It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature [Archive] - Page 26

stuart_allsop

02-13-2005, 12:51 PM

Well, I read the article and it said there were already other gas detectors in place and various other organizations were already "on top of it." It's not that I don't want people to be safe in that kind of situation it just seemed to me that it was overkill and not necessary. Did you read the article? Should I reread it? I'll admit my interpretation was wrong if I can find the article again and find my mistake.

And I wonder just how safe perfluorocarbons really are as well. Won't everything depend on the wind at the time of the biologic attack, if it ever occurs? Any change in winds would bring another scenario. Even cross winds would influence the dispersion direction and rate and suddenly changing winds would again affect the scenario. I just don't see how the study would help anything much more than they already have prepared. If something is released, EVERY citizen must beware, not just a couple of blocks of citizens. It's too risky to simply isolate some chemical that's airborne. That's just my take on it. Once the recognition of the substance is recorded --- ALL people in the city should go into protective mode.

Maybe I'm short sighted here.

Thanks for seeking to understand me.

BC ;)

Yaak and Boomer: I think you are both missing the point with this research. It's point is not to detect biological poisons in the air. Not in the least. The point is is understand how air moves through cites. It doesn't matter which direction the wind comes from, or how strong it is: That's what the study is designed to do: To help scientists understand how eind speed and direction affect the flow of air thourgh a city. Why is that important: Obviously, it is vital for getting the warning out ASAP. For example, if a terrorist explodes a dirty bomb, the authorities will know about it pretty quick (bombs make big noises, after all!) If the cops, firemen, etc. already have computer models of how air moves through cities, and they know where teh bomb went off, then within minutes they can now exactly which areas to evacuate BEFORE the cloud of radiation gets there, and which areas to send out decontamiation crews to because it's already too late to warn them. They know which hospitals to warn that they'll be getting casualites with radiation poisoning, where to send ambulances and medical teams, and every other predictable precaution and reaction that can possibly be taken.

That's what this study will help to do.

Yes, there may already be sensors all around the ciry to let the authorites now that something is wrong, but unless they understand the airflow, that won't help much. It will only tell them where the problem has already got to: it wont tell them where it is going next.

Sure, 35 sensors in one city is not enough to build a universial model on, but it's a start. I would imagine (and hope!) that if this series of experiments gives tehm useful data, to build a basic model with, that it will then be expanded to other cities in order to validatye and refine the model.

That's why I think it's important.

Boomer Chick

02-13-2005, 01:31 PM

BC what do you think Footsoldier should do in the face of Raynolds' relentless hammering on the other thread?

Answer his questions, ignore them, totally ignore them (by ignore-listing), abandon the thread (and the forum) ????

What would your advice be?

By the way, the offer I made of organizing a roster system so that we can take it in turns to monitor Raynolds, is one that still stands.

We can try to organize a joint approach. Or you can continue as referee and I will go back to ignore-listing him.

Actually FS is just posting away with no regard to Reynolds, apparently. She might have him ignore listed, but she doesn't have to announce it. I highly respect her for that.

I don't feel I have to monitor anyone at this point, Halva. Sorry. Why haven't you responded in any way to the climate engineering posts I posted today? I thought those were rather valuable for you, but it seems once again, the social aspects instead of the big picture here, take your attention.

Do you care about international climate-study-and-solutions cooperation or don't you? Good evening!

BC

Boomer Chick

02-13-2005, 01:45 PM

Yaak and Boomer: I think you are both missing the point with this research. It's point is not to detect biological poisons in the air. Not in the least. The point is is understand how air moves through cites. It doesn't matter which direction the wind comes from, or how strong it is: That's what the study is designed to do: To help scientists understand how eind speed and direction affect the flow of air thourgh a city. Why is that important: Obviously, it is vital for getting the warning out ASAP. For example, if a terrorist explodes a dirty bomb, the authorities will know about it pretty quick (bombs make big noises, after all!) If the cops, firemen, etc. already have computer models of how air moves through cities, and they know where teh bomb went off, then within minutes they can now exactly which areas to evacuate BEFORE the cloud of radiation gets there, and which areas to send out decontamiation crews to because it's already too late to warn them. They know which hospitals to warn that they'll be getting casualites with radiation poisoning, where to send ambulances and medical teams, and every other predictable precaution and reaction that can possibly be taken.

That's what this study will help to do.

Yes, there may already be sensors all around the ciry to let the authorites now that something is wrong, but unless they understand the airflow, that won't help much. It will only tell them where the problem has already got to: it wont tell them where it is going next.

Sure, 35 sensors in one city is not enough to build a universial model on, but it's a start. I would imagine (and hope!) that if this series of experiments gives tehm useful data, to build a basic model with, that it will then be expanded to other cities in order to validatye and refine the model.

That's why I think it's important.

Excellent response, Stu. If the winds are predictable on that day and all the parameters of the crosswinds and all are in the computer, and the location of the "bomb" or "point of release" is known, then that would aid the haz squads much better. I do agree with that. But from the point of view of the citizen, my recommendations stand as the best way to eleminate confusion and disorder. If the attack is from the air, wind knowledge would help in terms of warning nearby cities, that's for sure. If they could indeed configure other cities with respect to their structures from that model, that would be good, too.

If there is an impact, say, with a dirty bomb, the squads and firemen/paramedics should have gas masks handy for all the injured, too, and a quick set up for decontamination.

Guess there are many layers to consider. Thanks for pointing that out.

For the citizen, though, the lock down, building-centered response (if not in the direct dirty bomb hit area of course) would be the best. Jay mentioned moving people out and I had to disagree with that. It would be a mess to be sure, especially in New York City where it's already a highly congested traffic situation.

Your considerations were excellent and much depends on the kind of attack.

BC

stuart_allsop

02-13-2005, 02:39 PM

GAWD, Stuart! I gave you enough links to look up cold fusion and its genesis and development. It's not a hoax. Sorry, but it's not. I already gave you the links as a start and somehow I knew you were going to question that. That's why I posted the links. I am not qualified to prove the theory to you. All I know is, it's been developed through private funding and it is viable.

It is one of the examples of suppression I gave you. It is real.

As an example of legislative wrangling in favor of the energy companies and to the detriment of the people:

Energy companies write weaker environmental restrictions into bill: FYI !

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/050210.asp

BC 8)Boomer, you didn;t need to give me the links: I'm well aware of the cold fusion hoaxes and scams from the 80's and 90's. But I did read them anyway, to see if there was something new: there isn't.

Sorry, BC, but once again you are letting your imagination run away with you, from lack of understanding of the underlying physics: Cold fusion IS a hoax. Yes, private investors have sunk money into it, but no, they did not get results. Japan dropped their funding a couple of years ago after they invested something like US$ 25 million and got negative results. So did the University of Utah. Princeton too. CALTECH. MIT. Etc....

The problem is not that the research was "supressed" as you claim, but rather simply that it doesn't work. The physics behind fusion SAYS that i cannot work. At least, not in the way that the "Stan and Marty Show" wanted you to belive, nor in the way that the kitchen researchers want you to believe.

Now don't get me wrong: In theory, cold fusion actually might be possible. It is not ruled out by physics. But in practice, you most certainly can't do it in you kitchen with an ultrasonic jewelry cleaner!!! For a start, if you DID manage to do it in your kitchen, even on a tiny scale, just getting a 1% or 2% of excess power out, the huge quantity of neutrinos that would be release at the same time would kill you within a couple of minutes. The very fact that Pons, Fleischmann, and all of these "kitchen fusion researchers" are still alive is a dead certain indicator that they did NOT achieve cold fusion! If they had, they would be dead.

It doesn't work.

Sorry.

Here are three REAL scientific articles about it for you. First from Princeton: "Cold Fusion: Fact or Fiction?"

http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2002/spring/Fusion/tour2/coldfusion2.html

Next from a physicist: "Ask A Scientist: Cold Fusion"

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99018.htm

Third from the mainstream press (Wired News): " Cold Fusion Patents Run Out of Steam "

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,11179,00.html

Sorry, boomer, but all the links you gave are to the same type of fringe kooks that think Bearden's MEG works just fine (even though none of them has managed to build a replica that works); that Einstein was wrong: and that it is possible to harness ZPG. It's all pseudoscience and technobabble, Boomer, but there is no real sound, solid science behind it. It looks good on paper, but in practice it does't work.

Have you noticed something VERY strange about all of these perpetual motion machines? All of their inventors claim to have a working protytpe, but they never let any REAL scientists inspect it, citing a million reasons why they can't do that.... All of them claim to be "really close" to having a commercially available model ready for the shelves at your local Home Depot..... yet they never do .... And they all say that the ONLY thing they need in order to do that, is more money ... and more money ... and more money... and..... You get the picture: they want your money, or the Government's money (whic is your money anyway)... They blame everone else for their failures, but they NEVER accept responsibility themselves for their failures. It is ALWAYS because "the Government" or "Industry" or some competitor or other anonymous authority has done something to prevent them from succeeding. It is NEVER because there are scientific or engineering or manufacturing hurdle that still have to be overcome. Thye never do say exactly WHAT the additional funding is needed for: just that they need it to fight off the 800 pund gorilla with the label "Government" or "Big Oil" or "Detroit" around it's neck.

The excuse is always the same for these folks: It is always somebody elses fault, never their own.

In stark contrast. REAL researchers in REAL labs and REAL companies always seem to be having trouble with the engineering, or the science, or the manufacturing, or the marketing, and NEVER with anybody else. Take a look at any big company that has announced some kind of worthwhile breakthrough: Even after the basic science is proved, It takes them years to get their product to market, because of the above issues: engineering, marketing, manufacturing, etc. For example, IBM already has computer chips that are a hundred times faster than anything on the market today. They work in the lab, and they can demonstrate them to you any time you want. But you can't buy them in CompUSA yet, because there are some MAJOR hurdles to overcome first, such as figuring out a way to make them with a price tage of anything less than US$ 5 million per chip... plus incompatibilites with current software and operating systems ... plus the cryogenic colling system that they ned...But you don't see IBM claiming that the GOVERNMENT is stopping them from selling their new chips, or that Intel is supressing them.

Same with fuel cell technology: It's a very promising alternative for cars, houses, communities, boats, whatever... but there are some very real problems that need to be overcome, such as in how to store, pump and handle the fuel, which is liquid hydrgoen at a temperature of about 400 degrees below zero, and a pressure at several dozen times atmospheric pressure. Yes, tehre wre working protytpe cars that run on hydrogen and fuel cells, and no they are not being supressed by industry or the Big Bad Govt. Rather, they are still being perfected and refined, because a leak in a liquid hydrogen fuel tank is going to make Hollywood car explosions look like a ten cent fire cracker.... If a liquid hydrogen tank ruptures, you have a MAJOR explosion on your hands... Remember the space shuttle Challenger? That is EXACTLY what would happen if the hydrogen tank in a fuel-cell car were to rupture. The issue with fuel-cell vehicles is not that they are being supressed: it is how to make them safe, efficent and cheap: Right now, you can choose any two of "safe, efficent, cheap", but you cannot get all three.

Same with solar power: Nobdy is supressing it: everybody agrees taht it is THE best form of alternative energy. Bu the science and technology just isn't there to make solar cells that are 70% to 80% efficient at just a few dozens of dolalrs per square meter, whcih is what is needed. Right now you can get cells taht are 10% to 15% efficeint at a few hundred dollares per sqaure meter, or 20% to 25% effcient at a few thousand dollars per square meter: Not good enough. Not supressed: Just basic science problems.

The problem with the REAL alternative energy research is not that it is being supressed: Rather, it is that there are very real scientific, engineering, manufacturing and marketing issues that need to be resolved. And if you look into it, you'll find that the "Big Oil" bogey masn is not trying to kill it: On the contrary, the Big Oil companies are INVESTING HEAVILY in it, driving it, and pushing the scientists, engineers, etc. to make it work. Why would they do that? Because the FIRST oil company to achieve a working alternative energy source is going to have a HUGE advantage over its competitors, and they'll be able to make LOTS of money out of it. IN short, they'll have the best of both worlds: Oil while it lasts, and also alternative energy.

Just think about this for a bit, Boomer. Why is it that the alternative energy "researchers" can NEVER produce a working prototype that is good enough for scientists to inspect? Why is it that no scientists have been able to duplicate their claims, even in the most sophisticated labs? Why is it that the ONLY barier that they claim to have is supression by some mysterious authority ot other?

But most important of all, in the specific case of cold fusion: Why is it that all these researchers who haved claimed success in their kitcehn labs are still alive, when in fact they should have died within minutes from the intense neutrino radiation if they had, in fact, achieved cold fusion?

stuart_allsop

02-13-2005, 02:40 PM

I would concur----cold fusion does work.

The hang ups are the surface qualities of the absorber metals----the nano-surface properties.

IMHO,
is
Define "nano-surface properties". And define the current "hang ups".

Prediction: You wont.

stuart_allsop

02-13-2005, 02:45 PM

I shall write it up in a simple form that all can understand,
Not necessary. Just show us the balanced chemical equations, that's all. No text explanations. Just the plain old chemical equation that any scientist can understand at a glance, with a simple table of the molecualr sizes and weights.

Prediction: You won't. Because you don't know enough chemistry to do it.

In stead, you will flaome Jay and myslef, and try extremely hard to wriggle out from this by all measn possible, but you will NOT post the balanced chemcial equation. Because you can't.

Ladies and getlemen, place your bets....

stuart_allsop

02-13-2005, 02:50 PM

Wouldn't a more prudent situation involve an overall communication to the people on what to do and where to go in the event of the disaster? And how are you going to do that if you don't understand how wind patterns work in cities? How will you know which parts are safe and which are not? For example: Is it better to move people down wide north-south roads between tall skyscrapers if the wind is blowing from the east or from the west? Or is that a bad idea? Are wide streets safer than narrow streets? Do tall buildings provide protection, or does the wind turbulence around them cause fallout? Should you tell people to head for the lowest floor of the basement parking lots, or would it be safer on the top floors of the tallest buildings?

These are the kinds of questions that a good computer model of airflow in cities would tell you.

stuart_allsop

02-13-2005, 02:58 PM

... if she wants to continue in the task she has embarked on here she has to become better than she is now and better than the rest of us.Hate to tell ya Halva old bean, but I think she already is... Notice how she doesn't resort to mud-slinging like we do? IT takes a lot to get her madt. Not even you have managed, despite you heaping on your very best and most disgusting KKK "I hate women, jews and blacks" crap ever since she arrived. In fact, it seems pretty obvious that she is REALLY getting unders your skin by her manner and keeping her cool, far more than you are getting under hers with your kindergarten-level insults!

She won. You lost. Get over it.

stuart_allsop

02-13-2005, 03:01 PM

I was passed a rumor that below is a photo of the moderators of the Arianna Forum. Remember, it's just a rumor.

I noticed that not only is the rainbow all muddled up with teh colors in the wrong order, but even worse it is incomplete! They left out YELLOW! That must have been the one that answered my complaint: He sure was "yellow". No doubt about that. (Actually, I'm not even sure that it was "he". Or "she". Maybe something in between. But it was DEFINITELY yellow.)

Insurrectionchemistry

02-13-2005, 03:02 PM

Getting back to the science on HF or hydrogen fluoride's catalytic effect making its GWP quite high.

Review:

We have all learned that HF is a lite gas with a MW of only 20, this compared to air at MW of 30.
So, we know that HF will float on top of the air in the environment and rise to heights where it is highly affected by UV radiation from the sun. Here the UV breaks the hydrogen bond to the fluorine because the hydrogen has a high capture of UV energy.

Then the extremely electronegative free fluorine atom tends to seek and bond with the next atom around, which is generally oxygen or nitrogen. So, the Sun's UV cooking of the HF high in the sky radiologically makes OFx and NFx compounds, which are heavier than air and sink back into the lower altitudes.

Here the OFx and NFx compounds are not reactive toward much except the hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. Reason being is that oxygen binds the atoms of hydrogen in water much more tightly than carbon bonds hydrogen, thus the OFx and NFx reactions only happen with H-C's. When one of these fluorine compounds gets near a hydrocarbon the affinity of fluorine toward hydrogen atoms in the hydrocarbon takes over and it pulls the hydrogen out of the chain or ring of the hydrocarbon. This forces it to rearrange itself into a simpler shorter hydro-carbon molecule. The hydrogen the fluorine pulled loose goes into HF and then rises back up high into the sky to start the process again. A little bit of fluorine or HF goes a long long way in the making of lite H-C compounds, hence the high GWP associated with HF.

It is this HF catalytic pump effect of generating these lite hydro-carbons that fills the skies with hyrocarbons that float on the atmosphere and which have the high IR absorption spectra from their multiple atom H-C strings.

The effect only occurs due to the synergism of both high emissions of HF from industry and natural sources and due to the very high consumption of hydrocarbon fuels that burn with inefficient processes that drive the entire process. For this reason, in history this is the first time this type of global warming event has happened. And it is the dominate effect in setting up the global warming gas blanket high above the Earth's Surface.

I found this effect way back in the middle 1980's while looking at the Star Wars LASER effects on the atmosphere, the mechanism of the ozone hole, and the mechanism for smog generation. Observations around Oak Ridge due to its high emissions of HF were showing unusual effects on temperatures and with close inspection of the processes I became the first to define the dominate global warming equation and the unusual recycle boundary conditions.

The discovery of this process lead directly to the issues of designing chemtrail methods to pull the HF out of the skies, since it was the easiest to get to with combinational chemistry with metals and via absorption into water molecules. Generation 1 and Generation 2 chemtrail technics are all my invention to stop the formation of the IR blanket gases. HAARP was my idea to deal with the IR gases already high in skies by heating them in such a way as to set up a wave propagation to push some of these gases into space. It was a retro-active approach to lessen the problems.

So, Halva, pass that around to persons like Chem11 and let them have a look---I am sure if there is a level of chemical savy there --- it will click as to the importance of my prime factor in global warming. This leading to chemtrails and to HAARP---of which, I provided the name.

Normally this reaction process happens at high altitudes, but in the case of the K-25 plant disassembly and losses of HF, it also occured due to the same process at lower altitudes and lead to much high temperature air in Oak Ridge in this period and extremely violent storms associated to the effect.

This is why fluoride emissions need to be carefully regulated and the effect made public.

IMHO,
is

stuart_allsop

02-13-2005, 03:05 PM

BC, you are Raynolds' Princess Nausicaa.

Boomer, looks like your literary reference zoomed right over Wayne's head, without even so much as disturbing his hair... :)

stuart_allsop

02-13-2005, 03:14 PM

Those who brought out the school book, for example, with the 'particle air' picture in it.What school book? What is "particle air"?

Insurrectionchemistry

02-13-2005, 03:43 PM

Some people call N2 an air particle. Then others call O2 and air particle.

When someone has to explain air, the person is too dumb to participate.

IMHO,
is

Insurrectionchemistry

02-13-2005, 04:35 PM

Halva writes:

"If geoengineering activity were actually underway there would be no more resolute opponent of it than you, because it is illegal under the Nuremberg Code or whatever."

===========

Geoengineering is well underway in the US in the form of those jet trails that set up rainfall to pull the HF out of the air. General Electric, the company that makes the big high by-pass engines that foul the skies with grafitti lines well in on the effect. GE has long and close ties to Oak Ridge via the reactor programs.

And here on Arianna's the person most intent on covering up that GE has been allowed to run head long into fogging up the skies is just fine. Reynolds is the biggest supporter of the GE geoengineering program via their new engine programs.

Which means, Reynolds himself supports fully the illegal concepts involving the Nuremburg Code for allowing these rain pattern disturbances and the rainout of toxic acids at high rates over landfalls.

Plus, with the main thrust for HAARP now exposed as one to eject some high flying gases that upset the GW factors into space. Everyone needs to know the big picture and everyone needs to know the Govt is most corrupt in not reporting these factors.

And it is rather obvious that Reynolds is corrupt, as he has now been fully advised of the prime factor driving the global warming and how the HF recycle process works and how UV radiolysis is used to break the hydrogen bond and sub in O or N, which then allows the new compounds to fall into the air deeper and encounter hydrogen loaded hydrocarbon compounds with which they react and break the H-C chains into shorter ones.

At this point, Reynolds knows the prime driver in GW and continues to go against the pure truth of what is going on and why and he is now in full violation of his criteria per Nuremburg. He is the advocate for geoengineering by commercial jets quite obviously.

IMHO,
is

jayreynolds

02-13-2005, 06:44 PM

Sure, 35 sensors in one city is not enough to build a universial model on, but it's a start. I would imagine (and hope!) that if this series of experiments gives tehm useful data, to build a basic model with, that it will then be expanded to other cities in order to validatye and refine the model. That's why I think it's important.
Note that the three cities that I know of have fairly diverse topography, compared with each other.
Salt Lake City sits in a bowl, Oklahoma City is on flat plains, and NYC, well, it's a megalopolis.

jayreynolds

02-13-2005, 06:56 PM

But most important of all, in the specific case of cold fusion: Why is it that all these researchers who haved claimed success in their kitcehn labs are still alive, when in fact they should have died within minutes from the intense neutrino radiation if they had, in fact, achieved cold fusion?
You know, folks it's a pretty big world out there. When Libya can get as far along as they did on a nuke, with North Korea's help............. BTW, were you folks aware that North Korea has a terrible fuel shortage? It is visible at nighttime from space, BTW.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm

Why do you suppose, if zero-point energy or cold fusion were possible but suppressed, 'ol Great Leader Kim hasn't just started setting these up, or is he just a Military/industrial/oil/pharma/Bush-controlled puppet?

jayreynolds

02-13-2005, 07:24 PM

I found this effect way back in the middle 1980's while looking at the Star Wars LASER effects on the atmosphere, the mechanism of the ozone hole, and the mechanism for smog generation. Observations around Oak Ridge due to its high emissions of HF were showing unusual effects on temperatures and with close inspection of the processes I became the first to define the dominate global warming equation and the unusual recycle boundary conditions.

So, you did all this back twenty years ago, huh?

Well, according to this testimony of a "James E. Phelps", he testified before a senate committee in 2000 and YOU SPOKE ABOUT OF NONE OF THESE THINGS LIKE OZONE, OR GLOBAL WARMING!.
http://www.downwinders.org/Jim%20Phelps.htm

You actually did speak about your section being sent out to neighboring farms to fetch leaves and milk for the scientists at the plant.
DOESN"T SOUND LIKE WORK FOR A "GOD", NOW DOES IT?

You said, "The ORNL Division that I worked in also designed much of the K25 Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) incinerator and my input was also included in the designs of the incinerator."
SOUNDS LIKE YOU BOASTED EVEN TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE YET HAD NO PROOF.

FROM WHAT I HEARD, YOU ONLY HELPED PICK OUT THE PAINT SCHEME FOR THE BUILDINGS!!!

You said, "K25 and Oak Ridge had a huge problem from the need to store the huge volume of fissile liquid uranium fluorides around the site and one way to address this was to run them into the incinerator."
SOUNDS LIKE YOU WERE A PARTY TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THERE, JIMBO!!
AND YOU KEPT QUIET ABOUT IT FOR FIFTEEN YEARS????
LOOKS LIKE A STAY AT LEAVENWORTH IN YOUR FUTURE, JIMBO!

WHAT SORT OF EXPLANATION DO YOU HAVE FOR ALL THIS,
JIMBO???

jayreynolds

02-13-2005, 07:31 PM

Plus, with the main thrust for HAARP now exposed as one to eject some high flying gases that upset the GW factors into space. Everyone needs to know the big picture and everyone needs to know the Govt is most corrupt in not reporting these factors.

Hold on a minute there, Hoss. Sounds like another of your leaps into things you "invented twenty years ago at Oak Ridge, but just got around to telling someone now" thingys.
So, Jimbo, tell us exactly what "high flying gases" Haarp is supposed to be ejecting into space, and by what means a radio signal can do such a thing?

halva

02-13-2005, 08:43 PM

Actually FS is just posting away with no regard to Reynolds, apparently. She might have him ignore listed, but she doesn't have to announce it. I highly respect her for that.

I don't feel I have to monitor anyone at this point, Halva. Sorry. Why haven't you responded in any way to the climate engineering posts I posted today? I thought those were rather valuable for you, but it seems once again, the social aspects instead of the big picture here, take your attention.

