How can climate policy prevent wars.?

Jakob wrote:
­IBdaMann

It is too often so deplorable that it defies description when climate deniers meddle in politics.

Jakob wrote:
You simply must not do anything good if there is a risk that it could reduce CO2 emissions.

Jakob wrote:
People must not be advised to eat healthier,

Jakob wrote:
renewable energy must not be used and so on.

Jakob wrote:
Are you one of those.?
­

Jakob wrote:
­


GasGuzzler

Are you also IBdaMann, or don't you think he is smart enough to answer for himself.?
Or perhaps you simply have an inner urge to demonstrate your lack of competence in both science, debate culture and democracy. If so, I think you are doing well.


­

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:
Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

That is exactly what climate deniers do to others

Jakob wrote:
­when they prevent the transition to renewable energy.

Jakob wrote:
­They force those ready for change to pay for fossil energy.
­

James_ wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:
Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

That is exactly what climate deniers do to others when they prevent the transition to renewable energy. They force those ready for change to pay for fossil energy.
­

All of the cathedrals in Europe were built during the last warm period except for one.

James_ wrote:
A basilica in Spain had construction started in 1880.

James_ wrote:
That is about the end of the last cool period.

James_ wrote:
Rome flourished during a warm period and collapsed when the climate cooled.

James_ wrote:
In scientific terms they are called climate ripples.

James_ wrote:
Myself, I think SOx and NOx which comes from burning fossil fuels is the real problem.

James_ wrote:
It's possible that when fossil fuels run out

James_ wrote:
is when ozone depleting gasses (ODSs) will wreak havoc on the ozone layer with nothing to counteract its affect with out burning a lot of trees.

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:
If you are ready for renewable energy, then you spend your money on it. I won't stand in your way. Just don't ask me to subsidize your piss poor purchase. Is that fair?

No that is not fair.

Jakob wrote:
­There are many people in the city that has no option to use electricity based on renewable energy. So you have to help them with that.

Jakob wrote:
­And when it is done, and you don't like it, then you can just buy a gas generator for your own house, so you don't have to use sustainable energy.

Jakob wrote:
­That will be fair and provide the people with real freedom to choose.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:
Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

That is exactly what climate deniers do to others when they prevent the transition to renewable energy. They force those ready for change to pay for fossil energy.
­

All of the cathedrals in Europe were built during the last warm period except for one.

What "warm period"?

James_ wrote:
A basilica in Spain had construction started in 1880.

So?

James_ wrote:
That is about the end of the last cool period.

What "cool period"?

James_ wrote:
Rome flourished during a warm period and collapsed when the climate cooled.

Climate has no temperature. What "warm period" and what "cool period"?

James_ wrote:
In scientific terms they are called climate ripples.

No such phrase. Buzzword fallacy.

James_ wrote:
Myself, I think SOx and NOx which comes from burning fossil fuels is the real problem.

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

James_ wrote:
It's possible that when fossil fuels run out

Fossils aren't used as fuel. You can't run out of something that doesn't exist.

James_ wrote:
is when ozone depleting gasses (ODSs) will wreak havoc on the ozone layer with nothing to counteract its affect with out burning a lot of trees.

You are ignoring the Chapman cycle again.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:

Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

That is exactly what climate deniers do to others when they prevent the transition to renewable energy. They force those ready for change to pay for fossil energy.



­

The climate has been warming steadily for 22,000 years, and humanity has nothing to do with the warming

When I was in the U.S. Navy, we ran over this submarine; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-314

6 Russian (Soviet, they could've been Ukrainian) nationals died and that wasn't in the news. I worked in 3 MMR, P - 4 Division. We lost fires in one boiler due to fuel oil contamination (I went on watch AFTER this happened). The screw of the Soviet submarine ruptured a fuel tank our boiler was feeding off of.
Losing fires in the burners allows for water hammers. That is water molecules in the steam that has been generated. A ruptured steam pipe will kill everyone in the engine room in 6 seconds. It's 1,200 psi at over 980º F./527º C.
When we got back stateside, an E-4 in our engine room went out drinking. A truck ran a red light and he T-Boned it. 2 more people died. in a span of 6 months my engine room was involved in 8 deaths.
Yours won't bother me Alan. Those 8 people, what should I say about them?
Kind of why I've tried to get along with people, I know what the alternative is.
And Alan, we ran over the Russian submarine because we could. I actually know what happened and yet neither Russia or the U.S. has talked about it.
If you ever don't want to know something Alan, serve in the military. There are things I'd like to forget.

