bucket22 asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

Is the Incredible Heat and Fire in Russia Causing Their Leaders to Stop Denying Global Warming?

Within the last year Medvedev, sounding like any conspiracy nut, had stated that global warming was "some kind of tricky campaign made up by some commercial structures to promote their business projects."

Now he states:

"practically everything is burning. The weather is anomalously hot. What's happening with the planet's climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us, meaning all heads of state, all heads of social organizations, in order to take a more energetic approach to countering the global changes to the climate."


Quite frankly, I don't think someone who ignored science and embraced denialist material only to become convinced when an unprecedented and shocking weather events hit his country can be said to be embracing science. The evidence for human-caused global warming is overwhelming, but a weather event, no matter how unprecedented, is always limited evidence for it. What Medvedev should do is spend some modest time attending scientific conferences and learning from climate scientists.


July has certainly been stunning in Moscow:

"July in Moscow is easily going to smash the record for hottest month in Moscow's history. By my rough estimate, the temperature has been 18°F (10°C) above average this month. The record hottest July, in 1938, had temperatures 5.3°C above average. "


That's beyond record-setting, record-smashing, or record-shattering. There has to be a new word for it.

10 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Medvedev is in a difficult position because its economy is heavily dependent upon fossil fuels. In 2009, Russia was the world's largest exporter of natural gas and the second largest exporter of oil. Oil industry and related services account for at least 40% of the Russia's GDP.



    Thus like Saudi Arabia, it's somewhat in Russia's best economic interest to deny AGW. Especially since the country is freaking cold, and may well benefit from some warming anyway.

    That being said, when the country is basically on fire and setting temperature records, even though it's just local weather, it's still difficult for politicians to deny global warming.


    As we all know, people place a lot of importance on the weather they directly experience. When it snows people think the planet is cooling. During a heat wave people tend to be more concerned about global warming.

    It's certainly the case that a responsible political leader should learn basic climate science and determine whether to support climate policies regardless of both local weather and dependence on fossil fuels. Unfortunately politics often works outside the realm of reality, and politicians are not known for acting responsibly.

  • 1 decade ago

    There are some here from both sides of the debate who try to link short term events to AGW, it isn't really possible, a heatwave in Moscow or a cold snap in Washington are weather events, while it is possible GW could be a part of the reason, longer term changes are a far more reliable guide to whats going on. The global temperature record cover a much longer period than 7days or a month or even a year or two, it shows fairly plainly whats going on and that is rising temperatures.


    More recent years add to that picture, 2009 being the most recent year we have full year data for


    2010 is also showing every sign of being warmer again


    Yet deniers continue to try and claim it's cooling, based mostly on just 2008 (which was a slightly cooler year) yet even this cool year is still in the 10 warmest years on record so it wasn't that cool.

  • Jeff M
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    I completely agree that everything politicians say is mostly for political purposes. That is why, when discussing climate change, one should not pay attention to them but instead learn the science behind it. That science being the effect carbon dioxide has in our atmosphere and what an increased effect it, as well as both negative and positive feedbacks, has on our climate.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    When a politician makes a statement of this magnitude, we need to wake up, just as he said, because we're in for it if we don't (you know that my tongue is in my cheek, right?). Especially if that politician is in a rival, who would swallow the U.S. if given the opportunity. Who cuts off natural gas to neighboring countries to control utility prices. Now that's where I want to get my guiding light.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    well, it's gonna become undeniable at some point.

    AT least this helps me believe they don't purposely want to destroy earth (though some seem too)

    when their heads burst into flames from the heat they'll be apt to change, though by then it will be too little too late.

    most deniers seem to have the attitude "hell i don't give a s*** i'll be dead by the time anything happens so who cares. not my problem" cause they think they can just buy time and shove the effort onto the next generation

  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    toocool seems to know who Medvedev is. He is to Putin as Stedman is to Opra. Putin was initially against AGW but then realized he could use it for political advantage. Of course, they wouldnt need to reduce their output but they could get others to reduce. It might help increase their natural gas stranglehold on Europe. They used to cheat and lie on the treaties that we signed (with USSR which Putin seems to be a throwback to). Frankly I wouldn't pay any attention to them denying or alarming for AGW because just about everything they say is for political purposes IMO.

  • 1 decade ago

    If it was the middle of winter on a freezing night and you started a campfire; you would warm up. It is not global warming, it's hot because there's a fire (in this case, a big one.)

  • 1 decade ago

    Eh? It's gone all quiet. Where have all the deniers gone?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    my point of view it accually is

  • 1 decade ago


Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.