'Mutual suicide': US issues stark warning on climate change

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > 'Mutual suicide': US issues stark warning on climate change

Page 1 of 2

'Mutual suicide': US issues stark warning on climate change24-02-2021 22:49
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Thought I would take a stab at triggering all the Climate Debate loons... "The United States has warned inaction by world powers on climate change is tantamount to a "mutual suicide pact" after countries such as China, India, and Russia expressed scepticism on the global security threat it posed... John Kerry, the US special presidential envoy for climate, told the UN Security Council on Tuesday that the Pentagon has described the climate crisis as "a threat multiplier"... He called the climate situation "indisputably a Security Council issue" after some nations said it had no place for discussion at the UN body... Failing to address climate change is "marching forward to what is almost tantamount to a mutual suicide pact", said Kerry. "We bury our heads in the sand at our own peril. It's urgent to treat the climate crisis as the urgent security threat that it is."... British Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged fellow leaders to take immediate action on the climate crisis or face worsening global instability. "Whether you like it or not it is a matter of when, not if, your country and your people will have to deal with the security impacts of climate change," said Johnson"... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/24/mutual-suicide-us-issues-stark-warning-on-climate-change Edited on 24-02-2021 22:51
25-02-2021 02:15
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models.
26-02-2021 02:10
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	HarveyH55 wrote: Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal...
26-02-2021 03:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal... It's the Chupacabra. They're scared schitttlesss. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-02-2021 03:50
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal... It's the Chupacabra. They're scared schitttlesss. . First your mother and now the Chupacabra. Am sorry but I can't support this garbage. We know that "mothers" are real because of Chupacabras.

26-02-2021 03:56
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal... It's the Chupacabra. They're scared schitttlesss. . First your mother and now the Chupacabra. Am sorry but I can't support this garbage. We know that "mothers" are real because of Chupacabras. https://youtu.be/3isOOQSgTq0
27-02-2021 21:09
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal... Yo doof, the security risk is the opening of new arctic shipping routes Now you know
27-02-2021 21:45
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal... Yo doof, the security risk is the opening of new arctic shipping routes Now you know Please explain why that is a security risk.
27-02-2021 22:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Swan wrote:Yo doof, the security risk is the opening of new arctic shipping routes. Now you know How is THAT possible? Global Warming experts have told us to expect global cooling. White House Climate Czar to AP: Texas Storm 'a Wake-Up Call' The deadly winter storm that caused widespread power outages in Texas and other states is a "wake-up call" for the United States to build energy systems and other infrastructure that are more reliable and resilient in the face of extreme-weather events linked to climate change, President Joe Biden's national climate adviser says. In an interview with The Associated Press, Gina McCarthy said Friday that the storm that devastated Texas and other states "is not going to be as unusual as people had hoped. It is going to happen, and we need to be as resilient and working together as much as possible. We need systems of energy that are reliable and resilient as well.'' McCarthy said the scientific evidence is clear that more frequent and more dangerous storms are likely, "and if we really care about keeping our people working and keeping our kids healthy and giving them a future we're proud of, then we're not going to ignore these wake-up calls. We're going to take action.'' Obviously we don't need energy systems to combat the earth turning into an ice ball if Arctic shipping routes will be opening up. Of course if it comes down to someone's word against Lord Biden's then I'm going to go with our sovereign leader every time. He'll never lie to We the People or ever lead us astray. Never. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-02-2021 00:52
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	Spongy Iris wrote: Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal... Yo doof, the security risk is the opening of new arctic shipping routes Now you know Please explain why that is a security risk. Because warships will travel the same routes Doofy
28-02-2021 00:53
