Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Share

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:04 pm

    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.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 809
    Points : 828
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  OminousSpudd on Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:45 pm

    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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:23 pm

    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.

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 895
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 25
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:39 pm

    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.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 809
    Points : 828
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  OminousSpudd on Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:59 pm

    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 Off Topic but eh.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  max steel on Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:26 pm

    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

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 809
    Points : 828
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  OminousSpudd on Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:34 pm

    PJW on Global Boring.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 809
    Points : 828
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  OminousSpudd on Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:39 pm

    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.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  max steel on Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:56 pm

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




    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 809
    Points : 828
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  OminousSpudd on Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:40 pm

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

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

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2525
    Points : 2658
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  kvs on Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:27 am

    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

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:06 am

    Is Russia global warming denialist ?

    No.

    https://www.rt.com/news/324037-putin-paris-climate-cop21/

    Russia is planning on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by substantial proportion in the coming years, President Vladimir Putin noted at the international conference on climate change in France. (...) The Russian leader revealed his country’s efforts in fighting with global warming that slowed down the process for at least a year.

    “We have gone beyond the target fixed by the Kyoto Protocol for the period from 1991 to 2012. Russia not only prevented the growth of greenhouse gas emission, by also significantly reduced it,” Putin said.

    “Nearly 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent weren’t released into the atmosphere. As a comparison, the total emissions of all countries in 2012 reached 46 billion tons.”

    Russia is planning to keep progressing by bringing breakthrough technologies into practice, “including nanotechnology,” Putin continued saying the country is also open to exchange and share the findings.

    Apart from that, Putin has also promised Russia will reduce its polluting emissions by 70 percent by 2030 as compared to base level in 1990.

    A new agreement must lay emphasis on the role of forests as major greenhouse gases absorber, Putin said. This would be especially important to Russia with its large forest lands. Preserving the lungs of our planet is a top priority, he added.

    Russia is also going to provide financial and other support to developing countries willing to deal with climate change.


    russia russia russia russia

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Zivo on Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:04 am

    Whatever sells more natgas and nuclear plants lol1

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:10 pm

    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.

    I will not argue the fields of math and physics but medical is one and most probably the biggest biased field of science that has less to do with actual science but almost exclusively orianted to maximizing profits. Doctors have no fucking clue about medicine they sell except the basics like antibiotica, aspirin, pentazemin etc. There are far to many medicaments on the market and they pay high amounts to pharmecies, advertizement and bribe and fake researches and studies to let their money makers pass requirement tests and they will and have funded fake researches and studies to counter the critics if some medicament has became subject of criticism to connection to cancer or other effects on human body in long term or sometimes short terms. 10% actual science 90% maximizing profit that is pharmacy industry almost exclusivley private owned in every freakish country.

    Other stuff shows like women studies or Genderstudies that have nothing to do with science at all but are thrown at us for the very same reason to depopulate and alienate societies and their sexes of male and female.

    Science became more and is still under fire and crosshair of private corps. to be used as a buisness milky cow and faking stuff is easier than actually working on something because scientific work consumes money with low amounts of money actually gained with high risk of losing the money with little results. In science you often have to terminate theorems by trail and fail of these theorems to get a step forward with the research and that does not generate any money that is why faking stuff and advertizing it as the breakthrough of the fucking billenia is common thing. There enough yellow press within the science community whos job it is to produce sensational stories about research that will generate interests in that field by potential investors that is why you hear such stupid stories like "the military has found away to make soldiers invisible with a cloak" and "a new feminist research shows mysagony growing in the west" or other total crap.

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 895
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 25
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:51 pm

    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.

    antonherzen
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 10
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2015-11-24

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  antonherzen on Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:55 am


    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:


    Sponsored content

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 10:11 pm


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:11 pm