Is Russia global warming denialist?

The time left to fix global warming(whose results are highly being felt in my country) is rapidly running. Unfortunately its in no one's interest to fix it. However is there any global warming awareness in russia ? Are there any legitimate concerns and is there any funding to research a fix AGW there? However since there are many antienviroment ideas running around in the russian government(many believe in the abiotic oil BS) I seriously wouldn't be surprised if some of those stupid denialist studies cooked up by US libertarian astroturfing think tanks would find appeal in russia. Anyway I really hope for russia in the future to be one of the most concerned countries about AGW and leading in alternative energy and cutting poisonous emissions.  But for those saying that shouldn't happen because the US also isn't doing anything, thats the whole point! Russia needs to show they are more concerned about climate dangers, they need to show that they're actually improving the enviroment where the US is destroying it. This will benefit russia in the long term and also future generations  instead of using money only to do oil drilling.

I hope not...
There is no global warming...and even that was the case is not man made.

Well one of the biggest factors for Russian Arctic expansion would be the melting of the ice-caps, thus freeing up access to the Arctic resources and shipping lanes, so it might not be in their best interests to prevent that.   

ali.a.r wrote:Well one of the biggest factors for Russian Arctic expansion would be the melting of the ice-caps, thus freeing up access to the Arctic resources and shipping lanes, so it might not be in their best interests to prevent that.   

Who's melting would cause so much natural catastrophes around the world(including russia) before they have the chance to dig up all that oil(which causes AGW in the 1st place)

Who's melting would cause so much natural catastrophes around the world(including russia) before they have the chance to dig up all that oil(which causes AGW in the 1st place)

I know that better than most people. I come from a country (Maldives) whose highest natural point is just barely 2 meters above sea level. But that is not a concern for any other industrialized country.

Each country puts their interests before others, and Russia is no exception. Its little countries like mine, which incidentally doesn't even have a half a million people, that suffers. But we cant do anything about it, so might as well just get on with our lives.

My point is that the wealth and influence that Russia (or any other major country) gains would probably factor more than the lives of some distant island countries in the Pacific or Indian Ocean.

The European Green movement was created with a huge help from KGB. Russia is a master in using various movement of useful idiots.

I think that the global warming isn't so bad. Something like 100,000 years ago there were trees growing in North Cape and oaks growing in Lapland. The bulk of warming takes place in high latitudes... imagine having ice free Russian Arctic year round. Mankind has always thrived during warm periods and stagnated during cold ones, this time will be no exception. This year here in Poland we had one of the warmest winters on record. Absolutely no snow except for 4-5 days with subzero temperatures. Even in January daytime temperatures seldom dropped below 5*C and often were as high as 10-12*C. In late March we had 19*C in shade while a few years ago snow was still on the ground in April.

ali.a.r wrote:

Who's melting would cause so much natural catastrophes around the world(including russia) before they have the chance to dig up all that oil(which causes AGW in the 1st place)

I know that better than most people. I come from a country (Maldives) whose highest natural point is just barely 2 meters above sea level. But that is not a concern for any other industrialized country.

Each country puts their interests before others, and Russia is no exception. Its little countries like mine, which incidentally doesn't even have a half a million people, that suffers. But we cant do anything about it, so might as well just get on with our lives.

My point is that the wealth and influence that Russia (or any other major country) gains would probably factor more than the lives of some distant island countries in the Pacific or Indian Ocean.

This type of thinking has and will ruin the lives of millions of people.

As Sa'iqa wrote:The European Green movement was created with a huge help from KGB. Russia is a master in using various movement of useful idiots.

Yup. And all scientists(97%) who belive in global warming are mind controlled pawns of evil KGB too. The CIA is clearly doing shit job on that one.  