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Yo doof, the security risk is the opening of new arctic shipping routes. Now you know How is THAT possible? Global Warming experts have told us to expect global cooling. White House Climate Czar to AP: Texas Storm 'a Wake-Up Call' The deadly winter storm that caused widespread power outages in Texas and other states is a "wake-up call" for the United States to build energy systems and other infrastructure that are more reliable and resilient in the face of extreme-weather events linked to climate change, President Joe Biden's national climate adviser says. In an interview with The Associated Press, Gina McCarthy said Friday that the storm that devastated Texas and other states "is not going to be as unusual as people had hoped. It is going to happen, and we need to be as resilient and working together as much as possible. We need systems of energy that are reliable and resilient as well.'' McCarthy said the scientific evidence is clear that more frequent and more dangerous storms are likely, "and if we really care about keeping our people working and keeping our kids healthy and giving them a future we're proud of, then we're not going to ignore these wake-up calls. We're going to take action.'' Obviously we don't need energy systems to combat the earth turning into an ice ball if Arctic shipping routes will be opening up. Of course if it comes down to someone's word against Lord Biden's then I'm going to go with our sovereign leader every time. He'll never lie to We the People or ever lead us astray. Never. . Grease your gears already
28-02-2021 01:36
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal... Yo doof, the security risk is the opening of new arctic shipping routes Now you know Please explain why that is a security risk. Because warships will travel the same routes Doofy Aren't submarines warships? And haven't submarines been cruising under the ice for several decades? Surface ships are more of a threat, or warning, and hardly a surprise, everyone has eyes in the sky these days. Initial attacks usually come from the air, these days. Usually, not entirely by surprise. Bombers and missiles...
28-02-2021 02:00
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	HarveyH55 wrote: Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal... Yo doof, the security risk is the opening of new arctic shipping routes Now you know Please explain why that is a security risk. Because warships will travel the same routes Doofy Aren't submarines warships? And haven't submarines been cruising under the ice for several decades? Surface ships are more of a threat, or warning, and hardly a surprise, everyone has eyes in the sky these days. Initial attacks usually come from the air, these days. Usually, not entirely by surprise. Bombers and missiles... LOL you are clueless as a sub under sufficient ice can not launch it's nukes Surrender now
28-02-2021 03:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal... Yo doof, the security risk is the opening of new arctic shipping routes Now you know Please explain why that is a security risk. Because warships will travel the same routes Doofy Why is that a security risk? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-02-2021 03:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Swan wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal... Yo doof, the security risk is the opening of new arctic shipping routes Now you know Please explain why that is a security risk. Because warships will travel the same routes Doofy Aren't submarines warships? And haven't submarines been cruising under the ice for several decades? Surface ships are more of a threat, or warning, and hardly a surprise, everyone has eyes in the sky these days. Initial attacks usually come from the air, these days. Usually, not entirely by surprise. Bombers and missiles... LOL you are clueless as a sub under sufficient ice can not launch it's nukes Surrender now Why would a sub want to launch nukes in the Arctic?? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 28-02-2021 03:28

28-02-2021 03:42
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal... Yo doof, the security risk is the opening of new arctic shipping routes Now you know Please explain why that is a security risk. Because warships will travel the same routes Doofy Aren't submarines warships? And haven't submarines been cruising under the ice for several decades? Surface ships are more of a threat, or warning, and hardly a surprise, everyone has eyes in the sky these days. Initial attacks usually come from the air, these days. Usually, not entirely by surprise. Bombers and missiles... LOL you are clueless as a sub under sufficient ice can not launch it's nukes Surrender now Why would a sub want to launch nukes in the Arctic?? They will launch from where they are when the time comes, a melted arctic just makes the area to watch larger. A better question is why would they not want to launch from the arctic. https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/systemfiles/MASA6-1Eng%20(4)_Flake.pdf
28-02-2021 08:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Why would a sub want to launch nukes in the Arctic?? They will launch from where they are when the time comes, A sub will already be in position when the time comes. Swan wrote: a melted arctic just makes the area to watch larger. The arctic isn't melting. How are you watching subs??? Swan wrote: A better question is why would they not want to launch from the arctic. Too far away. Long missile flights are easier to intercept, and the ice is in the way. You said it yourself. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 28-02-2021 08:48
