NationStates Jolt Archive

An old Cold War joke, about Pravda and Izvestia, and it would appear that the joke still applies today.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0

Apparently, we're all going to freeze shortly. I'm betting that you can't publish in Pravda without it being something Putin and his friends want to see in print, so this is probably the official view of the Russian government.

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

If you read all three pages, they're rather specific about global warming not being a factor in anything.

No, clearly they just want others to rely on their gas supplies, at whatever price they choose to charge.

why would Putin's government basically tell everyone that they are all going to die?

also I was hoping to be dead by the time this kicked in :(

I've heard the new ice age theory before, but it was usually linked to global warming. Supposedly the fresh water from melting ice being dumped in to the ocean would interfere with the system of ocean currents like the Gulf Stream, resulting in global cooling.

However, an ice age for reasons not global warming related is new to me. Where the hell are these guys getting this from?:confused:

Apparently, we're all going to freeze shortly. I'm betting that you can't publish in Pravda without it being something Putin and his friends want to see in print, so this is probably the official view of the Russian government.
At least, it's the view of the columnist Gregory F. Fegel. He also feels that a preponderance of evidence shows that the World Trade Center (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106172-september_11_attacks-0) could not have collapsed as a result of the airliners that crashed into them.

Not really relevant to the topic at hand, I know, but it does illustrate how he can weigh the evidence presented to him.

Meh, it's always cold there, what do they care? :p

Silly Russians.

Meh.

Those are the very same people who were rejoicing that a melting permafrost grants them access to even more natural resources.

However, an ice age for reasons not global warming related is new to me. Where the hell are these guys getting this from?:confused:

changes in the Earths orbit caused the last ice age but I have my doubts that its been that long tbh (also everyone knows if anyone is going to bounce back its the British! (http://english.pravda.ru/topic/superpower-165/))

However, an ice age for reasons not global warming related is new to me. Where the hell are these guys getting this from?:confused:

You've never heard of the Interglacial Periods?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstadial

An old Cold War joke, about Pravda and Izvestia, and it would appear that the joke still applies today.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0

Apparently, we're all going to freeze shortly. I'm betting that you can't publish in Pravda without it being something Putin and his friends want to see in print, so this is probably the official view of the Russian government.



If you read all three pages, they're rather specific about global warming not being a factor in anything.

Weren't you the one a week ago telling us how the sea ice had recovered to 1979 levels? So now you believe in global warming?

Weren't you the one a week ago telling us how the sea ice had recovered to 1979 levels? So now you believe in global warming?

He just doesn't want to be seen agreeing with Putin.

Can't say I blame him, if I ever hear that Putin and I share a viewpoint on a subject I take a good, hard look at my opinion.

Weren't you the one a week ago telling us how the sea ice had recovered to 1979 levels? So now you believe in global warming?
Khadgar...you're using logic and reason...how could you?! How dare you point out his utter hypocrisy?! :(

Seriously though, isn't this the same journal that talked about the United States falling apart in blocks that completely ignores the various cultural differences between areas of the United States?

I think we can safely say it has bias.

I dont even understand what DK is arguing.

Kagetora;14388229']You've never heard of the Interglacial Periods?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstadial

Most people who believe in the myth of global warming being caused by man totally ignore stuff like that. :(

Most people who believe in the myth of global warming being caused by man totally ignore stuff like that. :(

We ignore it because its utterly false.

I dont even understand what DK is arguing.

I think basically he's trying to do whatever he can to make himself look good.

It's as Poliwancraca said of DK: "Also, I've met every lawyer and rape victim in the whole world while I was wandering around in my capacity as a doctor/soldier/gigolo/lion tamer/Jesus, and they all agree with me, except for the Muslim ones, who are all evil, and whom I shot in the head from 20,000 feet away while operating my gun with my enormous penis."

Most people who believe in the myth of global warming being caused by man totally ignore stuff like that. :(

The IPCC is a bit thick like that. *nods*

We ignore it because its utterly false.

So WIKI and the climatologists are wrong? Those periods don't occur naturally?

Most people who believe in the myth of global warming being caused by man totally ignore stuff like that. :(

Um, actually, no they don't, and further, we're IN an interglacial. Meaning if anything the Earth should be cooling.

But we're kinda screwing up the whole system by releasing a lot more carbon and such.

So WIKI and the climatologists are wrong? Those periods don't occur naturally?

Let me rephrase that. They dont mean what you think they mean.

Um, actually, no they don't, and further, we're IN an interglacial. Meaning if anything the Earth should be cooling.

But we're kinda screwing up the whole system by releasing a lot more carbon and such.

So WIKI is wrong again? Interglacial periods are warming not cooling periods.

"During the interglacials, one of which we are in now, the climate warmed to more or less present day temperatures and the tundra receded polewards following the ice sheets."

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

So WIKI and the climatologists are wrong? Those periods don't occur naturally?

Let me rephrase that. They dont mean what you think they mean.

Now I am confused but by your response and not by naturally occurring warming and cooling periods.