Do you care about international climate-study-and-solutions cooperation or don't you? Good evening!

BC

Well, BC, I am not going to tell you at this stage what FS is really saying privately.

Just you go on respecting her.

I haven't responded to the climate engineering posts you put up because all they did was outline the official position.

They completely bypassed the question I was and am asking, i.e. whether the political difficulties involved in legalizing what is called macroengineering or geoengineering would provide an explanation for secrecy surrounding such activities, if, as it seems, they are already being implemented.

I then raised the question as to whether the need to avoid private litigation could be acceptable as an excuse for concealing ongoing geoengineering activity from the public.

This is by implication a question as to whether anything in the activities of a Raynolds might be justifiable 'in the public interest'.

But as you have seen, Raynolds does not want to claim that what he is actually doing (i.e. telling lies) is legitimate to protect the public. He does not even want a hypothetical discussion about whether or not such a policy of lying could be defended as an unfortunate necessity in the given situation.

He wants to claim that he is doing something else, i.e. protecting the world from malicious hoaxers.

But the subject of whether or not a policy of lying is defensible has to be the starting point of debate with people (like very very many climate scientists, like big environmental organizations like Greenpeace, like the publicisers of 'global dimming') that are deeply concerned about climate change but also much less than completely frank about what is being done in response to it.

The answer to that question has two sides to it: on the one side there is the danger of litigation against geoengineering activity. On the other there is the fact that concealing mitigation activity (i) reduces both the visible effects of climate change in some ways that just guarantee that when the problems really surface they will do so more dramatically and less correctably. And (ii) they reduce potential public support for more effective and more co-ordinated action against climate change by concealing the full enormity of the overall situation.

In this context the activities of a Raynolds are more than an irrelevant irritant.

The worst aspect of them is their lack of acknowledgement (or perhaps lack of realization: there is after all the simple possibility that the guy is actually insane) of their own role in the scheme of things. This is what distinguishes Raynolds from other dishonest people, like e.g. Minnis who I think are possibly sensitive enough to the many contradictory elements in the situation to avoid hammering just one aspect all the time, all the time, all the time, as Raynolds does.

Mike

02-13-2005, 08:43 PM

I noticed that not only is the rainbow all muddled up with teh colors in the wrong order, but even worse it is incomplete! They left out YELLOW! That must have been the one that answered my complaint: He sure was "yellow". No doubt about that. (Actually, I'm not even sure that it was "he". Or "she". Maybe something in between. But it was DEFINITELY yellow.)Would that, sweetie, be because you didn't succesfully manage to insert the moderators in the middle of one of your self-absorbed arguments?

halva

02-13-2005, 09:05 PM

I have deleted the posting on nuclear weapons that I had placed here. I no longer wish to debate Raynolds on any subject. I just want the moderators to confront their responsibilities and remove him from this forum.

If BC can make this demand in relation to Jim Phelps I can make it in relation to Raynolds, whose unrelenting personal molestation far overshadow anything that Jim Phelps has done on any front, Jews, women (including specific women) or whatever.

Mike

02-13-2005, 09:57 PM

Nah, no particular requirement...I just sort of panned through the posts and saw the wonderful photo. The dialog accompanying it was riveting... :D

Boomer Chick

02-13-2005, 10:02 PM

Ho Hum! I guess my multiple complaints attracted their attention to our forum. I told you all I was reporting about IS and I did.

Thanks, mods! :D

BC ;)

halva

02-13-2005, 10:48 PM

If the moderators really have descended from their heaven to pay attention to what is happening down here, I would like to point out that Raynolds' relentless harassment of Footsoldier does indeed break every rule that they themselves have formulated for the running of this forum.

foot_soldier

02-13-2005, 11:08 PM

The following piece should come as no real surprise to anyone who has read any of the last 25 years' think-tank documents on the issue of anthropogenic climate change.

Without exception, the context of the participants' thinking over these years changed from one of "prevention" to "possible prevention and mitigation" to "mitigation and probable adaptation" to "mitigation and adaptation."

Also, these documents consistently concluded that the public will was the most important factor where the possibility of averting the consequences of taxing our life-support systems beyond their capacity to regenerate is concerned.

I've always said that at some point the toilets are simply going to stop flushing. One doesn't need an advanced degree in the physical sciences to see what's going on in our world.

February 13, 2005

It's much too late to sweat global warming
Time to prepare for inevitable effects of our ill-fated future
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL

At the core of the global warming dilemma is a fact neither side of the debate likes to talk about: It is already too late to prevent global warming and the climate change it sets off.

Environmentalists won't say this for fear of sounding alarmist or defeatist. Politicians won't say it because then they'd have to do something about it. The world's top climate scientists have been sending this message, however, with increasing urgency for many years.

Since 1988, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, comprised of more than 2,000 scientific and technical experts from around the world, has conducted the most extensive peer-reviewed scientific inquiry in history.

In its 2001 report, the panel said that human-caused global warming had already begun, and much sooner than expected. What's more, the problem is bound to get worse, perhaps a lot worse, before it gets better.

Last month, the climate change panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, upped the ante. Although Pachauri was installed after the Bush administration forced out his predecessor, Robert Watson, for pushing too hard for action, the accumulation of evidence led Pachauri to embrace apocalyptic language: "We are risking the ability of the human race to survive," he said.

Until now, most public discussion about global warming has focused on how to prevent it -- for example, by implementing the Kyoto Protocol, which comes into force internationally (but without U.S. participation) on Wednesday. But prevention is no longer a sufficient option. No matter how many "green" cars and solar panels Kyoto eventually calls into existence, the hard fact is that a certain amount of global warming is inevitable.

The world community therefore must make a strategic shift. It must expand its response to global warming to emphasize both long-term and short-term protection. Rising sea levels and more weather-related disasters will be a fact of life on this planet for decades to come, and we have to get ready for them.

Among the steps needed to defend ourselves is quick action to fortify emergency response capabilities worldwide, to shield or relocate vulnerable coastal communities and to prepare for increased migration flows by environmental refugees.

We must also play offense. We must retroactively shrink the amount of warming facing us by redoubling efforts to remove existing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and sequester them where they are no longer dangerous. One way is to plant trees, which absorb carbon dioxide via photosynthesis.

Researchers are exploring many other methods as well, some of them supported by the Bush administration. And Norway is burying carbon dioxide in abandoned oil wells beneath the North Sea.

The problem with the Kyoto Protocol is not that the 5 percent greenhouse gas emission reductions it mandates don't go far enough, though they don't. (The climate change panel urges 50 to 70 percent reductions.)

The problem is that Kyoto governs only future emissions. No matter how well the protocol works, it will have no effect on past emissions, which are what have made global warming unavoidable.

Contrary to the impression given by some news reports, global warming is not like a light switch that can be turned off if we simply stop burning so much oil, coal and gas.

There is a lag effect of about 50 to 100 years. That's how long carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, remains in the atmosphere after it is emitted from auto tailpipes, home furnaces and industrial smokestacks.

So even if humanity stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the planet would continue warming for decades.

So far, the greenhouse gases released during two-plus centuries of industrialization have increased global temperatures by about 1 degree Fahrenheit and raised sea levels by 4 to 7 inches.

They have also given rise to the larger phenomenon of climate change. The climate change panel scientists predict that because of global warming, the future will bring more and deadlier weather of all kinds -- more hurricanes, tornadoes, downpours, heat waves, droughts and blizzards -- and all that comes in their aftermath: flooding, landslides, power outages, crop failures, property damage, disease, hunger, poverty and loss of life.

In California, torrential rains induced a mudslide on Jan. 11 that killed 10 people, buried children alive and crushed dozens of houses. In 2003, a record summer heat wave killed 35,000 people, most of them elderly, in Western Europe. And this is just the beginning.

Scientists are careful to say that no single weather event can be definitively linked to global warming, but the trend is unmistakable to the insurance companies that end up paying the bill.

"Man-made climate change will bring us increasingly extreme natural events and, consequently, increasingly large catastrophe losses," an official of Munich Re, the world's large reinsurance company, said recently. Swiss Re expects losses to reach $150 billion a year within this decade..... (continued)

The Shadow

02-14-2005, 02:31 AM

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=240508

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=240457

Actually, I lied when I said that your recent line of questioning was “hilarious.”

Well, finally a straight answer out of you. Very revealing one, too. When people like you start admitting to your lies, that's when I know for sure I've got them on the run.

So, we can now understand your statement was just a dodge designed to appear to be a denial, when in fact you haven't yet denied being "involved as a participant"?

People need to see your public "final answer" on this subject.
HAVE YOU PARTICIPATED IN ANY WAY IN THE PUBLICATION OF "CHEMTRAILS OVER AMERICA"?? as seen at this website?[/b]
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america.htm#coa

No squishy-squashy answers, no evasions, no lies.

Remember, Deborah KNOWS and is watching to see how honest her defender is willing to be!Mr. Reynolds, this unquestionably proves that you have serious learning disabilities, poor retention, and that the analytical part of your brain functions only on an intermittent basis. Your misguided dissection of a single statement of mine is the true revelation. It is classic Reynolds and purely delusional, as is your predisposition to include others in your fantasies. I find your lines of questioning depraved, not hilarious. “We” are all still waiting for you to come clean and begin holding yourself accountable for your willfully offensive behavior and shameless refusal to acknowledge your own deceit. Indeed, it is I who have you on the run (http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=240453). When confronted with your falsehoods, you recoil like the Devil who has seen a crucifix.

Repeating your demands over and over in progressively large bold type is a childish little mind game that will get you nowhere with me. You have been issued your own directive, Mr. Reynolds. I highly recommend that you comply with it unless you crave having your credibility collapse any further than it has already. To reiterate: until you start handing over the answers to direct questions that have been put to you, you can just flat out go to hell. You started and fostered a hoax attempting to identify me as a woman named Diane Harvey. You are now doing your damnedest to forge another hoax. You do not know who I am and I intend to keep it that way. Either produce irrefutable evidence of your wild claims or forget it. Those are your own rules. You are obligated to follow them.

The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the heart and mind of Jay Reynolds...

Insurrectionchemistry

02-14-2005, 02:57 AM

Halva,

I think it was just one of the moderators passing by for a visit and laughing at the blunderers here.

I do get the full 3,000 brownie points for exposing the oligarchy of blunderers that were grouped up in my more definitive description for the naked group photo. The "Jay-Bird Blunder-Bunch" won an award. JB^^3.

One can make fun of naked Queens that worship satan, who are chemically challenged and would be better served in going to the library to get educated before endless 10,000 word feelings essays bog down the topic.

Most real debaters see the games going on here are all about distraction from the real issues. Especially when some truth leaks out on something like the HF GWP factor, and the dominate role this plays in climate change / global warming.

They also recognize when one of the blunderers holler fire and there was none. Only truthful accountabilty, with a tad of eye catching humor.

The truth is that man-made global warming is real and so are the active chemtrail type programs to actively moderate the effects.

And so the Blunderer's Bust went.

IMHO,
is

PS: In Review: Recapping the photo----the "Oligarchy of Jay-Bird Blunderers." In order from left to right are Simon Stuart, BC, Reynolds, Ed Snale, and Reynolds neglected S.O. wmm

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 04:06 AM

I find your lines of questioning depraved, not hilarious. ]
Actually, the question was very simple, and one simply has to wonder why you would find it first hilarious(no, "that was a lie", you said) and now "depraved"!

I find your squirming twisting, and flopping like a trout on a line hilarious.

HAVE YOU PARTICIPATED IN ANY WAY IN THE PUBLICATION OF "CHEMTRAILS OVER AMERICA"?? as seen at this website?
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/docume...america.htm#coa

No squishy-squashy answers, no evasions, no lies.
A simple yes or no wouldn't hurt would it?
Well, maybe the answer "yes" might hurt, and maybe you wouldn't deny the truth right here in front of your co-conspirator Deborah, eh?

Maybe you've a bit of conscience left, too?
That'sa GOOD sign, 'shadow', trying to be honest.

There is the question once again, will you make your bed and lie in it, or come out and tell the whole truth to set yourself free? Don't continue building walls around yourself playing silly girly-man pretend games anymore. Stand up for what you believe in, or admit it was wrong. Try to be a man.

So, we can now understand that Jay Reynolds has asked 'shadow' a question which cannot be answered for some reason? I think sometimes the lack of an answer tells a lot!

Insurrectionchemistry

02-14-2005, 04:10 AM

Reynolds is a sick person. 20 years in prison might help him.

imho,
is

Insurrectionchemistry

02-14-2005, 04:30 AM

Post-It Note to the FBI:

Dear Agents,

At this point the Reynolds Syndicate has been informed of the global warming factor mechanism connected to HF.

This means from this point in time forward, that every time he suppresses that GE jet engines help to remove HF from the air or the oil companies sealing up the processes tighter to avoid emissions and then producing more H-C fuel the GW process.

It is every American's Right to be involved and informed in the GW process and to decide if they want their skies marked up, or to change the energy use equations as needed to lessen the impacts due to man-made GW.

Persons like Reynolds engage in a racketeering process connected to the corrupt GOP US administration that attempts to conceal these factors from the citizens.

IMHO,
is

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 05:09 AM

Post-It Note to the FBI:Dear Agents,
At this point the Reynolds Syndicate has been informed of the global warming factor mechanism connected to HF. This means from this point in time forward, that every time he suppresses that GE jet engines help to remove HF from the air or the oil companies sealing up the processes tighter to avoid emissions and then producing more H-C fuel the GW process.

bo, I'm not interested in "suppressing" anything. I have continually asked you to provide documentary proof of your claims about hydrofluoric acid(HF). 24 hours ago I asked for you to display the balanced chemical equations which could show that your claims have validity.

You have failed to support your ideas with anything whatsoever.

This is a slam-dunk, Jimbo. C'mon, at least give a try at supporting your ideas, or it will be clear who is 'suppressing'.

The Shadow

02-14-2005, 07:18 AM

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=240910

So, we can now understand that Jay Reynolds has asked 'shadow' a question which cannot be answered for some reason? I think sometimes the lack of an answer tells a lot!It certainly does. Six weeks ago, we could then understand that you were being asked questions by The Shadow – for the umpteenth time – and were still managing to wriggle away from your personal accountability. What was your reason for not answering, Mr. Reynolds? You remind me of the slob sitting in his car at a red light, trophy hunting with his finger buried in his nose up to the second knuckle. Everyone can see what he is doing, but the dumb ass thinks that he is invisible.

Actually, the questions were very simple and one has to wonder why you would be so reluctant to present your case. Were my expectations of you providing proof of your claims asking so much? As the accuser, Mr. Reynolds, the burden was your responsibility. It is still.

In its pristine form, reprinted below, the post at http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=211931, brilliantly showcases your initial hoax in great detail. You do not like having your tall tales being exposed for what they are. Unfortunately, my analysis of your willful dishonesty was – and remains – right on the mark. Once again, until you start holding yourself to the same standards that you demand from others, you can just flat out go to hell, little man.

__________________________________

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=211878

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=211861

Yaakass, this whole brouhaha regarding prepositions, grammar, and correctness of the English language was set in motion by Mr. Reynolds at another message board almost a month ago. (Complete quote restored to maintain context): His ignorance as a hack investigator surged to the forefront as he declared to the world that he had “unmasked” The Shadow. Big deal. This is how it transpired:

The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the heart of Jay Reynolds. The Shadow knows...
But Jay Reynolds knows who the shadow is......................
Bingo!- Diane Harvey(aka.'Merak'; Sedona; Sedonadiane,etc.)
you old hag. I'd recognize you anywhere

Although Mr. Reynolds is still clinging to his use of the pronoun “she,” I notice that he has dropped the reference to the name “Diane” – at least this time. Could he be backing off from his earlier claim? I doubt it. Should he be forced to admit that his power of deduction is seriously flawed – and it is – the validity of his entire portfolio of exposés would rightly be called into question. There is enough theft of identities in this world without the sensationalism exhibited by Mr. Reynolds and his arbitrary assignments.

Mr. Reynolds, you assert, “Any fool can see where [he's] coming from.” Okay, fool, your opinion is noted. Without specifics, that is all you have – an opinion.

With or without your permission, Mr. Allslop’s cavalier charade was documented in minute detail – with no room for misinterpretation. If you see things differently, it will not cause me to lose any sleep. The matter is closed.

Diane Harvey(aka. 'The Shadow')
Sounds like I really brought you down.
You didn't get the point Yaak was getting across.
Being exposed in a hoax must be hard to go through.
You must understand that truth is what I'm heading towards.
It's obvious that truth is what you are against.
You're not as frilly worded as before.
You've come down from that high-horse schoolmarm pedestal you were upon.
Most of us can't see where you're at.
See you around.

Mr. Reynolds, do not bother with your usual dose of baseless self-adulation. I got Yaakass’s sarcasm perfectly. It is the hoax of one Mr. Allslop that was exposed and you simply refuse to accept it.

There you go with the “Diane Harvey” thing again. The very idea that you are in pursuit of the truth is the biggest hoax. You are always demanding that others produce concrete evidence of their claims. Apparently, you have another set of standards for yourself, which is not the least bit surprising. You maintain your assertion that I am Diane Harvey. Like it or not, you are obligated to deliver the proof and, despite repeated requests, you have shamelessly failed to do so. Why is this? The obvious answer is that you have none and you are too damned chickenshit to admit it. It really does not bother me who you believe I am. What is important is that the world is watching as your credibility is taking a serious pounding on this one. People are most certainly asking themselves, “What other failures is this idiot trying to cover up.” Perhaps you are the one who would be better off to shut up. It does not seem as though you can see where you are at. Quit wasting people’s time with your diversions.

“See you around,” you say? I certainly hope that is not a threat.

The Shadow knows how to dispatch stalkers...

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 10:05 AM

[color=green]
..............Without exception, the context of the participants' thinking over these years changed from one of "prevention" to "possible prevention and mitigation" to "mitigation and probable adaptation" to "mitigation and adaptation...... public will was the most important factor where the possibility of averting the consequences of taxing our life-support systems beyond their capacity to regenerate is concerned.

I don't know if "public will" would be the correct term. If corporate will, in terms of destruction of the rainforests and industrial pollution could be termed "public will" it might be a correct correlation. However, while the forests were burning, and the industrial wastes were churning out, the outcry of the environmentalists fell on deaf monied ears.

The efforts of mitigation through reforestation, CO2 floating plantation sinks, and other forms of CO2 control will also prove to be "preventative" for the future as the accumulation and effects of all efforts to control the situation will be long term. We (collective) blew it, and our only hope is to try to prevent our progeny from experiencing what we will indeed experience in the near future. I find that "prevention" DID NOT EXIST in reality.... it was never a part of the reality, either... or we wouldn't have reached this point of aerosol saturation. Remember, the citizens had no power over the power elite in Washington/corporations and it's worse today. Throw in the Euro elite and here we are.

Our only hope for the future rests in international cooperation to mitigate and prevent. Mitigation won't help us at present, but it will be a form of prevention only to lessen the snowball effects of today upon the future.

BC ;)

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 10:05 AM

You maintain your assertion that I am Diane Harvey.

No, I withdraw that assertion.
Your continued postings have convinced me that you are not Diane Harvey.
Now, I have answered your question.

Now it's your turn.

HAVE YOU PARTICIPATED IN ANY WAY IN THE PUBLICATION OF "CHEMTRAILS OVER AMERICA"?? as seen at this website?
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america.htm#coa

No squishy-squashy answers, no evasions, no lies.

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 10:10 AM

Last paragraph from the SFG article that FS posted:

Our civilization's early warning system -- the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- have been telling us for years that great danger is approaching. The question is, will we act quickly and decisively enough to protect ourselves against the coming storm? Or will we simply stand and face our fate naked, proud and unafraid?

Mark Hertsgaard

FS,

What I find conspicuously missing from these opinion pieces on the inevitability aspect of our facing the consequences of our industrial mistakes regarding climate change (with which I agree), is the destruction of the rain forests. As a CO2 gulping sink and a source of planetary temperature balance, the burning of the rain forests from the 70's on has done more IMHO to change the equatorial-polar balance mechanism and thus the global warming factor than other contributions.

http://www.ran.org/info_center/factsheets/04a.html

Rainforest clearance
Clearing and burning rainforests release vast amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. Each year deforestation contributes 23-30 percent of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, in turn, is believed to be responsible for approximately half of global warming. At present, the countries emitting the most carbon into the atmosphere from tropical deforestation are, in order of importance, Brazil, Indonesia, Burma, Mexico and Thailand. Tropical deforestation also leads to global warming by destroying one of the Earth's only ways to absorb excess atmospheric carbon. Through photosynthesis, forests absorb and store so much atmospheric carbon that scientists refer to tropical rainforests as "carbon sinks". Thus, while more and more carbon is released into the atmosphere, there are less and less forests to remove the carbon from the atmosphere. Deforestation both releases huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and destroys our means of absorbing and storing this substance. And it is not only carbon that is released. Rainforest canopies absorb nitrous oxide and ozone, which are released through deforestation. The destruction of the Earth's rainforests not only contribute to global warming, but, as noted, also undermines the long-term ability of the Earth's atmosphere to neutralize greenhouse gases. The Earth's defense mechanism against pollutants are called "trace radicals:" gas molecules which interact with greenhouse gases, making them harmless. There are limited quantities of these trace radicals in the atmosphere, and as more greenhouse gases are released more trace radicals are used up. This diminishes the Earth's ability to stabilize the atmosphere.

Tropical Rainforests:
Act as a kind of "heat pump", redistributing solar radiation from the equator to temperate zones. This function warms temperate zones while cooling the tropics.

Cause large amounts of water to evaporate into the atmosphere. These huge amounts of water generate clouds which reflect sunlight back into outer space, thus cooling forested regions.

Play a major part in regulating the flow of freshwater through the ecosystem, which in turn significantly affects local and regional precipitation patterns. Researchers fear that this disruption of the water cycle could lead to a drying out of the remaining forest cover.

Aircraft emissions play a very small role in the overall global climate warming situation:

http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_atb.pl?icao/en/env/aee.htm;env

A very excellent source of information on everything related to aviation and the environment, fuels, emissions, projections, solutions, etc. :

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm

BC

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 10:14 AM

I find that "prevention" DID NOT EXIST in reality.... it was never a part of the reality, either... or we wouldn't have reached this point of aerosol saturation.

There is no such "aerosol saturation". Aerosols change from year to year, they are temporary. Simple, non=manmade things like droughts produce dust, volcanoes blow their tops, forests burn due to lightening. All these produce aerosols too. I know of no definitve point at which anyone could say there is a point of "aerosol saturation", or even a rating scale of that. Saturation does have a definition in terms of the water vapor but if you could reference such a metric for aerosols, I'd be interested in seeing it.

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 10:57 AM

"Each year deforestation contributes 23-30 percent of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, in turn, is believed to be responsible for approximately half of global warming"

Actually, there exists a precedent for deforestation which is interesting. The forests of north america were generaly deforested in the 1800s. They are now coming back with a vengeance and what was once thought to be the "missing sink" of carbon is now known as the recovery of the US forests.

Some recent reading I've done in relation to my effforts to build up soil on my farm led me to the recent discovery that the Amazon was settled by a large civilization numbering into the millions, and that vast acreage of what is now "pristine rain forest" was formerly farm land! The early europen explorers in the 1500s brought epidemics that wiped out the civilization and when they returned 100 years later, there was nothing left but jungle. The existence of "terra preta do Indio", an anthropogenic soil type literally created of carbon and filled with black pottery shards sometimes runs for miles through "rain forest".

The new discoveries aren't just conspiracy hype. There is archaeological evidence, but just not of stone, because the amazon simply doesn't have any. people there built with wood.
The liks below will open a whole new window into what we have been believing about the Amazon basi, and the people who once lived there.