I think that the global warming isn't so bad. Something like 100,000 years ago there were trees growing in North Cape and oaks growing in Lapland. The bulk of warming takes place in high latitudes... imagine having ice free Russian Arctic year round. Mankind has always thrived during warm periods and stagnated during cold ones, this time will be no exception. This year here in Poland we had one of the warmest winters on record. Absolutely no snow except for 4-5 days with subzero temperatures. Even in January daytime temperatures seldom dropped below 5*C and often were as high as 10-12*C. In late March we had 19*C in shade while a few years ago snow was still on the ground in April.

We in bulgaria hate it because because we hate constant summer heatwaves that cause the deaths of dozens of people every years in the last few decades.


You don't think its bad because you're suffering from the dunning kruger effect. Its so sad when people only trust their own assumptions and reject actual scientific evidence.
Here are the reasons you (and CERTAINLY most people around the world) won't be enjoying a happy equatorial poland when the glaciers melt:
1.Global warming will cause a continuing sea level rise of an uncertain amount. The IPCC reports a range of 9 – 88 cm (3.5 – 34.6 inches) up to 2100, but further contributions are possible from glacier and ice sheet discharge from Greenland and Antarctica. Even this small rise would cause significant disruption to coastal communities. If the whole Greenland ice sheet melted this would lead to a global rise of 7 m (23 ft).

2.More active weather systems. More energy in the atmosphere will lead to more active weather systems, with more frequent and more violent storms.(we sure THRIVE i frequent massive storms; just ask the hurricane katrina survivors  )

3.Disturbed rainfall patterns. Rainfall patterns will be significantly disrupted, with floods in some places and droughts in others.

4.acidification of the oceans. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water by reacting to make H2CO3 (carbonic acid), causing great damage to fish stocks and coral reefs. Note this is not a consequence of warming: it is a consequence of the forcing agent, CO2. To make matters worse, this acidification appears to have been an important factor in the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event — the most severe extinction Earth has ever known — and possibly every extinction other than the Cretaceous.(effects of today's gloabl warming TOTALLY haven't cause any catastrophes)


5.Tipping points/feedback loops. Multiple possibilities here. As glaciers disappear, the planet will not reflect as much solar radiation back into space, leading to more warming. When northern permafrost melts, the organic material will decompose and release methane, again leading to more warming. As the oceans warm, their ability to dissolve carbon dioxide decreases, and if ever reach a certain temperature, the methane stored under pressure on the seafloor will vaporize, leading to (you guessed it) more warming.

6.Spread of tropical diseases. As northern latitudes become warmer, vectors that spread tropical diseases (such as mosquitoes or other organisms) will begin to encroach into new areas.

7.disruption of ocean currents. For example, the disruption of ocean currents could reduce the strength of the North Atlantic Drift that keeps Europe relatively warm for its latitude.(yes glacier melting will definately make europe warmer, an uneducated libertarian conspiracy therorist told me that, and he is definately more credible than the evil librul commie scientific community  )

8.Habitat loss or change faster than plants or animals can adapt. Mechanism such as species migration or changes in ecosystem boundaries often are slow, and in some cases could be slower than the speed of climate change. Some habitats may disappear completely: the loss of polar climates will leave animals such as polar bears cut off — or will have to actually breed with other local species.(take that, treehugger commies)

9.Loss of mountain glaciers and snowpack exacerbating summer droughts. Glaciers and snowpack act as natural reservoirs, for example releasing water that had fallen as snow several months later when summer arrives and snow melts. The loss of this natural storage mechanism will lead to floods in winter and droughts in the summer.(not only more heatwaves in europe, but mass thirst as well. But Don't worry, evil statists and gubmints did it)

10.And, if you've been sleeping through this list, serious damage to coffee and chocolate stocks.(yup, entire agriculture markets threatened to be destroyed, but don't worry, da market will fix EVERYTHING)

sources:http://www.oecd.org/env/the-climate-challenge-achieving-zero-emissions.htm
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2013/IEAGMFeventBrussels13jun13invitation.pdf
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-could-melt-chocolate-production/

As Sa'iqa wrote:The European Green movement was created with a huge help from KGB. Russia is a master in using various movement of useful idiots.