You were in the Norwegian Navy.

Q: How do you sink a Norwegian submarine?
A: Scuba-dive down and knock on the door.

Q: How do you sink a Norwegian submarine again?
A: Dive down and knock on the door again. Wait for them to open the window and say, "You aren't fooling us this time!"

Q: How do you sink a Swedish submarine?
A: Give it a Norwegian crew.

Alan, what does this look like?

Swan wrote:


The ship that you scraped off used grease on?

Am I correct?

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:


The ship that you scraped off used grease on?

Am I correct?

I guess you don't like the U.S., do you?

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:


The ship that you scraped off used grease on?

Am I correct?

I guess you don't like the U.S., do you?

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:


The ship that you scraped off used grease on?

Am I correct?

I guess you don't like the U.S., do you?

LOL, is your son an engineer for Lockheed Martin? But you already knew that.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/aegis-combat-system.html

Cheers, and remember you can leave with your Buster wheel anytime

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:


The ship that you scraped off used grease on?

Am I correct?

I guess you don't like the U.S., do you?

LOL, is your son an engineer for Lockheed Martin? But you already knew that.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/aegis-combat-system.html

Cheers, and remember you can leave with your Buster wheel anytime

Oh my how quiet it is now

Jakob wrote:
­


I sense you guys don't want to learn anything from me, and maybe you actually know more about war weapon balance than I do, so I have a specific question for you about that:

To what degree can the existing defensive weapons help to prevent wars.?



­

Into the Night wrote:

Jakob wrote: ­Maybe it is time to remember why you went to the moon.

It wasn't to "update the electrical grid".

Jakob wrote: I sense you guys don't want to learn anything from me,

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jakob wrote: ­Maybe it is time to remember why you went to the moon.

It wasn't to "update the electrical grid".

I heard it was to re-solder the leads.

Jakob wrote:
­it is that spirit that made America great
­

Jakob wrote:
­


I sense you guys don't want to learn anything from me, and maybe you actually know more about war weapon balance than I do, so I have a specific question for you about that:

To what degree can the existing defensive weapons help to prevent wars.?



­

Jakob wrote:
­


I sense you guys don't want to learn anything from me, and maybe you actually know more about war weapon balance than I do, so I have a specific question for you about that:

To what degree can the existing defensive weapons help to prevent wars.?



­

Jakob wrote:
­

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jakob wrote: ­Maybe it is time to remember why you went to the moon.

It wasn't to "update the electrical grid".

I heard it was to re-solder the leads.

No, that wasn't why. That would have been far too easy.

I want you to remember this:

You didn't do it because it was easy, you did it because it was HARD.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYJRwgHEFS0

I am not sure I agree with the goal but it is that spirit that made America great.
And now is the time to put it to use for the grid and renewable energy.
You are far behind, but you can catch up quickly on a lot if, for example, you learn from Denmark and Germany, where wind turbines have been intensively developed for more than 50 years. Biden has already started it, but I guess you also need Elon Musk and Bill Gates and many others to help pull the huge load it is to build the new and better civilization where America can stand proudly on its own two feet again.
​
Go for it.!

­
­

Swan wrote:
Weapons are not made to prevent war, they are made to win war.

IBdaMann wrote:

Jakob wrote: I sense you guys don't want to learn anything from me,

Perish the thought. In fact, I very much want you to teach me the unambiguous, formal defintion of the global climate, which you haven't offered yet.

Jakob wrote:
­

IBdaMann wrote:

Jakob wrote: I sense you guys don't want to learn anything from me,

Perish the thought. In fact, I very much want you to teach me the unambiguous, formal defintion of the global climate, which you haven't offered yet.

I just did that with "fossil fuel" and "renewable energy":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/masa-d6-e4784.php#post_101414

And here you can see what I got out of it in a topic that actually is about making capitalism and the free market work for the electricity consumers in the USA:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-usa-electricity-system-hourly-billing--d9-e4787.php#post_101485

The debate here is one of the most mind-numbing things I have experienced. No wonder there are so few participants.




