Only Russia will benefit from (non-existent) global warming, the West believes

Summary

Forecasts about global warming are not coming true, particularly in Europe. On the contrary, in Russia’s European part August temperatures decreased compared to a few years ago. Only liars can claim that the average temperature on Earth has increased by 1 degree over the last one hundred years. The fact that it was already snowing twice in Russia’s Yakutia region this year is one of many pieces of evidence that contradict the global warming claim.

Around 80 global warming scenarios were elaborated by various institutions under the UN aegis, but all of them turned out to be nonsense. To cover it, alarmists  began using the wording ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming.’

The anthropogenic factor of climate change is not true. The Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines in the course of a few days erupted as many carbon dioxides as the whole humanity over the whole period of its existence. Similarly, the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland nullified all humanity’s efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions over the last five years.

Traditionally, though, the West believes that as a result of global warming, only Russia will benefit. A research paper published by Environmental Research Letters concludes that by 2080 the Siberian climate will become much more beneficial for humans than it is today.

Disproof

This is a mix of conspiracies and fakes concerning climate change, wrapped into the "anti-Russia" narrative claiming that the West believes that only Russia will benefit it. Oddly enough, at the same time, the publication suggests that climate change is actually a lie.

There is a strong consensus among publishing climate scientists (around 97%) that humans are responsible for climate change. The greater the climate expertise among surveyed scientists, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming. One of the misunderstandings about the global warming presented in the publication is that it mixes up climate, which refers to how the atmosphere acts over a long period of time, with the weather, which describes what’s happening on a much shorter time scale. Look for debunks of 'unreliable climate change models' and other climate change myths here.

The volcano claim is also false. The “volcano gambit” is indicates that the author is uninformed about climate science, according to one of the websites explaining the climate change-related research. It continues saying that the amount of CO2 emitted by Eyjafjallajökull was, in fact, more than 20 times smaller than just European aviation emissions per day. There is scientific evidence that even if we include the rare, very large volcanic eruptions, like 1980's Mount St. Helens or 1991's Mount Pinatubo eruption, they only emitted 10 and 50 million tons of CO2 each, respectively. It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting. In fact, human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year.

In reality, global warming has a global effect and it is even faster in Russia. As Russia's Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2018 report says on page 20: “The pace of temperature increase in Russia is faster than the average on Earth in the period 1976-2017; the average annual temperature in the world rose by 0.18°C in a decade, while in Russia the same index was 0.45°C.” Northern countries feel the consequences of global warming quicker than those in equatorial or tropical regions because their permafrost layers are melting.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 163
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12/08/2019
  • Language/target audience: Russian
  • Country: Russia, West
  • Keywords: Climate, Conspiracy
  • Outlet: Stoletie.ru
see more

Volodymyr Tsemakh was released because he ceased to be of interest to international investigators and Ukraine

Tsemakh was released due to the fact that he ceased to be of interest to the JIT and Ukraine.

 

Disproof

New narrative in the recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation about the downing of Flight MH17. 

In fact, the Netherlands Prosecutor's Office, as well as the Joint Investigative Group, stated that they would like to talk with Volodymyr Tsemakh as part of the investigation of the MH17 case. Also, there are no statements from the Ukrainian prosecutor's office that Volodymyr Tsemakh has ceased to be of interest to the investigation.

JIT conclusions on the downing of MH17 are not objective

It is necessary to create a neutral committee to investigate this tragedy [the downing of the MH17] since the conclusions of the JIT consisting of the representatives of Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands, and Ukraine cannot be fair …the reasons for the tragedy have not yet been fully established.

 

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation about the downing of the MH17.

The criminal investigation in the case was led by the Joint Investigation Team - JIT - since 2014. On 28 September 2016, the JIT announced that flight MH17 was shot down by a missile from the 9M38 series, which was launched by a BUK TELAR missile system. The system was transported from the Russian Federation to an agricultural field near the town of Pervomaiskyi in Eastern Ukraine, from where the missile was launched. After firing, the system - with 1 missing missile - went back to the Russian Federation. On the 24th of May 2018, the JIT announced its conclusion the BUK TELAR used to shoot down MH17 came from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, a unit of the Russian armed forces from Kursk in the Russian Federation.

German media and NATO portray Russia as an enemy

The German media and NATO portray Russia as an enemy.

Only recently the claim: “Russian secret service possibly involved in murder of exiled Georgian” was to be read in Hamburg’s “Spiegel”. The murderer was also called a “suspect”. The article is teeming with “should” and “possible”. As almost always when it comes to the Russians, the subjunctive triumphs over journalism.

This latest campaign, one of the many, many in a constant fire of suspicion against “the Russians”, raises the question of who will benefit from it. (…) NATO, Trump (…) need the enemy for the turnover of their friends in the economy and for political power: Nothing makes voters dumber than an evil enemy image.

 

 

 

Disproof

No evidence given. This is a recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about Western Russophobia, while portraying NATO as having a belligerent agenda against Russia.

German media, like that in other pluralist democracies, represent a wide range of political opinions and do not have a single editorial policy for any country or topic.