Fascinating!
Here are links about Terra Preta:

BBC Q&A- http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/eldoradoqa.shtml
BBC article- http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/eldoradotrans.shtml

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 11:11 AM

There is no such "aerosol saturation". Aerosols change from year to year, they are temporary. Simple, non=manmade things like droughts produce dust, volcanoes blow their tops, forests burn due to lightening. All these produce aerosols too. I know of no definitve point at which anyone could say there is a point of "aerosol saturation", or even a rating scale of that. Saturation does have a definition in terms of the water vapor but if you could reference such a metric for aerosols, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Jay, my term was related to the CO2 and other pollutants that pushed the ozone situation into the red, that changed the global climate condition into the warming trend that has alerted all nations to its effect regarding severe weather change and it implications, which in a general term is call "global warming." It is a fact that the rise in surface and tropospheric temp. is happening. The whole global community is on alert now. Why is that? Because the closed atmospheric system has reached a kind of saturation point(JUST MY TERM) where the levels of "aerosols" (gases of all kinds, particulates, etc.) have forced a drastic change upon the natural mechanisms of balance. It is happening and the world of concerned scientists agree.

Please clarify your stance on this. I'm curious to know exactly what your views are. At this point I'm hearing that you think all is transitory and the balance mechanisms are working just fine. It's not the case and I will not post you all the links. I've posted enough government sites on climate studies, climate graphs (including aerosols), climate organizations, and other information to fill a book. I'm sorry you missed it. Again, please clarify your position as to your view of 1) climate change in general... occurring or not 2) atmospheric chemical composition as related to climate chance ... a main factor or not.

Aerosol production is not temporary. The rate of production is constant in specific timeframes and has accumulated over the decades. The absence of the equatorial rain forests (posted above) have created a constant --- less CO2 absorbed, more reflected heat into the atmosphere, less H2O into the atmosphere. The natural balancing systems have been disrupted due to man's interference. There are many constants in the equation related to the various gases and I can't waste my time going back to my previous posted links and graphs. Some gases stay in the upper levels of the atmosphere for hundreds of years, some have lesser lives, some rain down and are only temporary.

I am defending the aviation contribution to the aerosol situation as minute compared to other factors. For that , you could be thankful that I recognize this and have stopped my side of the contrail debate. Now it's on to climate change and how we can improve the situation and yes, aerosols (gases) are a main factor in the global climate scenario.

Maybe my term "saturation" was not as technical as you perceived it. It merely meant a point at which nature's balance was disrupted. This is my term for "saturation", not a chemical term, nor a scientific term, just a term meaning the tipping of the balance that lead to an increase in earth temperature, a point at which man-made disruption including deforestation, pollutants(other contributing gases), CO2 production, lack of CO2 sinks, and urbanization (warming of the earth) have contributed to ozone depletion as well as negatively impacting upon the pumping mechanisms referred to in the above rain forest post --- all factors impacted global warming (increase in temperature) and mostly manmade. Volcanic emissions tend to cool the planet. Maybe we need one now! LOL! Yes, there are still natural factors that attempt to balance and can contribute to warming as well.

Sorry if I alarmed you!

Thanks.

BC ;)

Insurrectionchemistry

02-14-2005, 11:21 AM

Getting back to the HF catalytic effects making NFx and OFx compounds.

MSDS often show up the answers as to the instabilties of chemicals and their close proxity to others. And in the case of NF3, it shows that this in association with hydrocarbons of any kind promote a simple chemical reaction that results in mass loss from the hydrocarbon by disassociation into shorter H-C's.

Ref:
http://www.airliquide.com/en/business/products/gases/gasdata/index.asp?GasID=67

Hydrocarbon based lubricant Non recommended, significant loss of mass by extraction or chemical reaction.

========

The mass loss comes from the breaking up of the hydrocarbon chains and rings into lite gases that float off to become global warming gases. Similar effects happen with the OFx class molecule.

As these molecules of NFx and OFx fall down and curculate in the air, as they encounter hydrocarbon materials this same molecule shearing process happens to make lite hydrocarbons that tend to suspend in air much longer and rise to higher altitudes.

IMHO,
is

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 11:27 AM

Actually, there exists a precedent for deforestation which is interesting. The forests of north america were generaly deforested in the 1800s. They are now coming back with a vengeance and what was once thought to be the "missing sink" of carbon is now known as the recovery of the US forests.

Some recent reading I've done in relation to my effforts to build up soil on my farm led me to the recent discovery that the Amazon was settled by a large civilization numbering into the millions, and that vast acreage of what is now "pristine rain forest" was formerly farm land! The early europen explorers in the 1500s brought epidemics that wiped out the civilization and when they returned 100 years later, there was nothing left but jungle. The existence of "terra preta do Indio", an anthropogenic soil type literally created of carbon and filled with black pottery shards sometimes runs for miles through "rain forest".

The new discoveries aren't just conspiracy hype. There is archaeological evidence, but just not of stone, because the amazon simply doesn't have any. people there built with wood.
The liks below will open a whole new window into what we have been believing about the Amazon basi, and the people who once lived there.

Fascinating!
Here are links about Terra Preta:

BBC Q&A- http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/eldoradoqa.shtml
BBC article- http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/eldoradotrans.shtml

How very fascinating! I think I remember reading just one little article referring to this archaeology discovery. I doubt that all of the equatorial forests, including the asiatic ones were affected by this civilization in the past. Comparing the contributing factors of added CO2 today to the then relativity small impact of yesterday considering the various pollutants' contributing to ozone hole deterioration, the ancient civilization's activities probably didn't tip the balancing act of the cooling pump from the equatorial region to the polar regions as extreme multinational equatorial deforestation does today. But I am aware of the ice core studies that showed that CO2 levels were once extremely high due to natural causes in the past, and obviously the terrestrial balancing act brought the climate back to more hospitable levels.

I also admire all people's attempts to reforest and "green" their property and large tracts of land previously cleared from the 1800's expansion. That's a wonderful thing!

BC :D

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 11:53 AM

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 12:25 PM

Stu--

From your ask-a-physicist link about cold fusion:

Answer 2: The world might wake up to some surprises after the 4th International
Conference on Cold Fusion early in December on Maui. The Japanese
are investing big bucks in research, having built Pons and Fleischman
a new 50,000 sq.ft lab in the south of France. Research is continuing
at companies like SRI International, EPRI, Lockheed, and at least one
national lab: Los Alamos.
John Hawley

Seems that some research is ongoing and that refutes the "hoax" claim. As I've always said, a "hoax" connotes a purposeful deception. I doubt that dynamic occurs with any of the researchers.

From the Princeton site it mentions that cold fusion is an "underground" research activity. This doesn't necessarily make it false nor impossible.

http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/

http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm

http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

http://pw1.netcom.com/~storms2/

____________________________

I do feel you're a victim of propaganda and closed-minded skeptics. Sorry, but that's how I see it. Please review these links and tell me what you think. I read your links.

Thanks, Stu babes!

BC 8)

stuart_allsop

02-14-2005, 01:03 PM

Would that, sweetie, be because you didn't succesfully manage to insert the moderators in the middle of one of your self-absorbed arguments?Hate to break it to ya peachy cakes, but it looks like I just did! :)

Well well well! Don't look now folks, but my gambit paid off, I figured that hanging out enough bait would get a bite, and looky here! It sure did!

After nearly seven hundred pages, this thread has finaly been graced by the esteemed presence of one of the high-and-mighty "moderators", who thinks that open death threats are just peachy and dandy, and are in fact welcomed on Arianna's.

OK, but now we have a problem: Now that the high-and-mighty-mike is here, how in hell do we solve the problem of mike being here? .... hmmm ... I can't think of anything off hand. ... Oh but wait! I have an idea! I think I'd go so far as to say that the only solution for the problem that is the moderators of this board is a bullet to their collective head.

EOM

(This should be interesting... and boy am I having fun now!!!! )

Insurrectionchemistry

02-14-2005, 01:10 PM

Cold Fusion is an easy concept.

Hot Fusion works by pushing the temperatures up around a million degrees to run off the electrons and slam the nuclei into each other. Confinement of million degree plasma is a major problem in making it work. These usually go after the D-T reaction.

Cold Fusion also runs nuclei into each other, but the confinement is easier as well as the pusher method to force the nuclei toether.

Cold Fusion begins with confinement and the confinement technique is similar to how the DOE purifies tritium gas. DOE purifies tritium by using surface absoption into a depleted uranium metal surface. Then they take the metal pieces and heat them up and off comes nearly pure tritium. It is how the tritium stores for nuclear weapons are recycled after it decays too much in service of warheads.

Cold Fusion also uses surface absorption, except the metal this time is paladium and the gas is deuterium and hydrogen. In the cold fusion experiments the metal is loaded with the hydrogen and deuterium gas by a prolonged state of electrolysis generating the gases at the Pd metal electrode. This charges the nano-interface of the metal with gas.

One of the problems is surface irregularities in drawn wire, and this is the nano-property problem. As to do the rest of the experiment the surface of the metal has to be very smooth down to the nano-dimension level as it is required to promote high electric field strenghts.

As the surface of the metal loads up with one deuterium or hydrogen atom after another going into the metal lattice it encounters restriction and no more can go in.

Then, another issue that is often not mentioned in the cold fusion research is the liquid surrounding the electrodes becomes a colloid metal suspension, which makes it highly conductive of electric currents. Colloid metal liquids have free electrons and are good conductors. And this is the real key to cold fusion research.

The conductive liquid sitting on top of a very tiny gas interface going into the metal's surface makes for a huge potential gradient and an electric force going toward infinity to push the trapped nuclei in the metals surface together. This becoming the fusion of nuclei. The electrons from the gas are being pulled off and shared more with the metal, leaving the nuclei more easily shoved together.

It is only when the surface properties of the metal, the metal loading of the hydrogen and deuterium, and the conductivity of the liquid are in proper unison that the confinement for cold fusion becomes possible.

Cold Fusion works and works without activation products left behind. It uses the H-D reaction. The problem is three boundary conditions have to become right in unison.

Only the researchers that have gotten all three of those conditions correct in unison have succeeded in demonstration of cold fusion.

IMHO,
is

stuart_allsop

02-14-2005, 01:30 PM

Ho Hum! I guess my multiple complaints attracted their attention to our forum. I told you all I was reporting about IS and I did.

Thanks, mods! :D

BC ;)Boomer, watch closely: I believe that I just made what should be construed as a death threat on this thread, in the presence of a moderator. I belive that you are about to be shocked as I prove my point (and Jay's). I believe that I will not be banned for doing what I just did, and neither will my message be removed, because the last person to use those exact same words was NOT banned, and neither was their message removed, even though they were reported to the very same moderator who has now graced us with his/her presence.

The only difference is that the last person to use those words did so in what would appear to be total seriousness, durectly threatening to blow Jay's head off, while I merely used the same words to test the waters, as it were, and make my point for your benefit.

We shall see what happens here....

I'll bet that you don't get the satisfaction that you so obviously deserve on your complaint, Boomer, because if they do that, then they'll also have to listen to me, ban the person who made the threat, and therefore ban me too. I sincerrely hope they do, but I would bet good money that they wont. They cannot, since if they did it would be an outright declaration of their hideously hypocrtical double-standards. Even though I'm betting that "Mike" would dearly love to ban me, (s)he cannot actually do that and still claim to be an honest, just, and impartial moderator. I'm betting that behind the scenes "mike" is actually fuming and raging right now, but will proceed to make every possible attempt to either laugh this whole things off as a joke, once again flaming me and attempting to belitlle me with his/her rather amusing condescending tone that somehow resmbles what one would expect of a badly behaved grade school brat, not an cool, calm, collected moderator, or he/she will just ignore the whole thing and crawl back under the rock from whence he/she came.

So, in summary, Poor Old Mike (POM for short) would seem to be stuck on the horns of a dilemma! Should POM ban Stuart for forcing POM to crawl out of the woodwork and face this unwelcome blazing spotlight of public humiliation? He can't really do that, since that would require that he reverse a previous "moderating" decision, which is to let death threats and stinging insults stand. Or should POM just shut up and sit there with a red face, taking the blows, but in extremem embarrasment by being unexpectedly caught in the spotlight like this? Or should POM show his true and grossly "unmoderately" nature, by yet again resorting to feeble and childish attempts at to put me down, with that silly and transparent condescending manner? Or should POM allow me to keep on posting anyway, in obedience to his own ruling on this, knowing that in all probability I will never allow him/her to rest, and that I will keep on harping on this issue, needling him/her, bothering her/him like an annoying nail in his shoe, until she eventually takes a decision?

Tough call for Poor Old Mike. Can't win if he does, and can't win if he doesn't, and he can't even win if so much as replies to this post!!!! :)

Are we having fun now, Mike? Don't know about you, but I sure as hell am! :)

stuart_allsop

02-14-2005, 01:35 PM

It is the hoax of one Mr. Allslop that was exposed and you simply refuse to accept it.What hoax would that be?

stuart_allsop

02-14-2005, 01:43 PM

From the Princeton site it mentions that cold fusion is an "underground" research activity. This doesn't necessarily make it false nor impossible.
Boomer, now youare doing what you accuse me of doing! I do NOT say that cold fusion is impossible. It isn't. What I DID say is that it HAS NOT BEEN ACHEVIED TO DATE, and all such claims to the contrary are blatant lies, since the huge lrease of netrinos would have not only killed the researchers, it would have been picked up in numerous netrino monitoring experimentas around the world.

I repeat, two points only:

1) cold fusion is not impossible.
2) All claims to date that cold fusion has been achieved are hoaxes.

Does that make it a bit more clear?

Cold fusion is a hoax, and remains so, to date.

stuart_allsop

02-14-2005, 01:48 PM

Cold Fusion is an easy concept.

...

Cold Fusion also uses surface absorption, except the metal this time is platinum You were actually doing OK up til here, but then you blew it: the platinum electrode is not the active electrode in te Pons-Flesichman hoax. It is the PALADIUM electrode that is supposed to cause the miracle.

Somewhat strange that an esteemed ORNL physicist, who considers himself to standright alongside God, and who invented HAARP and contrails, would make a basic mistake like that!

Insurrectionchemistry

02-14-2005, 01:48 PM

stuart_allsop

02-14-2005, 03:31 PM

Well then I should be dead, because I have been standing right next to fusion machines that fused D-T, just far short of the break-even power levels desired.

Don't recall them setting off any alarms anywhere.

Must mean Simon Stuart is a hoax.

IMHO,
isWell, I'd be smashingly intrigued by your theory on how to achieve fusion without releasing neutrinos! That would, indeed, be a supremely substantial, not to mention rather miraculous, breakthrough in nuclear physics, easily worthy of a nobel prize. Are you planning to nominate yourself?

And are you also planning to recognize your glaring gaff in declaring that cold fusion with deuterium takes place on the platinum electrode, when in fact it takes place on the paladium electrode?

(PS, you can give up the pretense any time you want now, Jimmy boy: The jig is well and truly up. Not even a decent science lab bottle washer should make that kind of crass mistake. Is that why they fired you, Jimbo? Was it because you couldn't even get the test tubes cleaned properly?)

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 04:17 PM

Sorry if I alarmed you!
I'm not alarmed. Aerosols are not gases, and gases are not aerosols. Aerosols are particles. It helps when people speak the same language. Far too many chemmies think aerosols are all bad things, when without aerosols we might have no rain at all, and most aerosols are natural.

I did take a course in meteorology at the University level, and did quite well. That is one reason why I have been able to understand and debunk the "chemtrails" hoax, and can understand the technical details in the literature far better than the average person, and am well-informed on the issues. I read both sides of the issue so that I know what to expect.

My personal opinion is that there still exists plenty of uncertainty about the idea runaway anthropogenic global warming is taking place, or even in our future at all. Present rises in temperature have precedent both higher and lower before CO2 increases, and I personally believe our climate just isn't that sensitive to CO2 forcing. Lastly, the last rise in temperature, during the medieval period, and obviously not the result of man, wasn't a catastrophe. Much of the currrent 'hair-on-fire' panic, and especially the latest brou-ha-ha sky-is-falling-no-matter-what-we-do is a knee-jerk reaction to the failure of Kyoto due to our country's refusal to ratify.

I fully expect, at minimum, another four years of bitchin' and whinin' coming out of the developed countries that foolishly seem hell-bent on crippling their economies. Hopefully, as they decline, we won't be forced to go back and free them from yet another totalitarian morass like we did twice last century. Asia appears destined to take second place in the world, ahead of an old world in decline. I really don't see much sense in American children learning either French or German, both dying languages. A chinese dialect appears to be a sound choice.

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 04:25 PM

I also admire all people's attempts to reforest and "green" their property and large tracts of land previously cleared from the 1800's expansion. That's a wonderful thing!
Actually, most of the greening forests in the US are on marginal land that wasn't really suited to farming anyway, it just reverted by itself given time, as does rain forest. The Ozarks, where I live, was once burned annually by the Indians, vast cataclysms which eliminated most trees except fire-resistant pines. Tremendous CO2 production every year, for THOUSANDS of years. I haer tell the forest service will be burning 3000 acres next week.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-14-2005, 04:29 PM

D-T fusion reactions do make lots of radiation, and all the people around the ORNL fusion machines were getting radiated. But at a tolerable level, as the rates were low. All the control rooms butted up right against the machine and people were right there all the time.

Dosimeters were the rule there, and they would run up quite high sometimes.

There are several hydrogen fusion methods.

Cold Fusion does not use the D-T, nor the D-D reaction.

Cold Fusion uses a very clean mechanism with hydrogen. It is well exposed in the literature.

It is the very big selling point of cold fusion.

IMHO,
is

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html

"The HD reaction p + d --> 3He does not have an accompanying y-ray; the excess energy is taken up by the metallic lattice of Pd alloyed with D." And finally:

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 04:58 PM

"And in the case of NF3, it shows that this in association with hydrocarbons of any kind promote a simple chemical reaction that results in mass loss from the hydrocarbon by disassociation into shorter H-C's."

Hope someone with chemistry knowledge can respond to you on this one. It's the best back-up you've posted yet, according to my limited knowledge. Let's see what happens!

What Jimbo didn't tell you, there, BC, is that NF3
has an atmospheric LIFETIME OF 740 YEARS!
Doesn't sound like a reaction is going to happen very soon, does it?
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/geninfo/gwps.html

Gotcha 'gin, Jimbo!
NF3 is just as stable as oxygen, not a model of stability, but not reactive at room temperature.
If you really want NF3 to react, you've got to put some heat to it.
Actually, photolysis(breakdown of NF3 by sunlight in the stratosphere) takes 740 years and liberates the flourine which combines with hydrogen and forms HF, which is removed from the atmosphere by wet deposition. Jimbo therefore has it backwards. In his conspiracy, HF breaks down into NF3, while the exact opposite is actually true!

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 05:01 PM

I think I'd go so far as to say that the only solution for the problem that is the moderators of this board is a bullet to their collective head.EOM
(This should be interesting... and boy am I having fun now!!!! )
Haven't I heard something like that before?

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 05:07 PM

And are you also planning to recognize your glaring gaff in declaring that cold fusion with deuterium takes place on the platinum electrode, when in fact it takes place on the paladium electrode?(PS, you can give up the pretense any time you want now, Jimmy boy: The jig is well and truly up. Not even a decent science lab bottle washer should make that kind of crass mistake. Is that why they fired you, Jimbo? Was it because you couldn't even get the test tubes cleaned properly?)
Did Jimbo really say fusion takes place on the platinum electrode?
OMG!
What a nincompoop dopehead.

I see he let it sit for two hours until you corrected it for him, Stuart.
Must make you feel good correcting a false self-proclaimed 'god' like Jim Phelps.
Sort of a 'no-brainer', eh!

Insurrectionchemistry

02-14-2005, 05:22 PM

Actually the MSDS says nothing about needing heat to get NF3 to react with hydrocarbons, so one count on Reynolds is down. NF3 did not need any heat to go after heavy H-C's. Heat would only speed the rates. Lie number one.

NF3 is not reactive with anything but hydrocarbons in the air and it does have a long lifetime and builds over time to go after more and more creation of lower MW GW gases. This is why some of the problems starting now, cannot be stopped. Long lag times for recovery. Some of these terms on the NF3 lifetime omit the atmospheric generation, as they tend to work on the source term releases from chemical industries.

NF3 is only one of the NFx and OFx class compounds, as the others don't linger so long. NF3 is actually a common rocket fuel oxidizer, and its decomposition warnings about being around H-C compounds are real.

In Oak Ridge, they often use chlorine-tri-fluoride to resuspend the trapped uranium in the gas diffusion process. They teach all the workers how dangerous the chemical is by taking a slab of bacon and squirting the Cl-F3 on it. That one is very reactive, but same idea.

Reynolds does support that when NF3 does break down it eventually converts back to HF, but he forgets to tell ya how heavy it is. NF3 has a MW of 71 (more than twice that of air), which means it sinks in air and hovers down low with the heavy hydrocarbons. This also means the HF to NFO generation dominates the upper altitude chemical balance equation.

NF3 in H-C reactions also goes back to HF, as it pulls the hydrogen out of the H-C chain and forces its recombination into more lite H-C compounds.

Which means, Reynolds has lied perhaps three times here.

The cascade chain from HF makes a huge GWP effect----one so dominate that it justified chemtrails to remove HF and HAARP to push the upper layer gases into space.

Thus, the magnitude of the despiration in Reynolds attempts to lie here are overwhelming indicative toward his guilt in the cover up of the dominate GW effect.

I would recommend the FBI haul him in to account why he is helping the oil industry hide this effect.

IMHO,
is

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 06:44 PM

A most amazing and educational starting point for all the studies regarding all the factors for global warming and climate change (link below). I admit to Jay and the world that I was simplifying the aerosol-gas equation. But nonetheless, the aerosols as (defined accurately below and in great detail at the link) AND the gases, are both in their respective categories measurable and thus fairly constant in their mean averages. I also admit that serious study on the jargon and definitions referrnig to climate study has just started for me. And I'm not a "chemmie" (Reynolds).... thank you. And excuse me for my lack of proper terminology. From the link below one can search all specifics of aerosols and gases both natural and anthropogenic.

A total alphabetical list of terms and links to studies and information on each term and the vocablulary used.
http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/toolboxes/glossary.htm#anthropogenic

Aerosols
A collection of airborne solid or liquid particles, with a typical size between 0.01 and 10 nm and residing in the atmosphere for at least several hours. Aerosols may be of either natural or anthropogenic origin. Aerosols may influence climate in two ways: directly through scattering and absorbing radiation, and indirectly through acting as condensation nuclei for cloud formation or modifying the optical properties and lifetime of clouds. See: Indirect aerosol effect.
The term has also come to be associated, erroneously, with the propellant used in “aerosol sprays”.

Afforestation
Planting of new forests on lands that historically have not contained forests. For a discussion of the term forest and related terms such as afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation: see the IPCC Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (IPCC, 2000).

Carbonaceous aerosol
Aerosol consisting predominantly of organic substances and various forms of black carbon. (Source: Charlson and Heintzenberg, 1995, p. 401.)

Carbon dioxide (CO2)
A naturally occurring gas, also a by-product of burning fossil fuels and biomass, as well as land-use changes and other industrial processes. It is the principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas that affects the earth’s radiative balance. It is the reference gas against which other greenhouse gases are measured and therefore has a Global Warming Potential of 1.

Climate change
Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.
Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines “climate change” as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between “climate change” attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and “climate variability” attributable to natural causes.
See also: Climate variability.

Desertification
Land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities. Further, the UNCCD (The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification) defines land degradation as a reduction or loss, in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas, of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of rain-fed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest, and woodlands resulting from land uses or from a process or combination of processes, including processes arising from human activities and habitation patterns, such as: (i) soil erosion caused by wind and/or water; (ii) deterioration of the physical, chemical and biological or economic properties of soil; and (iii) long-term loss of natural vegetation.

Emission scenario
A plausible representation of the future development of emissions of substances that are potentially radiatively active (e.g. greenhouse gases, aerosols), based on a coherent and internally consistent set of assumptions about driving forces (such as demographic and socio-economic development, technological change) and their key relationships.
Concentration scenarios, derived from emission scenarios, are used as input into a climate model to compute climate projections.
In IPCC (1992) a set of emission scenarios was presented which were used as a basis for the climate projections in IPCC (1996). These emission scenarios are referred to as the IS92 scenarios. In the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (Nakicenovic et al., 2000) new emission scenarios, the so called SRES scenarios, were published some of which were used, among others, as a basis for the climate projections presented in Chapter 9 of this Report. For the meaning of some terms related to these scenarios, see SRES scenarios.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
wg1/338.htm

Global Warming Potential (GWP)
An index, describing the radiative characteristics of well mixed greenhouse gases, that represents the combined effect of the differing times these gases remain in the atmosphere and their relative effectiveness in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. This index approximates the time-integrated warming effect of a unit mass of a given greenhouse gas in today’s atmosphere, relative to that of carbon dioxide.