28-02-2021 14:37
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Why would a sub want to launch nukes in the Arctic?? They will launch from where they are when the time comes, A sub will already be in position when the time comes. Swan wrote: a melted arctic just makes the area to watch larger. The arctic isn't melting. How are you watching subs??? Swan wrote: A better question is why would they not want to launch from the arctic. Too far away. Long missile flights are easier to intercept, and the ice is in the way. You said it yourself. Duh how will every sub be in position when an attack happens. Again any sub that is under the ice will not be able to launch until after they exit the ice because even if they can surface thru the ice they will still have ice on the hull preventing launch. Which is why Ohio class ballistic missile subs both conventional and nuclear spend a lot less time under the ice than do attack subs that have a different mission Give up this is already over Edited on 28-02-2021 14:42
28-02-2021 16:20
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Swan wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Swan wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Wonder what the hell security risk they are avoiding to mention? Are they afraid somebody is going to leak the truth to the press? Far as I know, everything is shared openly, except for the fear monger date and computer models. Yes it does seem they're avoiding to mention the actual security risk. Wonder what the all the fuss us about? Must be some kind of a big deal... Never said anything about nukes. You were rambling about melted ice opening a new shipping lane to warships. Submarines don't need the ice to melt, to travel the same route, with the ice. Besides, what in the Arctic are they going to nuke? Polar bears, rooting through a trash dump? Norway? Yo doof, the security risk is the opening of new arctic shipping routes Now you know Please explain why that is a security risk. Because warships will travel the same routes Doofy Aren't submarines warships? And haven't submarines been cruising under the ice for several decades? Surface ships are more of a threat, or warning, and hardly a surprise, everyone has eyes in the sky these days. Initial attacks usually come from the air, these days. Usually, not entirely by surprise. Bombers and missiles... LOL you are clueless as a sub under sufficient ice can not launch it's nukes Surrender now
28-02-2021 16:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Why would a sub want to launch nukes in the Arctic?? They will launch from where they are when the time comes, A sub will already be in position when the time comes. Swan wrote: a melted arctic just makes the area to watch larger. The arctic isn't melting. How are you watching subs??? Swan wrote: A better question is why would they not want to launch from the arctic. Too far away. Long missile flights are easier to intercept, and the ice is in the way. You said it yourself. Duh how will every sub be in position when an attack happens. It's called 'planning'. Subs can move, you see. They have these things called 'engines'. Swan wrote: Again any sub that is under the ice will not be able to launch until after they exit the ice because even if they can surface thru the ice they will still have ice on the hull preventing launch. Which is why Ohio class ballistic missile subs both conventional and nuclear spend a lot less time under the ice than do attack subs that have a different mission It's better to launch closer to your target anyway. Glad you agree with me. Swan wrote: Give up this is already over Yeah. It's over. I can barely see you in the hole you dug for yourself. Stop digging. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-02-2021 19:14
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Here Swan. So you don't sound like a triggered loon posting from your padded cell, below is a global security review you can reference if this discussion ever comes up again. "The melting of the Arctic sea ice has coincided with the discovery of energy deposits as well as the development of the technology needed to access those resources. These developments have caused the members of the Arctic Council—states with territorial claims in the Arctic—to pay increased levels of attention to the region. The Arctic Council is made up of Canada, Finland, Denmark (Greenland), Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States (Alaska). Of these, Canada and Russia hold the most territory (Russia controls the most Arctic territory of any Arctic state). Being a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which states that a country's Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 nautical miles offshore, Russian claims cover approximately 40 percent of the Arctic. The Arctic plays host to substantial natural resources. A 2008 report released by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that the Arctic holds around 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 44 billion barrels of liquid natural gas, and 90 billion barrels of oil—the vast majority of these being offshore. As more territory becomes accessible, excess reserves of gold, zinc, nickel, and iron already found in part of the Arctic may be discovered. From the connectivity perspective, the two major