Is Russia global warming denialist?

Werewolf wrote:What a fucking hoax. The advocates of this garbage are every fucking year increasing their pollution and resource waste while blackmailing every nation to scale their consumption done. That is an entire hoax just to keep countries away from touching their resources untill those countries can be "democratized". Fines, laws to protect the environment are only aimed to punish people for specific resources under specific circumstances while the entertainment industry with all their new smartphones which are changed every fucking year is not effected. So much oil is wasted for plastic and all the crap things that we buy and buy and buy has far worse scale than any consumption of fuel and they are evidently changing and polluding environments. Dead lakes and rivers polluded from to much trash while plastic is eaten by fishes and birds and gets over time scrapped to tiny pieces and remains in lakes, rivers and gets to the oceans.

+1

However, considering that Putin has in the past questioned the plausibility of man-made climate change, and has actually come out and said that it is a joke... Also, Russia actually left the Kyoto protocol, sooo... I wouldn't be too worried about this speech. Besides, what did he really say? Climate Change is the biggest challenge we face. Right, is that in terms of how the world has responded to an out and out fraud? Or actually Climate Change? The way that most nations have been forced to change their energy provision/production has been devastating. In the long run for Russia it could mean the end of their gas and oil exports, are we to believe that Putin doesn't see this as a plan to nueter Russia?

What has been the Russian scientific community's response to "Man Made Climate Change"? Have they called it for what it is? I haven't paid much attention to their reactions.

Werewolf wrote:Problem is scientific fields are almost exclusively private owned or financed. If they get bribed to do "research" in a specific direction they will do it. That is how science works today has little to nothing to do with actual science and empirical studies.

Global warming is the exception, not the rule. 95% of science is free of political biases. Math and physics are 100% neutral, engineering is too. Medical scince is 90% neutral as well.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Problem is scientific fields are almost exclusively private owned or financed. If they get bribed to do "research" in a specific direction they will do it. That is how science works today has little to nothing to do with actual science and empirical studies.

Global warming is the exception, not the rule. 95% of science is free of political biases. Math and physics are 100% neutral, engineering is too. Medical scince is 90% neutral as well.

Wouldn't be so sure about medical fields. For example, sunscreen has long been heralded as the "Melanoma preventative" but now it's turning out that it does no such thing, and that there is no evidence to even suggest that sunburn causes skin cancer in the first place. Reality is that the producers of these sunscreen products are paying huge sums into the medical field to keep it promoted. Here's a video from way back from one of our TV's vacuous talk shows demonstrating my point. Kinda but eh.

For all those of you who are still peddling and reposting slanderous right-wing tabloid hoax's about‪#‎Putin‬ "not believing in ‪#‎ClimateChange‬"

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20151130/1030988138/putin-paris-climate-change-conference.html?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FVDJIw8HQIW&utm_medium=short_url&utm_content=ajHc&utm_campaign=URL_shortening

PJW on Global Boring.

max steel wrote:For all those of you who are still peddling and reposting slanderous right-wing tabloid hoax's about‪#‎Putin‬ "not believing in ‪#‎ClimateChange‬"

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20151130/1030988138/putin-paris-climate-change-conference.html?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FVDJIw8HQIW&utm_medium=short_url&utm_content=ajHc&utm_campaign=URL_shortening

Oh so now we're slanderous right-wingers? Not "believing?" What, it's a religion now? Typical SJW bullshit max steel, straight into launching a personal barrage of attack.

Well Putin( Russia) confirmed they are not Global Warming denialers.

max steel wrote:Well Putin( Russia) confirmed they are not Global Warming denialers.  

Yeah, well global warming exists just as much as global cooling exists. No one denies that. Man-made climate change on the other hand...

Werewolf wrote:Problem is scientific fields are almost exclusively private owned or financed. If they get bribed to do "research" in a specific direction they will do it. That is how science works today has little to nothing to do with actual science and empirical studies.

The private money is in medicine and research areas that are close to technology, e.g. photonics.  Atmospheric science has no private funding
in Canada and the USA.  