Greenhouse effect
Greenhouse gases effectively absorb infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the natural greenhouse effect.
Atmospheric radiation is strongly coupled to the temperature of the level at which it is emitted. In the troposphere the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C.
An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing, an imbalance that can only be compensated for by an increase of the temperature of the surface-troposphere system. This is the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Halocarbons
Compounds containing either chlorine, bromine or fluorine and carbon. Such compounds can act as powerful greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The chlorine and bromine containing halocarbons are also involved in the depletion of the ozone layer.

Indirect aerosol effect
Aerosols may lead to an indirect radiative forcing of the climate system through acting as condensation nuclei or modifying the optical properties and lifetime of clouds. Two indirect effects are distinguished:
First indirect effect
A radiative forcing induced by an increase in anthropogenic aerosols which cause an initial increase in droplet concentration and a decrease in droplet size for fixed liquid water content, leading to an increase of cloud albedo. This effect is also known as the Twomey effect. This is sometimes referred to as the cloud albedo effect. However this is highly misleading since the second indirect effect also alters cloud albedo.
Second indirect effect
A radiative forcing induced by an increase in anthropogenic aerosols which cause a decrease in droplet size, reducing the precipitation efficiency, thereby modifying the liquid water content, cloud thickness, and cloud life time. This effect is also known as the cloud life time effect or Albrecht effect.

Montreal Protocol
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was adopted in Montreal in 1987, and subsequently adjusted and amended in London (1990), Copenhagen (1992), Vienna (1995), Montreal (1997) and Beijing (1999). It controls the consumption and production of chlorine- and bromine-containing chemicals that destroy stratospheric ozone, such as CFCs, methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and many others.

Ozone layer
The stratosphere contains a layer in which the concentration of ozone is greatest, the so called ozone layer. The layer extends from about 12 to 40 km. The ozone concentration reaches a maximum between about 20 and 25 km. This layer is being depleted by human emissions of chlorine and bromine compounds. Every year, during the Southern Hemisphere spring, a very strong depletion of the ozone layer takes place over the Antarctic region, also caused by human-made chlorine and bromine compounds in combination with the specific meteorological conditions of that region. This phenomenon is called the ozone hole.

Precursors
Atmospheric compounds which themselves are not greenhouse gases or aerosols, but which have an effect on greenhouse gas or aerosol concentrations by taking part in physical or chemical processes regulating their production or destruction rates.

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 06:52 PM

The following results of studies so far offer graphs, mathematic indicies, and information that anyone can peruse and active links to other more specific papers. These are just a few related to aerosols so please feel free to investigate from the glossary above.

http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/toolboxes/glossary.htm#anthropogenic

6.7.1 Summary of the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report and Areas of Development (direst link unavailable due to search from glossary above)

The SAR considered three anthropogenic aerosol species; sulphate, biomass burning aerosols, and fossil fuel black carbon (or soot). The SAR suggested a radiative forcing of -0.4 Wm-2 with a factor of two uncertainty for sulphate aerosols, -0.2 Wm-2 with a factor of three uncertainty for biomass burning, and +0.1 Wm-2 with a factor of three uncertainty for fossil fuel black carbon aerosols. The level of scientific understanding (referred to as a confidence level in the SAR, see Section 6.13) was classified as “low” for sulphate aerosol and “very low” for both fossil fuel black carbon and biomass burning aerosols. Since the SAR, there have been advances in both modelling and observational studies of the direct effect of tropospheric aerosols (see reviews by Shine and Forster (1999) and Haywood and Boucher (2000)). Global chemical transport modelling studies encompass a greater number of aerosol species and continue to improve the representation of the physical and chemical processes (see Chapters 4 and 5). Global models are more numerous and include more accurate radiative transfer codes, more sophisticated treatments of the effects of relative humidity for hygroscopic aerosols, better treatment of clouds, and better spatial and temporal resolution than some earlier studies. The present day direct radiative forcing due to aircraft emissions of sulphate and black carbon aerosol have been calculated to be insignificant (IPCC, 1999) and are not considered further. Spatial patterns of the calculated radiative forcings are not discussed in detail here but are presented in Section 6.14.

6.14.2 Aerosol Species
An example of the direct radiative forcing due to sulphate aerosol is shown in Figure 6.7d (Haywood et al., 1997a). In common with many other studies (see Section 6.7), the direct radiative forcing is negative everywhere, and there are three main areas where the radiative forcing is strongest in the Northern Hemisphere corresponding to the main industrialised regions of North America, Europe, and Southeast Asia. In the Southern Hemisphere, two less strong regions are seen. The ratio of the radiative forcing in the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere has been reported by many studies and varies from 2 (Graf et al., 1997) to approximately 7 (Myhre et al., 1998c). Generally, the strongest sulphate direct radiative forcing occurs over land areas although the low surface reflectance means that areas of water close to heavily industrialised regions such as the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea result in strong local radiative forcings. Due to the large areal extent of ocean regions, the contribution to the total annual mean radiative forcing from ocean regions is significant. The ratio of the annual mean radiative forcing over land to that over oceans varies from approximately 1.3 (Kiehl et al., 2000) to 3.4 (Boucher and Anderson, 1995) (see Table 6.4).

An example of the direct radiative forcing due to organic carbon and black carbon from biomass burning is shown in Figure 6.7e (Penner et al., 1998b; Grant et al., 1999). While the radiative forcing is generally negative, positive forcing occurs in areas with a very high surface reflectance such as desert regions in North Africa, and the snow fields of the Himalayas. This is because biomass burning aerosols contain black carbon and are partially absorbing. The dependency of the sign of the radiative forcing from partially absorbing aerosols upon the surface reflectance has been investigated by a number of recent studies (e.g., Chylek and Wong, 1995; Chylek et al., 1995; Haywood and Shine, 1995; Hansen et al., 1997a). The strongest negative radiative forcing is associated with regions of intense biomass burning activity namely, South America, Africa, and Southern Asia and Indonesia and differ from the regions where the sulphate radiative forcing is strongest (Figure 6.7d), being confined to approximately 30oN to 30oS.

An example of the direct radiative forcing due to organic and black carbon from fossil fuel burning is shown in Figure 6.7f (Penner et al., 1998b; Grant et al., 1999). In contrast to the direct radiative forcing from biomass burning (Figure 6.7e), the modelled direct radiative forcing is generally positive except over some oceanic regions near industrialised regions such as the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea. This is because, on average, aerosols emitted from fossil fuels contain a higher black/organic carbon ratio than biomass aerosols (Penner et al., 1998b; Grant et al., 1999) and are thus more absorbing. Comparison of the radiative forcing due to sulphate aerosols reveals that the areas of strongest sulphate direct radiative forcing are offset to some degree by the radiative forcing due to fossil fuel emissions of black carbon as shown in calculations by Haywood et al. (1997a) and Myhre et al. (1998c). Additional regions of moderate positive radiative forcing are present over areas of high surface reflectance such as northern polar regions and the North African deserts.

An example of the direct radiative forcing due to anthropogenic emissions of mineral dust is shown in Figure 6.7g (Tegen et al., 1996). Areas of strong positive forcing are shown over regions with high surface reflectance such as desert regions in Africa and over the snow surfaces of the Himalayas and areas of strong negative forcing are apparent over ocean areas close to mineral dust sources such as off the coasts of Arabia and North Africa. The exact switchover between areas of positive and negative radiative forcing are not well established owing to uncertainties in the modelled mineral aerosol optical properties and depends upon the assumed single scattering albedo (Miller and Tegen, 1998), the long-wave properties and altitude of the aerosol (Section 6.7.6).

An example of the “first” indirect radiative effect (i.e., changes in the cloud reflectivity only) due to anthropogenic industrial aerosols is shown in Figure 6.7h. The forcing is calculated diagnostically in a similar way to Jones and Slingo (1997), but is based on a more recent version of the Hadley Centre model (HadAM3; Pope et al., 2000), uses updated sulphur emission scenarios from the SRES scenario for the year 2000 (Johns et al., 2001) and also includes a simple parametrization of sea salt aerosol (Jones et al., 1999). The spatial distribution of the indirect radiative forcing is quite different from the direct radiative forcing with strong areas of forcing off the coasts of industrialised regions (note the change in scale of Figure 6.7h). There is a significant radiative forcing over land regions such as Europe and the Eastern coast of North America, and Southeast Asia. The spatial distribution of the indirect radiative forcing will depend critically upon the assumed spatial distribution of the background aerosol field and the applied anthropogenic perturbation and differs substantially between studies (see Section 6.8.5). It would have a very different spatial distribution if the effect of biomass burning aerosols were included. The “second” indirect effect whereby inclusion of aerosols influences the lifetime of clouds is not considered here due to the complications of necessarily including some cloud feedback processes in the estimates (Section 6.8.5), but may well resemble the spatial distribution of the “first” indirect effect.

.

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 06:54 PM

(continued from above post)

6.14.3 Other Radiative Forcing Mechanisms
The spatial distribution of three other radiative forcing mechanisms are considered in this section: the radiative forcing due to contrails, land-use change, and solar variability. The radiative forcing due to other constituents such as nitrate aerosol and aviation-induced cirrus that are very difficult to quantify at present are not presented as geographic distributions of the radiative forcing are currently considered to be speculative.

An example of the present day radiative forcing due to the effect of contrails is shown in Figure 6.7i (Minnis et al., 1999). The radiative forcing is very inhomogeneous, being confined to air-traffic corridors (IPCC, 1999). Future scenarios for aircraft emissions may shift the current geographical pattern of the radiative forcing as discussed in IPCC (1999).

An example of an estimate of the radiative forcing due to changes in land use is shown in Figure 6.7j (Hansen et al., 1998). The areas of strongest negative forcing occur at northern latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere due to the felling of forests which have a lower albedo when snow is present (see Section 6.13). Additional effects are due to the change in albedo between crop lands and naturally occurring vegetation. Examples where the radiative forcing is positive include areas where irrigation has enabled crop-growing on previously barren land.

An example of the present day radiative forcing due to solar variability is shown in Figure 6.7k. The solar radiative forcing was calculated by scaling the top of the atmosphere net solar radiation such that the global average is +0.3 Wm-2 (as deduced for global average radiative forcing since 1750, see Section 6.13.1). Thus it assumes a 0.125% increase in solar constant and no change in any other parameter (e.g., O3, cloud). The cloud and radiation fields were calculated within a run of the UGAMP GCM (Haigh, 1996). The strongest radiative forcings exist where the surface reflectance is low (i.e., oceanic regions) and the insolation is highest (i.e., equatorial regions). The solar radiative forcing is also modulated by cloud amount, areas with low cloud amount showing the strongest radiative forcing. The solar radiative forcing is more inhomogeneous than the radiative forcing due to gaseous species (Section 6.14.1), but more homogeneous than the radiative forcing due to aerosol species (Section 6.14.2).

While the preceding sections have shown that the radiative forcing due to the different forcing mechanisms have very different spatial distributions, it is essential to note that the forcing/response relationship given in Section 6.2 relates global mean radiative forcings to global mean temperature response. Thus, it is not possible to simply map the geographical radiative forcing mechanisms by assuming a globally invariant climate sensitivity parameter to predict a geographic temperature response, due to the complex nature of the atmosphere-ocean system. Rather, the effects of spatial inhomogeneity in the distribution of the radiative forcing may lead to locally different responses in surface temperature (Section 6.2) indicating that the spatial distributions of the radiative forcing need to be accurately represented to improve regional estimates of surface temperature response and other physical parameters

_____________________________

OK, getting on equal footing now.

Thanks!

BC

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 07:45 PM

In case any of you were wondering, we celebrated Valentine's Day yesterday privately and then we threw a combination birthday-Valentine's Day party for our son, his friends, and our family.

For anyone who's interested:

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hotitems/storyDetail_org.php?sid=2559

This story entered on 18th Nov, 2004 09:40:50 AM PST

The CMDL Halocarbons and other Atmospheric Trace Species (HATS) group have been monitoring the global concentrations and growth rates of CFC-11 (CCl3F), CFC-113 (CCl2FCClF2), CFC-12, CH3CCl3, carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) since 1987. Trace gases (in concentrations as low a few parts per trillion) containing chlorine, bromine, and iodine are involved in the destruction of the Earth's ozone layer, and some have high global warming potentials. Now, the concentrations of these and additional trace gases from Niwot Ridge, Colorado; Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii; American Samoa; and South Pole, Antarctica may be viewed online at http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/insitu/cats/cats_conc.html.

The HATS group has been monitoring CFC's during their global increase, and more recently their decline, in response to countries adhering to the Montreal Protocol, the international treaty that set in motion reductions in the production of halocarbon gases that are damaging the stratospheric ozone layer. As the most reactive ozone depleting gases are declining in the atmosphere, CFC replacement compounds such as HCFC-22 (CHClF2) and HCFC-142b (CH3CClF2) are increasing as are sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and halon-1211. The concentration of these gases may also be viewed online.

More information: http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/insitu/cats/cats_conc.html
Contact information
Name: Geoff Dutton
Tel: (303) 497-6086
Geoff.Dutton@noaa.gov

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 07:50 PM

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hotitems/storyDetail_org.php?sid=2509

This story entered on 22nd Oct, 2004 01:46:41 PM PST

Ten scientists from different organizations and disciplines met in the CMDL Boulder facilities with the object of providing the World Meteorological Organization with a coordinated set of guidelines related to atmosphere ozone studies. The group (http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ozone_experts) is the Scientific Advisory Group for Ozone to the Global Atmospheric Watch (http://www.wmo.ch/web/arep/gaw/gaw_home.html). This "SAG-O3" is one of seven such committees on issues including Greenhouse gases, UV radiation, Precipitation Chemistry, Aerosols, Reactive Gases, etc. Members are chosen to represent data producers and data users, and are expected to give direction to WMO/GAW activities related to the subject.

The issues related to both ozone in the stratosphere and troposphere discussed included instrument standard operating procedures, data reduction algorithms, calibration campaigns, satellite measurements, trend detection and data assessments.

The CMDL network of total ozone measurements, ozone profile measurements and surface ozone measurements are a substantial part of the GAW. CMDL is connected to the GAW network through NOAA?s commitments to the WMO.

More information: http://www.wmo.ch/web/arep/gaw/gaw_home.html
Contact information
Name: Bob Evans
Tel: (303) 497-6679
Robert.D.Evans@noaa.gov

;)

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 08:09 PM

The drawback of a large volcanic eruption, while lowering the mean temperature, would also quite substantially reduce ozone:

Ozone depletion, through halogen-related chemistry, is facilitated by increased stratospheric particles as provided by stratospheric clouds in the polar regions and globally by volcanic eruptions. In order to study the volcanic aerosol-ozone interaction, CMDL monitors stratospheric aerosol with lidars at Boulder and Mauna Loa with an additional system being implemented in Samoa. Modeling suggests that with present halogen levels, a major eruption such as that of Pinatubo in 1991 could decrease total column ozone by as much as 10% at mid-latitudes

Other info. on anthropogenic and natural causes of ozone depletion:

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozone.html

"Intensified research of this phenomenon (ozone depletion) followed and led ultimately to the strengthening of the Montreal Protocol, restricting or banning industrial production of chlorinated and brominated compounds causing the depletion. " (link)

"Most of the gases that are responsible for depleting stratospheric ozone are anthropogenic, but some, such as CH3Br and CH3Cl, have natural contributions as well. " (link)

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 08:56 PM

I would recommend the FBI haul him in to account why he is helping the oil industry hide this effect.

Sorry for you, Jimmy boy. I'll be around when the boys with white coats come take you away.

The photolysis of NF3in the stratosphere yields a fluorine radical that reacts to form hydrogen fluoride (HF).

The stability of HF results in an ozone depleting potential of fluorine that is approximately three orders of magnitude less than that of the chlorine radical. NF3 has a short atmospheric lifetime of 740 years.

HF ultimately diffuses down to the troposphere where it is removed by wet deposition.

Here is the chemical equation showing the fate of NF3 in the atmosphere:
2 NF3 + 3 H2O = 6 HF + N2O3

Show the above to any chemist, who will confirm that it is a correct and properly balanced chemical reaction equation, something that Jimbo Phelps has NEVER shown you.

Show Jimbos ignorant ravings to a chemist to give him his laugh for the day.
I'm not kidding. There are chemistry message boards out there, find a professional opinion, someone, if you are interested in the truth.

jayreynolds

02-14-2005, 09:15 PM

The drawback of a large volcanic eruption, while lowering the mean temperature, would also quite substantially reduce ozone

Speaking of volcanos, were you aware that the aerosols they put up only last a year or so?
Even 20 million tons!

Here is an excerpt from my buddy Dr. Patrick Minnis, who used to make mincemeat out of DON JOHNSON and the other chemmies till he got bored with it.:

"Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 From: Patrick Minnis <p.minnis@larc.nasa.gov Subject: Jet aerosol spraying

Dear xxxx,

Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting email.

I do try to keep an open mind, but then again, I have a lot of trouble with the notion of the observed trails being the result of spraying for climate purposes or for imbuing the populace with some sort of toxin/vaccine/microchip/etc.

Because of my experience with meteorology, I am continuously baffled by the complexity of our atmosphere and of man's attempts to conciously alter it successfully for a particular goal. As I think I mentioned in the last email, the theories such as those you mention below (Teller) are still pie in the sky.

The best way to get a scattering effect that wil do anything is to load up the stratosphere with submicron sized particles. To accomplish anything noticeable in terms of a climate effect you would have to loft material equivalent in weight/particle number to that injected by a volcano of the magnitude of El Chichon or greater, more like Pinatubo in size.

That would mean the planes would have to deposit 20,000,000 tons of material in the stratosphere every 2 or 3 years. To keep it up there, it would be best to place it in the Tropics meaning they would have to reach altitudes of 55,000 to 60,000 ft. To match the Pinatubo output, this means for the miltary's C-141B Starlifter with a capacity of 34.3 tons, it would require only 20,000,000 / 34.3 = 582,030 flights in the course of say, 3 years or roughly 195,000 flights each year or 531/day just to go up and spray a bunch of junk into the stratosphere. How much fuel do you think that would require?

If the military had 747s, then the number would drop by a third. But here is the problem. The volcanos put the material at altitudes above 60,000 ft. There are very few planes that can reach those altitudes and cargo planes are not included in that bunch. Most of them fly below 45,000 ft."

Mike

02-14-2005, 09:18 PM

Tough call for Poor Old Mike. Can't win if he does, and can't win if he doesn't, and he can't even win if so much as replies to this post!!!! You're into self-congratulation a bit too much, Stuart. More than "a bit" actually.

I'll do nothing more than enforce posted rules. As I noted before, you tried to drag "moderation" into an argument you seemed unable to win any other way, and it failed. The post from which the above quote was taken could have been three times as long, but the essential "meat" would remain the same...you didn't get your way even after trying to impress me with what an important person you are.

Boomer Chick

02-14-2005, 09:42 PM

Speaking of volcanos, were you aware that the aerosols they put up only last a year or so?
Even 20 million tons!

Here is an excerpt from my buddy Dr. Patrick Minnis, who used to make mincemeat out of DON JOHNSON and the other chemmies till he got bored with it.:

"Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 From: Patrick Minnis <p.minnis@larc.nasa.gov Subject: Jet aerosol spraying

Dear xxxx,

Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting email.

I do try to keep an open mind, but then again, I have a lot of trouble with the notion of the observed trails being the result of spraying for climate purposes or for imbuing the populace with some sort of toxin/vaccine/microchip/etc.

Because of my experience with meteorology, I am continuously baffled by the complexity of our atmosphere and of man's attempts to conciously alter it successfully for a particular goal. As I think I mentioned in the last email, the theories such as those you mention below (Teller) are still pie in the sky.

The best way to get a scattering effect that wil do anything is to load up the stratosphere with submicron sized particles. To accomplish anything noticeable in terms of a climate effect you would have to loft material equivalent in weight/particle number to that injected by a volcano of the magnitude of El Chichon or greater, more like Pinatubo in size.

That would mean the planes would have to deposit 20,000,000 tons of material in the stratosphere every 2 or 3 years. To keep it up there, it would be best to place it in the Tropics meaning they would have to reach altitudes of 55,000 to 60,000 ft. To match the Pinatubo output, this means for the miltary's C-141B Starlifter with a capacity of 34.3 tons, it would require only 20,000,000 / 34.3 = 582,030 flights in the course of say, 3 years or roughly 195,000 flights each year or 531/day just to go up and spray a bunch of junk into the stratosphere. How much fuel do you think that would require?

If the military had 747s, then the number would drop by a third. But here is the problem. The volcanos put the material at altitudes above 60,000 ft. There are very few planes that can reach those altitudes and cargo planes are not included in that bunch. Most of them fly below 45,000 ft."

Very interesting indeed!!! Yeah, I always thought Teller's ideas in themselves regarding climate temperature reduction were quite far fetched, but he seemed enamored by his nuclear discoveries so he spun off of it. And what about the "nuclear winter" effect old Carl Sagan used to talk about? Wouldn't a gigantic eruption such as Pinatubo or one of that magnitude or more, simply cover the earth at the higher atmospheric levels with particulates for a couple of years, cooling the earth, and then the resulting ozone depletion would then create an even warmer post-cooling situation in terms of years or even decades?

I was wrong on assuming that at this point in time volcanic emissions would actually help in the long run. ???

BC :)

jayreynolds

02-15-2005, 03:49 AM

Wouldn't a gigantic eruption such as Pinatubo or one of that magnitude or more, simply cover the earth at the higher atmospheric levels with particulates for a couple of years, cooling the earth, and then the resulting ozone depletion would then create an even warmer post-cooling situation in terms of years or even decades?

No, it wouldn't. The latter, anyways. Ozone depletion via volcanism has nothing to do with warm forcing.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-15-2005, 03:49 AM

Confidence Man Reynolds gets busted again. The latest rant from the deceiver and oil industry cover up artist shows many faked up associations or what we call lies:

Lie 1:

"2 NF3 + 3 H2O = 6 HF + N2O3"
========
Here Reynolds provides a balanced chemical equation that has no application to the situation involved. NF3 only occcurs as trace NF3 in upper atmosphere, not 2 NF3. So the entire equation is bogus. It also means Reynolds cannot do bounding conditions, nor atmospheric chemistry.

The balanced chemical equation games of his are hoaxes.

Lie 2:

"NF3 has a short atmospheric lifetime of 740 years. "
=======

NF3 has what is considered a long atmospheric lifetime of 740 years, which makes for the large 11,000 GWP. Reynolds attempts to divert, as noone is talking Ozone Depletion Potentials for fluorine here and those rants don't apply to the GWP issues. NF3 is regenerated in the upper atmosphere by HF radiolysis or UV photochemical reactions because the hydrogen has a very high absorption factor for UV radiation ionization. The balance equations have to do with this effect, which Reynolds likes to deceive everyone. Plain chemists can't do those associations well. The HF hydrogen's high absorption of UV dominates the making of F ions that then capture the dominate atom nitrogen in the upper atmosphere starting the NOx cascade that leads up to NF3.

Reynolds cannot do radiolytic chemical reactions in coincidence with writing the needed several correct chemical balance equations, nor can he even grasp what factors determine atmospheric chemical equilibria.

Lie 3:

"The photolysis of NF3in the stratosphere yields a fluorine radical that reacts to form hydrogen fluoride (HF). "
===========
This is another of Reynolds lies that violate even common sense, as nitrogen is the dominate gas up there by orders of magnitude. Not H or hydrogen. Even when NF3 is subject to a photochemical ionization it goes into F plus NF2, and there is just not much H around. So, the photochemical reaction goes toward nitrogen capture, not hydrogen. This NF is formed and the process renews.