sea routes that permit ships to pass through the Arctic run along the Russian and Canadian coasts, i.e., the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage... The Russian government's planned Murmansk Transport Hub will construct new roads, railway infrastructure, ports, and other facilities on the western side of the Kola Bay. It is described as one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Russia and by far the largest in the Arctic. There are also plans to upgrade the M18 highway between Murmansk and the Norwegian border. The new road will significantly improve the route between the border towns of Nikel, Russia and Kirkenes, Norway. The Sabetta Port project is a joint project undertaken by Novatek and the Russian Federal government to service the Yamal LNG project and a nearby gas field operated by Novatek. The port will facilitate gas shipments of both eastwards and westwards along the Northern Sea Route. Furthermore, the Russian government also plans to produce the LK-60 icebreaker and the LK-60 II icebreaker, which are required for cargo ships to access the NSR. The economic benefits of the Northern Sea Route, combined with large-scale Arctic infrastructure development projects and the existence of substantial energy resources of energy resources to be tapped, make the Arctic a lucrative prospect for Russia and the other Arctic states. However, the strategic desirability of the Arctic trade route will depend on many factors, including the continuous melting of ice, development of modern vessels to sustain harsh weather conditions, an upward trend in global trade, increased demand in Asian markets, persistent piracy around the Horn of Africa, growing instability in the countries around the Suez Canal region, and heightened congestion in the Strait of Malacca. All these factors will further contribute to the geostrategic importance of the Arctic as a natural resource and transportation hub. At the same time, however, the growing importance of the region may also lead to increased competition." https://globalsecurityreview.com/arctic-new-maritime-shipping-route/
28-02-2021 19:27
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	And some more security review... "In March 2020, the Kremlin published an Arctic decree, paving policy plans for the next fifteen years that focus on the industrialization of the region and its' military defense. Perhaps the most topical geopolitical approach in the decree is the importance of the Northern Sea Route (NSR). The NSR decreases the sailing time from China to Europe by 40% compared to traveling through the Suez Canal—making it a popular route for trade. With melting polar ice caps and increasing climate change, the NSR is also becoming more passable than ever. While Russia views the NSR as an internal waterway, most of the international community does not. This makes the decree's allotment of responsibility to Rosatom to limit traffic in the NSR from foreign warships without a 45-day notification a clear indication of Russia's claim in the region. Other states, such as the United States, do not agree with Russia's claim of sovereignty. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in 2019, "In the Northern Sea Route, Moscow already illegally demands that other nations request permission to pass, requires Russian maritime pilots to be aboard foreign ships, and threatens to use military force to sink any that fail to comply." Beyond the usage of the NSR waterway, Russia's military posture in the Arctic demonstrates a clear and present focus on the region for the foreseeable future. With the reopening of 50 previously closed Soviet-era military posts, Russia currently emphasizes early warning and defense as its military doctrine. To fulfill this doctrine, Russia has recently tested new capabilities, including hypersonic cruise missiles and nuclear-powered undersea drones. These new capabilities are supported by Russia's nuclear and non-nuclear icebreaker 40 ship fleet, which is the largest in the world." https://globalsecurityreview.com/russia-arctic-ambitions/ Edited on 28-02-2021 19:28
28-02-2021 21:51
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	So, Russia lay claim, to land and water, nobody wanted bad enough to fight over, because it was basically useless, and not cost effective to exploit. Global warmist, are now want to weasel in, because it shows promise, if the ice melts, and could be catastrophic, if Russia continues to burn fossil fuels, releasing the demonic CO2, destroying the planet in the process. I suppose it could be a security issue, since they plan to weaponize natural resources, an attack on global domination... I don't think Russia is buying into the global warming crap, or expecting the ice caps to melt. They are building better icebreaker ships, to open up the shipping lanes. Why shouldn't the control it, they are paying for it. They didn't put up a toll gate, yet... They are doing, what most countries had stopped doing decades ago, developing the tools and technology, to make use of what was once considered useless. Yeah Russia is a huge threat to the security of the global warming folks. When they can start extracting those natural resources, transport them cheap and freely, it's going to undermine the price hikes everywhere else, to force people into solar panels and windmills.
