of the statements of Alexander Gorodnitsky, a man whom we love and respect for other aspects of his activities, will sound in the materials.

Boris Stern