Is Russia global warming denialist?

flamming_python wrote:Eating bugs is meant for that good ol' protein, not to prevent deforestation

And you need that alternative protein source because of course the environmentalists and greens are against eating meat. Not only because of the moral issue, but also because all that livestock around the world contributes to CO2 levels. That's the explanation given

It's CH4 and it is a lie. Oil and gas industry, landfills, plant agriculture (rice) and assorted wetlands (bogs) emit vastly more CH4 than animal husbandry.
BTW, insects generate plenty of CH4.

https://www.quora.com/Do-cows-produce-the-most-methane/answer/Stephen-Zwick?share=ab2337e2

GarryB wrote:

CO2 is not a problem in the 350 ppmv and lower range. We are hitting Miocene levels of CO2 and will melt the Greenland ice cap. We are also
at the threshold to release vast reservoirs of carbon from permafrost regions and from the dissolved CO2 in the oceans. We cannot dial these
reservoirs up and down as we please. Once they start to go, then we are f*cked. This includes the elite maggots.

The claims of runaway greenhouse effect never really added up to me... if that is what happens then why hasn't it happened before?

Even when we had the opposite of the runaway greenhouse effect... the runaway snowball earth... eventually it fixed itself... it balanced itself.

Now I am not suggesting human beings wont get wiped out, but the planet itself will continue just fine.

There cannot be a Venus regime on Earth. But do you think humanity will be able to handle a million years of bad climate?
The snowball Earth regimes were ended by millions of years of volcanic CO2 emissions. The ice layer over the land and oceans
prevented carbonic acid weathering of rocks and ocean uptake of CO2 which closed off the two primary sinks and allowed
volcanic emissions to accumulate. So CO2-driven global warming broke cleared the snowball regime. Volcanic emissions are
variable over the course of time and currently emit an average of 600 million tons of CO2 per year.

The agricultural period of the last 8,000 years has been enabled by a stable climate regime. This is not the normal state as
can be seen from ice cores going back 800,000 years. During glacial maxima the climate is unstable and not just slightly colder.
Don't expect a global warming regime to be stable. The precipitation distribution will shift but the prime agricultural land will
not follow. In fact, the wet bulb temperature in the tropics will become lethal to mammals. We will have migration to the north.
The land in northern Canada and Russia is simply garbage for agriculture.

If we accept that human civilization is really only 6,000 years old, the best explanation is that for the previous 794,000 years
modern humans have been suppressed by variable climate. I do not think there was a solid 794,000 years of variability and
there must have been stable regimes during inter-glacial periods before. So there were likely human civilizations even
100s of thousand of years ago, but time has obliterated their trace. Anyway, people are too complacent about climate and
assume that the current conditions are somehow intrinsic.

Just because there are climate hysterics does not mean that global warming is a non-issue.

kvs wrote:
If we accept that human civilization is really only 6,000 years old, the best explanation is that for the previous 794,000 years
modern humans have been suppressed by variable climate.   I do not think there was a solid 794,000 years of variability and
there must have been stable regimes during inter-glacial periods before.   So there were likely human civilizations even
100s of thousand of years ago, but time has obliterated their trace.   Anyway, people are too complacent about climate and
assume that the current conditions are somehow intrinsic.  

Just because there are climate hysterics does not mean that global warming is a non-issue.    

That is my main argument point. Humanity is 800.000 years old (homo sapiens) maybe even older since they are not even sure on that time range. There have been dozens of cataclismic events during that period that have wiped out civilizations and we know the last one was roughly 12.700 years ago and the next one is not to far away, but still humanity somehow survived. There is little we can do. I do not think that even you believe we as a species can directly change or engineer the climate to what we want it to be, nor do I believe the ones that are working on such technologies or have them are here to let humanity survive (except their own globalist arses).

We have enough traces from the last ancient civilizations that they have been quite advanced with machinery of modern level or better, yet it's suppressed by main stream "science".
Question, what wiped their civilizations of the map and how did humanity as a species still survive?

If it is some uncontrollable/unpreventable and more importantly non human caused event, than the solution is easy; how to make sure humanity survives (preferably without globalists)?

