Vladimir Putin Scoffs At Global Warming Situation

Finland Russia GPSWikiImages / Pixabay

Russian president Putin does not believe that industrial development has resulted in global warming.

While speaking to New York Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his views on global warming, stating it was a hoax, and just another attempt by the West to restrain Moscow from economic development.

He further states that “there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries, including Russia”. Given that 57% of Russian economy is dependent on hydrocarbons exports, if the country moves towards alternative resources, the economy will be severely impacted.

On the other hand, a recent wildfire incident which blazed through the Siberia region is said to be the result of climate change and global warming. Scientists believe that these events would make the situation worse, as carbon released from such incidents is only adding to man-induced carbon emissions. Siberia’s wildfire of 2015 is considered to be the worst wildfire incident in history and if the current climate change situation persists, global warming is inevitable.

Vladimir Putin: Global warming a man-made phenomena

Putin has labeled global warming as made up and it is only being used as a tool to harm Russia’s economic growth. The ex-KGB chief also asked why if global warming is really endangering the ecological system, then why is the largest emitter of hydrocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons — the U.S. — so against environmentalists.

Furthermore, at the 2003 International Climate Change conference, Putin stated that his people would enjoy warm weather because then they have to spend less on fur coats and can focus on agriculture for a greater yield. He further added that “this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries including Russia”.

Putin says that it is totally against Russia’s national interest, as already the global economic conditions are unstable. In fact, the world economy is already in crisis and in such circumstances the Kremlin cannot afford to pursue measures that can slow down global warming.

Indeed, most of the policymakers within Moscow are of the view that Russia cannot simply shun its economic policies despite the thousands of research papers that have proven human influence behind global warming. Moreover, with the country’s economy already on the brink of recession due to oil glut in the market,  Russia to diverge from its efforts to maintain economic growth.

Talking about the U.S. role towards a sustainable path for global development, Putin noted the American withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol which has been in effect since 2001. Despite being a signatory to the agreement, Congress refused to ratify it, pointing out the technical flaws in the resolutions that were made in the convention.

Various analysts have described Moscow’s policy as a matter of national interest. Due to global warming, polar icecaps have started melting rapidly, making the ice sheet thin enough to run exploring expeditions in regions around the Arctic that fall under Russian jurisdiction. Recent surveys have shown abundance of hydrocarbon reserves under the arctic sheet, worth billions of dollars.

Moscow to benefit from global warming

To take advantage of the aforementioned opportunity, it can be argued that that Moscow welcomes global warming as it will give it access to the treasure buried under the thick sheet of ice. That is the reason why Kremlin is singing a different song now to the one it lulled to in 2010 when Putin visited the Arctic where he stated that “the climate is changing,” but restated his doubt that human activity was the cause. It is clear that Moscow has prepared its machinery, waiting for right time to start drilling around the coldest untapped regions in the world.

Even educational institutions in Russia back the findings of Moscow’s government. According to their school and college level text books, the cause of global warming is solar activity and not the commonly accepted theory that the major cause is human activity.

Biology student Asya Korolkova in Moscow expressed her view about global warming in which she explained that Russia is not really feeling the effects of global warming.”I see what they have abroad on the problem of climate change, people there talk about it a lot; you can feel it’s a serious problem. We don’t have that here.”

However, despite the propaganda that Russia is not really feeling the heat, the impact of global warming is hitting other parts of Russia such as Siberia. Over the long run, Russia will be equally affected by global warming just as much as any other corner of the globe.

For exclusive info on hedge funds and the latest news from value investing world at only a few dollars a month check out ValueWalk Premium right here.

Multiple people interested? Check out our new corporate plan right here (We are currently offering a major discount)



11 Comments on "Vladimir Putin Scoffs At Global Warming Situation"

  1. If global warming is caused exclusively by man then how did the world warm up by 1.5 degree C over the last two hundred years from the little ice age – when man made CO2 wasn’t an influence for most of those years?

    Or why was the 0.4 degree C warming from 1880 to 1940 similar to the 0.4 degree C warming from 1950 to 1998 – when the UN IPCC blames all of the warming from 1950 because of man made CO2?

    Can you say Mother Nature? who normally accounts for about 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

  2. the author assumes the russians are wrong. Actually without the pull of grant money, they are probably the most honest folks on the planet. Note how the student said they have not seen global warming? After a 1/3 of a century of western global warming, how miuch change have you seen?

  3. GoreBull Warming – It’s the HOTTEST hoax around!

    And LibTarded imbeciles simply slurp it up, of course.

    Flippin’ idiots.

  4. Valiant, vigorous, virile Vlad Putin really rocks. He has no time for PC piffle.

  5. Harry Skip Robinson | Nov 3, 2015, 11:12 am at 11:12 am |

    From the article in the NYT. Horrible article as always, almost all hearsay. Despite comment like this, the article still suggest global warming.
    “Biology student Asya Korolkova in Moscow expressed her view about global warming in which she explained that Russia is not really feeling the effects of global warming. ”I see what they have abroad on the problem of climate change, people there talk about it a lot; you can feel it’s a serious problem. We don’t have that here.”
    Asya, we do not have it here either. It just our main stream media who cannot stop propagating their memes, despite the masses catching on too the lies.

  6. International Adoption | Nov 3, 2015, 5:26 am at 5:26 am |

    this last statement is awsome , … in the end we all going to die … eh – how provocative thing so high level advancement , who would of thought, really

    Putin at least has a constructive understandable policies, that makes sense or don’t for us in the West but the conside clear-cut provisions purpose and pursuit , all intended goals are clear. It is a reason why 88% of russian population support Putin … how may people support Obama again … or any other country … it is the reason that nobody overthowing his regime nor his reins of power …

  7. “According to their school and college level text books, the cause of global warming is solar activity and not the commonly accepted theory that the major cause is human activity”

    Who’s your source, Mister Khan? I studied at Russian school and my books said the cause of global warming is human activity”.

  8. He is bangon but the fascist corporation government in north america wantsits own people broke so they cannot compete or even think about starting a business they have a thundred.or thousands of so called regulations in the guise of safety program s it is all bullshit bureaucracy here

  9. Russia does a pretty good job of restraining its own economy.

  10. DiogenesDespairs | Nov 2, 2015, 7:05 pm at 7:05 pm |

    The issue about global warming is carbon emissions and emissions policy, and what is needed there is serious thought based on hard facts.

    Here are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know. I recommend following the links in the citations – some of them are very educational.

    The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here’s why:

    Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Centigrade.

    But that’s only the beginning. We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

    Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

    The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.

    The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that

    Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

    [1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition

    by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK “http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

    [2] ibid.

    [3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK “http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf” http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf. See p. 4.The 0 – 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.

    [4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ] HYPERLINK “http://webbook.nist.gov/” http://webbook.nist.gov/

    [5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.

    [6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK “http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html. The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.

    [7] Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

    [8] New York Nature – The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.net/IceAge.html

    [9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK “https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/NL99W/PDF/globlwrmw99.pdf” http://www.azgs.az.gov/arizona_geology/archived_issues/Winter_1999.pdf This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.

    [10] Ibid.

    [11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK “http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009” http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009.

    See also HYPERLINK “http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html and

    HYPERLINK “http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK “http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. Et al.

    ADDENDUM

    What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life of its own.

    Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.

    In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.

    I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand “Progressive” ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.

  11. How did John Tyndall know about Russia’s fossil fuel industry again?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.