Time to take you meds because the reds aren't under the bed, and put this straight jacket on for size Joe McCarthy     ...*walks out of the room slowly*

...And I'm sure Gazprom wants the world to stop buying it's gas... 

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

ali.a.r wrote:

Who's melting would cause so much natural catastrophes around the world(including russia) before they have the chance to dig up all that oil(which causes AGW in the 1st place)

I know that better than most people. I come from a country (Maldives) whose highest natural point is just barely 2 meters above sea level. But that is not a concern for any other industrialized country.

Each country puts their interests before others, and Russia is no exception. Its little countries like mine, which incidentally doesn't even have a half a million people, that suffers. But we cant do anything about it, so might as well just get on with our lives.

My point is that the wealth and influence that Russia (or any other major country) gains would probably factor more than the lives of some distant island countries in the Pacific or Indian Ocean.

This type of thinking  has and will ruin the lives of millions of people.

Its sad but thats the way of the world. Until we have efficient eco-friendly engines that are better than their fossil fuel counterparts, and alternative ways to get electicity and heating that doesnt produce tons of emissions, the world is going to produce greenhouse gases. A corporation isnt just going to cut down on emissions, because its purpose is to make profit. Going green is usually not very profitable for large industrial plants and the likes.

GarryB wrote:Not the KGB... it is large oil companies that have ensured oil based products are cheap and abundant so that cleaner greener alternatives are ignored as too expensive.

At the end of the day we have no where else to live and the biggest problem for us is caused by the fact that living here is so easy.. plenty of free heat from the sun, large oceans of water, lots of air etc etc.

When important resources start dwindling then real change will start.

Look at how the US has used its power in the post cold war period... millions killed in Rwanda... largely ignored... minor invasion by Iraq into Kuwait... paper democracy invades a monarchical dictatorship and it Shts itself and mobilises the world to invade... the difference... oil.

That is why I am an advocate of space travel... humans going and living in places where the essentials of life are not abundant and efficiency and recycling are essential... the technology needed to live on Mars could be applied to Africa in places where the local oil drilling company has spoiled the water supply, or the Pacific Island nation finds the water around its Island nation is now an open sewer because effluent from Europe or Asia or the US floats past them in the local currents.

In many ways the bigger worry for us small island nations is something unpredictable like a repeat of the 2004 Tsunami, or an even bigger, more catastrophic event.

" />

That is my capital city. Less than 2 sq km in area, and yet holds a hundred thousand people. If you want a size reference yes those are average 40-foot boats in the harbor and yes those green fields are football stadiums. You can literally stand at one end of the main road and see the other end of the island. Thats how small and compact it is. The whole island is just barely a meter above sea level. One big wave similar to 2004 is all it takes, and everything and everyone is wiped out. For us, global warming and the resultant sea level rise is a big problem, but the danger posed by a natural disaster is more 'real' in a sense.

In relation to the OP, Russia with elevations in the triple digits, faces a far smaller threat from sea level rise. Of course the coastal areas are going to be the ones to take the hit, and the residents there should start noticing when they experience different tidal patters and when the water levels go above their harbors and piers. The sad thing is nobody of significance will notice and begin to take any real action until they get their feet wet (and I dont mean that figuratively). But by then it will be too late for us poor folks living out in the ocean on little islands.

We have desalination plants and generator stations on the islands itself. We dont exactly have a countryside to hide those ugly heavy duty buildings.   
It's alright to live in. But its super crowded. But most people dont come to see that, they come to see the resort islands.

I remember reading somewhere that researchers found that the Barents Sea temperature had dropped by 5 degrees or something. If so then Russian fishermen should have some idea of whats happening. So its already happening. While its not exactly on the same level as Bush outright ripping up the Kyoto Protocol, the Russian government doesn't appear to very committed to green initiatives.   

Adapt or go extinct. That's all I will say. Some things are not for us to control. If it's not pollution then it's sun activity. 

If anything it's the other way around... The West became powerful because of it's superior political-economic organization and thens tarted conquering.

