foto1 foto2 foto3 foto4 foto5

Baner text 1

Baner text 2

Baner text 3

Baner text 4

Baner text 5

Get Adobe Flash player



Reducing the negative effects of human activity - a rational strategy to combat global warming, even if the reason is different.
One of the most impressive places in Switzerland - a district huts Concordia in the canton of Valais. Here merge four of the glacier, one of which is the longest in the Alps. First hut was built in 1877 on the bank. Today, walking on a glacier in a foggy day, you risk to miss the hut: it hangs on a cliff at an altitude of 150 m above the glacier. Due to climate change in the average level of the glacier is lowered by one meter per year.

The sight is so striking, that the doubt about the reality of global warming is not even the one who thought of it first. You can no longer take the time to study the statistics on the dynamics of the average temperature at the Earth's surface, the water temperature in the ocean layers, changing the level, etc. But if the warming is caused by human activity -.. The issue is more subtle.

Warming is caused by several reasons:. Variations in climate, changes in solar activity, volcanoes, etc. However, the likelihood that a major factor in the last half century became the consequences of human activity is very high. Scientists here a consensus that can be seen, for example, from the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the United Nations. This organization has since 1988 engaged in meta-analysis (a generalization of the results of research) problems and risks associated with it.

Probabilistic conclusion, no matter how strong it may be, leaves room for error and doubt. This is actively used by representatives of major industries and corporations, whose interests are affected in the case of the adoption of governmental measures on greening of industrial production processes, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and so on. N. Political games are not limited to inflating the debate in the media. There are suspicions that the private business, even ordering the results of scientific studies that have questioned the scientific consensus and data on climate change.

However, the game can be kept unclean and those who adhere to a consensus. 10 years ago a friend of mine was going to defend his dissertation in one well-known University of the First World fives. Job questioned the validity of the conclusions of various environmental organizations on the human impact on the environment. familiar to defend the university did not give, arguing that the thesis is weak. Desperate to get a degree, friend decided on the results of at least write an article in the popular media. When the university learned about it, they made an agreement with her: she is awarded a degree, but to publish the results of it can not. It turned out that part of the funding of the University has been tied to the very organizations that were involved in the dissertation.

When the problem is political, it is more difficult to understand. It is possible that in the debate about global warming is the most rational option would be to stick to the argument of the famous "Pascal's Wager". It is better to assume that the person is guilty, and trying to take action. Even if the reason is different, we will live in a more environmentally friendly world. Otherwise, not trying to do anything, we risk a global catastrophe.