• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

So Global warming is a good thing - Pompeo

Stopsignhank

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2014
1,659
515
136
What a jackass
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday praised the Arctic region -- and its rapidly shrinking levels of sea ice -- for its economic opportunities, despite continued warnings about the catastrophic effects of climate change."The Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance," Pompeo said in remarks in Rovaniemi, Finland. "It houses 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil, 30 percent of its undiscovered gas, an abundance of uranium, rare earth minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources, fisheries galore."
"Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade," he continued. "This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days."
"Arctic sea lanes could become the 21st century Suez and Panama Canals," Pompeo remarked
Just when you think they can't get any dumber they prove you wrong.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
28,662
2,478
126
To be fair, no one has suggested that we can entirely reverse the sea ice loss. Even if all global CO2 emissions stopped tomorrow, we'd still need to reduce atmospheric concentrations back down to 300-325ppm. Even then, I am not aware of any studies to suggest what that would look like, what sort of rate of cooling or restoration of sea ice that could accomplish. Time scale is probably a factor, it could easily remain ice free for centuries.

And let's face it. Emissions are not stopping tomorrow. CO2 is rising faster than ever. Fact is the Arctic will be open for as long as we live, and easily for as long as our grandchildren live.

A practical person will utilize the opportunities and access to resources there. Which says nothing of the greater issue or our need to stop CO2. Now, this is a Republican administration. We already know their stance on Climate Change. It is not a surprise or even news worthy that they wouldn't care. But this particular quote you've given us is quite benign even for them.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
32,003
5,226
126
To be fair, no one has suggested that we can entirely reverse the sea ice loss. Even if all global CO2 emissions stopped tomorrow, we'd still need to reduce atmospheric concentrations back down to 300-325ppm. Even then, I am not aware of any studies to suggest what that would look like, what sort of rate of cooling or restoration of sea ice that could accomplish. Time scale is probably a factor, it could easily remain ice free for centuries.

And let's face it. Emissions are not stopping tomorrow. CO2 is rising faster than ever. Fact is the Arctic will be open for as long as we live, and easily for as long as our grandchildren live.

A practical person will utilize the opportunities and access to resources there. Which says nothing of the greater issue or our need to stop CO2. Now, this is a Republican administration. We already know their stance on Climate Change. It is not a surprise or even news worthy that they wouldn't care. But this particular quote you've given us is quite benign even for them.
Maybe leaving the carbon resources in the Arctic in the ground would be a good start instead of salivating at the access. It's almost like being happy there is a war because it would increase supplies of Soylent Green.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
28,662
2,478
126
Maybe leaving the carbon resources in the Arctic in the ground would be a good start instead of salivating at the access.
Open waters means a hell of a lot more than fuel resources.

From the quote: "...an abundance of uranium, rare earth minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources, fisheries galore."
"Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade," he continued. "This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days."
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
28,662
2,478
126
Yup, hopefully we can fish it out as fast as possible. Need to start pumping plastic bottles up there as well, the Pacific has a huge head start.
We need to have one hell of a long discussion if you want to broaden this topic past Global Warming and instead address a clean and sustainable environment. You'll need to care enough to do things, such as limiting the number of people in this country. Last I checked, Democrats are fully onboard as we march headlong towards a population of 400million, and all the additional resource consumption to match.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
10,840
774
126
We need to have one hell of a long discussion if you want to broaden this topic past Global Warming and instead address a clean and sustainable environment. You'll need to care enough to do things, such as limiting the number of people in this country. Last I checked, Democrats are fully onboard as we march headlong towards a population of 400million, and all the additional resource consumption to match.
Ah I see, so those altruistic Repubs are only really concerned about the environmental impact when they talk about immigrants...totally missed that, thanks for the clarification.

Being FOR immigration doesn't mean being AGAINST the environment.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
24,802
1,173
126
What a jackass


Just when you think they can't get any dumber they prove you wrong.
He comes off as the ultimate fat-ass capitalist pig shill sell-out. The planet is in the throes of a cataclysm and all he can do is tout the opportunities to make $$$. Oh boy. He really is Trump's boy.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
28,662
2,478
126
Being FOR immigration doesn't mean being AGAINST the environment.
Immigration has increased the United States population by 50 million since the year 2000.
20 years, 50 million people. Anyone who cares about the environment knows that needs to END. Not continue unabated.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
3,633
2,312
136
Wait a minute?...I thought climate change is a hoax by the Chinese! Nothing is happening!!!

Next up: The sinking of Florida presents 'new' opportunities for additional ports in Georgia and Alabama!

It's always about the next grift. No suckers left behind.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,471
3,944
126
Open waters means a hell of a lot more than fuel resources.

From the quote: "...an abundance of uranium, rare earth minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources, fisheries galore."
"Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade," he continued. "This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days."
A good reason to burn the planet to the ground in terms of the environment. Think of the money!
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
6,395
355
126
Wait a minute?...I thought climate change is a hoax by the Chinese! Nothing is happening!!!

Next up: The sinking of Florida presents 'new' opportunities for additional ports in Georgia and Alabama!

It's always about the next grift. No suckers left behind.


They're admitting it without admitting it. ;)
 

nakedfrog

Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
49,388
2,287
126
Immigration has increased the United States population by 50 million since the year 2000.
20 years, 50 million people. Anyone who cares about the environment knows that needs to END. Not continue unabated.
US population was 280 million in 1999, currently 330 million. You're telling me 100% of our population growth is due to immigration?
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,278
1,875
136
US population was 280 million in 1999, currently 330 million. You're telling me 100% of our population growth is due to immigration?
I don't think he knows about Octomom or this woman I know who has 7 kids by different guys. Walking baby factories!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Majes

Golden Member
Apr 8, 2008
1,122
111
106
There are undoubtedly some good consequences of raising the global temperature a degree or two. What has near zero positive consequences would be run away warming which is what this carbon saturation is supposed to entail.

You're wrong if you think people won't or shouldn't take advantage of a new climate.
 

nakedfrog

Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
49,388
2,287
126
There are undoubtedly some good consequences of raising the global temperature a degree or two. What has near zero positive consequences would be run away warming which is what this carbon saturation is supposed to entail.

You're wrong if you think people won't or shouldn't take advantage of a new climate.
Those increased severe weather events are great for everyone!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY