What's up with all these natural disasters?

[Boxer*Mom]

Also not eco-terroists

These companies are addressing global climate change through proactive and innovative measures including: setting targets for GHG emissions reductions; implementing innovative energy supply and demand solutions; improving waste management practices; participating in emissions trading; and investing in carbon sequestration opportunities and research.


ABB
Air Products
Alcoa
American Electric Power
Baxter International
Boeing
BP
California Portland Cement
CH2M Hill
Cinergy Corp.
Cummins Inc.
Deutsche Telekom
DTE Energy
DuPont
Entergy
Exelon
GE
Georgia-Pacific
Hewlett-Packard Company
Holcim
IBM
Intel
Interface Inc.
John Hancock Financial
Lockheed Martin
Maytag
Novartis
Ontario Power Generation
PG&E Corporation
Rio Tinto
Rohm and Haas
Royal Dutch/Shell
SC Johnson
Sunoco
Toyota
TransAlta
United Technologies
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool
Wisconsin Energy

 

[Puckstop31]

The international response to climate change was launched in 1992, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, with the signing of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Convention established a long-term objective of stabilizing greenhouse concentrations in the atmosphere “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” It also set a voluntary goal of reducing emissions from developed counties to 1990 levels by 2000 – a goal that most did not meet. Recognizing that stronger action was needed, countries negotiated the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which sets binding targets to reduce emissions 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

With entry into force, Kyoto’s emission targets become binding legal commitments for those industrialized countries that have ratified it (the United States and Australia have not). Also, the market-based mechanisms established under Kyoto, including international emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism, will become fully operational.

Ahhhh Kyoto... Sure it is Eco-Terrorism. It is designed to SCARE people into thinking that if we stop burning fossil fuels, everything will be better.

A quote from a dissertation I read on the topic.

"International efforts like the Kyoto protocol, have been aimed at stopping climate change by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by industry.

But those efforts don't take into account carbon trapped in soil, about 300 times the amount released each year by burning fossil fuels.

In a separate article published alongside the paper in Nature, scientists from Germany's Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry said the carbon released from British soil wiped out the gains made by cutting its industrial emissions.

"These losses thus completely offset the past technological achievements in reducing CO2 emissions, putting the United Kingdom's success in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in a different light," Detlef Schulze and Annette Freibauer wrote.
"An effective climate policy will require a more comprehensive approach," they wrote. "The scientific and political implications of the new findings are considerable."

Kyoto is a good idea I guess, but impossible to implement fully. The economic damage would be too great. And we all know how people feel about things, until it hits them where it counts.

Again, what humans do certainly effects things but WE are NOT the main cause of the problem. Driving your SUV, will NOT kill a tree. (Hey, that rhymes!) I read that the Mount Saint Helens eruption many years ago, released more greenhouse gases than the previous 20 YEARS of human influence, GLOBALLY.

 

[Boxer*Mom]

The growing scientific consensus is that this warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation.

The longer warming persists and the greater its magnitude, the greater the risk of climate “surprises” such as abrupt or catastrophic changes in the global climate. (we know what those were of late)

Even if we are able to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, some further warming is unavoidable. We must plan and take action now to adapt to the changes we will face as our climate changes.

 

[Puckstop31]

These companies are addressing global climate change through proactive and innovative measures including: setting targets for GHG emissions reductions; implementing innovative energy supply and demand solutions; improving waste management practices; participating in emissions trading; and investing in carbon sequestration opportunities and research.


ABB
Air Products
Alcoa
American Electric Power
Baxter International
Boeing
BP
California Portland Cement
CH2M Hill
Cinergy Corp.
Cummins Inc.
Deutsche Telekom
DTE Energy
DuPont
Entergy
Exelon
GE
Georgia-Pacific
Hewlett-Packard Company
Holcim
IBM
Intel
Interface Inc.
John Hancock Financial
Lockheed Martin
Maytag
Novartis
Ontario Power Generation
PG&E Corporation
Rio Tinto
Rohm and Haas
Royal Dutch/Shell
SC Johnson
Sunoco
Toyota
TransAlta
United Technologies
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool
Wisconsin Energy

Good for them, they are wasting time and money trying to appease liberal politicians.

Why let those meddelsome facts get in the way of the lefts grandly crafted delusions?

 

[Puckstop31]

The growing scientific consensus is that this warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation.

Here is where we step DEEP into it. There is even GREATER evidence (I have provided some) that WE have LITTLE to do with it. The reason we do not hear about it is because the "scientific" community would have to admit they were wrong. Science, can be just as much a religious experience as when I go to church.

How about you provide some reference material and not give blanket statements like "the growing scientific consensus...".

Even if we are able to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, some further warming is unavoidable. We must plan and take action now to adapt to the changes we will face as our climate changes.

How? Are you willing to stop having electricty? You car? Plastic? Abundant food? Etc......

Show me an energy alternative that WORKS.

