Huge Polluter? Check. In Denial About Global Warming? Check.

Pontiuth Pilate

Republican Jesus!
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
7,980
Location
Taking stock in the Lord
Oh you thought this thread was about the US didn't you.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/05/28/003.html

ST. PETERSBURG -- It was a failure from the start. Russia's biggest conference on the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to fight global warming, began with a speech from a top official who denied that global warming even exists.

"In reality, the scientific basis for the protocol is fairly weak," Federation Council Speaker Sergei Mironov told a crowded opening session of the two-day conference Thursday, which drew more than 200 environmental experts and carbon market participants from around the world. "In the opinion of many experts, the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere does not have any effect on the climate."

Sounds just like home.

"Experts" believe CO2 has no effect on climate? :lol:
 
Themos Cow Times, heh.

No, "many experts". Which can be as many as 2, depents on what you consider "many".
 
No surprise. The big polluters will always deny GW, as it's in their best interest. (I was pretty sure this was gonna be about China)
 
Why do people believe that politicians are scientists? They're unlikely to know any more than any random person on this forum.
 
Why do people believe that politicians are scientists? They're unlikely to know any more than any random person on this forum.

Well I guess that's what you get for having rock star do concerts about Global Warming. If Rock star can be experts, then why not politicians?
 
All 10 'experts' who say there isn't GW are:
1: the same people who said smoking is good for you
2: is being paid by the coal companies
3: haven't released a science report in at least 30 years

I have no internet proof of this right now, but a respected TV show called Four Corners showed how these people are being bribed to say there isn't GW, there is now debate about whether its real and human caused, i could get hundreds of models and graphs which prove it, if you ask.
 
No surprise. The big polluters will always deny GW, as it's in their best interest. (I was pretty sure this was gonna be about China)

The number one loser of enforcing anti-GW policies is the developing world. Where the first world may have to get rid of some pollution (note pollution = co2, not sludge) and spend a few extra dollars fixing up the way they work, the developing world has to start from scratch. Where they could build a cheap pollutant factory to employ thousands of people, they couldn't build a eco-friendly factory that does the same job. For example imagine a doctor's office in the middle of Africa. It is forced to utilize a single solar panel which can only power either the refrigerator full of vital medicines, or the lights which could be very necessary in an emergency. You have to remember technology that is expensive to us would be exceptionally expensive for them.

I'm not saying that global warming doesn't exist, simply the ecological enforcement to curb it harms the developing world more than the first(which are the 'big polluters')
 
No surprise. The big polluters will always deny GW, as it's in their best interest. (I was pretty sure this was gonna be about China)

China doesn't deny climate change. They just point out the fact that they emit about the same amount as the United States but have 4 times the population.
 
All 10 'experts' who say there isn't GW are:
1: the same people who said smoking is good for you
Smoking has several documented physical positive side effects. Unfortunately, it also happens to have one or two rather minor negatives like death and cancer.
2: is being paid by the coal companies
Does that prove they cannot be right?
3: haven't released a science report in at least 30 years
Neither have Newton, Marconi, or Einstein.
 
You'll have to dig up the mid-late 80s issue of Modern Maturity magazine which covered them if you're that curious.
 
"Experts" believe CO2 has no effect on climate? :lol:

As Bozo would say, do you actually "know" that CO2 has an effect on the climate? I'm not saying that anybody is right or wrong.
 
I'm curious but not curious enough to do work to find out.

I don't know about positive physical effects (other than stress reduction), but there are some (or possibility of) reduced risks for certain diseases. Of course, not enough to justify smoking of course, due to the much larger probability of the cancer and death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking

Spoiler :
Health benefits of smoking
While smoking is synonymous with damaging one's health, health benefits have been observed in smokers, reducing their risk of several diseases. It should be noted that the increased risk of terminal illness from habitual smoking is still widely believed to outweigh the benefits and should not be taken as evidence that smoking is healthful or beneficial overall.

Several types of "Smoker’s Paradoxes",[43] i.e. cases where smoking appears to have specific beneficial effects, have been observed; often the actual mechanism remains undetermined. For instance, recent studies suggest that smokers require less frequent repeated revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).[43] Risk of ulcerative colitis has been frequently shown to be reduced by smokers on a dose-dependent basis; the effect is eliminated if the individual stops smoking.[44][45] Smoking appears to interfere with development of Kaposi's sarcoma,[46] breast cancer among women carrying the very high risk BRCA gene,[47] preeclampsia,[48] and atopic disorders such as allergic asthma.[49] A plausible mechanism of action in these cases may be the nicotine in tobacco smoke acting as an anti-inflammatory agent and interfering with the disease process.[50]

In mice, studies have shown nicotine can reduce the amount of DOI-induced head twitches (meant to model tics) related to Tourette's Syndrome.

A large body of evidence suggests that the risks of neurological diseases such as Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease might be twice as high for non-smokers than for smokers.[51] Many such papers regarding Alzheimer's disease[52] and Parkinson's Disease[53] have been published. A plausible explanation for these cases may be the effect of nicotine, a cholinergic stimulant, decreasing the levels of acetylcholine in the smoker's brain; Parkinson's disease occurs when the effect of dopamine is less than that of acetylcholine. Opponents counter by noting that consumption of pure nicotine may be as beneficial as smoking without the risk.

Other Alzheimer's studies, however, challenge these epidemiological studies on methodological grounds.[54] A prospective Rotterdam Study found that the incidence of Alzheimer's disease is more than double for smokers as compared to non-smokers[55] and the Honolulu Heart Program (a longitudinal cohort study) also found more than twice the risk for Alzheimer's disease among medium and heavy smokers as compared to non-smokers.[56]

Though the negative correlation between smoking and Parkinson's disease is recognized, the causality has not been established. The relationship may be artifact (observational) based on clusters of behavioral and personality differences in the pre-Parkinsonian population versus the smoking population.[57]

Considering the high rates of physical sickness and deaths among persons suffering from schizophrenia[citation needed], one of smoking's most burdensome short term benefits is its temporary effect to improve alertness and cognitive functioning in that disease.[58] It has been postulated that the mechanism of this effect is that schizophrenics have a disturbance of nicotinic receptor functioning.[59]
 
As Bozo would say, do you actually "know" that CO2 has an effect on the climate?

I "know" that CO2 in our atmosphere causes warming to the exact same degree that I "know" that wearing a darker shirt on a sunny day causes me to get hotter.

In fact it's an analogous principle. A black shirt absorbs light, a white shirt reflects it.

We know that CO2 and H20 absorb light in the IR spectrum - something that's trivially provable in a friggin highschool chemistry lab - and that gases like N2 and O2 don't. That's why the former are greenhouse gases and the latter aren't: CO2 and H20 absorb the sun's energy while N2 and O2 don't absorb it.

Pouring CO2 into the atmosphere = warming, period. Someone who denies this is really NOT someone worth arguing with, hence my derision for the absolutely idiotic quote in the OP.
 
Russia has vast expanses of icy desert in Siberia and from their point of view, global warming may not be a complete disaster.

From the point of view of their energy companies that are obviously calling the shots that is - as utilisation of mineral and energy reserves in these places would be easier.

However, from the point of view of the average Joe it's not good news, but who cares about us?
 
Top Bottom