Climate change discussion

Into the Night Soil
200w.webp

a battery is NOT an energy source. It must be charged.
Click to expand...
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I support reason and science, not alarmist politics regardless of the source.

Climate change is national security problem. It exists. What we do about it is debatable. Good news, however, since "Global Warming saves lives". :thup:
Click to expand...

How is "Climate Change" (formerly known as "Global Warming") a national security problem?

The integrity of elections is important to national security in a Democracy, but I don't see how the weather changing is.


Oh yes I went there.
 
Matt Dillon said:
How is "Climate Change" (formerly known as "Global Warming") a national security problem?

The integrity of elections is important to national security in a Democracy, but I don't see how the weather changing is.


Oh yes I went there.
Click to expand...
Because US national security experts have detailed why it is.

Examples:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...res-climate-changes-a-national-security-issue
The Pentagon since 2010 has acknowledged that climate change could pose a threat to where the military operates and its roles and missions.

Heavy downpours, drought, rising temperature and sea level, and repeated, raging forest fires affect the military not only at home but extending to abroad as they can have significant geopolitical impacts.

The DOD has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to help bases prevent or repair climate-related damage, including Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., which was damaged by Hurricane Michael in 2018, and Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., which flooded in 2019.

Under former President Trump, who repeatedly indicated he thought climate change is a "hoax," Pentagon officials have had to tiptoe around the issue as the president routinely dismissed the scientific consensus that the phenomenon is real and caused by human activity.

https://www.cfr.org/report/climate-change-and-national-security
In this Council Special Report, Joshua W. Busby moves beyond diagnosis of the threat to recommendations for action. Recognizing that some climate change is inevitable, he proposes a portfolio of feasible and affordable policy options to reduce the vulnerability of the United States and other countries to the predictable effects of climate change. He also draws attention to the strategic dimensions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that sharp reductions in the long run are essential to avoid unmanageable security problems. He goes on to argue that participation in reducing emissions can help integrate China and India into the global rules–based order, as well as help stabilize important countries such as Indonesia. And he suggests bureaucratic reforms that would increase the likelihood that the U.S. government will formulate effective domestic and foreign policies in this increasingly important realm.

https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/ClimateChange_CSR32 (1).pdf
 
Matt Dillon said:
That's a rather retarded meme.

CO2 is good for plants, not humans. Oxygen is good for humans.
Click to expand...

Dude, the retard is the old fart who can't even hook up his own router much less understand why CO2 is good for humans.

You're waffling, Matt. First you say it doesn't exist despite all the evidence and now you are with the fucking Lefties in saying Global Warming is bad. Why are you so weak and spineless?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Dude, the retard is the old fart who can't even hook up his own router much less understand why CO2 is good for humans.

You're waffling, Matt. First you say it doesn't exist despite all the evidence and now you are with the fucking Lefties in saying Global Warming is bad. Why are you so weak and spineless?
Click to expand...

iu


Explain to me why it would not be absolutely fitting to lock you into an airtight room with CO2 injection.

Hmm, I don't recall mentioning router problems here.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I support reason and science, not alarmist politics regardless of the source.

Climate change is national security problem. It exists. What we do about it is debatable. Good news, however, since "Global Warming saves lives". :thup:
Click to expand...

Denial of science. Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. Science is not meaningless buzzwords. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
 
Matt Dillon said:
How is "Climate Change" (formerly known as "Global Warming") a national security problem?

The integrity of elections is important to national security in a Democracy, but I don't see how the weather changing is.


Oh yes I went there.
Click to expand...

This is the idiocy of the liberal. The Church of Global Warming keeps coming up with different names for themselves when they find the old name is not being accepted anymore. A scam by any other name.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Because US national security experts have detailed why it is.

Examples:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...res-climate-changes-a-national-security-issue
The Pentagon since 2010 has acknowledged that climate change could pose a threat to where the military operates and its roles and missions.

Heavy downpours, drought, rising temperature and sea level, and repeated, raging forest fires affect the military not only at home but extending to abroad as they can have significant geopolitical impacts.

The DOD has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to help bases prevent or repair climate-related damage, including Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., which was damaged by Hurricane Michael in 2018, and Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., which flooded in 2019.

Under former President Trump, who repeatedly indicated he thought climate change is a "hoax," Pentagon officials have had to tiptoe around the issue as the president routinely dismissed the scientific consensus that the phenomenon is real and caused by human activity.

https://www.cfr.org/report/climate-change-and-national-security
In this Council Special Report, Joshua W. Busby moves beyond diagnosis of the threat to recommendations for action. Recognizing that some climate change is inevitable, he proposes a portfolio of feasible and affordable policy options to reduce the vulnerability of the United States and other countries to the predictable effects of climate change. He also draws attention to the strategic dimensions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that sharp reductions in the long run are essential to avoid unmanageable security problems. He goes on to argue that participation in reducing emissions can help integrate China and India into the global rules–based order, as well as help stabilize important countries such as Indonesia. And he suggests bureaucratic reforms that would increase the likelihood that the U.S. government will formulate effective domestic and foreign policies in this increasingly important realm.
Click to expand...

Define 'climate change'. Climate doesn't cause damage. You are describing weather, not climate.
 
Into the Night said:
Define 'climate change'. Climate doesn't cause damage. You are describing weather, not climate.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's in the fucking links. TBH, I think you are a very smart guy but so were Ted Kaczynski and Eric Rudolph. Their stories didn't end well. How do you want your story to end?

IMHO, you have a lot to offer the world, even if it's just butterfly wings per Chaos Theory. Your problem is that you won't be able to get it out without seeking some help with your personal demons, whatever they might be. Solve those problems and move forward.
 
Everybody on the planet backs less pollution unless it costs them profits. Then they will fight regulations and cleanup costs to the death. Energy companies have been fighting the rules and backing more pollution for generations.
Yeah, in a country controlled by but fossil fuel companies, it is our biggest source now. But solar and wind are coming up big time. We will change, but not if people like the thread starter gets his way.
 
Last edited:
Nordberg said:
Everybody on the planet backs less pollution unless it costs them profits. Then they will fight regulations and cleanup costs to the death. Energy companies have been fighting the rules and backing more pollution for generations.
Click to expand...
...so have citizens when they find out how much extra their bills cost.

I fully support the tech for renewable energy and reduced pollution, but it has to be done at a sustainable rate.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello and welcome redfish,



I'll be happy to address every one of your points as long as we can have an agreement to be polite. No down-talking to each other, OK? Mutual respect, or forget it.

That work for you?
Click to expand...

You people ignore all the science that proves ocean heat cycles are responsible for the cyclic climate that the data show. The AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) accounts for 88% of climate change according to multivariate analysis. Are you willing to debate the science? If not, then you are a joke
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top