From my understanding it is very suspect that the globalists are trying to control and prevent public from certain paths of development, research, science and social discourse can not be explained by just "woke" ideology and "capitalism". Some of the globalists have bought up parts of technology and are hunting down anyone who dares to work in some fields.

You might have criticism on the contrarianism, but that is part of humanity to live in a world of dualism with view of on almost everything as black and white, fortunately and unfortunately.

So what is your solution in a world where you have hypocrisy and big players who make the laws and form the world and how people think which are both the ones who point out the problem and create it? Sounds like a mafia doesn't it?

Established insect food sources are OK. But the clowns running the west want people to eat "meat" from insects that are easy for them
to produce in large quantities. So we have untested food sources being pushed as safe. Not all insects are the same. Some are more
edible than others. Some are toxic.

So at the end of the day the problem is the rotten elites and their agendas.

But do you think humanity will be able to handle a million years of bad climate?

People choose to live in the arctic and in the deserts of the world... we have not all moved to the places with the nice weather.

And we live in buildings that change the weather essentially... blocking the rain and snow, and holding warmth in so our heaters are more efficient than open fires that only heat those who stand around them.

We have clothes and change our environment around us with roads and other things to make our lives easier and that is not going to change.

There are Australians that live underground to evade the intense heat of summer... no doubt such a method could be applied to regions all over the planet as a more efficient housing option with maximum insulation. Gotta be careful with flooding of course.

Will we handle it? What alternatives do we have... some wont... and they will likely die or move.

Anyway, people are too complacent about climate and
assume that the current conditions are somehow intrinsic.

People are so keen to find someone or something to blame while ignoring the fact that climate changes over time and due to lots of different factors of which carbon levels in the atmosphere is just one variable and that global warming would probably be easier to deal with than the opposite... the last ice age there was a sheet of ice 3km thick over New York and much of the northern hemisphere...

Just because there are climate hysterics does not mean that global warming is a non-issue.

We are no where near the point where we can control the weather... we can't even find a decent alternative to plastic and are destroying our oceans... or should I say the current life in the ocean.

The temperatures are going to change and we have to be able to adapt one way or the other... we have people living in very hot places and people living in very cold places and so perhaps we can apply technology we have now to make their lives more comfortable and easier because that technology might be necessary for a much larger percentage of the population in a few years time.

Expanding growing populations might have to learn to just have one kid or no kids moving forward or the alternative is to watch them starve because there are not the resources on future earth to support 10 billion people any more.

On the plus side western culture generates an enormous volume of waste and if we work to reduce that and become more efficient then we could feed more people without having to increase production or distribution at all.

So what is your solution in a world where you have hypocrisy and big players who make the laws and form the world and how people think which are both the ones who point out the problem and create it? Sounds like a mafia doesn't it?

The world is largely controlled by the west, but this is changing for the better... I don't think real discoveries can be so easily suppressed and I don't think we used to be advanced and now we are not... even now we have structures and just lots of human waste and contamination and pollution that in 10,000 years mother nature could not hide from a future explorer. We do too much damage for that to be erased naturally in a few millennia.

There is a good reason why humans do not eat bugs through out hundred of thousands of years. We also have a good healthy response towards eating insects that is called "disgust". We are not disgusted for no reason, it is an important survival instinct not to risk your health.

Westerners have no idea what goes in to their food... red food dye is made from insects ground up. Insects are already used for all sorts of things from makeup and cosmetics to food additives.

Insects are part of the food chain so even if you don't eat insects directly, something you eat eats them.

I have a friend who is from Thailand and she can't believe we eat cows because they look so cute to her. Us eating cows is like eating dogs or cats or horses or rats but at the end of the day they are all meat... and you know what... when the brown stuff hits the air conditioning machine like during a war, when the choice is to eat the cats and dogs and rats and horses and anything else they can catch fussy stuck up westerners often will not turn down a nice tender leg or wing.

Preparation is often the key and not knowing what it is also helps.