­

Jakob wrote:
­

Swan wrote:
Weapons are not made to prevent war, they are made to win war.

I am glad it is not that simple.

Jakob wrote:
Being able to protect your facilities can be very important in reducing the enemy's desire to start a war.

Jakob wrote:
If you look at the cold war, that never came to war, it was mostly about the balance of power,
and one of the things that Reagan used to end it with was a threat about a star war program.
A program that would make it possible to shoot down all Russian nuclear missiles before they could hit USA.
­

Jakob wrote:
­

IBdaMann wrote:

Jakob wrote: I sense you guys don't want to learn anything from me,

Perish the thought. In fact, I very much want you to teach me the unambiguous, formal defintion of the global climate, which you haven't offered yet.

I just did that with "fossil fuel" and "renewable energy":

Jakob wrote:
­https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/masa-d6-e4784.php#post_101414

Jakob wrote:
­And here you can see what I got out of it in a topic that actually is about making capitalism and the free market work for the electricity consumers in the USA:

­https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-usa-electricity-system-hourly-billing--d9-e4787.php#post_101485

Jakob wrote:
­The debate here is one of the most mind-numbing things I have experienced. No wonder there are so few participants.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­

IBdaMann wrote:

Jakob wrote: I sense you guys don't want to learn anything from me,

Perish the thought. In fact, I very much want you to teach me the unambiguous, formal defintion of the global climate, which you haven't offered yet.

I just did that with "fossil fuel" and "renewable energy":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/masa-d6-e4784.php#post_101414

And here you can see what I got out of it in a topic that actually is about making capitalism and the free market work for the electricity consumers in the USA:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-usa-electricity-system-hourly-billing--d9-e4787.php#post_101485

The debate here is one of the most mind-numbing things I have experienced. No wonder there are so few participants.




­

This site is actually extremely informative if you are willing do your own thinking. Swan is largely ignored because he makes claims that don't align with a logical thought process. When asked to defend his position in his own words, he can only send a Google link, which is also quickly dismissed.

I don't want to talk to Google. I am quite capable of looking something up on the internet. I want to hear you articulate your position. So far you have not done that.

I believe you find the debate here mind numbing because you are not accustomed to doing your own thinking. You let Google and others do you thinking for you and you regurgitate what you have been told to be true.

Stick around and start trying some meaningful thought process. If we disagree at the end of the day, so be it.

Jakob wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Jakob wrote: I sense you guys don't want to learn anything from me,

Perish the thought. In fact, I very much want you to teach me the unambiguous, formal defintion of the global climate, which you haven't offered yet.

I just did that with "fossil fuel" and "renewable energy"

IBdaMann wrote:

Jakob wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Jakob wrote: I sense you guys don't want to learn anything from me,

Perish the thought. In fact, I very much want you to teach me the unambiguous, formal defintion of the global climate, which you haven't offered yet.

I just did that with "fossil fuel" and "renewable energy"

Obviously you have greater proficiency in the Danish language than in English.

Have someone translate this for you into Danish: "You have not offered a formal, unambiguous definition of the global climate that does not violate physics, mathematics, logic and/or economics."

You are dead in the water until you provide that definition.

Jakob wrote:
­

Swan wrote:
Weapons are not made to prevent war, they are made to win war.

I am glad it is not that simple.
Being able to protect your facilities can be very important in reducing the enemy's desire to start a war.
If you look at the cold war, that never came to war, it was mostly about the balance of power, and one of the things that Reagan used to end it with was a threat about a star war program.
A program that would make it possible to shoot down all Russian nuclear missiles before they could hit USA.




­

HarveyH55 wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­

Swan wrote:
Weapons are not made to prevent war, they are made to win war.

I am glad it is not that simple.
Being able to protect your facilities can be very important in reducing the enemy's desire to start a war.
If you look at the cold war, that never came to war, it was mostly about the balance of power, and one of the things that Reagan used to end it with was a threat about a star war program.
A program that would make it possible to shoot down all Russian nuclear missiles before they could hit USA.