 

[Boxer*Mom]

some reference material

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
http://unfccc.int/

United Nations Environment Program
http://grida.no/climate/

United States Department of Energy
http://www.energy.gov/

United States Department of State
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate

United States Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

United States National Assessment
http://www.gcrio.org/NationalAssessment/

The United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
http://www.usgcrp.gov

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov

Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research
http://www.rivm.nl/en/milieu/

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
http://www.iiasa.ac.at

International Energy Agency, Greenhouse Gas Programme
http://www.ieagreen.org.uk

 

[Puckstop31]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
http://unfccc.int/

United Nations Environment Program
http://grida.no/climate/

United States Department of Energy
http://www.energy.gov/

United States Department of State
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate

United States Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

United States National Assessment
http://www.gcrio.org/NationalAssessment/

The United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
http://www.usgcrp.gov

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov

Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research
http://www.rivm.nl/en/milieu/

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
http://www.iiasa.ac.at

International Energy Agency, Greenhouse Gas Programme
http://www.ieagreen.org.uk

I know the hype... I know the consensus.

Climate change is FACT. Mans influence upon it is minimal. Nothing WE do will stop it.

How about you give me your analysis of all these links? Anybody can google.

 

[Puckstop31]

BTW, I like you Boxer-Mom. You are good at this.

Also, forget about what I said about "analysis". You already did that. Let me digest this a bit and I will get back to it.

 

[Boxer*Mom]

ok forgotten.

yeah i like debating with you as well. i don't know why orion and shredhead didn't.

just off the top of my head alt. energy sources...solar, wind, hydro

 

[Boxer*Mom]

oh and hydrogen energy

 

[Puckstop31]

ok forgotten.

yeah i like debating with you as well. i don't know why orion and shredhead didn't.

just off the top of my head alt. energy sources...solar, wind, hydro

I have to go soon, but wanted to get a little more in.... Stupid job. LOL

Solar, Wind, Hydo and Hrdogen are all, of course, alternate energy sources. What I asked for are viable alternate energy sources.

Solar - MUCH to expensive to harness on a scale big enought to make a difference.

Wind - Same as solar, plus I saw a report that those big wind thingys kill birds.

Hydro - ENVIRONMENTALISTS whine about migrating fish when we want to build a dam.

Hydrogen - NOW we are on to something. Only, how do we 'remove' the oil companies from the mix????

How about Nuclear? It is CLEAN, and CHEAP. Also, it is safer (yes, safer) than any other energy source. Sure, the waste is hazardous for a long time, but it is MUCH smaller quantity's than fossil fuel waste and is easy to dispose of in a controlled environment. Also, that waste has a lot of commercial uses. Uranium is the most dense material commonly available to man. I think it is 92 or 93 on the periodic table.

The environmental lobby holds back progress more than anything else in the world, yet they call themselves "progressives". Funny, eh? I would say that 75% of their tactics are FEAR based and without substance, but the media cares little about fact.

I would like to add that I am NOT against clean air and clean water. I love a walk in the woods as much as anyone. I just want some SENSE.

 

[shredhead (DOG LOVER)]

I mean that, it is important to me. I am NOT a troll, just looking for a fight.

Now, to the good stuff...

I never called you a troll.

Ok i dont know where were at on this. Can someone clue me in?

 

[shredhead (DOG LOVER)]

How about Nuclear? It is CLEAN, and CHEAP. Also, it is safer (yes, safer) than any other energy source. Sure, the waste is hazardous for a long time, but it is MUCH smaller quantity's than fossil fuel waste and is easy to dispose of in a controlled environment. Also, that waste has a lot of commercial uses. Uranium is the most dense material commonly available to man. I think it is 92 or 93 on the periodic table.

Yes but heres the thing. Do we ever really use that waste? I haven't looked into the subject but heres what I know about these wastes. We've been dumping it into mountain, landfills and such. Also theres problems with the transportation issues. In Nevada , we have Yucca Mountain, and thats where were the government plans to store a lot of radioactive waste. The problem is that if the trucks transporting these wastes happens to get into an accident and one of these waste barrels happens to get damaged. It could lead to undesired radiation. What do you think should be done?

I mean, whats going on with these. We have radioactive lobsters in the Irish Sea already (i dont know what the point in this comment is). Switching to nuclear power would probably be safer but what to do with the wastes wouldn't. The world already has enough nuclear waste that we dont know what to do with it. I know a U.S company , not sure the name, was trying to create a waste facility at the Marshall Islands. In a new conference, UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher said that Britain might have to dump radioactive pollution stockpiled at its Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant into the Irish Sea after 2006 as tanks storing the waste age and may become unsafe. He said the government was researching ways to store the waste permanently onland but if this was not successful, then the radioactive liquid technetium-99 kept in offshore tanks may be dumped in the sea. "If the tanks can't take it beyond 2006, then we might have to look at an alternative solution... to discharge (their contents) into the Irish Sea quickly," Meacher told a news conference. This can't be good for the enviroment which is probably what has Green Peace so uptight.