The locals here in New Zealand eat Huhu grubs... this is a video showing Gordon Ramsey... they start making a Hangi... so they dug a hole and built a fire and heated up some rocks and then wrapped food in leaves and put the red hot rocks in the bottom of a the hole and covered them with leaves and put food wrapped in leaves on top and put a stick in the ground reaching right down to the rocks and the covered the food and rocks with soil and then took out the stick and poured water down to the rocks and filled in the hole. Sometimes in the middle of the bush you put the stick back in so you can find your food later. Then you just leave it for 5 or 6 hours and come back and dig it up and your food is steam cooked. Then they go to find some huhu grubs. (larvae of a huhu beetle)...



Typical western reaction... I bet Bear Grylls would think of all the insects he has eaten to survive in the wild the Huhu grub is actually one of the better tasting things he has eaten.

So we have untested food sources being pushed as safe. Not all insects are the same. Some are more
edible than others. Some are toxic.

True, but without insecticides... because they are not politically correct any more and they probably cause cancer then intensive farming is going to create and encourage insect swarms that will devour entire crops... why not put those insects on the menu to replace the destroyed crops... an elegant solution to a problem.

Eating bugs or any form of insect usually involved scarce sources of food and people where reliant on the protein. Some do it today because it is within their culture for so long but still if you would look at the statistics where this kind of "food" is "home", then you will see that this kind of food is not the main source of food nor source of protein the second but the very last.

Just because some people consider eating your own boogers is not a big deal or not disgusting does not mean everyone started doing it. Snails are safe for consumption but even most french do not like them and they are nowhere near a luxury dish anymore.

What I said stands it's ground, most people do not consume, do not want to consume nor find even the thought of consuming insects as desirable. This is a simple fact from biological evolution. Most people "tasters" have the gen to taste the bitterness in "food". More than half of these "tasters" are repulsed by some levels of bitterness in their food and avoid them because bitterness has some disgusting taste to it. More men than women. Evolutionary most mammals have developed to taste bitterness in potential food since most toxins are bitter. Actually almost all toxins and acids are either bitter or have a somewhat bitterness to them. You just can not claim humans consume insects as a generalization but I can make the opposite, because we know that for a fact.

higurashihougi wrote:
Except that "Some people" includes many Asian, African, and Oceanian nations, some of them are amongst the most populous country with some of the biggest economy and military power in the world.

For example silkworm pupae is a very common delicacy in countries pioneered in silk manufacture in history, amongst them is one country who has the second biggest economy in the world and is the main adversary of the West.


Except that when the food source is no longer scarce they still eat it as valuable or extremely valuable delicacy, and when it is possible, they make farms to cultivate it to supply the market in large amount. Examples: silkworm pupae, crickets, Asian palm weevil larvae, hornet larvae.

Except that many of the bugs has nothing to do with food scarcity, but are treated as "special food" with medicine characteristic and exceptional nutritional value, and may be associated with social privileges and elite class. Examples: mantis nest, hornet, cicada shell, termite queen, Lethocerus indicus.

That just underlines my statement, that vast majority on the globe, even in Asian countries which make up most of the populace on this planet do not rely on insects being the main source of food nor as main source of protein.


Some people also do not like crabs, lobster, shrimps and alike because they are looking like insects and were treated for some quite time as such, just ask our biggest prison in the world.  

The difference is, that crustaceans do not have a bitter taste.

higurashihougi wrote:
Your example is the evidence that people's tatse or subjective feelings of disgust, is NOT a correct criteria to judge the quality of the food.

That is where you are wrong.
No offense, but if most mammals have developed a behavior to avoid bitterness in potential food which is a distinctive feature most toxins have, then this is not subjective but a hard fact.
Avoid bitter tasting sources of food equals to reduce the risk of getting killed by a toxin or venom.

Most plants and animals (reptiles mostly) which developed toxins/venoms did that on purpose to protect themselves from getting eaten.

What you are talking about is a different subject of people who consider some insects as a delicacy. This might be, maybe, a higher percentage of Asians falling under the "non-tasters" of bitterness and therefore, with the already presence of insects being eaten by some part of the population having less of an "disgust" reaction to it. The behavioral food embossing is still a evolutionary step in most mammals from the age of 3-7 and can be purposefully used to have your child a certain diet.