Reynolds equation games are bogus, the work of a chemical scam artist. These are not simple chemical equations, as radiation results in much more complex equations.

NF3 is a serious GW gas that is part of the HF catalytic process, that goes on even further to break up oil the more complex hydrocarbon gases in the atmosphere into more lite hydrocarbons that float in the atmosphere with long term residence times and many rise into the upper atmosphere and keep adding to the GW problems in the long long term.

HF to NFO and NF3 to produce more lite H-C's is a catalytic cascade that has a massive GWP effect. One that dominates the GW process.

The FBI will be very interested in the Reynold's Syndicates Racketeering methods to shield these simple facts from the public, using the art of a confidence man and scammer.

IMHO,
is

Insurrectionchemistry

02-15-2005, 04:59 AM

jayreynolds

02-15-2005, 05:19 AM

The latest rant from the deceiver and oil industry cover up artist shows many faked up associations or what we call lies:
"2 NF3 + 3 H2O = 6 HF + N2O3"
========
Here Reynolds provides a balanced chemical equation that has no application to the situation involved. NF3 only occcurs as trace NF3 in upper atmosphere, not 2 NF3. So the entire equation is bogus. It also means Reynolds cannot do bounding conditions, nor atmospheric chemistry.The balanced chemical equation games of his are hoaxes.

Sorry, Jimbo. The reality is that the 740 years lifetime is precisely because these gases are trace in the atmosphere. While NF3 isn't a 'Methusela" of gases, compared to some, I have aleady documented it's atmospheric lifetime.
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/geninfo/gwps.html

JIM PHELPS, HOWEVER, NEVER DOCUMENTED EITHER THE LIFETIME NOR THE GWP OF HF GAS, HIS CLAIMED 'CONSPIRACY GAS", BECAUSE IT HAS NEITHER.

NF3 is regenerated in the upper atmosphere by HF radiolysis or UV photochemical reactions because the hydrogen has a very high absorption factor for UV radiation ionization. The balance equations have to do with this effect, which Reynolds likes to deceive everyone. Plain chemists can't do those associations well. The hydrogen's high absorption of UV dominates the making of F ions that then capture the dominate atom nitrogen in the upper atmosphere starting the NOx cascade that leads up to NF3

Tough luck for you agains, Jimbo. You have FAILED to show any balanced chemical rection equations proving your claims. The fact is that NF3 MORE EASILY ]DEGRADES TO HF, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND AS YOU SAY.

NF3 production, BTW, takes 39.76 megajoules per kg to produce, whereas HF production requies only 2.50 Megajoules per kilogram.

Put THAT in your reactor and smoke it, Jimmy-boy!

Reynolds cannot do radiolytic chemical reactions in coincidence with writing correct chemical balance equations, nor can he even grasp what factors determine atmospheric chemical equilibria.

I presented the balanced chemical equation proving my point.
Jim Phelps, on the other hand produced only smoke.

"The photolysis of NF3in the stratosphere yields a fluorine radical that reacts to form hydrogen fluoride (HF). "
===========
This is another of Reynolds lies that violate even common sense, as nitrogen is the dominate gas up there by orders of magnitude. Not H or hydrogen. Even when NF3 is subject to a photochemical ionization it goes into F plus NF2, and there is just not much H around. So, the photochemical reaction goes toward nitrogen capture, not hydrogen. This NF is formed and the process renews. Reynolds equation games are bogus, the work of a chemical scam artist. These are not simple chemical equations, as radiation results in much more complex equations.
Nope, Jimmy, the equations aren't hard at all for me. This is high-school stuff, maybe tough for a guy whose claim to fame was washing glassware tho!
As shown above, the reaction to produce NF3 requires FAR MORE ENERGY to produce NF3 than required to produce HF. Case closed, Jimbo, unless you can show calculations to the contrary.

HF to NF3 to more lite H-C's is a catalytic cascade that has a massive GWP effect. One that dominates the GW process.

And your proof of this is????

jayreynolds

02-15-2005, 05:36 AM

An Example of the correct method for writing photo-chemical decomposition equations, the transition state equations, that pay heed to the mechanism at hand.
NF3 + UV -----> F + NF2
where:
F + O2 ----> NFO2
and
NF2 + O ----> NOF2
These two outcomes on the right are the predominate NFx compounds.
t takes transitional state equations, yes plural equations, to properly describe the process. Reynolds equation is bogus BS that only a hoaxer would use.
The fluorine atom's higher electronegative state dominates all the transistion processes.
These are the proper photo chemical transition state equations for a UV interaction with a NF3 molecule.
Which means Reynolds chemical equation is a hoax, not even proper procedures followed. It is called lying like a confidence artist or crook. He does not even use the standard chemical symbolism yield sign of a real chemist, his chemistry equation is hoax written by an idiot.
Thus, it is established by Reynolds is a pathological liar and hoaxer.
IMHO,is

So, Jimbo, this is how you balance an equation????
Even a grade school student can see that there is no nitrogen on the left to yield nitrogen on the right.
F + O2 ----> NFO2
To quote my buddy Donald Trump-

You're fired!

"Damn, gotta go edit the damn post again! That Jay Reynolds won't let me make a single mistake, DAMN HIM!"

edited to mention that yes, Jimbo went back and added the nitrogen, after I ointed it out.
ha!
No thanks to me for teaching you chemistry, Jimbo?

Insurrectionchemistry

02-15-2005, 06:38 AM

The similar equation for HF and UV radiation catalytic recombination is this one, given the upper atmsphere is mainly N2 and O2 (bounding condition criteria):

HF + UV -----> H + F

where:

Free hydrogen generally escapes the atmosphere or : H + 1/2 O2 ----> OH

and

F + N2 + O2 ----> NFO + NO

NFO is the most abundant NFx molecule from the ionization of HF in the upper atmosphere and it has the similar characteristics toward hydrocarbon decomposition as NF3. The fluorine atom will always go for the carbon bound hydrogen combination, unless there is a metal present.

If the NFO encounters another hydrogen atom it goes back to HF, and if NFO encounters other free fluorine atoms it goes to NF3. And so on. It can go to NF3, but rarely. This is the NFx cascade. NFx compounds won't react with oxygen bound hydrogen, as in H2O, because the oxygen bond of hydrogen is too strong. NFx compounds will only react with the more lose binding of carbon and hydrogen as in hydrocarbons.

NFO is the primary agent that decomposes hydrocarbon chains and rings in the atmosphere into lower MW hydrocarbons the linger in the atmosphere. It works by capture of the hydrogen in the long chain or rings of hydrocarbons forcing the breakdown into more lite H-C compounds.

The effect gives rise to the huge GWP number for HF or fluorine compounds in the atmosphere.

Rather simple and obvious little equations that crooks who want to conceal this effect for the oil industry attempt to avoid. It shows the pathological lying process of the De-Bunkers.

IMHO,
is

stuart_allsop

02-15-2005, 06:43 AM

Did Jimbo really say fusion takes place on the platinum electrode?
OMG!
What a nincompoop dopehead.
Yup. He sure did say it! Here are his exact words "Cold Fusion also uses surface absorption, except the metal this time is platinum and the gas is deuterium and hydrogen. "

Of course, you can't see those words any more, because he snuck back and edited them, like a dishonest schoolboy creeping back into class to change his exam answers AFTER the paper was handed in. But the key is that embarrasing little tattle-tail note at the bottom of his post that says "Last edited by Insurrectionchemistry : 13 Hours Ago at 04:32 PM. which kind of works out to being AFTER my post where I called him on it .... :)

I see he let it sit for two hours until you corrected it for him, Stuart.
Must make you feel good correcting a false self-proclaimed 'god' like Jim Phelps.
Sort of a 'no-brainer', eh!Yup! I must admit, it is slightly satisfying to prove that a kook is a kook. We all know that Jimbo is a loony fraud anyway, without the shadow of a doubt, but its nice to be able to prove it so concretely every now and then.

But the best part is that this particular Glaring Gaff absolutely spotlights the fact that everything he says is plain old pseudo-science techno-babble, and just as worthless as the waste water from a sink full of dirty laboratory glassware....

The Shadow

02-15-2005, 06:50 AM

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=241040

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=240961

There you go with the “Diane Harvey” thing again. The very idea that you are in pursuit of the truth is the biggest hoax. You are always demanding that others produce concrete evidence of their claims. Apparently, you have another set of standards for yourself, which is not the least bit surprising. You maintain your assertion that I am Diane Harvey. Like it or not, you are obligated to deliver the proof and, despite repeated requests, you have shamelessly failed to do so. Why is this? The obvious answer is that you have none and you are too damned chickenshit to admit it. It really does not bother me who you believe I am. What is important is that the world is watching as your credibility is taking a serious pounding on this one. People are most certainly asking themselves, “What other failures is this idiot trying to cover up.”
No, I withdraw that assertion.
Your continued postings have convinced me that you are not Diane Harvey.
Now, I have answered your question.

Now it's your turn.

HAVE YOU PARTICIPATED IN ANY WAY IN THE PUBLICATION OF "CHEMTRAILS OVER AMERICA"?? as seen at this website?
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america.htm#coa

No squishy-squashy answers, no evasions, no lies.No, you have NOT answered my questions, you little weasel. In typical squishy-squashy and evasive lying Reynolds fashion, you calculatingly steered a course around the real queries and slyly focused on a convenient declarative sentence as a ruse. However, we are making slight progress. At least you are now admitting that your prior claim was false. When people like you start admitting to their lies, that is when I know for sure that I have them on the run. How thoughtful and generous of you to finally “withdraw your assertion” – long after you unceremoniously abandoned the Diane Harvey hoax, which you beat to death for over a month.

The problem is that you apparently have not learned a thing from your humiliating setback. You are still taking wild potshots, hoping that your intended target will somehow miraculously appear so that you can save face. With that in mind, perhaps what you need to do is to review a contemporary version of my earlier analysis of your failure to deliver the goods:

There you go with yet another unconvincing search and destroy mission. You have already been caught in the act trying to deny that which you are on record as having posted (http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=240453). The very idea that you are in pursuit of the truth is the biggest hoax. You are always demanding that others produce concrete evidence of their claims. Apparently, you have another set of standards for yourself, which is not the least bit surprising.

Failing to identify me as a woman named Diane Harvey, you are now taking another stab in the dark, asserting that I am somehow connected with something called “Chemtrails Over America.” Like it or not, the onus is yours to deliver the proof and, despite repeated requests, you have shamelessly failed to do so. Why is this? The obvious answer is that you have none and you are too damned chickenshit to admit it. Your use of dictatorial interrogation techniques is designed solely to intimidate and is your attempt to compensate for your inadequacies.

It really does not bother me who you believe I am. However, you do not have a clue and I intend to keep it that way. What is important is that the world is watching as your credibility is taking yet another serious pounding. People are most certainly asking themselves, “What other failures is this idiot trying to cover up.”

stuart_allsop

02-15-2005, 07:06 AM

You're into self-congratulation a bit too much, Stuart. More than "a bit" actually.

I'll do nothing more than enforce posted rules. As I noted before, you tried to drag "moderation" into an argument you seemed unable to win any other way, and it failed. The post from which the above quote was taken could have been three times as long, but the essential "meat" would remain the same...you didn't get your way even after trying to impress me with what an important person you are.

BINGO! Exactly as predicted.

Poor Old Mike! I actually kind of feel sorry for him/her.

(PS. Mike, I had already won that argument prior to reporting the other person for severely violating the Arianna Terms of Service. Guess you didn't read far enough to see that. In any event, the death threats were not even slightly related to that argument, and were not even agasint myself. How come you failed to note those points here? I assume that you were NOT trying to MISLEAD the regular posters, now were you?

And yes I did get my way: After your warning to him/her, that person has refraind from making death threats (so far), and has in fact been much more polite. They even refrained from posting at all for quite some time.

Like I said Mikey: you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't even lose gracefully! Too bad. Live with it.)

Tell me, Mr. "I'll do nothing more than enforce posted rules": Have you ever actually done that? Enfored a rul, I mean? From the shocking state of most of the other forums, and all the fithy muck that you turn a blind eye to as you freely allow your guests to fling it at each other with utmost abandon, it seems more than a little doubtful that you have ever enforced any rules at all! In fact, I challenge you to tell us just exactly what it WOULD take for you to ban somebody. Clearly searing insults, foul language, rampanat anti-semitsim and sexism, and death threats just don't do it for you, so what exactly would it take?

jayreynolds

02-15-2005, 07:20 AM

The effect gives rise to the huge GWP number for HF or fluorine compounds in the atmosphere.

nah-nah-nah! You've never cited this number, Jimbo.
Because HF doesn't contribute to Global warming, and you know it.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-15-2005, 07:41 AM

stuart_allsop

02-15-2005, 07:51 AM

Confidence Man Reynolds gets busted again. The latest rant from the deceiver and oil industry cover up artist shows many faked up associations or what we call lies:

Lie 1:

"2 NF3 + 3 H2O = 6 HF + N2O3"
========
Here Reynolds provides a balanced chemical equation that has no application to the situation involved. NF3 only occcurs as trace NF3 in upper atmosphere, not 2 NF3.

BWWAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHHAAAAA!!! Haaa haaa haaa ha ha hah... hee hee hoooo!

That has GOT to be the most clear prrof yet that Jimbo has zero idea at all about balanced chemistry equations!

You are KIDDING, right Jimbo? I mean not even a schoolboy would make such a stupid mistake as to say something like that!

Shall I give you a BIG hint about chemical equations, jimmy boy, so that you don't make embarrasing blunder like that any more? When you add a number in front of a chemcial compound in a balanced chemical equation, it does not refer to a physcial chunk of mater which has that number of molecules bonded together inside of it, which is exactly what you implied here: Rather, it just means that you need that number of SEPARATE molecules to make the reaction work. So in Jay's equation (which is correct, by the way), it does not say that you need a molecule called "2NF3" and another molecule called "3H2O" !!! BWaaaa ha hahaha! Rather, it means that you need TWO SEPARATE molecules of NF3 plus THREE SEPARATE molecules of water in the same place at the same time, plus enough energy to start the reaction.

That's what it means, Jimbo. Nothing at all to do with what you thought it meant!

Tee hee hee!!!!

Now, as Jay pointed out, the chances of those five molecules all getting together at the right time while there is also enough energy around, are pretty remote: As Jay said, for any given molecule of NF3, the odds are that it will happen about once in 740 years....

So the entire equation is bogus. It also means Reynolds cannot do bounding conditions, nor atmospheric chemistry.Sorry to have to show you up for a kook yet again, but that equation had NOTHING to do with " bounding conditions or atmospheric chemistry". Rather, it is simply the normal, totally correct and ONLY POSSIBLE chemical equation that describes the reaction between water and NH3.

I really would have expected that an advanced "god" physicist would know how to do chemical equations! Even a lab bottle washer worth his salt should be able to figure that one out!

So tell us again why you misunderstood it, Jimbo? It's they kind of thing they ask in high school chemistry tests. So how come you got it wrong, Jimbo?

Insurrectionchemistry

02-15-2005, 07:56 AM

Review time on the bounding conditions for the atmospheric distillation column effect:

Normally one thinks of the atmosphere as a column of gases, with the lite ones on top and the heavy ones on bottom.

The column order is roughly these distinct areas:

1. Hydrogen H2 The hydrogen layer MW 2

2. Methane CH-4 Ethyne C2H2 The hydro-carbon GW layer MW 16-20

3. Hydrogen Fluoride HF The fluorine problem layer MW 20

4. Air O2 N2 The standard air layer MW 30 mixed with heavy hydrocarbons.

This distillation column effect in the atmopshere sets up boundary conditions for the radiolytic chemistry process. The problem layers are the H-C layer and the HF layer.

Radiation breaks down the HF into free fluorine that immediately combines with the most abundant air component nitrogen and goes to form the heavier than air NFO, which will only react with hydrocarbons in the lower atmosphere.

The NFO encounters with H-C's in the lower atmosphere release HF again and H-C compounds like CH-4 C2H2, or truncated rings and chains of the more complicated H-C's which aids their suspension in air. The HF returns to the HF layer and the process starts anew. The lite hydrocarbons like CH-4 and C2H2 go to the global warming blanket. And heavier H-C absorb heat in the O2 N2 layer.

The net recycling effect of the HF generating this high floating H-C layer is the roots of its very high GWP. And the logical reason for chemtrails that are designed to rain out the HF at lower altitudes and provide some IR reflection to cool the planet's IR absoption.

Also, can be seen the reason for HAARP, which is designed to do experiments to push off this top H-C global warming layer that the HF catalytic pump supplies.

IMHO,
is

stuart_allsop

02-15-2005, 08:50 AM

Review time on the bounding conditions for the atmospheric distillation column effect:

Normally one thinks of the atmosphere as a column of gases, with the lite ones on top and the heavy ones on bottom.
Nope, normally one doesn't think of it that way at all! Certainly, meteorologists don't. The only folks who think of it that way are disgruntled kook bottle-washers who are trying to pretend they are a god.

jayreynolds

02-15-2005, 09:38 AM

Boomer Chick

02-15-2005, 10:59 AM

Just a news blurb about Oakridge: (active links to original articles on website page)

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_2_15.html#4993A395

U.S. researchers have developed a new system that uses algae to determine whether water supplies have been contaminated with chemical agents, the Indian newspaper The Statesman reported today (see GSN, Jan. 4).

The system, developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, measures the fluorescence of the algae in the water, according to the Statesman.

“Depending upon whether the water is healthy or it has been exposed to poison, the fluorescence signature changes. It is that change in signature that we use as the detection method for detecting the presence of chemical warfare agents,” said Eli Greenbaum of the laboratory’s Chemical Sciences Division (The Statesman, Feb. 15).

_______________________________

Anything that helps!

BC ;)

Mike

02-15-2005, 01:13 PM

And yes I did get my way: After your warning to him/her, that person has refraind from making death threats (so far), and has in fact been much more polite. They even refrained from posting at all for quite some time.It seems to please you to declare yourself a "winner". In that case, be as pleased as you like, Stewart. "poor old Mike" will just have to struggle along. :rolleyes:

Insurrectionchemistry

02-15-2005, 01:36 PM

Such a wonderful web page on chemtrials---[It is getting a huge number of hits]:

http://www.doewatch.com/chemtrails.html

This is a typical chemical equation for the production of HF and a light Global Warming hydrocarbon:

C6H6 + NFO + 5O2 ----> HF + CH4 + NO + 5CO2

The example here was is a hydrocarbon "Benzene Ring," (C-H)6, and NFO which goes to make light Methane gas [MW=16] with a GWP of 21 that stays sequestered on top of the atmosphere and is constantly pumped up by the HF catalytic effects.

There can be dozens of these hydrocarbon source compounds that are broken down into lighter hydrocarbon compounds by NFx reactions to aid their long term suspension in air.

IMHO,
is

stuart_allsop

02-15-2005, 01:48 PM

The example here was is a hydrocarbon "Benene Ring," (C-H)6, and NFO2 A "benene ring"? Are you sure about that? )tee hee hee)

Boomer Chick

02-15-2005, 02:48 PM

You know, I've been wildly trying to find support for IS's theories by going to atmospheric chemical sites and seriously, the scientists are combing every single tiny particle and molecule and the closest to Jim's is the SF6 gases mentioned in depleting ozone. You would think with their expertise and their knowledge, which if anyone peruses these multinational and national sites such as the NAOO(?) and others, they would see top notch scientists and university labs as well as satellite and other absulutely superior informing and gathering mechanisms, labs, etc. --- they would have the molecules involved nailed and pinned down. They do. They just don't include the most villianous molecules of all according to IS.

Why is that?

I didn't want to get involved but I decided to research on my own and find some kind of correlation or some kind of refutation in order to stop this madness on this board. It's turned into IS bashing and we really need to discuss what is going on with green house gas mitigation and various means to that end. And I have to support the notion that IS may be right in a small term way, maybe just locally, in local air systems, but not to the extent that it even shows up in the tropopause, the troposphere, or the higher levels..... obviously it does not or the scientists hot on the trail would have found it. And there can be no excuse like they're hiding the information. A world of scientists would not hide important information ..... it just isn't done.

Maybe IS was a victim of local air pollution where he worked. Maybe his brain was affected by the incident and he's on gov. disability because of it. It's a possibility. It would be compassionate to simply prove his equations wrong without the name calling. His statements do seem quite overblown in terms of his self importance in the overall scheme of things and that's a sure sign of mental impairment. Let's just cool the personal epithets, shall we? Like you said to me, ignore or disgree with the posts, but bashing just to bash on someone who obviously is self deluded cannot help anything. Poor man. It's sad, really.

BC :(

jayreynolds

02-15-2005, 02:53 PM

The example here was is a hydrocarbon "Benene Ring," (C-H)6, and NFO2 which goes to make light Methane gas [MW=16] with a GWP of 21 that stays sequestered on top of the atmosphere and is constantly pumped up by the HF catalytic effects.

Well, looks like you dropped that pesky NF3 like a hot potato, Jimbo.
What happened, got debunked r something, eh?
Now you are saying methane "stays sequestered on top of the atmosphere", eh?
What a dopehead. Try to sell that around town and see what you get with a real atmospheric scientist. Ha!

So, Jimbo, is putting out intentional misinformation sort of your own personal way to get back at the chemmie's that have rejected you, or do you really not give a damn what you say at this point?

Insurrectionchemistry

02-15-2005, 03:00 PM

The only delusional person around is the liberal arts major that thinks one can do real science on classified projects on the internet.

Her supporters are just corrupt persons seeking to avoid exposing a big problem for the oil industry.

Let alone, even when she sees the science she can't evaluate the impacts.

I think it is called being overwhelming stupid. Hence she gets the dunce cap from Halva and the title of bungler chump for BC.

The oligarchy of bunglers can't even prove oil floats on water, so in environmental remediation they put skimmers on top of the water to pull off the oil, that is just as impossible as methane floating on air. When one does a similar thing in the atmosphere using HAARP as an electro-thermal push system to drive the light hydrocarbons into space---she can't even see the similarities to speaker. Electro-therma system act like speakers and when one puts little obects on a speaker cone and turns up the volume---it tosses things off into the space around the speaker. HAARP is after the same thing for the light hydro-carbons floating on top of the atmospere----just like oil floats on water.

But we have an idiot, who can't seem to fathom that since oil can float on water--so can methane on air.

Most intelligent people don't even have to look that up to understand the concepts and that they easily work. But not this dumb person from Colorado.

There are only lowly words for her---dumb, stupid, vapid. How else does one comment on such mindlessness?

IMHO,
is

stuart_allsop

02-15-2005, 03:09 PM

Maybe IS was a victim ... Maybe his brain was affected by the incident ... that's a sure sign of mental impairment ... someone who obviously is self deluded ... Poor man. It's sad, really.

Yes, Boomer, all that you say is true, but I for one see no reason to let up on Jimbo. He may well be, as you say, mentally impaired and self deluded, but even the mentally impaired and the self deluded know when to call it a day. Jimbo doesn't. He wont quit.

I would actually agree with you, boomer, if it weren't for the fact that his madness results in new scams, hoaxes and cons being launched into the public domain, where the usual slew of gullible uneducated conspiracy theorists latch on to them without a thought to reality. THe words sound oh-so-scientific and oh-so-wonderfully complex, and even though we all know that they are nothing but meaningless babble, some folks just don't have what it takes to recognize that, and they end believing Jimbo and his kin.

He is an unrelenting hoax factory, so we HAVE to stay on top of him, holding him up to the light so that everyone can see what he is made of. If we were to just point out his errors without also shing the spotlight of sarcasm on him, then it would sound like a dry scientific debate, and would end up giviing Jimbo some credibility, making it look like he actually understands some chemistry and physics. Instead, by ridicuing his nutty attempts at kook kemistry, we make his motivations and agenda glaring obvious for all to see. A dry debate on technical terms would not do the job at all. We MUST expose his true naure and true colors as well. And the only way to do that is to heap the sarcastic acid sarcasm all over him. It's very effective.

stuart_allsop

02-15-2005, 03:11 PM

It seems to please you to declare yourself a "winner". In that case, be as pleased as you like, Stewart. "poor old Mike" will just have to struggle along. :rolleyes:

Well, please do be my guest in your struggles, and if you can, perhaps you could struggle out an answer to the question I poased for you, about just what it takes to get banned at Arianna's...