01-03-2021 03:46
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Why would a sub want to launch nukes in the Arctic?? They will launch from where they are when the time comes, A sub will already be in position when the time comes. Swan wrote: a melted arctic just makes the area to watch larger. The arctic isn't melting. How are you watching subs??? Swan wrote: A better question is why would they not want to launch from the arctic. Too far away. Long missile flights are easier to intercept, and the ice is in the way. You said it yourself. Duh how will every sub be in position when an attack happens. It's called 'planning'. Subs can move, you see. They have these things called 'engines'. Swan wrote: Again any sub that is under the ice will not be able to launch until after they exit the ice because even if they can surface thru the ice they will still have ice on the hull preventing launch. Which is why Ohio class ballistic missile subs both conventional and nuclear spend a lot less time under the ice than do attack subs that have a different mission It's better to launch closer to your target anyway. Glad you agree with me. Swan wrote: Give up this is already over Yeah. It's over. I can barely see you in the hole you dug for yourself. Stop digging. Yawn, the fact is that if the arctic melts significantly that new military options emerge, so if climate change does melt the arctic there will be changes needed. LOL, is it better for the Russians and Chinks to launch closer to us. Damn you are one dumb fool. Your brain only works in one gear, stupid
01-03-2021 07:56
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Why would a sub want to launch nukes in the Arctic?? They will launch from where they are when the time comes, A sub will already be in position when the time comes. Swan wrote: a melted arctic just makes the area to watch larger. The arctic isn't melting. How are you watching subs??? Swan wrote: A better question is why would they not want to launch from the arctic. Too far away. Long missile flights are easier to intercept, and the ice is in the way. You said it yourself. Duh how will every sub be in position when an attack happens. It's called 'planning'. Subs can move, you see. They have these things called 'engines'. Swan wrote: Again any sub that is under the ice will not be able to launch until after they exit the ice because even if they can surface thru the ice they will still have ice on the hull preventing launch. Which is why Ohio class ballistic missile subs both conventional and nuclear spend a lot less time under the ice than do attack subs that have a different mission It's better to launch closer to your target anyway. Glad you agree with me. Swan wrote: Give up this is already over Yeah. It's over. I can barely see you in the hole you dug for yourself. Stop digging. Yawn, the fact is that if the arctic melts significantly that new military options emerge, so if climate change does melt the arctic there will be changes needed. LOL, is it better for the Russians and Chinks to launch closer to us. Damn you are one dumb fool. Your brain only works in one gear, stupid Nobody uses nuclear weapons, because there will be retaliation, and consequences. No matter who gets attack, other nuclear nations, aren't going to be happy about it, and concerned they may be next.
01-03-2021 13:27
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	HarveyH55 wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Why would a sub want to launch nukes in the Arctic?? They will launch from where they are when the time comes, A sub will already be in position when the time comes. Swan wrote: a melted arctic just makes the area to watch larger. The arctic isn't melting. How are you watching subs??? Swan wrote: A better question is why would they not want to launch from the arctic. Too far away. Long missile flights are easier to intercept, and the ice is in the way. You said it yourself. Duh how will every sub be in position when an attack happens. It's called 'planning'. Subs can move, you see. They have these things called 'engines'. Swan wrote: Again any sub that is under the ice will not be able to launch until after they exit the ice because even if they can surface thru the ice they will still have ice on the hull preventing launch. Which is why Ohio class ballistic missile subs both conventional and nuclear spend a lot less time under the ice than do attack subs that have a different mission It's better to launch closer to your target anyway. Glad you agree with me. Swan wrote: Give up this is already over Yeah. It's over. I can barely see you in the hole you dug for yourself. Stop digging. Yawn, the fact is that if the arctic melts significantly that new military options emerge, so if climate change does melt the arctic there will be changes needed. LOL, is it better for the Russians and Chinks to launch closer to us. Damn you are one dumb fool. Your brain only works in one gear, stupid Nobody uses nuclear weapons, because there will be retaliation, and consequences. No matter who gets attack, other nuclear nations, aren't going to be happy about it, and concerned they may be next. Does not change the fact that if the ice melts that new shipping and launch places appear and that new far north arctic military bases will be needed
01-03-2021 15:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Swan wrote:Does not change the fact that if the ice melts that new shipping and launch places appear and that new far north arctic military bases will be needed I fail to see why the disappearance of ice would obligate the creation of additional military bases. All the bases that are needed are already in place. The Russians have their bases in Murmansk (starting point for the Kursk's final voyage) and NATO (including the US) conducts operations in Thule, Greenland. If the ice were to disappear due to some miraculous violation of physics, wouldn't we need private sector gas stations and convenience stores instead? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-03-2021 19:14
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Gas stations/convenience stores? Really? There are going to be workers out there. Their going to want bars, liquor stores, gambling houses, prostitutes... Maybe Kerry's stepson, and Hunter Biden can setup a scheme, like in the Ukraine. They have job experience, now...