Maybe you just have a higher distribution of people without the gen to taste bitterness or are less affected by the level and adverse reaction of the body for taste.

higurashihougi wrote:
The Subjective feeling of disgust can be very misleading. For example it is a misconception that the "bitter" part of a snail deep inside its shell are feces and dirty, but the feces and dirty part is actually in the fleshy outward parts where people usually eat.

Certain people may feel disgust with very high quality food such as Lethocerus indicus or prahok and their feeling of disgust is clearly incorrect.

That statement is anecdotal as it is not subjective but objective. Even after googling pictures of this insects I do not have the desire to taste them even if you paid me for it. From my understanding, most people would not eat it ever and most people would not eat it on regular basis. They do look unpleasing to chew on and I don't want to taste them, but that would be anecdotal too.

You seem to confuse the part which was the whole argument. MOST people, do not rely on insects as a main source of food when they have other options. You will see an increase in consumption of insects when other food sources are unavailable and they will go down when people have the option to get chicken, pork, cow, cheese or other protein rich food sources.

higurashihougi wrote:
That does not mean insects is bitter. Silkworm pupae is not bitter. Cricket tastes like shrimp.

Ants aren't bitter but kind a sweet sour in taste and the exist everywhere on this Globe. I don't see Europeans, Americans (North and South) and not to many Africans eating them. Europeans and Americans have enough meat available and most Africans eat them due to necessity. Look at richer and more flourishing African countries and you will see that insects is an absolute niche or food of the ultra poor.

higurashihougi wrote:
That does not mean bitter food cannot be valuable or bitter food is not delicious or not popular. Momordica charantia is very bitter but is a common food from Africa to Asia.

Bitter food is non delicious to "tasters" of bitterness, which have the gen and definitely to those with a pronounced expression of this alleles.

higurashihougi wrote:
The taste of bitterness enable humanity to detect many toxins and inedible foods but human social evolution has progressed enough to know that natural instinct is flawed, can be misleading, and people can see many things beyond their physical sense and instincts.

Your theory of social evolution and "flawed instincts" would be a really nice case study on how much these "flawed instincts" are useful or just some sort of backwardness.

You would be totally right if you had developed some resistence to toxins due to consumption of minor evils of the toxins world, but I doubt that part since nobody has ever heard of it.

higurashihougi wrote:
Cuisine worldwide is very complex and diverse and is strongly influenced by social and economical factors rather than vulgar natural factor. A vulgar generalization such as "insect is disgusting" is very biased and unfair.

It is not unfair. If you have 50% of your potential source of food being toxic as an evolutionary self-defense mechanism you might look for other sources of food that might not kill you when you eat them.
You can eat meat and it won't kill you. Insects, well the risk is high if you do not need to rely on them.

higurashihougi wrote:
Conclusion: "insect as food" should be evaluated comprehensively from a neutral point of view with the aim to understand the complex and diverse cuisine culture of humanity and to learn the copious experiences of various communities, not as the mean for the Western corrupted ruler to push their agenda, and also but not as a mean to antagonize the communities with different cultures.

My friend, you are from a different culture and have zero understanding of the context of the globalist piece of shits that are forcing us to eat bugs for their perverted dreams, by which they consider us as vermin. You eat insects due to historical and cultural circumstances and (maybe) genetic, I can't know.

You have an option, while we are treated like children unable to think or understand and without an option despite there is no necessity to switch from meat to insects. You can't and you won't be able to understand that. Try to force the entire Muslim world to switch to Pork eating and see how that works out for you. Pork tastes nice and is not unclean meat. But try that one and see their response. They certainly will not be so polite to give you an explanation why they won't eat pork nor give you the time to tell them what they can eat and what not.

higurashihougi wrote:
My sincere apology to you. That is indeed an important aspect of the issue that I carelessly forget to pay sufficient attention to.

I am sincerely sorry. This is my bad.

I see what you did there. Pulled a Mark Twain on me

I really meant no offense to you or any asian culture and I am interested how other cultures live, however, nobody likes to be dictated around how they are supposed to live.

Werewolf wrote:Eating bugs or any form of insect usually involved scarce sources of food and people where reliant on the protein. Some do it today because it is within their culture for so long but still if you would look at the statistics where this kind of "food" is "home", then you will see that this kind of food is not the main source of food nor source of protein the second but the very last.