Anyone who dismisses the role of H2O, CO2, PCFCs, NOx, O3, N2O and CH4 in maintaining and changing the thermal balance of the atmosphere
is an ignoramus.   It is exactly these trace gases that are infrared absorbers whereas essentially 100% of the atmosphere (composed of N2, O2 and Argon)
is totally transparent to infrared radiation emitted from the surface of the earth after absorption and thermalization of visible band solar
radiation by the surface.   Without the trace green house gases and their control over H2O the Earth would be an ice hell with frozen oceans.  

Every time some meathead like Rush Limbaugh spews about CO2 concentrations being too small to matter on can smell the stench of
ignorant shit.  We are dealing here with laboratory established atomic and molecular spectra and first principles radiative transfer calculations.
In fact, the satellite instruments that are used to observe the chemical composition of the atmosphere include devices such as Fourier
transform spectrometers (http://www.ace.uwaterloo.ca/instruments_acefts.html).   These devices are not hoaxes and they are dual use
technology employed by the military.

H2O is a vapour and not a dry gas under temperatures that are typical of the Earth.   It is thermodynamically controlled due to condensation
and precipitation.   Empirical relations such as Clausius-Clapeyron (established before any global warming or associated politics was an
issue) govern the total atmospheric water content as determined by temperature.   Dry greenhouse gases such as CO2 are needed to produce
temperatures high enough for water vapour to persist in the atmosphere and for it to amplify the greenhouse effect.   As CO2 is reduced,
the amount of H2O vapour is reduced which amplifies the cooling.   If CO2 levels fall below 75 ppmv the oceans begin to freeze.   Water
vapour does not spontaneously produce runaway greenhouse effects on this planet.   There is too much heat removal and hence condensation
in the upper troposphere and in the polar regions.

But everyone is an expert and thinks they know more than atmospheric scientists about radiative transfer, the chemical composition
and the circulation dynamics of the atmosphere.   Rush Limbaugh or some other Exxon funded liar told them that the scientists are
all getting rich off of grant money.   But sheeple will believe anything they are told, especially if it is "don't worry, be happy".

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-exxon-knew-about-climate-change

Whatever sells more natgas and nuclear plants 

In 1970s new chemotherapy drugs increased 5 year survival of patients with metastatic testicular cancer from 5% to 75% and Hodgkin's lymphona also became curable for most patients. Recently several new drugs were introduced for melanoma that drastically improved lifespan - and more are in the making.

Cancer research is an area with the highest potential for profit - average survival for people with metastatic cancer is 6-9 months and keeping them alive for thje longest time possible is way more profitable.

Cancer research is an area with the highest potential for profit - average survival for people with metastatic cancer is 6-9 months and keeping them alive for thje longest time possible is way more profitable.

For anyone who isn't determined to keep drinking the koolaid, there's a 9 episode video series called The Truth about Cancer. You can see if you can watch it for free on youtube. In short, Cancer is preventable and curable, and those who stand to profit most suppress that there are cheap, nontoxic treatments that don't kill you.

I just happened to take notes the other day for someone who couldn't watch it, so can paste a few quotes from the beginning of the series.

Episode 1: Ty Bollinger "unique thing about chemotherapy that people don't know, is that Oncologists can make kickbacks from prescribing chemotherapy drugs. This is a unique characteristic to the cancer industry"

Dr. Sunil Pai "say that person is a Medicare patient. The government allows the physician to charge the cost of the drug, plus a percentage. So Medicare for example gives 6%, okay, on the cost of the drug. As a "reimbursement," for de facto, aspects of, you know, overhead costs, whatever it is. So what happens is, if I was a physician...prescribe a $100 drug, I get $6 back. Now if I prescribe a $10,000 drug, I get $600 back."

Dr. Patrick Quillin speaking of the pharmaceutical companies "We know that you need Vitamin D and sunshine, but we're going to say, you can't patent that, so we're going to try and come up with a drug that bypasses all of those pathways."

An Italian Doctor, I think "any big, true discovery make the old system useless. That's why you are shut down....This is the real reason cancer is still killing millions of people."

Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski "It is incredible. We should be awarded. We should be set as an example. We are saving the lives of people who are sentenced to die. No! We are mercilessly harassed by lawyers, by people who know nothing about treatment, who are stupid puppets of the guys behind who know very well what we can offer"

Before the turn of the last century, there were many kinds of medical schools, such as those that prescribed herbs or did homeopathy or chiropractic. The Rockefellers and the Carnegies teamed up to have a study done that concluded that many medical schools weren't up to standards, and the end result is that the medical schools their study supported would promote the drugs from which the Rockefellers and Carnegies would profit. Thereafter, medical schools that didn't profit them didn't get proper accreditation and were labeled quacks and over the years they closed down. Also, huge donations were made to medical schools, and would the school put one of their members on the board to watch how the money was being spent? Of course, thank you! These board members would influence the curricula. After awhile, the drug model of medical education was the only game in town, and if doctors don't promote the Gold Standard treatment they can lose their license. Chemotherapy can cause tumors to shrink but strengthens cancer stem cells, so ultimately fails 97% of the time, and 90% of Oncologists would never use it on themselves or a member of their family, but they must recommend it and radiation.

After WWII there were 12 Nuremberg Tribunals, and #6 was all about prosecuting the Pharmaceutical companies, which provided all kinds of war materials, and it was said, without which, WWII would never have happened. They were responsible for the extermination camps which were originally slave labor camps for their massive (5x2 mile) complex, but once the slaves were worn out they went to the ovens.

Episode 2: Cancer is a process that occurs in our body all the time. We have 10-100,000 "immortal" abnormal cells every day, but our immune system's job is to get rid of those cells. So a tumor is a result of suppression of the immune system.

Aside from situations such as removing a large tumor that's pressing on an artery, "You need to heal, not destroy....the surgery is only a temporary solution. You still have to address what has led to that tumor in the first place." Mike Adams

G. Edward Griffin "the lump or the bump....The doctor will say, it looks like we got it all....They didn't get it all, because that was never the cancer in the first place. If you're a farmer and you see all these little black spots on your corn leaves...you cut all the black spots away, we got it all....That wasn't the disease. What caused those black spots is still present."

Dr. Ben Johnson Oncologists never ask, what caused these cancer cells, lets get rid of what caused it. "They only have one thing which is kill cancer cells." "Obviously the immune system was suppressed, so are we going to unsuppress the immune system?"

Oncologists have told patients they are genetically susceptible to certain cancers, but cancer genes can be turned on and off by toxins and plant medicines.

Dr. Veronique Desaulniers "If there's one food that women need to avoid if they're on a breast cancer healing journey, it's sugar...cancer cells have more insulin receptor sites than a healthy cell" "If our hormones caused cancer, then every 20-year old on the planet would have cancer. It's not our hormones, it's what we're exposed to." "You have to be sick to get cancer."

She has a list of 7 Essentials. 1. Let food be your medicine. "huge impact on our genetic expression" 2. Detox "reduce your toxic exposure" 3. Balance energy "chiropractic care, acupuncture, exercise, proper sleep, hormones balanced" 4. Heal emotional wounds "love yourself, forgive yourself and others, manage your stress better" 5. Biological dentistry "your teeth have a huge impact on your health" "if you have toxic amalgams you have toxicity in your body" 6. Herbs & vitamins "can reduce your toxic load, can help heal cancer, kill cancer cells, and boost your immune system" 7. True prevention "Traditional medicine unfortunately does not really teach prevention and does not know about prevention:

Austin wrote:Positive news here kvs

Russia increased agricultural production by 4.8% in 2016

Production reached 5.626 trillion rubles

Agricultural production in Russia in 2016 reached 5.626 trillion rubles, which is 4.8% more than in 2015. This is stated in the materials of the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat).

Gross grain harvest in Russia in 2016, according to preliminary data, amounted to 119.1 million tons. This is 13.7% more than in the previous year.

In addition, the increased gross harvest of sugar beet (23.8%) and sunflower seeds (15.2%). Gross harvest of potatoes decreased by 7.8%, vegetable collection increased by 0.9%. flax production fell by 8.8%.

In the structure of grain production in 2016 compared to 2015 increased relative weight of wheat, rye, cereals and legumes, the weight of corn, barley and oats.

The number of cattle at the end of December 2016, according to estimates, was 18.7 million head, up 1.6% compared with the corresponding date of the previous year.



Читайте далее: http://izvestia.ru/news/660042#ixzz4WqRASCzz

Hm, maybe it is connected to the global warming.


Russia is warmer by a few Celsius degree, and the cropping season is longer as well.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Austin wrote:Positive news here kvs

Russia increased agricultural production by 4.8% in 2016

Production reached 5.626 trillion rubles

Agricultural production in Russia in 2016 reached 5.626 trillion rubles, which is 4.8% more than in 2015. This is stated in the materials of the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat).

Gross grain harvest in Russia in 2016, according to preliminary data, amounted to 119.1 million tons. This is 13.7% more than in the previous year.

In addition, the increased gross harvest of sugar beet (23.8%) and sunflower seeds (15.2%). Gross harvest of potatoes decreased by 7.8%, vegetable collection increased by 0.9%. flax production fell by 8.8%.

In the structure of grain production in 2016 compared to 2015 increased relative weight of wheat, rye, cereals and legumes, the weight of corn, barley and oats.

The number of cattle at the end of December 2016, according to estimates, was 18.7 million head, up 1.6% compared with the corresponding date of the previous year.



Читайте далее: http://izvestia.ru/news/660042#ixzz4WqRASCzz

Hm, maybe it is connected to the global warming.


Russia is warmer by a few Celsius degree, and the cropping season is longer as well.

Warmth =/= rain so your inference fails. In fact, warming is associated with faster soil dehydration (due to both to temperature
and to enhanced downwelling IR flux) and the suppression of regional rain formation.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/abs/nclimate1633.html

kvs wrote:

Warmth =/= rain so your inference fails. In fact, warming is associated with faster soil dehydration (due to both to temperature
and to enhanced downwelling IR flux) and the suppression of regional rain formation.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/abs/nclimate1633.html

Higher temperature means less ice on artic oceans, it means more evaporation = more rain.

And generally the increased temperature means increase evaporation .


The effects of the warming more complicated than simply temperature increase.

Example due to this canada/syberia has more biomass than before.

Preventing global warming is in Russia's interest since with it we will see the Leningrad be flooded and the Caspian dry out, not to mention increased chances of hurricanes on the Pacific coast.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Preventing global warming is in Russia's interest since with it we will see the Leningrad be flooded and the Caspian dry out, not to mention increased chances of hurricanes on the Pacific coast.

Leningrad can be sorted out with flood barriers (look at Netherlands), Caspian is not just Russia's problem and is not really that vital and as for Pacific, there are always hurricanes over there.

There is nothing Russia can do about global warming. Out of their hands.

Might as well make the most out of it.

GarryB wrote:Only anti climate change people talk about global warming now... the average temperature around the world can increase and it can get wetter or colder in many places as a result.

They call it climate change now for this very reason.


If Siberia melts then we are in for some serious problems as there is so much vegetable material in the permafrost in Siberia that warming it... melting it will lead to the release of enormous amounts of methane... a very serious greenhouse gas.

They in fact often talk about tipping points where a rise in temperature will create the mass change... in this case the rapid release of methane that would make the temperatures rise even faster... potentially in a runaway effect that we could no longer control... Of course more heat could mean more cloud cover which could balance out the extra heat retention of the atmosphere... there are so many variables it can be very confusing.

Perhaps the most lucrative use for Siberia is an international prison system where countries can send their inmates to be kept by the Russians for a small fee... 1,000km of permafrost is about the thickest practical wall anyone could engineer... But I forgot... that is not an option because prisoners have rights and you could not take them so far from their families... even the murderers who took their victims from their families forever.

The Arctic and Antarctic ocean missing a lot of ice cover, and that on its own increase more the global temperature than the CO2 in the atmosphere.

The permafrost will melt, and the forest on its place will capture more sunlight than the extra CO2 and methane.

It is a jackpot for russia, the arctic ocean will can be sailed , the syberian passage open now for three month in each year.

It need less and less icebreaker to move more and more goods around.

At the same time the movement of the permafrost and tree line northward creating more area for forest,and economical activity.

Same time the warming up of the cities decreasing the economic cost of cold, and increase the time when you can do outside work.

PapaDragon wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Preventing global warming is in Russia's interest since with it we will see the Leningrad be flooded and the Caspian dry out, not to mention increased chances of hurricanes on the Pacific coast.

Leningrad can be sorted out with flood barriers (look at Netherlands), Caspian is not just Russia's problem and is not really that vital and as for Pacific, there are always hurricanes over there.

There is nothing Russia can do about global warming. Out of their hands.

Might as well make the most out of it.

Russia is the biggest beneficiary of the global warming.

+0.5-1%/year GDP increase just due to the warming.