When we are talking about power we have to be more precise who has that power;) There are many insignificant countries in the west and all of them stand on same pillars of power.

As Sa'iqa wrote:If anything it's the other way around... The West became powerful because of it's superior political-economic organization and thens tarted conquering.

Conquering was always there, it only sorta stopped after WW2 caused decline of colonialism.
West isn't a organization, just a term used to distinguish ideology, but now it sounds out-dated:)
Western countries are superior in some ways, but it's rather to do with stability they enjoyed. One can argue that if Russia hadn't been blessed by revolutions and Tsar would only be symbolic figure, then Europe would have had new hegemony next to it's borders.

Some moron gave me a negative rep for what I wrote so I'll explain briefly what I meant. I don't want to create a lengthy off topic so do not reply if y'all don't want to continue it.

The West has enjoyed hegemony over the whole world for centuries but not because it has been more expansive and supremacist than other powers but because it's culture and political organization have been superior. Already in the Middle Ages Western Europe began developing several key concepts that other players (Russia, China, India, Muslims etc.) either lacked altogether or partially. They were developed further during the Renaissance and fully during the Enlightenment.

The first is the concept of individualism and freedom of conscience - that you can do whatever you please and as long as you don't harm other people, you're ok. The second is the rule of law. The Western rulers did not have absolute power but were accountable before the law and (of course) before other people such as the nobility and (later) the representatives of other social classes. The third concept is the protection of private property against arbitrary incursions of the state and of other people.

All of these resulted in an empowerment of the individual not seen anywhere else in the world. I like to use the example of Isaac Newton to illustrate this. Newton is probably in the top 5 of the greatest scientists that ever walked on Earth. In the history of mankind only a handful of men rose to the same rank as he did, creating such massive paradigm shifts.

What would have happened to Newton had he been born and raised in e.g. Tsarist Russia of that time? At best he would have become a good Orthodox theologian. But because he spent his life in egalitarian England, a country which had independent universities, engaged in the pursuit of the truth with all means necessary, his potential was fully realized and his findings found a diverse array of aplications, including the military science.

So much for Western abuse... better go read something useful for example Civilization: The West and the Rest by Niall Ferguson.  

Have a good night.

As Sa'iqa wrote:Some moron gave me a negative rep for what I wrote so I'll explain briefly what I meant. I don't want to create a lengthy off topic so do not reply if y'all don't want to continue it.

The West has enjoyed hegemony over the whole world for centuries but not because it has been more expansive and supremacist than other powers but because it's culture and political organization have been superior. Already in the Middle Ages Western Europe began developing several key concepts that other players (Russia, China, India, Muslims etc.) either lacked altogether or partially. They were developed further during the Renaissance and fully during the Enlightenment.

The first is the concept of individualism and freedom of conscience - that you can do whatever you please and as long as you don't harm other people, you're ok. The second is the rule of law. The Western rulers did not have absolute power but were accountable before the law and (of course) before other people such as the nobility and (later) the representatives of other social classes. The third concept is the protection of private property against arbitrary incursions of the state and of other people.

All of these resulted in an empowerment of the individual not seen anywhere else in the world. I like to use the example of Isaac Newton to illustrate this. Newton is probably in the top 5 of the greatest scientists that ever walked on Earth. In the history of mankind only a handful of men rose to the same rank as he did, creating such massive paradigm shifts.

What would have happened to Newton had he been born and raised in e.g. Tsarist Russia of that time? At best he would have become a good Orthodox theologian. But because he spent his life in egalitarian England, a country which had independent universities, engaged in the pursuit of the truth with all means necessary, his potential was fully realized and his findings found a diverse array of aplications, including the military science.

So much for Western abuse... better go read something useful for example Civilization: The West and the Rest by Niall Ferguson.  

Have a good night.

pssht, just go read GarryBs sig.

So they created wonderful Western individualism and freedoms, then went around the world violating them.

lmao.

Btw, ever head of Mendeleev ? Where did he come from again ?

What a simplistic world view you have.