Just because some people consider eating your own boogers is not a big deal or not disgusting does not mean everyone started doing it. Snails are safe for consumption but even most french do not like them and they are nowhere near a luxury dish anymore.

A good example is Papua New Guinea which is nearly devoid of animal protein and people there have substituted with large grubs (Sago grubs).
This is not a case of choosing the superior protein source, but of survival necessity. The protein in the grubs is still vastly better than plant protein.

Then you have cultural food sources that are actually poisons and destroy people's health. I can't find it using Google, but I saw a documentary
about an island where they process the large nut of some plant into starch for food. They pound it into a pulp and soak it in water for a long time
but it still retains a lot of neurotoxin that gives them Alzheimer's in their 50s. Again, this is a food source necessitated by lack of choices and is
only accepted because it has been consumed for a very long time. Objectively, this food is garbage and should never be eaten.

The attack on the meat industry is based on the false claim that it is causing global warming. It is a political attack and not any sort of shortage
necessity. It is interesting that German Nazi leaders were into veganism and vegetarianism. There are a lot of vegans in the political hierarchy
and push their agenda onto the masses. For example the McGovern Report from the 1970s that gave the US its fixation on low fat and "healthy"
industrial seed oils had a lot of vegan zealot members that produced it. The result from the action of these scumbags is apparent over the last
50 years including childhood type 2 diabetes and massive explosion in obesity.

We do not need to raise and consume insects. It will not save the planet and it is motivated by degenerates that infest the power structures.

I have seen a documentary on how some tribes live and their customs.
There is an African tribe in Tanzania that through the lack of food eats literal dirt (clay) also known as geophagy.

Scientists generally ascribe the start of civilisation with humans realising they could cook meat to eat it.

Places where they eat grubs and clay aren't exactly known for phenomenal cities, culture, medicine etc etc.
BUt when the elite has AI, why would they want a remotely intelligent population any more?

People need to realise when they are being played. And when Gates and co are planning to fxxx you up the arsehole!

There was a reason why European fiefs treated hunting for venison by serfs as capital crimes. Keep the serfs eating vegan starch chow and
keep them dumb and passive. If they eat meat, then they start acting like healthy humans with healthy intellects.

If you look at some of the things Europeans actually do eat I wonder why you are so damn fussy, some of your more exotic dishes sound revolting... sweatbread and Black pudding are not what they sound like... sweatbread is the pancreas of a lamb while Black pudding is made of boiled animal blood.

We think it is OK to eat some animals like goats and sheep and cows and rabbits and chickens but not OK to eat other animals like cats and dogs and horses... and there is no hard reason for that... it is not like the good tasting animals are OK and the animals we don't eat taste bad.

And regarding taste most chefs can cook anything and make it taste good... whether disguising the flavour with other flavours or using herbs and spices and sauces to change it to something that tastes good to the customer.

When things start to get tough it will be the fussy eaters who die first... that is how survival works.

GarryB wrote:If you look at some of the things Europeans actually do eat I wonder why you are so damn fussy, some of your more exotic dishes sound revolting... sweatbread and Black pudding are not what they sound like... sweatbread is the pancreas of a lamb while Black pudding is made of boiled animal blood.

We think it is OK to eat some animals like goats and sheep and cows and rabbits and chickens but not OK to eat other animals like cats and dogs and horses... and there is no hard reason for that... it is not like the good tasting animals are OK and the animals we don't eat taste bad.

Blood from animals is used and processed by different cultures, south Americans, Africans, Europeans and some Asian countries into different dishes like sausages, filling or enrichment of starch rich food to have even some "cheap" protein.

There is no risk to your own health for consuming the blood, because if there was the meat would be not safe to consume too.
Is it delicious?
Being from Germany and looking at the amount of people who consume blutwurst I would say it is only considered by some small portion of the population as delicious. There is no health risk issues, since it is cooked and animal stock is controlled. Not the case for bug farms.
Most people from my experience do not like to consume organs like heart, liver, tongue or anything alike. Heart and tongue tastes wonderful but do not sound delicious, understandable. Liver is rich in vitamins and some minerals but has not the best taste and even as someone who likes to eat liver I understand there are better tastes, but it is healthy. It is healthy because most vitamin rich food loses lot of it's vitamins during transportation, storage and processing and has more of them as plant based vitamin C rich foods.