 

[shredhead (DOG LOVER)]

ok forgotten.

yeah i like debating with you as well. i don't know why orion and shredhead didn't.

just off the top of my head alt. energy sources...solar, wind, hydro

I'd love it, we just hadn't started yet. The previous posts were more of a "lets get to dislike each other before we argue so one of us will be shot with the truth" thing. Ok lets get this started.

 

[shredhead (DOG LOVER)]

This is sort of off topic but I want to ask what you know about Chem trails, I haven't been able to find any useful information about it.

 

[Puckstop31]

I never called you a troll.

Ok i dont know where were at on this. Can someone clue me in?

I know, I was just trying to make sure that people do not take what I say as such.

I think this is winding down...

 

[Boxer*Mom]

This is sort of off topic but I want to ask what you know about Chem trails, I haven't been able to find any useful information about it.

here are a few links i haven't looked over all of them so look at them at your own risk.

http://www.tap.bnl.gov/
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap15/v3c15-1.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story/12342
http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/1997/2/weather_wars/
http://www.skyhighway.com/~chemtrails/lab_tests_and_effects.html
http://www.chemtrailpatrol.com/ (some great photos of chemtrails)
http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/smoking_gun.html
http://www.bariumblues.com/energy_display_ series.htm
http://www.intel123.com/chemtrails/
http://www.workingtv.com/chemtrails.html
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/chuss/haarp.htm
http://www.willthomas.net/
http://lookupabove.tripod.com/chemtrailsoveramerica/index.html
http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=325&projectId=4
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001992.html
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html
http://www.misu.su.se/~alberts/CM.html
http://www.sunshine-project.org/incapacitants/jnlwdpdf/index.html
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BAB408B.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0,2763,1324052,00.html
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Chemtrails/Dyn-O-Gel.html

Patent for chemspray device http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Chemtrails/Hughes.html
http://users.ev1.net/~seektress/patlist.htm
http://fasttrack.janes.com/janesdata/ft/1817/1818/1819/1847/1848/index.html

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html
http://www.americanholocaust.50megs.com/US_Weather_Control.htm
http://www.jerryesmith.com/books/
http://www.stop-chemtrails.com/
http://www.libertythink.com/2003_12_07_archives.html#107118471657285100
http://www.rense.com/general28/haarp.htm
http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/news/jun03/news_063003_001.shtml



Affects on bird, animal and fish populations.
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/whealth/issues/CWD/
http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/tox/profiles/barium_f_V1.shtml#te Effects of barium salts on people
http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/02_1now/020117a.html
http://www.billingsgazette.com/inde.../2003/12/27/build/wyoming/50-wstnile-hawk.inc
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1487-2004Jan31

 

[Puckstop31]

Yes but heres the thing. Do we ever really use that waste?

Yes we do. For one, it is used to make Main Gun ammunition for M1A1/A2 tanks. The kind of round we use to shoot other tanks, has no explosive in it at all. All it is, is a 27mm x 75cm long dart, made of depleted uranium. It is, by far, the best anti-tank ammunition in the world. Also, two large slabs of DU are in the armor system of the M1 series tanks. All of this DU is well contained in the vehicle and there is ZERO crew exposure to raditation. I know becuawe we had to do a geiger test once a month.

There are also many civilian applications for it as well.

I haven't looked into the subject but heres what I know about these wastes. We've been dumping it into mountain, landfills and such. Also theres problems with the transportation issues. In Nevada , we have Yucca Mountain, and thats where were the government plans to store a lot of radioactive waste. The problem is that if the trucks transporting these wastes happens to get into an accident and one of these waste barrels happens to get damaged. It could lead to undesired radiation. What do you think should be done?

We can 'what if' until we are blue in the face. The fact is, the waste is relativley easy to handle and easy to dispose of. Yes, there are issues with transportation, but I saw a Discovery Channel thing about the container they use to transport it. It would be VERY hard to breach the container. Well within a appropriate risk level.

Nuclear Energy is viable, relatively cheap and clean. It produces more power per pound of fuel, by FAR, than fossil fuels. It is also MUCH safer than a fossil plant. I know because my father has worked in Nuclear Energy his entire civilian career. A LOT of things would have to go wrong, in sequence for a meltdown to occur.

Finally, building more Nuke plants would help ease our dependance on foreign fossil fuel supplies.

 

[Puckstop31]

I'd love it, we just hadn't started yet. The previous posts were more of a "lets get to dislike each other before we argue so one of us will be shot with the truth" thing. Ok lets get this started.

Dislike? Far from it. If nothing else, this helps me get through my days... It has been slow here for the past few days, but is changing today.

But, FWIW, we all believe that the Globe is warming. We just disagree as to why and I think we also disagree if we can actually do anything about it.

 

[Boxer*Mom]

Just noticed a little funny. Your quote in your sig is by Homer who works at a nuclear plant.