Insurrectionchemistry

02-15-2005, 03:27 PM

NF3 was used as a teaching aid for chemical morons like BC, that don't know about the chemical reactivity natures of the NFx class chemicals. NF3 is the x=3 NFx compound.

The other X=1 [NFO] has the same chemical property. That is they don't react with the hydrogen in water because the oxygen binds the hydrogen to tightly. The NOx molecules will react with hydro-carbons, because the carbon to hydrogen bonds are much weaker.

But when one has someone so incredibly slow and mind challanged as BC, even that appears not to work as a teaching model. Dumb as a block of granite this woman is.

NF3 was also used to demonstrate how, by an example, all the fluorine molecules in the air tend to break down into either HF or these NFx compounds and they all collectively add to the problems.

BC complains that people don't answer the questions, it could well be the problem is that when the answer is specifically given the person inquiring is literally too stupid to understand the answer.

Thus, we find it is about worthless to provide answers to idiots like BC. They asked for example chemical equations, she got them. And still she is complaigning.

BC is an absolute idiot, undenyably.

IMHO,
is

jayreynolds

02-15-2005, 03:28 PM

You know, I've been wildly trying to find support for IS's theories by going to atmospheric chemical sites and seriously, the scientists are combing every single tiny particle and molecule and the closest to Jim's is the SF6 gases mentioned in depleting ozone. You would think with their expertise and their knowledge, which if anyone peruses these multinational and national sites such as the NAOO(?) and others, they would see top notch scientists and university labs as well as satellite and other absulutely superior informing and gathering mechanisms, labs, etc. --- they would have the molecules involved nailed and pinned down. They do. They just don't include the most villianous molecules of all according to IS.

Why is that?

I'm sorry to tell you this, BC, but Jimbo is just quite a kook. He is totaly insane on a number of levels. This episode should be an object lesson to you, and the other chemmies. There are THOUSANDS of Lesser and Greater "Jim Phelp's" out there. In ordinary society, they formerly interacted primarily with people on a more local, intimate level. You could see them 'drool' and babble to the wall, then just cross the street and move on. In the worst cases family(or government) would step in and prevent these sorts from harming themselves, or others.

As you said before, it is difficult to tell [b]just who that person is[/b that is posting on some messageboard. A person can create(or purchase, as gaiacom did) a website which looks pretty much as 'ostentatious' as ABC, CNN, Monsanto, or the National Academy of Science.

This is great, a downsized freedom of influence, wherein the little guy can be as big as he wants, and say whatever he damn well pleases. I'm really not against it. Of course, without a strong background in the subject matter, and thus unable to discriminate beteween the valid and invalid, an unsuspecting person who just happens by can get 'caught up'. One website actually tells you to "spiral on down into it", a little image I always see as a person caught in a whirlpool being dragged down to his death.

And so, what is the solution? Censorship? Limitations on speech? 'Gatekeepers'?
All those options seem to me to be ready-made prescriptions for abuse, traps just waiting to be set by those unfriendly towards whomever they dislike.

The remedy, after all, is knowledge and more freedom. Knowledge, being able to spot bogus stuff by it's warning signs however subtle, critical thinking skills and the ability to validate what is said by independant research. Freedom, the ability of people to be free to create and display opposition to bogus bunk, and the willingness to do so unencumbered by censorship and unafraid of retribution for it.

The Press(all forms of media) have a role. Blogs have a role. Websites have a role. Message boards have a role. Individuals have a role. All of these have a role to play in setting the facts straight, and getting to the truth.

It's soon suppertime and I'll stop now, back later, maybe.

stuart_allsop

02-15-2005, 03:45 PM

I think it is called being overwhelming stupid. No, that's what you call someone who claims to be a master physicist, second only to God Himself, yet can't balance a basic high-school chemical equation, thinks that the Pons-Fleischman cold fusion reaction occurs on the platinum electrode, and that hydrocarbon fuels have "Benene" rings...

Boomer Chick

02-15-2005, 03:58 PM

I hear you both, Stu and Jay. I'm sorry that such a situation exists on the internet. I just wish people could practice more compassion, that's all. But whatever works, I guess.

If you truly believe you're saving other ignorant fools from listening to him, then I guess the motivation is humanitarian.

A dry scientific response wouldn't do, huh?

People are too stupid?

Is that it?

Oh.

BC :rolleyes:

Insurrectionchemistry

02-15-2005, 04:05 PM

Simon Stuart is making up lies again. Then again, even the moderators of his Forum have his number as a manipulative self aggrandized crack pot.

I don't recall calling myself a master physicist. But I do recall claiming to have invented HAARP, chemtrail methods, discovery of the HF GWP problems, and the florine synergism with metals that causes illness and diseases.

As best I can tell the word is correct in the listing, and it is Benzene.

As best I can tell the word Paladium is correct in the listing, so your making things up.

Down here in Tennessee they encourage folks to have a personal relationship with God, so I kicked out the middle man and the dumb rantings of a bunch of sheep herders that used to sacrafice goats to god. I tend to like the clearer views provided from that approach.

So, at this point, we do have Simon Stuart down there in Chili telling more of his lies. What else is new. His biggest audience is some slow woman that can likely only do housework, who thinks all is available on her internet search engine. Hate to tell her, lots of info is not on the web yet. Plus, it does help to understand science and she doesn't.

Yet, tinkerbell here thinks the internet is her key to sudden academic graduer. Her wants of instant gratification can't be attained by looking on just internet resources. Understanding science and doing research on science takes years of study and not the flash in the pan overnite success wishes of Bumbler Chump.

So, we have a case of dumb and dumber all supporting each other. Or what some would call insanity, defintely heresy.

IMHO,
is

Insurrectionchemistry

02-15-2005, 04:13 PM

BC remarks:

People are too stupid?

Is that it?

================

Not all people are stupid. But you appear to be in the category.

Some people are deceptive, and your cohorts here are in that category.

Then others do have honesty and intelligence, but only a few here fit that profile---very few.

IMHO,
is

jayreynolds

02-15-2005, 05:01 PM

Not all people are stupid.

Yeah, we know. But you are NOT one of THOSE are you, Jimbo?

Boomer Chick

02-15-2005, 05:33 PM

OK, proof positive.... IS is definately a masochist. He loves to be browbeat, he loves to have guys on the net berate him, and he obviously loves to berate women who would be kind to him even though he foolishly berates them. Why? To get a woman to berate him as well. Must be sick fun for a pervert. Why else would he withhold proof positive? Make mistakes? Play the fool?

YUP! I'm sorry, but this interchange seems sick to me. IS keeps coming back for more so there's only one thing to think..... he's a masochistic. The more you're mean to him the more he gets off.

Excuse me, but I know I'm intelligent, proved it to myself, proved it to others, did my thing and feel proud of myself. Two BA's and I did well in both of them. But that's not the issue. The issue here is perversion. Excuse me, but it's glaring and it's obvious that pervertedness reigns and it's not scientific at all. After intelligently assessing the chemical situation from a literate reader's point of view, and yes, there are sites, and all sites relevant to and pertinant regarding the issue ARE NOT hidden. Remember, I knew that someone here would say that studies are hidden, that information is withheld, because I'm aware of the paranoia game. And this is sad in itself.

But the overarching game is perverted masochism. Wake up guys! You're playing into the hands of a masochist here and he loves it.

There, I've said my peace.

Worst case scenario Jay? A certain percentage of internet goof balls believe rantings of perverts. A certain percentage believes their lives are at stake in the chemtrail question. So what? Do I care that probably .00001 percent of the population believes foolish lies? Do I care? Do I feel I could control them even if I could? Do I even have the desire? Beware. Caring too much about what fools think is a form of codependency believe it or not. It becomes your knight-on-the-white-horse syndrome which in the end, although you feel you're doing a service for mankind, only affects a tiny, weeny, teeny bit of the populace. And in some ways your incredible persistence actually turns some of them into more fervent believers and in the other instances, some may hear you, and others learn on their own. Is it worth the time spent, the energy spent? I wonder. It's none of my business what you pursue in your life, but I would think political activism and community service would bring your energies into a wider field of influence. Since the teaching profession lacks good substitute teachers, you might think of subbing in the science classes at the high schools in your area. You are indeed intelligent and quite learned in the various sciences and your expertise would go a long way for high schoolers. You might enjoy it, too. In our area all you need is a BA. Just a suggestion, not that I wish to control you at all, I don't.

I do see your potential and I see your rapier intellect. I know you're a nature-respecting person and I respect that and respect you and your lifestyle choice.

I am just throwing food for thought out for you, Jay.

At any rate, this perversion that I see screams for the truth to be told! That's the over-arching picture here. It's not about science at all, it's about a perverted soul, a sick and sad soul. I only wish him healing but if others play into his game, he won't heal at all. Ignoring him would be the best course of action. It will not feed his appetite and if fools believe him..... so what? How many could possibly be affected? Considering the readership of this particular board, maybe one or two people max?

Certainly you men can see this.

BC

jayreynolds

02-15-2005, 05:56 PM

I didn't want to get involved but I decided to research on my own and find some kind of correlation or some kind of refutation in order to stop this madness on this board. It's turned into IS bashing and we really need to discuss what is going on with green house gas mitigation and various means to that end.

Now, see, I really don't understand where this "I didn't want to get involved" comes from.
This has always been a big part of the problem, because ignoring something doesn't mean it goes away. Ignoring something, if fully accomplished, is actually a choice, you know. It is a choice to remain ignorant, and to possibly let a wrong be done, one way, or another.

Maybe IS was a victim of local air pollution where he worked. Maybe his brain was affected by the incident and he's on gov. disability because of it. It's a possibility. It would be compassionate to simply prove his equations wrong without the name calling. His statements do seem quite overblown in terms of his self importance in the overall scheme of things and that's a sure sign of mental impairment. Let's just cool the personal epithets, shall we? Like you said to me, ignore or disgree with the posts, but bashing just to bash on someone who obviously is self deluded cannot help anything. Poor man. It's sad, really.

BC, at this point, despite how he might react to what you said, Jim Phelps is so hard down on his luck, what you said here is actually a glimmer of hope to him. He IS after all, THAT deluded!

I can agree with what Stuart said, but will amplify and expand. Consider what I wrote five years ago in early 2000, at what I consider the first year of the hoax:

"As previously stated one year ago, reports of persistent contrails are within what is known to be normal. No photographs, medical diagnosis or lab analysis has been presented which supports the idea that contrails seen are anything other than normal.

There is a virus going around, however. Much as a computer virus copies the behavior of an organic virus, this virus is contagious, can mutate into myriad forms, and can infect those with weakened immune systems. This virus is transmitted orally and through the written word, from person to person and group to group, and it can even be transmitted electronically through radio and internet.

Those most afflicted are the gullible, the ignorant, or the foolish who
carry the rumors and speculations to others without regard for the
consequences of their actions, which mimics transmission of an
STD between consenting but careless people.

The protection for this very real contrail virus is a strong dose of common sense, and regular application of factual information thereafter. Nevertheless, even without treatment, time will eventually heal this virus, except in the most thoroughly entrenched cases. As time goes on, perhaps for years in some people, and persistent contrails continue to be seen year after year, all the theories developed years before will become more and more ludicrous. It is certain that those susceptible will become infected by yet another of these virii, if they do not acquire common sense and take the time to check what others tell them.

At the time I wrote that, I hadn't seen the hoax in 'full flower', with the power of media behind it, and just didn't appreciate how callously people would spread the hoax around, as I described it, "without regard for the consequences of their actions." It took another two years for me to be able to understand the cynical way people like Deborah would allow herself to be abused by assisting in the barium hoax. Even harder for me to accept was the mindset in which she, along with many others, and I include BC and Wayne Hall here, the mindset where misinformation is known and tolerated, yet ignored and allowed to proliferate. The concept, for me, is so foreign to my core beliefs that it has been an effort to remain unbiased against people who make a practice of this.

Even here on this messageboard, Deborah is actively defended when it is clear substantial questions require answers, and even though Wayne cannot help but be aware by now of Jim Phelp's lunacy, he has remained obstinately silent as bogus claims are proliferated.

If history repeats itself, we will find at least some acceptance of what Jim says among the chemmie factions. Just last week I was perusing German chemtrail sites. Sure enough, the name Jim Phelps was there, improbably attached by someone to the 'deep shield' hoax text. Realize, that the originator of the barium hoax, A.C. Griffith, dropped out and has been completely out-of-sight for over four years, yet his hoax is featured so strongly that BC came here ready to defend it.

Mark my words, if Jim were allowed a little more time, especially if he found a 'handler' able to polish and remove his rough edges, there would emerge a wide-ranging new faction of chemmies ready to go out and proselytize the public as if they had a real scientist behind them.
From my local reports, Carnicom isn't all that different from Phelps anymore, his own instabilities are showing much more than they did a few years ago. Look what he did for the hoax, when he has never, ever, produced a single bit of evidence which could be verified.

These examples show how easy it is for hoaxes to get started, and I hope it highlights the fact that ignoring something you know is wrong, like Deborah has done, is really the wrong choice to make. In reality, by choosing to do nothing, they choose to join in the original evil themselves, to hide it from others so that they too may be deceived. There is no honor in that, it is like being a whore who conceals a venereal disease and doesn't give a damn who it spreads to.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-15-2005, 06:52 PM

Well, what should we expect from a pig, but a grunt.

If I were you two, I'd stop harassing everyone on the internet and playing like some kind of VD saviors.

My voice, my outreach, my honesty, and my intelligence will overshine your VD cures all around the globe. It does everyday of the week, month, year, and it will overcome your attempts to cover up these problems.

I speak from the truth, with all conviction, and with the full back up of very heavy hitters in high circles.

All the smut and smears you attempt here in all your misguided proclivities, will have been for naught. Unless, you're attempting to be a menace to society or satan, whereupon, everyone will grant you that status.

History is not going to be kind to you jokesters.

Boomer Chick

02-15-2005, 08:34 PM

Now, see, I really don't understand where this "I didn't want to get involved" comes from.
This has always been a big part of the problem, because ignoring something doesn't mean it goes away. Ignoring something, if fully accomplished, is actually a choice, you know. It is a choice to remain ignorant, and to possibly let a wrong be done, one way, or another.

It is a choice to ignore, yes, but not necessarily to remain ignorant. And to remain ignorant is also someone's freewill choice. IS is like a boulder in the stream of knowledge that one just goes around, that's all.

When you're talking about relationships in one's family, when you're talking about someone in your work place, and when you're talking about real people in your life, you may be right about ignoring. If it doesn't go away, it doesn't mean it will grow in this particular case, however. I've seen Phelps post at CTC and no one listens to him. If anyone with any intelligence whatsoever takes the time to do a quick search, they'll know he's off track, untrue, and only one of those lonely loons who haunts any kind of conspiracy theory, even though IS's may be closer to his experience, he's twisted it into something more profoundly exaggerated than it actually is. And besides that, he's a masochist.

I already described the worst case scenario so why the heck do you care so much?

BC, at this point, despite how he might react to what you said, Jim Phelps is so hard down on his luck, what you said here is actually a glimmer of hope to him. He IS after all, THAT deluded!

I can agree with what Stuart said, but will amplify and expand. Consider what I wrote five years ago in early 2000, at what I consider the first year of the hoax:

You can't pound common sense into people who lack it. And so what if some get off into chemmieland for a bit? Who the hell cares? Have you seen any real activism? And if you did, how did that hurt anything? When they letter-write to their senators and congressmen, are they heard? When they talk to meteoroligists, does it change anything? When they talk to the FAA does it do anything? And if they did accomplish something what would that be and how would that hurt you or anyone else? What exactly is your Doctor role here? Perhaps you yourself have a codependency problem in actually thinking that your debunking is actually helping a certain segment of the population to a dose of common sense anti-chemmie viral infection? I truly doubt it! People prone to panic and unsubstantiated theories will remain open to them until they do the proper amount of investigation themselves. Knowledge is power. It's kind of like a weird religion. But it's not like a cult, really. It's not that harmful to anyone, actually. Asking questions and collecting samples of this and that can do NO HARM.

At the time I wrote that, I hadn't seen the hoax in 'full flower', with the power of media behind it, and just didn't appreciate how callously people would spread the hoax around, as I described it, "without regard for the consequences of their actions." It took another two years for me to be able to understand the cynical way people like Deborah Stark would allow herself to be abused by assisting in the barium hoax. Even harder for me to accept was the mindset in which she, along with many others, and I include BC and Wayne Hall here, the mindset where misinformation is known and tolerated, yet ignored and allowed to proliferate. The concept, for me, is so foreign to my core beliefs that it has been an effort to remain unbiased against people who make a practice of this.

What are you talking about "power of the media?" I don't think a few websites can be termed "power of the media." A DVD passed around and sold can't be called the "power of the media," either. Exactly what do you mean here? AM radio talk shows?

What kind of consequence are you talking about? Why should a bunch of people asking questions and wondering about the skies necessitate some kind of consequence? How does it harm you or your neighbor or your family? How does it harm America? Pray tell?

"...unbiased against..." ---- isn't that an oxymoron? What are your core beliefs, Jay? Why is it hard for you to just let others be, even those who MIGHT be hoaxing in its true definition and even more pertinently, those who are just searching and wondering about it? Who cares? Did it hurt Chem 11 to investigate after at first believing there was a problem in the skies? Did it hurt him or his family, or his way of being to wonder and then to investigate? NO.

Even here on this messageboard, Deborah is actively defended when it is clear substantial questions require answers, and even though Wayne cannot help but be aware by now of Jim Phelp's lunacy, he has remained obstinately silent as bogus claims are proliferated.

Wayne must be ignorant to chemistry and motivated by a hate of America. He's mentioned many times that he hates our country and fears it. Anyone else on the net who shares that emotional bias, he can relate to, and considering his ignorance of chemistry, rather than check out Phelp's claims like I did, he shows an incredible laziness. I don't care about the Deborah debacle, and if she stays and takes your persistence it's her problem.

If history repeats itself, we will find at least some acceptance of what Jim says among the chemmie factions. Just last week I was perusing German chemtrail sites. Sure enough, the name Jim Phelps was there, improbably attached by someone to the 'deep shield' hoax text. Realize, that the originator of the barium hoax, A.C. Griffith, dropped out and has been completely out-of-sight for over four years, yet his hoax is featured so strongly that BC came here ready to defend it.

Whoa, hold on a minute. I never said I was defending anyone's hoax. I was only defending people's rights to investigate and find out if there was anything to a barium situation. That's all. I truly doubt that Phelps can influence anyone. Your assumption that people are genuinely stupid can only be right in a minority of cases and I'm talking a tiny, weeny, teeny minority of people, and so what if they believe it for awhile. Does it hurt you, me, America? NO!

Boomer Chick

02-15-2005, 08:36 PM

Mark my words, if Jim were allowed a little more time, especially if he found a 'handler' able to polish and remove his rough edges, there would emerge a wide-ranging new faction of chemmies ready to go out and proselytize the public as if they had a real scientist behind them.
From my local reports, Carnicom isn't all that different from Phelps anymore, his own instabilities are showing much more than they did a few years ago. Look what he did for the hoax, when he has never, ever, produced a single bit of evidence which could be verified.

First of all, I doubt anyone would follow Phelps. Second of all, who the hell cares? So what if people think the skies are sprayed with stuff? Does it hurt you to see them carrying a sign in the street? Does it hurt you that they might wonder and question this and that expert? Does it really honestly hurt you in some way? Does it abrogate your freedoms? Take away something from your life? Change American society so that freedom does not reign anymore? What you should be concerned with, Jay, is the Patriot Act, and laws that take away your freedoms, people who are so fearful that they disregard and disrespect our freedoms, not those who use their freedom to question something that doesn't exist! Even if some puposefully try to lead others astray, it is still a free world and if the internet wasn't here, magazines would be and just like people who read about fake news in the tabloids, there will always be people wondering about this or that secret government op.

These examples show how easy it is for hoaxes to get started, and I hope it highlights the fact that ignoring something you know is wrong, like Deborah Stark has done, is really the wrong choice to make. In reality, by choosing to do nothing, they choose to join in the original evil themselves, to hide it from others so that they too may be deceived. There is no honor in that, it is like being a whore who conceals a venereal disease and doesn't give a damn who it spreads to.

Comparing people wondering about contrails to people with venereal diseases is an unfair simile. One is a matter of life and death and other is a matter of freedom of thought and speech.

And do you even wonder if masochism plays a role here? Are you completely ignoring this? Why? It won't go away, you know, so could I call you a hoaxer by your deciding to ignore this? Are you promoting a perversity here that I must rid you of? LOL! Are you promoting perversity here? Must I draw you a picture and follow you around the net to make sure you don't promote perversity on other threads? LOL!

Come on, Jay. It's time to see the big picture. Time to mellow out a bit and think about exactly how important your role is in real life terms. You are playing the role of "hoaxer cop" when in reality most are not hoaxers at all, they're just questioners, and developers of material to sell, and so the hell what? Who does it harm? It harms no one! Lately I've visited some chem sites and they're pretty darn empty. When you consider the thousands of people online, the subject doesn't get much attention at all. I'm not worried about the virus, and you shouldn't either. It's a temporary thing like a cold and if those who hang on continue to harp on HAARP and the chemtrail connection..... so the hell what? Honestly, so what? Who does it hurt?

Would it hurt you to simply mellow out and just concentrate on the real hoaxers in our lives? Think about it. Who are the real hoaxers and do you think your powerlessness over them might have something to do with your zealotry over those you THINK are hoaxers, and those labeled as carrying life threatening viruses? OK, Jay, you know I respect you for your intelligence, but intelligent people can often twist things, too. And I do indeed think you're twisting the reality of this whole subject into something more important and more threatening than it is.

WHO DOES IT HURT????? AND HOW DOES IT HURT THEM OR OTHERS? ARE THEY SACRIFICING THEIR YOUNG ON AN ALTER? DO THEY ISOLATE THEMSELVES FROM THEIR FAMILIES? DO THEY THREATEN THEIR NEIGHBORS? DO THEY STEAL? ARE THEIR LIES DAMAGING TO ANY PERSON? DO THEY KIDNAP OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN? DO THEY MURDER? PLEASE, GET A GRIP.

Maybe some of them were so angered by your trying to control them that they expressed hostility in words. You know, if I were them I'd be steamed at you, too. Most of them are simply questioners, not hoaxers in the dictionary definition. You can't blame them for anger.

You had every right to debunk them. But to continue with the attitude that you must make this your life's work, is a waste of your intelligence and ability to contribute good things to society.

And don't feed the pervert! Sorry, but this is the big picture with Phelps... he's confused, self deluded, and he's not harmful at all. The only harm is in feeding his insatiable appetite for self deprecation through others.

Sorry to reveal the truth, here, but it's my truth and I'm telling it like it is. Take it or leave it!

I like you as a person and just feel it's time to mellow out, time let things take their course and not feel responsible for others. There's no real threat to anyone.

Find true and real villians and I'll join you wholeheartedly. Can you think of any? I can.

A joke to end with a chuckle:

Harry did like he always does - kissing his wife, crawling into bed and
> falling asleep. All of a sudden, he wakes up with an elderly man
> dressed
> in a cowl standing in front of his bed.
> "What the heck are you doing in my bedroom? And who are you?" he asked.
>
>
> "This is not your bedroom," the man replied, "I am St. Peter, and you
> are in heaven."
>
>
> "WHAT!?? Are you saying I'm dead? I don't want to die - I'm too young,"
> said Harry. "If I'm dead, I want you to send me back immediately."
>
> "It's not that easy," said St.Peter, "you can only return as a dog or a
> hen. You can choose on your own."
>
>
> Harry thought about it for a while, and figured out that being a dog is
> too tiring, but a hen probably has a nice and relaxed life. Running
> around with a rooster can't be that bad.
> "I want to return as a hen," Harry replied. And in the next second, he
> found himself in a chicken run, really nicely feathered. But man, now
> he
> felt like his rear end was gonna blow. Then along came the rooster.
>
>
> "Hey, you must be the new hen on the farm," he said. "How does it
> feel?"
>
>
> "Well, it's OK I guess, but it feels like my rear end is blowing up."
>
>
> "Oh that!" said the rooster. "That's only the ovulation going on. Have
> you never laid an egg before??"
>
>
> "No, how do I do that?" Harry asked.
>
>
> "Cluck twice, and then you push all you can." Harry clucked twice,
> pushed more than he was good for, and then 'plop' and an egg was on the
> ground.
>
>
> "Wow," Harry said "that felt really good!" So he clucked again and
> squeezed. And you better believe that there was yet another egg on the
> ground.
>
>
> The third time he clucked, he heard his wife shout, "Harry, for gawds
> sake wake up. You're pooping all over the bed."
>
>
>
TSK!