­

The 'Cold War' was a war. It was everything short of actions that could escalate to using nuclear weapons. Much of it handled on paper, to avoid nuclear war. There was very little chance anyone was going to actually use nuclear weapons. The radiation doesn't just affect the blast area, it travels, and lasts a long time. The land destroyed can eventually be cleaned up and reclaimed. Lot of work and expense. But, just having nuclear weapons meant the owners could get away with a lot of crap, without sending in troops.

Jakob wrote:
­

Swan wrote:
Weapons are not made to prevent war, they are made to win war.

I am glad it is not that simple.
Being able to protect your facilities can be very important in reducing the enemy's desire to start a war.
If you look at the cold war, that never came to war, it was mostly about the balance of power, and one of the things that Reagan used to end it with was a threat about a star war program.
A program that would make it possible to shoot down all Russian nuclear missiles before they could hit USA.




­

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­

Swan wrote:
Weapons are not made to prevent war, they are made to win war.

I am glad it is not that simple.
Being able to protect your facilities can be very important in reducing the enemy's desire to start a war.
If you look at the cold war, that never came to war, it was mostly about the balance of power, and one of the things that Reagan used to end it with was a threat about a star war program.
A program that would make it possible to shoot down all Russian nuclear missiles before they could hit USA.




­

The 'Cold War' was a war. It was everything short of actions that could escalate to using nuclear weapons. Much of it handled on paper, to avoid nuclear war. There was very little chance anyone was going to actually use nuclear weapons. The radiation doesn't just affect the blast area, it travels, and lasts a long time. The land destroyed can eventually be cleaned up and reclaimed. Lot of work and expense. But, just having nuclear weapons meant the owners could get away with a lot of crap, without sending in troops.

Ukraine had nuclear weapons and got rid of them. Mutually assured destruction seemed to work as a deterrent to war. I can't think of 1 time that nuclear countries went to war.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Jakob wrote:
­

GasGuzzler wrote:
Again, you feel free to use whatever energy source you want whether that's renewable or hydrocarbons. Don't force me to use your preferred energy source and don't ask me to pay for it.

That is exactly what climate deniers do to others when they prevent the transition to renewable energy. They force those ready for change to pay for fossil energy.
­

All of the cathedrals in Europe were built during the last warm period except for one.

What "warm period"?

James_ wrote:
A basilica in Spain had construction started in 1880.

So?

James_ wrote:
That is about the end of the last cool period.

What "cool period"?

James_ wrote:
Rome flourished during a warm period and collapsed when the climate cooled.

Climate has no temperature. What "warm period" and what "cool period"?

James_ wrote:
In scientific terms they are called climate ripples.

No such phrase. Buzzword fallacy.

James_ wrote:
Myself, I think SOx and NOx which comes from burning fossil fuels is the real problem.

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

James_ wrote:
It's possible that when fossil fuels run out

Fossils aren't used as fuel. You can't run out of something that doesn't exist.

James_ wrote:
is when ozone depleting gasses (ODSs) will wreak havoc on the ozone layer with nothing to counteract its affect with out burning a lot of trees.

You are ignoring the Chapman cycle again.

Fossils are leftover after animals have been made into crude oil.

Is the Chapman cycle a unicycle, bicycle or a tricycle?

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

You are ignoring the Chapman cycle again.

Fossils are leftover after animals have been made into crude oil.

Crude oil is not animal tissue nor comes from animal tissue.

keepit wrote: itn and ibd, It's interesting that both of you complain about a definition of climate and fossil fuels.

keepit wrote: If you don't have your own definitions that are acceptable to you, then your criticisms lack validity.

keepit wrote: If you do have definitions that are acceptable, then present them here and now.

keepit wrote: This challenge is kind of like when you say i make false claims but you can never cite the day and time of those "false claims".

James_ wrote:That's because fossil fuels are animal tissue.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

You are ignoring the Chapman cycle again.

Fossils are leftover after animals have been made into crude oil.

Crude oil is not animal tissue nor comes from animal tissue.

That's because fossil fuels are animal tissue.

keepit wrote:
itn and ibd,
It's interesting that both of you complain about a definition of climate and fossil fuels.

keepit wrote:
If you don't have your own definitions that are acceptable to you,

keepit wrote:
then your criticisms lack validity.

keepit wrote:
If you do have definitions that are acceptable, then present them here and now.

keepit wrote:
This challenge is kind of like when you say i make false claims but you can never cite the day and time of those "false claims".