01-03-2021 20:14
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Does not change the fact that if the ice melts that new shipping and launch places appear and that new far north arctic military bases will be needed I fail to see why the disappearance of ice would obligate the creation of additional military bases. All the bases that are needed are already in place. The Russians have their bases in Murmansk (starting point for the Kursk's final voyage) and NATO (including the US) conducts operations in Thule, Greenland. If the ice were to disappear due to some miraculous violation of physics, wouldn't we need private sector gas stations and convenience stores instead? . We would also need more satellite coverage of the north pole as well
01-03-2021 23:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Does not change the fact that if the ice melts that new shipping and launch places appear and that new far north arctic military bases will be needed I fail to see why the disappearance of ice would obligate the creation of additional military bases. All the bases that are needed are already in place. The Russians have their bases in Murmansk (starting point for the Kursk's final voyage) and NATO (including the US) conducts operations in Thule, Greenland. If the ice were to disappear due to some miraculous violation of physics, wouldn't we need private sector gas stations and convenience stores instead? . We would also need more satellite coverage of the north pole as well What makes you believe we don't already have more than enough? Do you know who is responsible for providing that coverage? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

01-03-2021 23:46
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Does not change the fact that if the ice melts that new shipping and launch places appear and that new far north arctic military bases will be needed I fail to see why the disappearance of ice would obligate the creation of additional military bases. All the bases that are needed are already in place. The Russians have their bases in Murmansk (starting point for the Kursk's final voyage) and NATO (including the US) conducts operations in Thule, Greenland. If the ice were to disappear due to some miraculous violation of physics, wouldn't we need private sector gas stations and convenience stores instead? . We would also need more satellite coverage of the north pole as well What makes you believe we don't already have more than enough? Do you know who is responsible for providing that coverage? . I think that there needs to be more satellite coverage over his glacial moraine farm.
02-03-2021 00:01
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Does not change the fact that if the ice melts that new shipping and launch places appear and that new far north arctic military bases will be needed I fail to see why the disappearance of ice would obligate the creation of additional military bases. All the bases that are needed are already in place. The Russians have their bases in Murmansk (starting point for the Kursk's final voyage) and NATO (including the US) conducts operations in Thule, Greenland. If the ice were to disappear due to some miraculous violation of physics, wouldn't we need private sector gas stations and convenience stores instead? . We would also need more satellite coverage of the north pole as well The north pole is already well monitored, and has been for decades. NORAD tracks Santa Clause every Christmas... Satellite images of the north pole, are only released in the summer, to show how much ice melted, if impressive. Hasn't supported global warming in a while, so no publicly released images. Who wants to look at icy north pole pictures anyway?