One old Bavarian dish is called "Saure-Lunge" and it is what it's called, lung in a stew like sauce which is very vinegar rich and quite sour. I hated it the first time I tried it but after a while I ate it again and started to like the taste, but I am pretty sure you could change the lung meat with normal meat and it probably would not change the taste much or at all.

This foods exist but they are not considered as very popular and there is no health risk for consuming them.

And regarding taste most chefs can cook anything and make it taste good... whether disguising the flavour with other flavours or using herbs and spices and sauces to change it to something that tastes good to the customer.

When things start to get tough it will be the fussy eaters who die first... that is how survival works.

I would assume fussy eaters would be very annoying to deal with from the get go and I would probably ban them from the group. Safes up energy of everyone involved to deal with a spoiled brat in a survival scenario.

I am part of the fringe that loves blood sausage, cow tongue, cow small intestine ("chinchulinos"), liver, heart and kidneys. I have not
had cow brain but considering the grotesque practice of feeding "offal" to cows this is generally dangerous because of prions.

Liver is an excellent source of nutrients. Do not overcook it (1.5 minutes per side for a typical cut) since that destroys a lot of
its nutrition. People overcook their food. Red meat has enzymes that help digest it and having it well done means that your
pancreas has to do a lot more to generate the needed enzymes.

higurashihougi wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Not the case for bug farms.

May I ask how is the bug farm in Germany and in the West, in general, operated ? What is the problems and issues about food quality control in these farms ? For example, do they use untested or dubious breed that potentially have harmful parasites or pathogens ? Or are there something fishy about the companies that operates these bug farms ?

In general this laws if there are any are made up by WHO, which is run by the globalists who want this nonsense.
There are no regulations yet, to which and how insects are farmed.
No regulation how to bug farm should operate
No regulation on infestation avoidance (which would require heavy use of chemicals to kill parasites) this option is almost out of question as parasites and insects biologically are so close that if it is toxic to the parasite it will most probably kill the insect.
This will cause a lot of issues, because dead organisms create toxins and the decomposing process with all it's own flora and fauna will make the food toxic.

They don't tell the public much, but only after the fact when they already have decided and run up the process.
Now you can not even decide not to eat bugs, since they do not label everything correct.
Flour, pasta, cookies, bread, candy, cereals and shit ton of other food can have it and you won't know.

kvs already showed a statistics where most of the insects are infested with parasites, while these bug farms have billions or trillions of insects so close cramped that they shovel them together.
They will not be picked up one by one to get checked if they have bacterial, viral or parasite infestation.
One regulation I have heard of, is that they have some "low" percentage of contaminated is acceptable. That low percentage can be billions of insects grounded up to paste that will end up in bread, pasta, candy, cereals and whatever.

I am part of the fringe that loves blood sausage, cow tongue, cow small intestine ("chinchulinos"), liver, heart and kidneys. I have not
had cow brain but considering the grotesque practice of feeding "offal" to cows this is generally dangerous because of prions.

The irony is that most soft westerners would look at you like you were a monster, but it is mainly ironic because they don't know what goes into their chicken nuggets.

A friend of mine used to work on a battery farm and he called nuggets "lips, noses and arseholes"... They take the legs and wings and breasts and chest parts and everything else goes into the grinder to make the nuggets... essentially the same thing they do with sausages... the cuts of meat that don't sell they make into sausages, or meat patties.

It is reasonable to consume more of the animal and that is what people around the world did for as long as humanity existed and before.
Organ meats are nutritionally valuable. But modern industrial food is revolting. If they could process shit into food products, then they
would.

The themes in Soylent Green are relevant for the global warming topic. If we have a collapsing food production, then every scarp of
of food, including deceased humans, will be consumed. Of course, the plan is to downsize the population of the planet to reduce this
need.

Well it's not only the Asians who have all sorts of insects as delicacies

Anyone here ever heard of the old Sardinian dish, Casu Martzu?
Look it up