Most people who believe in the myth of global warming being caused by man totally ignore stuff like that. :(

Where are the climatologists who claim that man is not making an impact?

What % of climatologists believed that man is making no impact on climate change?

So WIKI is wrong again? Interglacial periods are warming not cooling periods.

"During the interglacials, one of which we are in now, the climate warmed to more or less present day temperatures and the tundra receded polewards following the ice sheets."

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

Yes, see, we're IN an interglacial. Which we're probably supposed to have been passing out of by now, but because of human interference, we're not.

The warming that occurs for interglacials already occurred. That's why you don't see massive ice sheets covering the continents and such. There wouldn't be more warming unless the system is getting screwed up.

But I'm not a climatologist. Neither are you. Neither one of us really has any basis for what we're saying beyond whatever we gleam from sites like Wikipedia, which don't even remotely go into nearly enough detail for us to even really START even PRESUMING we could somehow be even the remotest of experts.

In other words we don't know what we're talking about so shut up. :tongue:

So WIKI and the climatologists are wrong?

Why do you ask? You don't believe in what climatologists say anyway.

Or rather, you have very selective hearing when it comes to them.

But I'm not a climatologist. Neither are you. Neither one of us really has any basis for what we're saying beyond whatever we gleam from sites like Wikipedia, which don't even remotely go into nearly enough detail for us to even really START even PRESUMING we could somehow be even the remotest of experts.

In other words we don't know what we're talking about so shut up. :tongue:

I never rely on a single source to form my opinion. I do not claim to be an expert. I am expressing the opinion I have formed by listening to and reading several sources, just as the rest of the people here are. No one here is an expert and even the experts disagree on global warming. So, I will not shut up and I hope you will not either. :fluffle:

Except that the vast majority of actual experts--climatologists--are all in unison about global warming being anthropogenic. There are a few who don't, but the majority of those who don't are basically being paid off by companies who have a vested interest in preventing any sort of action being taken which would harm their profit margins.

Those who aren't being paid off are just silly. /nod

Really, I'm not taking my information from one source either. I'm taking it from multiple sources as well, and acknowledging that because I don't have the knowledge to make any sort of judgment or have an opinion with any real value on the matter, I should just accept what the majority of the experts say.

I mean, really, what else should I do?

Except that the vast majority of actual experts--climatologists--are all in unison about global warming being anthropogenic. There are a few who don't, but the majority of those who don't are basically being paid off by companies who have a vested interest in preventing any sort of action being taken which would harm their profit margins.

Those who aren't being paid off are just silly. /nod

Really, I'm not taking my information from one source either. I'm taking it from multiple sources as well, and acknowledging that because I don't have the knowledge to make any sort of judgment or have an opinion with any real value on the matter, I should just accept what the majority of the experts say.

I mean, really, what else should I do?

Tarot Cards. *nod*

Why do you ask? You don't believe in what climatologists say anyway.

Or rather, you have very selective hearing when it comes to them.

This.

I dont even understand what DK is arguing.

That Russian newspapers suck.

Apparently, we're all going to freeze shortly. I'm betting that you can't publish in Pravda without it being something Putin and his friends want to see in print, so this is probably the official view of the Russian government.
Don't you know what Pravda is? It's the Russian equivalent of Daily Mail.

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

And as if that wasn't bad enough, the Pravda Online is an independent spinoff of the paper one, made by people who thought the paper one was too serious.

When they talk about UFOs and Yeti, there's not a shadow of doubt in their tone.

, I should just accept what the majority of the experts say.

I mean, really, what else should I do?

Do as you have done and gather knowledge from all sources, then use your critical thinking skills to form your own conclusion based on what you have learned. Never, ever JUST ACCEPT WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE EXPERTS SAY as gospel. Even the experts have been wrong before.

Tarot Cards. *nod*

Voodo works the best. :eek:

Do as you have done and gather knowledge from all sources, then use your critical thinking skills to form your own conclusion based on what you have learned. Never, ever JUST ACCEPT WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE EXPERTS SAY as gospel. Even the experts have been wrong before.
You misunderstand. I am using my critical thinking skills. I use them all the time. How do you think I discern the true information from the inaccurate/biased information?

But there's a difference between critically thinking, and KNOWING YOU DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE BASIS TO MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE JUDGMENT ON THE DATA.

Do as you have done and gather knowledge from all sources, then use your critical thinking skills to form your own conclusion based on what you have learned. Never, ever JUST ACCEPT WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE EXPERTS SAY as gospel. Even the experts have been wrong before.

If you really are using critial thinking, it will usually lead you to agree with the guys doing the research and who have spent their whole lives learning and studying this shit.

If you come to disagree with the vast majority of experts in a field that you are comparatively ignorant of (Im sure your not a climateologist Celt), then you were doing it wrong.

There's a Ukraine dating ad up right now...

I found it amusing that on the sidebar next to it was an article about how France just released secret government photos to the public that are absolute proof that extra terrestrials regularly visit earth.

Thats about how seriously I take the article too, but it was an interesting read.