02-03-2021 00:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Does not change the fact that if the ice melts that new shipping and launch places appear and that new far north arctic military bases will be needed I fail to see why the disappearance of ice would obligate the creation of additional military bases. All the bases that are needed are already in place. The Russians have their bases in Murmansk (starting point for the Kursk's final voyage) and NATO (including the US) conducts operations in Thule, Greenland. If the ice were to disappear due to some miraculous violation of physics, wouldn't we need private sector gas stations and convenience stores instead? . We would also need more satellite coverage of the north pole as well What makes you believe we don't already have more than enough? Do you know who is responsible for providing that coverage? . I think that there needs to be more satellite coverage over his glacial moraine farm. Can't you already see it from Alaska? . Attached image:
02-03-2021 00:15
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Does not change the fact that if the ice melts that new shipping and launch places appear and that new far north arctic military bases will be needed I fail to see why the disappearance of ice would obligate the creation of additional military bases. All the bases that are needed are already in place. The Russians have their bases in Murmansk (starting point for the Kursk's final voyage) and NATO (including the US) conducts operations in Thule, Greenland. If the ice were to disappear due to some miraculous violation of physics, wouldn't we need private sector gas stations and convenience stores instead? . We would also need more satellite coverage of the north pole as well What makes you believe we don't already have more than enough? Do you know who is responsible for providing that coverage? . I think that there needs to be more satellite coverage over his glacial moraine farm. Can't you already see it from Alaska? . We've been able to see it from Alaska for 20,000 years now. DUH Jeeze. Yawn.
02-03-2021 00:40
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Does not change the fact that if the ice melts that new shipping and launch places appear and that new far north arctic military bases will be needed I fail to see why the disappearance of ice would obligate the creation of additional military bases. All the bases that are needed are already in place. The Russians have their bases in Murmansk (starting point for the Kursk's final voyage) and NATO (including the US) conducts operations in Thule, Greenland. If the ice were to disappear due to some miraculous violation of physics, wouldn't we need private sector gas stations and convenience stores instead? . We would also need more satellite coverage of the north pole as well Don't you guys know what the real issue with the Arctic starting to become accessible? It's the potential oil and mineral deposits. That's why Russia is increasing it's military presence there as well as other countries. With the US and any claims to mineral and oil rights, it's possible was just too slow to establish claims beyond Alaska.
02-03-2021 00:59
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Does not change the fact that if the ice melts that new shipping and launch places appear and that new far north arctic military bases will be needed I fail to see why the disappearance of ice would obligate the creation of additional military bases. All the bases that are needed are already in place. The Russians have their bases in Murmansk (starting point for the Kursk's final voyage) and NATO (including the US) conducts operations in Thule, Greenland. If the ice were to disappear due to some miraculous violation of physics, wouldn't we need private sector gas stations and convenience stores instead? . We would also need more satellite coverage of the north pole as well What makes you believe we don't already have more than enough? Do you know who is responsible for providing that coverage? . I think that there needs to be more satellite coverage over his glacial moraine farm. And my Apple orchards he he he Yawn
02-03-2021 01:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	gfm7175 wrote:We've been able to see it from Alaska for 20,000 years now. DUH Jeeze. Yawn. LOL You didn't buy Google stock. The ice age is energy. Heat is real. . Attached image:
02-03-2021 13:44
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:We've been able to see it from Alaska for 20,000 years now. DUH Jeeze. Yawn. LOL You didn't buy Google stock. The ice age is energy. Heat is real. . LOL tell us again that heat is not energy?
02-03-2021 16:33
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:We've been able to see it from Alaska for 20,000 years now. DUH Jeeze. Yawn. LOL You didn't buy Google stock. The ice age is energy. Heat is real. . I didn't buy Apple stock either. LOL he he he We use fossils for fuel. Watts and joules are interchangeable.
02-03-2021 16:35
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: [certificate of authenticity] Okay, now THAT was good!

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate 'Mutual suicide': US issues stark warning on climate change:

Threads	Replies	Last post
New York City suggests housing migrants in jail shuttered after Jeffrey Epstein's suicide	1	18-08-2023 18:14
Bill McKibben on how we might avert climate change suicide	0	28-04-2019 15:57
Western nations commit domination suicide	1	28-04-2019 03:09
EPA chief says water issues a bigger crisis than climate change	6	21-03-2019 21:01
The 'grandfather' of climate science leaves a final warning for Earth	3	04-03-2019 00:46