BC :)

Oscar

02-16-2005, 01:16 AM

As the worm turns. Letxa was right on target.

Oscar

02-16-2005, 01:17 AM

As the worm turns. Letxa was right on target.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-16-2005, 03:47 AM

What should one expect from the other pig, but another grunt.

And more irrelevant crapola.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-16-2005, 03:58 AM

Getting back to the topic of climate change and the relevant issues.

The recent bit of the equations on the NFx chemical properties and atmospheric systhesis equations was the literal proof that won acceptance of the national labratory management and scientific staff and the kick off for what would become in need for chemtrails and HAARP.

So, what one is seeing here is a lot of resistance toward that information being made public on this Forum.

But, in terms of the proof for global warming being man-made---that little bit of science was what set all into motion.

It is not very hard to see from that chemical mechanim that HF present in the atmosphere causes the sequestration of lots of IR absorbing light hydrocarbons in the upper atmosphere.

The net effect then being that there is lots of HF released from coal burning into the skies of America and into the skies of other countries that depend highly upon coal and the catalytic effects HF acting in synergism with the hugh rates of oil consumpion and the unburned products released there makes this upper atmosphere GW problem.

The GWP of HF is much much greater than [>>] the GWP of SF-6 or NF-3 as a result, orders of magnatude greater.

So heads up to those wanting the real answers----that was one big one.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-16-2005, 04:08 AM

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050215145209990002

Global Warming Pact Takes Effect
But Absence of U.S. Will Limit Effort to Cut Greenhouse Gases
By JOSEPH COLEMAN, AP

Activists call for the U.S. to sign on to the Kyoto pact at a protest Monday at the White House.

KYOTO, Japan (Feb. 16) - The Kyoto global warming pact went into force Wednesday, seven years after it was negotiated, imposing limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases scientists blame for rising world temperatures, melting glaciers and rising oceans.

The agreement, negotiated in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto in 1997 and ratified by 140 nations, officially took effect midnight New York time.

It targets carbon dioxide and five other gases that can trap heat in the atmosphere, and are believed to be behind rising global temperatures that many scientists say are already disrupting the Earth's environment and weather patterns.

The United States, the world's largest emitter of such gases, has refused to ratify the agreement, saying it would harm the economy and is flawed by the lack of restrictions on emissions by emerging economies China and India.

"We have been calling on the United States to join. But the country that is the world's biggest emitter has not joined yet, and that is regrettable," Japan's top government spokesman, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda, told reporters.

Australia, the only other developed nation not to join, defended that decision, with Environment Minister Ian Campbell saying the country was nonetheless on track to cut emissions by 30 percent.

"Until such time as the major polluters of the world including the United States and China are made part of the Kyoto regime, it is next to useless and indeed harmful for a country such as Australia to sign up," Australian Prime Minister John Howard said in Canberra.

The Kyoto agreement was delayed by the requirement that countries accounting for 55 percent of the world's emissions must ratify it. That goal was reached last year - nearly seven years after the pact was negotiated - with Russia's approval.

In Japan, a tireless supporter of the pact, the enactment was being met with a mixture of pride and worry that the world's second-largest economy is unprepared to meet its emissions reduction targets.

Japan planned to celebrate the enactment Wednesday at the convention hall where the accord was negotiated in December 1997, with speeches and a panel discussion among environmental experts and activists.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan planned to send a message. The Kyoto pact is an adjunct to the 1992 U.N. treaty on climate change.

The Kyoto targets vary by region: The European Union is committed to cutting emissions to 8 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; the United States agreed to a 7 percent reduction before President Bush denounced the pact in 2001.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that "we are still learning" about the science of climate change. In the meantime, McClellan said, "We have made an unprecedented commitment to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in a way that continues to grow our economy."

Japan is struggling to find ways to meet its obligations. A report this month by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry showed that 11 of 30 top Japanese industries - steel and power among them - risked failing to reach targets unless they take drastic steps.

Officials made solemn pledges Tuesday to fulfill Japan's treaty requirement to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases by 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The Cabinet will draw up concrete plans by May, Environment Minister Yuriko Koike said.

Some officials are pondering a "carbon tax" to punish polluters - a move opposed by business - while others favor expansion of nuclear power and promotion of energy-saving technologies.

Japan also has been especially active in carbon trading - a system under which governments have allocated carbon dioxide quotas to industrial facilities. Those which emit less gas can sell the "credit" to other companies who emit too much.

Makoto Katagiri, whose Natsource Japan is acting as a credit broker between Japanese and foreign companies, estimated in a study for the World Bank that Japan bought 41 percent of the carbon credits on the international market last year.

"From this figure, you can imagine how serious the Japanese companies (are)," Katagiri said.

jayreynolds

02-16-2005, 04:28 AM

The GWP of HF is much much greater than [>>] the GWP of SF-6 or NF-3 as a result, orders of magnatude greater.

So heads up to those wanting the real answers----that was one big one.

Hey, Jimbo, you've been making this claim for a while, but haven't ever shown any quantification of the GWP of HF. If it has one, you could cite it, and show that it is actually "orders of magnitude greater" than SF-6.
Do you seriously think anyone will just 'believe' this without any real evidence?
You need to carefully think about what you are doing here, because so far nobody's biting your bait. Perhaps your bait is stale, perhaps you are fishing in the wrong spot, and maybe there just aren't any fish in these waters anymore.................

stuart_allsop

02-16-2005, 06:21 AM

As best I can tell the word is correct in the listing, and it is Benzene.

As best I can tell the word Paladium is correct in the listing.
Tee hee hee! You know, it really is very sad when you need to resort to such gross dishonesty in order to keep up your pretense. Fortunately, the rest of us saw right through your tactics, since we all saw the ORIGINAL posts, then we all saw the CORRECTIONS you made to edit them, shortly AFTER I had called you on both of those glaring gaffs.

Of course, if you really force me too, I'll be more than happy to post the copies of your original posts, that I deliberatley stored offline, full well knowing that you would try to pretend that you had made no such glaring gaff.

Shall I do that, Jimbo-nut? Do you really want me to embarass you even more in the presence of Ms. Boomer Chick, the learning lady that you love to deride just because she sees right through you too? Do you really want to be shown up for the lying, cheating, stupid, dishonest fool that you are, one more time, right where Ms. Boomer can have a good hearty laugh at your antincs? How embarassing would that be for you, Jimbo-loon? To be exposed in your cheating lies right where Boomer, whom you hate so wickedly just because she is polite to you when she calls you to the carpet? To be whupped like a filth cur pup caught staling the chicken, in public, in fornt of the smart poilte lady that you hate because she KNOWS about you, Jimbo! That would sting pretty bad, I guess, but if you insist, I have no qualms.

stuart_allsop

02-16-2005, 06:36 AM

OK, proof positive.... IS is definately a masochist. ... IS keeps coming back for more so there's only one thing to think..... he's a masochistic. The more you're mean to him the more he gets off.

...

But the overarching game is perverted masochism. Wake up guys! You're playing into the hands of a masochist here and he loves it.

Actually, Boomer, you might have a point there: He does kind of remind me of Anthnoy Wade a bit, doesn't he? :)

Seriously, I see what you are saying, but I don;t think there is anything that can be done about it. Leavning the kooks to go sperad their lies and suck in even more gullible people is not an option. Far better to keep loons like Jimbo occupied on this baord, that only a handful of people read, and where everyone present sees right through Jimbo just as you do, than to stop whacking him with the big stick every time he pops his head up. If we were to stop thumping him like this, then he'd have far more time to go poison other boards on the internet (which he does anyway, under several guises), but every minute that we can keep him occupied over here is one less minute that he has to escape into the real world and spread his filth. That's what he does, you know: He tries out new hoaxes all the time, both here and elsewhere, then drops those that just wont fly at all, and snekas back in time to edit and modify those that he thinks stand SOME chance (like he did yesterday with his platinum and benzene gaffs), and tries to fob those off on the unsuspecting but willing paranoid sponges.

So what would you suggest that we do, Boomer? You've seen Jimbo's tactics, how he bluders and stumbles around with his techo-babble pseudo-science, and how when he is corrected politely and scientifically he NEVER acknowledges it and instead just sneaks back to change his gaffs and pretend he never maed them. It is only when we hold him up to the spotlight of ridicule that his true colors become apparent. After all, he even had you fooled for a couple ofdays, until you figured him out. I'm betting that if Jay and Yaak and I had not been so persistent in whupping him at avery turn, you might STILL be fooled by him, and might NOT have seen his subtle tactics.

So, to repeat the question, what would you suggest that we do? IF we don't humilate him, then he gets away with it. And if we do, then we are pandering to his masochism. And worst of all would be to just ignore him!

What other solution is there, Boomer?

Insurrectionchemistry

02-16-2005, 06:44 AM

The Causal Link Equations between HF and the GW blanket.

What most of you have just seen is the proof of causal link between HF and the production of the GW blanket. The mechanism was fully outlined, with the boundary conditions that establish the reaction criteria. The production of nitrogenfluoridedioxide was shown via chemical balance equations. And the preferred reactions of this heavy gas with hydrocarbons demonstrated. The process allows one atom of fluorine to contribute to the production of thouands of molecules of light global warming gases into the high atmosphere over the coarse of a year. This means that the GWP of HF is very much greater than the worst of the GW gases, on an equilavalent basis.

Each year in the upper atmosphere the HF mechanism does about the same effect of the process of in-situ mining. Except here what is being mined are hydrocarbons being pulled into the upper atmosphere. This produces a global warming blanket effect in an area of the atmosphere where it is supposed to be extremely cold. This blanket of light hydrocarbon gases highly absorb the IR radiation of the Sun and this raises the temperature in the upper atmosphere. It is this thin layer of gases that significantly changes the temperature profile in the upper atmosphere just like a blanket modifies the air temperature profile for a person trying to keep warm in the winter.

This GW blanket effect was my discovery at ORNL way back in the middle 80's, and it has been known inside the inner circles of national labratories ever since.

The equations demonstrated on this Forum were the proof of the causal links for the global warming blanket, the very high GWP of HF, and the mechanism for the entire process. This proof was sufficient enough for the entire national labs system of qualified scientists, which means it is sufficient for most everyone.

So, at this point in time, for those that seem to claim that their questions have not been answered. Well, the proof of causality for the main global warming blanket problems was just listed here by its discoverer. Which means the most damaging issues of global warming have been disclosed and disclosed fully, to the extent needed for a person skilled in sciences to understand the factors involved.

This, all these complaints on questions not being answered have been fullfilled, with the science and the answers to the global warming main problem. It also means there are some individuals that are too stupid to be able to grasp these factor and who must somehow rationalize their stupidity by bashing the person stating scientific facts and mechanisms. The very same ones facts and causal links their own US Govt's own labs fully recognized, are not sufficient for them.

So, these complaints on questions not being addressed are now rendered moot and the real problem becomes the lack of abilities of those asking these questions to process the information via the scientic methods.

One simply cannot make a sow's ear into a silk purse, and that is exactly the process being attempted here by the illiterate person with zero ablities to understand science or chemistry.

The questions have been answered to the degree needed for scientific causality. Leaving that the science illiterate will have to remain illiterate and qualify themselves as idiots repeatedly.

stuart_allsop

02-16-2005, 06:51 AM

... my honesty, and my intelligence will overshine

Ahh, NOW I get it! You mean the kind of honesty where you run back to edit the posts where you screwed up bigtime, with your LACK OF intelligence clearly overshining and even outshing the very sun itself!

Yes, jimbo-loon, I do see your honesty, intelligence, and overshining, now.... Thank you for clarifying that...

I speak from the truth, with all conviction, Well, if you really do think that that is the truth, then you certainly do dserve a conviction, with the accompanying sentence. I'd say that "hard labor for life" would be appropriate. But don't worry about tath, Jimboy: They won't ever give you such a harsh sentence. All you have to do is plead mental insanity. In fact, after listening to just a few words of your typical rants, the judge won't even need to remit you for psychological evaluation: your words alone are proof enough.

History is not going to be kind to you jokesters. Sounds like the voice of experience speaking there, Jimbo! Has history really been that unkind to you, Jimbo, the king of jokesters and also of hoaxsters.?

Jimbo, I'll bet that you are STILL kicking yourslef for not being on the scene early enough: Just imagine, if you had started posting like this in '97 or '98, you too could be up where Rense, Carnicaom and Thomas are today! Just think of the immense opportunity you blew by waiting too long to arrive on the scenem after debunkers like Jay and I had already cottoned on to the scam.

I agree with Boomer: You really are a sad and pathetic litlte pebble in the river. Quite pitiful, actually. I guess I should feel sorry for you, like she says. I'll try to do that....

Insurrectionchemistry

02-16-2005, 07:08 AM

And yet one more pig with a grunt.

stuart_allsop

02-16-2005, 08:41 AM

In My Humble OpinionAnd since when has your opinion been even vaguely close to distantly resembling "humble"? :)

Besides, if we want your opinin, we'll just pull the chain.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-16-2005, 08:51 AM

The truth comes out each day, like the Sun.

It is the best disinfectant against the people that seed germs, like the Reynold's Mafia.

Boomer Chick

02-16-2005, 09:32 AM

FYI

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/020405G.shtml

Bush Team Prepares to Weaken Clean Air Act at Expense of States
By Greenwatch

Thursday 03 February 2005

For several years state attorneys general have been among the most aggressive enforcers of environmental law. In 1999, for example, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and other northeastern attorneys general sued several Midwestern power plants for failure to comply with provisions of the Clean Air Act when they expanded their capacities. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced an intent to sue the Tennessee Valley Authority under the same requirement last June.

Now these activist attorneys general have become a target for the Bush administration and its corporate allies. Indeed, Michael Greve of the ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute has listed "curbs on state attorneys general" as one of his top three priorities, along with such hot-button issues as tort reform.

The administration's attack is personified in its proposed rewrite of important provisions of the Clean Air Act, euphemistically named the "Clear Skies" Act. Reintroduced in the Senate last week, Clear Skies would eviscerate two key Clean Air Act provisions that state attorneys general employ to sue polluting power plants.

First, Clear Skies would gut the Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR) program. NSR requires power plants to add new pollution controls when they expand their capacity. The Bush plan would reduce the number of situations in which power plants would have to install new pollution control technology.

"The approach taken in [Clear Skies] would allow power plant operators to keep plants operating for 100 years without applying modern emission controls," Conrad Schneider of the Clean Air Task Force told a Senate Committee last week. If NSR is crippled, dirty plants can run indefinitely without reducing their pollution emissions. The AGs trying to protect the public will be able to do nothing about it.

The second attack on state AGs comes from Clear Skies' planned weakening of the Clean Air Act's interstate air pollution remedy process (known as Section 126 petitions). A state that is out of compliance with Clean Air Act standards can file a Section 126 petition which asks the EPA to take action against out-of-state sources that are fouling its air.

North Carolina's Cooper filed such a petition against plants in 13 states last March. Northeastern state AGs filed similar petitions in the 1990s against Midwestern and Southeastern power generators.

When the EPA acts on a Section 126 petition, it usually gives the targeted power plants about three years to clean up their stacks. But Clear Skies would block any Section 126 fixes until 2014, giving polluters a nine-year pass.

Even after 2014, states asking for EPA's help to crack down on out-of-state plants would have to show they have applied every single more cost-effective measure at cutting pollution. The Clean Air Task Force's Schneider calls this "an impossible showing."

Republicans and Democrats alike support a strong role for the states in protecting the environment, a principle known as cooperative federalism. GOP governors George Pataki of New York and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California last month reminded the Senate that "states do the majority of the work to carry out [the Clean Air Act's] mandates."

The governors asked the Senate to "protect the cornerstones" of the Clean Air Act, specifically the strong role of the states.

____________________________

From the other article on the same webpage:

"Bush's "Clear Skies" legislation aims to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury by 70 percent, but not until after 2018. Critics say the White House plan would do nothing to curb emissions linked to global warming and would undermine existing air-quality standards and enforcement tools. Supporters tout the legislation as a responsible effort to improve air quality without unduly cumbersome and complex regulations."

Boomer Chick

02-16-2005, 10:02 AM

FYI

Great environmental news page:

http://truthout.org/environment.shtml

Since equatorial forests play such a large role in stabilizing the climate in terms of temperature and carbon sinks, the threat to Africa's forests should concern us all. And of course the situation involves politics:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/020605W.shtml

________________________________________

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/E020705B.shtml (Excerpts)

Greenhouse Gas Turning Oceans Acidic

Dr Carol Turley, the Plymouth laboratory's Head of Science who presented the paper, said ocean acidification represented "potentially a gigantic problem for the world." .....

Remarkably, the findings about acidifying seas constituted the second revelation of a new global danger at the conference, which was called personally by Mr Blair as part of Britain's efforts to focus attention on climate change during the UK presidency both of the G8 group of rich nations and the European Union......

....400bn tonnes of man-made CO2 - half that ever produced - have been taken up by the seas, and much more is going in as the world economy relentlessly expands.....

However, the extra volumes are now causing a very simple chemical reaction with the sea water - "O-level chemistry," Dr Turley said - in which the CO2 and the water (H2O) react to produce carbonic acid (HCO3).....

This is changing the basic chemical composition of the sea, which is slightly alkaline, to acidic, and producing an environment in which many tiny but vital organisms such as plankton may not be able to survive....

_______________________________

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/E020705A.shtml

Apocalypse Now: How Mankind Is Sleepwalking to the End of the Earth
By Geoffrey Lean
The Independednt U.K.

_________________________________

:D

Global Warming Bill Means Thousands of New Jobs
Natural Resources Defense Council

Thursday 10 February 2005

Study shows trigger for new energy economy increases employment.
Washington, DC - Major global warming legislation would add more than 800,000 new jobs in America by 2025, according to a new study released today. The bi-partisan bill, the Climate Stewardship Act, sponsored by John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) in the Senate, and Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and John Olver (D-MA) in the House, would trigger new development and investment in clean energy technologies, bringing much-needed employment to states and diverse job sectors across the country.

The Climate Stewardship Act, otherwise known as McCain-Lieberman, would set a nationwide standard for global warming pollution while creating a market-based system encouraging maximum technological innovation and profitable opportunities for companies to cut emissions. The study, Jobs and the Climate Stewardship Act: How Curbing Global Warming Can Increase Employment, evaluated the employment effects of the bill, released today at the Senate Radio-TV Gallery.

read more: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021205W.shtml

Boomer Chick

02-16-2005, 03:52 PM

What's going on in the Brazilian rain forest:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021605X.shtml

The Life and Brutal Death of Sister Dorothy, a Rainforest Martyr
By Andrew Buncombe
The Independent U.K.

Tuesday 15 February 2005

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/E021405A.shtml

Brazil, Bowing to Protests, Reopens Logging in Amazon
By Larry Rohter
The New York Times

Sunday 13 February 2005

___________________________________________

BC

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 07:42 PM

I do not care about global warming, because it is a natural process, and we will adapt.

The deadly poisonous cloud of coal smoke that thickens everyday and enshrouds our entire planet is, IN MY OPINION, our number one health threat. This smoke contains barium, fluoride, uranium, and other harmful elements and compounds. The particulates from the smoke are hindering and destroying our respiratory and cardiovascular systems, hence shortening and diminishing the quality of our lives.

All The Articles are Related in Some way and Include The Dangers of Coal Ignition.........

Even Boomers...........Articles.......

I think you and everyone should look more closly at the Carbon Sinks Of the World.......And What the Relationship is between Solar Radiation and Dramatically Increased Co2 Levels Being Stored in the Carbon............

Because you both are Right.....................

The Term "Global Warming" is a Nasty Politically Correct "LABEL" that has become a blanket term used to describe ANYTHING that now threatens the planet and it's Ecosystem..............

Carbonic Acid.....

Can The Flora And Fauna Survive such a drastic change........?

Can The Oceans.........?

What of all the fish and Wildlife Species........Can they Survive,,,,,,,,,?

I Researched Carbon Sinks And What I Found Astonished Me...................

As I Am Sure It Will You All.............................

Forests as Carbon Sinks
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased as a result of human activities. Are there human activities that might help them decrease? One suggestion has to do with the world’s forests. Since atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and since plants and trees absorb carbon dioxide (that is, they are a carbon sink), perhaps we might take some carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere by planting more trees. Utilizing the carbon-absorbing abilities of forests has been one of the primary focuses for climate change policy makers.

"New vs. Old Forests as Carbon Sinks"
This is a New York Times article that summarizes a widely publicized study from Science magazine. The study found that saving old growth forests would be of greater value than planting new ones in mitigating atmospheric carbon increases.

Resources for the Future: Forests as Carbon Sinks
Resources for the Future (RFF) is a natural resources and environmental think tank. The RFF forestry page contains several articles (all in .pdf format) discussing the role of world’s forests in absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as the effects of increasing atmospheric carbon on forest health. "Carbon Sinks in the Post Kyoto World" explains some of the basic concepts of carbon sinks and the ways in which forests do and can function as carbon sinks. It also provides some discussion of the treatment of carbon sinks in the Kyoto Protocol. "Climate Change and Forest Sinks" discusses, in fairly technical terms, the economic factors associated with attempting to mitigate greenhouse gas increases using reforestation. "Harvesting the Benefits of Carbon ‘Sinks’" discusses the possibilities of using reforestation efforts to increases in atmospheric CO2. "Impacts of Climate Change on Forests" examines the likelihood that increases in the CO2 content of the atmosphere will change growth rates and patterns in the world’s forests. "Forest Sequestration of CO2 and Markets for Timber" analyzes policy dilemmas associated with using reforestation as a way of offsetting increasing atmospheric CO2.

World Resources Institute: Carbon Sinks and Sequestration
This part of the World Resource Institute’s Climate Change web site discusses carbon sinks as a part of the global carbon cycle. There is also a page that explains criteria for evaluating carbon sequestration projects and another that lists and briefly describes several individual carbon sequestration projects.

Forests.Org: Ancient Old-Growth Forests Best Carbon Sinks
Several articles are included on the role of forests in sequestering atmospheric CO2.

"Role of Forests as Carbon Sinks"
This is a somewhat technical report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. It is valuable, though, because it provides hard data on the amount of CO2 absorbed by different types of forest in different parts of the world.

Agroforestry: Carbon Sinks and Benefits for Poor Farmers
This is a short article from EDIE (Environmental Data Interactive Exchange) that discusses the possibility that poor farmers in places like Africa could benefit both themselves and the global carbon budget by going into the tree-farming business.

"That Sinking Feeling"
This New Scientist article reports on a UN study that could deflate enthusiasm for using forest management to create carbon sinks. The study found that, under increasing temperatures, the carbon released during plant respiration would negate the carbon absorbed in the process of plant growth.

European Forests as Carbon Sink
This report from the European Forestry Institute discusses the current balance between European CO2 emissions and European Forests as a CO2 sink.

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/48.html

Asian Development Bank joins World Bank in promoting industrial scale carbon sinks projects in the South

It sometimes takes many little pieces to recognize the full picture. In the case of the continued debate about the benefits or otherwise of carbon sinks projects linked to the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), many still like to envisage it as the long-sought-for funding source for community-driven, small scale forest restoration projects. However, recently published information about feasibility studies carried out by Japanese Sumitomo Forestry and the Asian Development Bank's involvement in promoting carbon sinks projects in Indonesia provide further indication of what the future CDM carbon sinks market will have on offer: carbon credits generated by industrial monoculture tree plantations. And if the comments made by Malaysian Primary Industries Minister Lim during his recent tour through Europe are an indication of what's being discussed, CDM carbon finance could subsidize not only industrial eucalyptus plantations such as the World Bank's PCF Plantar project in Brazil, but also the expansion of oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia.

