Why is a Russian newspaper suddenly a reliable source for climate science?
These same people were the propaganda machine of the USSR, now suddenly it seems like certain people think it is a reliable source for information on climate science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda#The_post-Soviet_period
The article in question is not a reliable piece of scientific news.
However, the "Drudge Report" ran with the headline, and now every right-wing neocon blogger is discussing the article. And every reader of right-wing neocon blogs, who don’t care about the reliability of a source, or scientific evidence, or science, is now spamming Yahoo! Answers with links to the article and newspaper in question.
Here are some other articles from Pravda’s science desk:
Aliens forced Americans out from the Moon http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/03-10-2007/98123-moon-0
Why God Didn’t Have a Beginning? http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/09-01-2009/106912-God_Beginning-0
Darwin Only Had Theology Degree http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-12-2008/106822-Darwin_Theology_Degree-0
I also found this gem of an article on the side, highlighted as one of the top news stories: Obama: Deceiver, Cheat, Swindler, Liar, Fraudster, Con Artist http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/09-01-2009/106914-Obama_Swindler_Liar-0 . Look at the picture — Obama holding the phone upside down!!!
It’s a classic gag! But what kind of newspaper publishes fake Photoshop photographes? Tabloids?
Read the other articles in Pravda, it’s not much of a source for anything let alone climate science. The deniers are really scraping the bottom of the the barrel on this one.
I have cooperated for many years with the Arctic Research Institute in St Petersburg, and among the geologists, meteorologists, paleontologists, oceanographers and permafrost scientists there, the AGW hypothesis is not considered to be correct.
These are knowledgeable people who have spent their lives working in the Siberian Arctic. They have not been bombarded with the hysterical propaganda that we have in the west, neither have they been coerced into accepting the ‘man made, catastrophe soon’ doctrine by threats of loss of job or withdrawal of research grant like scientists in the west, so they are free to speak as they find.
.It is an ironic twist of fate that on this topic, the scientists in the former Soviet Union are freer to speak than those in the west.
In December I received a report from ARI that the figures for November show that in the Siberian Arctic, the ice is 30% thicker that it was in November the previous year.
Simply put, Pravda is not reliable for anything. I have seen the spamming on here the past couple of days. It’s sad the sources people rely on to "prove" their preconceived notions.
Once a person decides on something they can always find sources to back them up.
Such disinformation is a scourge on society.
Edit: Some people seem to be greatly misinformed about "Russian Science". To say that Russian scientists are far ahead of Europe and the US is simply wrong. During WWI, WWII and the Cold War, Russian scientists excelled at engineering and physics having to do with military matters. They did not, by any means, greatly excel past any other industrialized nations. In the areas of biology and genetics, the Rusians were decades behind the rest of the world. They have done much to catch up, but as late as the 1990s hardly any scientific paper published by a Soviet biologist was received as serious work in the West. Soviet bilogists were found to be too ignorant of the world scientific literature, and in the case of geneticists, too prone to fabricate data.
Basically, using a Russian newspaper (Pravda) article, that is not based on climatology to somehow demonstrate that we are entering an ice age and that global warming is completely bunk, is so dishonest it is not even wrong.
They don’t. Adnd you r post makes no sense–the article you linked to says nothing about climate science or Pravda’s take on the topic.
Even during the times of the USSR, Russian scientists were among the best in the world. They had problems with economic policy and the freedom of it’s people — not with scientific analysis.
Much of the propaganda arm of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is probably now working with the AGW movement in the US, trying to make Communism rise from the grave.
Your question is asking by to validate something which is crap. Did you ever play fact of crap?
The answer is it’s not.
Q: Why did Al Gore murder 20 million people?
A: He didn’t.
Q: No avoiding the questions now, tell my why.
A: I hate leading questions that make their own statement and are not looking for an answer. A better question would be "Is a Russian newspaper a reliable source for climate science? Why or why not?"
Do not chastise the Russians to much as we will be depending on them for access to the space station pretty soon. And they are far in advance of europe or us right now in these areas since they got rid of all the communists in their scientific community.
I want to hear what all countries scientists have to say. I don’t understand why you would think russian scientists are not credible sources. It is arrogant to think only those scientists that agree with you are credible.
In reality, no newspaper is a reliable source for climate science, I don’t care which country it comes from. Journalists are not scientists.
However, when it comes to AGW denial, any source which says AGW is somehow wrong becomes a reliable source. This is why the website ICECAP considers meteorologists, marine geologists, TV weathermen, historians, etc. to be climate science "experts". The only reason they’re "experts" is because they think some aspect of AGW is wrong.
But even worse, the article in question was written by an American blogger (in Portland, Oregon). The only climate scientist cited in the article was Imbrie (whose research on the Milankovitch Cycles disprove the article’s claims). No Russians (scientist or otherwise) were even cited in the article.
Your link simply explains what Pravda is. It means truth in Russian. I knew a guy named Pravda and I remember that. I agree with Russian geologist that the abiotic theory of petroleum formation is much more logical. They seem to have a willingness to look at the evidence and make their decision based on that rather than getting stuck in scientific orthodoxy. Pravda used to be a propaganda machine and it is certainly moving back toward that in Putin Russia as is the US, unfortunately. When you live in a glass house, you might want to be careful throwing stones. I wouldn’t underestimate the Russians nor would I except them as a "reliable source". They are simply another piece of the puzzle. The problem is that some people rely too much on reliable sources without really learning the underlying issues.
Perhaps they understand that due to climate change with a warmer sun the Gulf Stream may change its course thus turning Europe into another Canadian landscape of bitter cold. Oh wait! I forgot we are experiencing Global Warming. Right!
Do they fudge data like Hanson, Gore and Mann?