Funded by the Canadian Cooperation Fund for Climate Change, the Asian Development Bank's "technical assistance" to the Indonesian government will include "a position paper on CDM-carbon sequestration projects for Indonesia for discussion at COP9" and two pilot sinks projects. COP 9 --the 9th conference of the parties to the Convention on Climate Change-- will have to come to a decision on the rules for carbon sinks projects that intend to claim credits through the Clean Development Mechanism. There is still wide disagreement by governments as to the shape of these rules, and funding of this ADB project by the Canadian government begs the question of how purely 'technical' such assistance will be. This question arises even more strongly from the 'Outline Terms of Reference for Consultants', which states that the consultant is expected to ensure that 'output on land use inventory and LULUCF [Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry] modeling are in keeping with objectives of the T[echnical] A[ssistance]".

But Indonesia is not the only country where ADB is promoting carbon trading of climatically worthless sinks credits (see http://www.sinkswatch.org and http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/CCC/index.html for a detailed critique of the flaws of trading carbon sinks credits). In Laos, the ABD hired carbon consultancy Ecosecurities to assess whether ADB-funded plantations in Laos are eligible under the Kyoto Protocol's CDM. Ecosecurities is a major CDM project developer who was involved in designing the Plantar project in Brazil. This decision to contract one of the major consultancies providing services essential for CDM carbon sinks projects raises the question of conflict of interest: hiring someone commercially involved in CDM forestry to advise ADB on the feasibility of CDM sinks prospects in Laos is like asking a dairy farmer whether milk is good for you.

And then there is the history of ADB-funded plantations in Laos, which have replaced natural forest with monoculture eucalyptus trees for the production of wood chips, thus contributing through its policy advice and implementation to the release of carbon into the atmosphere. Whilst ADB claims that planting was only carried out on 'degraded' lands, the reality is that the ADB has been funding the replacement of villagers' community forests, swidden fields, grazing land and commons with monoculture eucalyptus plantations. (see also WRM Bulletin No 68: "Laos: Secrets, lies and tree plantations").

With regards to Indonesia, the ADB describes 12% of Indonesia's 108 million hectares of forest land as 'presently idle and unproductive' and as 'potential areas for carbon sequestration through forestation under the CDM'. The potential volume of credits that could be generated is huge --as is the danger that these lands are neither 'idle' nor 'unproductive' in villager's views.

Those figures, added to the ADB's track record in promoting industrial tree plantations across Asia and the keen interest in these initiatives of both the Canadian and the Japanese Governments, both stern advocates for a widest possible carbon sinks loophole in the Kyoto Protocol, doesn't bode well for those envisaging the CDM as a source for small-scale, community driven forest restoration projects.

By: Jutta Kill, SinksWatch, e-mail: jutta@fern.org ; http://www.sinkswatch.org

WMM

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 07:45 PM

Carbon sink research precedes world meet
Monday, 13 November 2000

Pic: IPCC
Scientific papers on the role of carbon sinks in reducing greenhouse gases are proliferating as climate change negotiations being in the Hague.

One of two papers on the subject in this week's Nature is by the UK Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research which is predicting that, by mid-century, forests used as carbon sinks will switch to becoming carbon sources instead. It predicts this will exacerbate global warming and increase temperatures by 5.5 degrees Celsius by 2100 .

Another paper published in Science concludes that the natural regrowth of North American forests cleared a century ago is soaking up increasing amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The researchers, led by John P. Casperson of Princeton University, report that only 2% of this sink activity can be put down to the faster than normal growth caused by global warming itself. While some in the US consider this sink activity as part of their tally others say it should be excluded as 'business as usual' - not the results of active environmental intervention such as treeplanting.

The Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP6) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change begins today in The Hague. The parties agreed in the Kyoto Protocol to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of five percent of 1990 levels in the next 10 years.

One of the options countries have under the Kyoto Protocol is to use forest planting and other 'carbon sinks' to offset their carbon dioxide emissions but recent research argues that such measures will be short-lived.

Dr Roger Gifford, chief research scientist at CSIRO's Plant Industry believes the conclusion in the Hadley report that this switch from carbon sink to source will happen as early as 2050 is based on a very particular version of the facts.

"This is an 'impish' paper," he told ABC Science Online. "It presents a model run based on assumptions at one end of a very wide spectrum of uncertainty about biological responses to climate change. They have used a simplistic model - a standard textbook version - of how the biosphere responds, and a particular selection of data from the literature to come up with this result."

"Certainly forest sinks must ultimately saturate but it's a question of when," he said. "Given the range of uncertainties, it is quite possible to take a different selection of data from the literature to put the estimate of the switch from sink to source another 100 years on."

But Dr Gifford said it was difficult to make estimates so far down the track because of the impact of continued population growth and increasing standards of living on land use.

Professor Ian Noble, CEO of the CRC for Greenhouse Accounting in Canberra supports a cautious reading of the Hadley Centre paper.

"This whole area is very challenging and cutting edge science full of uncertainties," he told ABC Science Online.

Getting credits for business as usual?

One complication in carbon sink accounting is how to account for the faster uptake of carbon prior to 'saturation' of forests with carbon. At this stage, forest growth rates are faster and they uptake more carbon dioxide. The faster growth rate is due on the one hand to warmer temperatures and on the other hand due to a 'fertilising' effect of increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Such effects, which are difficult to calculate, are supposed to be discounted by countries wishing to use carbon sinks to meet their Kyoto Protocol greenhouse emission reduction targets.

The significance of the Princeton University report finding that this effect is responsible for only 2% of carbon sink activity is that the US will propose to COP6 that it should be able to count the remaining 98% from these regrowth forests as carbon sinks. Such proposals will be met with resistance from the European Union which is seeking to limit the use of carbon sinks, and the debate will hinge on whether such sinks are over and above what would have been regarded as business as usual.

"The US will find it very tough to meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol without using carbon sinks and trading emissions," said Professor Noble, who will be part of the Australian delegation to COP6. "Their idea of counting the forest regrowth is being challenged by many nations on the grounds that it hasn't come about as a result of deliberate actions to reduce greenhouse gases since 1990."

Professor Noble said that Australia could still meet its Kyoto Protocol targets by taking appropriate action in industry and on land clearing.

Anna Salleh - ABC Science Online

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s210860.htm

WMM

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 07:47 PM

26/7/2004

Saving the rainforest; The Economist Editorial

THE world's rainforests are owned by the mainly poor countries they cover—but at the same time they are a global asset. Cutting them down for profit, or to free land for farming, is a tempting source of income for their owners. Left intact, on the other hand, the forests are sinks that withhold carbon from the atmosphere, mitigating the problem of man-made global warming; and they are rich storehouses of biodiversity, another global resource, as well. Plainly, a balance between local and global interests must be struck. How, exactly?

The owner-occupiers consider this question with understandable suspicion. The easiest way to rile Brazilian officialdom is to suggest that the Amazon rainforest belongs more to humanity than to Brazil (and the other countries it covers). The Ministry of Agriculture recently berated The Economist and others for suggesting that agricultural expansion had anything to do with deforestation. The connection is obvious—but the denial highlights the sensitivity.

It all adds up

Deforestation in the Amazon starts with land speculation and logging, but ranching, some of it highly competitive, is the main use to which cleared land is then put. Soya, the most lucrative crop, sometimes arrives later, prompting ranchers to open new fronts in the forest. These and other activities, including slash-and-burn agriculture by small farmers, have levelled about 15% of the Amazon in the past few decades and are carving away about ½% of the forest a year. Overall, deforestation in the tropics may account for 10-20% of the carbon released into the atmosphere by human activity during the 1990s. Deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia alone amounts to roughly four-fifths of the annual reduction in carbon emissions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol from 2008 to 2012.

Tropical countries—which are usually poor—should not be denied the benefits of any and all deforestation. Brazil's commodities boom has helped the country to avoid a financial crisis lately, despite enormous foreign debts. Last year, farming was one of the few bright spots in an economy that shrank 0.2%. The United States and Europe chopped down most of their forests over the past few centuries (though in recent decades North America has reforested). Who are they to tell Indonesia, Brazil and Congo to do otherwise?

Self-interest alone does in fact argue for some restraint. Large-scale deforestation has little-understood effects on the local climate, which may well do the deforesters more harm than the rest of the world. Beyond a certain point, deforestation simply doesn't pay. Less than 20% of the Amazon forest is suitable for soya, at least with the current technology. Ranching can go further profitably, but not without limit. Some of the Amazon's defence is, or should be, home-grown.

Yet the deforestation that is optimal for Brazil is still likely to be greater than what would suit humanity as a whole. It makes sense, therefore, to come up with ways to make maintaining forest as rewarding for Brazil as it is for the world, once the broader benefits and opportunity-costs are taken into account. When that calculation has been made, the rest of the world should foot its share of the bill.

Such a system would not aim, as a matter of principle, to stop all tropical deforestation. The right approach would aim to reward carbon sinks anywhere (not just in the Amazon) at a rate equal to the marginal costs of carbon added to the atmosphere. In some cases, reducing carbon with forests will be more expensive than reducing it by other means (for instance, consuming less energy, or extracting carbon from fuel and burying it). So far as global warming is concerned, a well-designed system would not discriminate in favour of preserving the Amazon over other rainforest, or preserving any rainforest over other ways of abating carbon.

At the moment, such mechanisms barely exist. The Amazon Reserves and Protected Areas project, a partnership between Brazil's government and international organisations such as the World Bank, is supposed to invest $400m over ten years in protecting forests. The plan should safeguard 14% of the rainforest, but mainly in areas remote from the front of deforestation. The Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol offers emitters of greenhouse gases a way to offset this pollution by paying for projects that reduce emissions or sequester carbon in new forests. But it does not permit paying for “avoided deforestation”. In general, the Protocol, largely at the behest of rich-world greens, frowns on carbon sinks, apparently regarding comparatively painless ways of reducing global warming as insufficiently punitive.

Ways to pay

If conservation of tropical forest offers global benefits, ways must be found to charge beneficiaries globally. These are beginning to emerge. There is a fledgling market for payments for “environmental services”, such as sequestering carbon and preserving biodiversity. Peru, for example, offers “conservation concessions” to groups with the means and know-how to manage forest. A proposal for “compensated reduction” of carbon emissions would discourage deforestation and give developing countries, which have few commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, a bigger role in reducing greenhouse gases. Countries that reduce deforestation in 2008-12 below a certain baseline would be able to sell carbon certificates to governments or private investors. Assuming a carbon price of $5 a tonne, such credits would make a hectare of forest more valuable than one of pasture (though not as lucrative as soya). Another proposal is to dodge the Kyoto thicket by dividing forests into large blocks, which could be auctioned off to bidders with an interest in preserving them. Then there is market pressure: consumers can pay a premium for beef, soya and timber from producers certified as obeying environmental standards.

Such initiatives are not the whole answer, which must include developing institutions capable of policing the frontier (see article). Yet the world has begun to recognise that it needs the Amazon and other tropical forests. The time has come to start paying for them.

http://www.amazoncoop.org/desktopmodules/NewsDisplay.aspx?nws_itemid=65

WMM

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 07:49 PM

Climate Talks Stall Over Carbon 'Sinks'
Reuters, Copyright 2000
November 17, 2000
By Robin Pomeroy

THE HAGUE (Reuters) - Negotiators worked down to the wire late on Friday in a frantic bid to lay the groundwork for an agreement on how to fight the threat of global warming.

Officials from some 180 countries remained sharply divided after a week of talks at a United Nations (news - web sites)-sponsored climate change conference in The Hague.

``It looks on a knife edge,'' said Michael Grubb, Professor of Climate Change and Energy Policy at London's Imperial College.

The talks are seen as a make-or-break chance for a U.N. climate pact struck in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan to cut emissions of gases believed to cause global warming.

Scientists say that without cuts in emissions of gases like carbon dioxide from burning oil and coal there could be unprecedented climate change with possibly devastating effects.

U.N. climate reports have warned that global warming could lead to increased disease, crop failures and rising sea levels.

The world's richest nations, however, remained ideologically split, most crucially on a single issue.

Should countries make most of their targeted emissions cuts at home, the approach favored by Europe and most developing countries.

Or should they be able to buy the right to pollute elsewhere, a more cost-effective option backed by the United States, Japan, Canada, and Australia. They argue this would still meet global targets set at Kyoto.

This could be done by wealthy states unable or unwilling to cut pollution by enough buying emissions ``credits'' from less well-off countries, such as in East Europe, who easily meet their targets.

``There's still a long way to go on the core issue of cutting back greenhouse gas emissions at home,'' Grubb said.

``That has been an issue for the three years since Kyoto and ...it'll probably have to be dealt with by ministers in the final hours (of the Hague conference),'' Grubb told Reuters.

With the clock ticking, virtual deadlock forced negotiators to work late to prepare a text for ministers to hammer out next week in a bid to rescue the Kyoto deal from collapse.

Conference host, Dutch Environment Minister Jan Pronk, refused requests to prolong the technical negotiations, insisting he be handed all texts by Saturday afternoon so he could draw up a list of options to hand to ministers on Sunday.

``You may think progress has been slow, very slow, but it is quicker than it has been in the past,'' Pronk told reporters.

French President Jacques Chirac said he would attend the Hague talks on Monday to add his weight to the push for a workable deal.

Europe Rejects Carbon ``Sinks''

The European Union firmly rejected a U.S.-backed plan to set aside forests and farmland as ``sinks'' to soak up carbon dioxide (CO2), the main global warming gas. It sees the use of forest and farm sinks as evading the real issue.

Senior U.S. diplomats said the powerful farm lobby could accept such a plan if they were paid for ``climate friendly'' activities like setting aside land for forestry or using farming methods that release less carbon from the soil.

This would allow Washington to meet its Kyoto targets for cuts in gas emissions, without having to bring in tough controls that could hit industry and consumers.

Both sides tried to play down the row on Friday, but acknowledged an overall agreement was still some way off.

``Progress has been made on technical items, but major issues remain for resolution next week,'' said David Sandalow, head of the U.S. delegation.

Saudis Fear Lost Oil Income

While the EU and U.S. remained at loggerheads, some delegates and Green groups accused Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, of trying to hobble attempts to piece together a deal.

The Saudis argue they stand to lose billions of dollars in oil revenues if agreements to trim greenhouse gas emissions lead to lower world oil consumption.

``We would lose $25 billion a year by 2010 if the Kyoto cuts are implemented,'' Mohammed al-Sabban, head of the Saudi delegation, told Reuters earlier. ``There will be no outcome if our concerns are not adequately addressed.''

The Saudis have aligned themselves at the Hague talks with small islands and developing nations, which face the harshest consequences of rising oceans, intense storms and flooding.

But, with oil prices hovering above $30 a barrel, their pleas for financial compensation are not widely welcomed.

``They are basically obstructing any kind of progress,'' said Lars-Georg Jensen of the World Wide Fund for Nature.

``Their positions are slowing down the negotiations,'' said Anders Turesson of the EU delegation.

http://www.climateark.org/articles/2000/4th/cltalkss.htm

WMM

\

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 07:51 PM

Carbon sinks 101

Forests, soils, oceans and the atmosphere all store carbon, which moves among those different carbon pools over time; these four different carbon stores form the active carbon pool. If one of these pools absorbs more carbon than it gives off, it is called a 'sink' in the climate jargon, while a source emits more than it absorbs. Destroying forests - turning them from a sink into a source - will shift the balance within the active carbon pool towards higher concentrations in the atmosphere and lower levels of carbon stored in the world's forests, but it will not increase the overall amount of carbon that interacts with the atmosphere.

Another important carbon store are the world's fossil fuel deposits. But this particular carbon store, buried deep inside the earth, is naturally separated from the carbon cycling in the atmosphere, unless humans decide to release it into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil or natural gas. Any releases from this pool of carbon will increase the amount of carbon available to the active carbon pool. This is the crucial difference overlooked by those who advocate carbon sink credits to halt climate change.

The argument to use carbon sink credits to halt climate change is thus based on the faulty assumption that 'carbon is carbon', an assumption that ignores the different interactions of the carbon with the atmosphere, depending on where the carbon is stored.

In addition to this basic fallacy, there are further flaws of the concept once we look more closely at the Kyoto Protocol itself. These include the carbon accounting framework of the Kyoto Protocol and environmental and social shortcomings.

The following reports also provide additional information about the problems associated with carbon sinks accounting:

The role of land carbon sinks in mitigating global climate change.
The Royal Society. Policy Document 10/01. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/statfiles/document-150.pdf

Full Carbon Account for Russia
IIASA Interim Report IR-00-02. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-00-021.pdf

Taking Credit.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Publications/Climate_Change_Reports/default.asp#Taking

Sinks in the Kyoto Protocol: A dirty deal for forests, forest peoples and the climate
http://www.fern.org/pubs/briefs/sinks2.pdf

The Carbon Shop: Planting new problems
http://www.wrm.org.uy/plantations/material/carbon.html

WMM

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 07:56 PM

Forests and Agriculture Carbon Sinks & the Kyoto Protocol

The package of provisions governing the treatment and accounting of forestry and agricultural carbon sinks contained in the Bonn Agreement and the Marrakech Accords constitutes a major victory for Canada in the international climate change negotiations. Canada played a key role in persuading the international community to acknowledge the contribution of forest and agricultural land management practices that absorb and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere towards achieving the Kyoto greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limitation and reduction targets.

Canada negotiated hard for the comprehensive inclusion of agricultural soils and managed forests because they are an important part of a broad, long-term approach to the fight against climate change that engages all parts of our economy. This backgrounder provides information on how carbon sinks work, how they benefit the environment and what's in the package agreed in Bonn and Marrakech.

Forests, Agriculture and Carbon Dioxide

The concept of carbon sinks is simple. It is based on the fact that trees and other plants "breathe in" and store carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere as they grow. A single tree can absorb many tonnes of carbon dioxide in the course of its life, and a growing, healthy forest can absorb thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Agricultural soils play a similar role. Farmers have successfully shown that agricultural soils can be managed to store more CO2 from the atmosphere. This happens when farmers adopt practices that increase yields and reduce soil disturbance due to tillage. The result of adopting those practices is that more of the CO2 that the crop plants absorbed from the atmosphere during the growing season is converted in the soil to organic carbon where it is stored and does not return to the atmosphere.

It is important that the Kyoto Protocol recognize all the ways that forest and agricultural carbon sinks can absorb and store CO2 from the atmosphere so that foresters and farmers have an incentive to manage forests and farmlands to help fight climate change.

Forests, Agriculture and the Atmosphere

The flow of CO2 between forests and agricultural soils and the atmosphere is a two way street. For example, when trees grow they absorb CO2 from the atmosphere but when they die and decay - or are burned down - they release CO2 into the atmosphere. On a larger scale, the amount of CO2 either absorbed or released by forests and agricultural soils can be influenced by human management and by events in nature, such as forest fires, drought or a particularly favourable growing season.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the authoritative body on climate change science, has estimated that the world's forests and farmlands are removing an overall total of about 8.4 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year. However, at the same time, destructive forestry and agricultural practices in some regions of the world are releasing about 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Thus, on balance, forests and farmlands remove only about 2.6 billion tonnes of CO2. Clearly, the true potential to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is actually much higher.

The large emissions from forests and agriculture demonstrate that these activities are currently part of the global climate change problem. The 5.8 billion tonnes released every year is about 20% of all human-related emissions of GHGs to the atmosphere. The remaining 80% comes from activities such as electricity generation, industrial processes, transportation and home energy use, to name but a few of the more important sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

It was therefore essential to design the rules of the Kyoto Protocol to ensure that forests and farmlands were also part of the climate change solution. This would provide incentives for managing forests and farms both to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and to reduce the CO2 they release into the atmosphere.

Forests, Agriculture and other Environmental Benefits

Canada has researched and promoted sustainable forestry and farming methods for decades. Experts have estimated that our managed forests and farmlands will be absorbing modest amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere during 2008-2012, the period when Canada's GHG emissions must be reduced to meet our Kyoto target. Management of forests and farms to increase these stores of carbon has other significant environmental benefits, too. For example, well managed forest and farms can contribute to conserving biodiversity, promoting clean air, protecting our streams, lakes, and rivers, and improving the quality of agricultural soils, which helps them to sustainably produce quality foods for the long term.

It was for these reasons that Canada's goal in the international climate change negotiations was to ensure that there is a comprehensive inclusion of managed forests and agricultural soils under the Kyoto Protocol. We saw this as an opportunity to achieve a double dividend - fighting climate change by removing CO2 from the atmosphere while achieving additional environmental and other benefits that are important to Canadians.

The International Agreement on Carbon Sinks

The agreements reached in Bonn and Marrakech fully recognize Canada's forest and agricultural sinks and provide clarity in the kinds of activities allowed. The package settles the definitions for afforestation and reforestation as the creation of new forests, and deforestation as the permanent loss of forest. This will result in a net debit for Canada, as the carbon emissions due to the loss of forest outweigh the carbon absorption from the creation of new forests. This is because Canada has large existing forests, so there has been little need in the past to create new forests. On the other hand, permanent loss of forest has occurred due to urban expansion, energy and mining sector development, agriculture and infrastructure development.

However, in the Bonn Agreement, countries also recognized that this net debit from a limited number of activities does not reflect the complete impact of forest-related activities on the atmosphere. The management of the existing forests, which can absorb carbon from the atmosphere, must also be considered. Therefore, the sinks agreement allows countries to offset (i.e. reduce to zero) any debit from the sum total of afforestation, reforestation and deforestation using credits resulting from forest management. In addition, countries can earn further credits from forest management at home, and from forest management projects in other industrialized countries, up to a negotiated limit that varies by country. In Canada's case, the limit is 44 Mt of carbon dioxide per year over the period 2008-2012. This represents the maximum potential credit that can be achieved through forest management, but the actual credit will depend on private and public investment as well as biological factors that influence net forest growth.

On the agricultural side, the package allows countries to account for cropland and grazing land management activities and places no limit on the credits that can be earned. The agreement provides an accounting framework for these activities that not only recognizes sinks but also provides credits when farmers are successful in reducing agricultural sources of GHG emissions. Canada strongly supported this type of accounting because it provides farmers with an incentive to take a whole-farm approach to managing greenhouse gases and to adopt sustainable land management practices.

Internationally, countries agreed in the sinks package that only afforestation and reforestation projects would be eligible to earn credits under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows industrialized countries to earn credits by investing in climate change mitigation projects in developing countries. CDM sinks credits are capped and the maximum credit Canada can earn for supporting these activities is 6 Mt of CO2 per year during the period of 2008-2012.

Overall, the package of measures governing carbon sinks is balanced, based on sound science and better reflects the way we do things in Canada. It provides an incentive for foresters and farmers to manage their lands in more environmentally friendly ways. Our goal is to increase the overall CO2 removal from the atmosphere, but we recognize that forest fires, insect infestations and harvesting trees result in CO2 being released into the atmosphere. That is why Canada will account for both releases and removals of CO2 in a balanced system of credits and debits called "comprehensive carbon accounting". Under this system, Canada will receive credit when our stewardship of forests and farmland succeeds in taking CO2 out of the atmosphere but take a debit when our activities return CO2 to the atmosphere.

Canada is now putting in place the systems it will need to obtain good measurements of the effects on carbon of our agricultural soil and forest management. We also strongly support international efforts under the IPCC to create strong rules to ensure quality measurements and acceptable approaches for uncertainty.

http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/cop/cop6_hague/english/forests_e.html

WMM

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 08:00 PM

The Inclusion of Sinks Has Sunk the Kyoto Protocol
World Rainforest Movement

Ed. Note: The recent climate meeting held in Bonn resulted in an agreement by all countries attending save the U.S. to implement the Kyoto protocol, a step applauded by many. But the World Rainforest Movement, in a viewpoint below, cautions that amidst the celebration lurks a dark cloud: in the rush to gain an agreement at any cost, the livelihoods of forest dwellers may be threatened, and the goal of emissions reductions has been sacrificed by including carbon sinks in the agreement.

The news has reached the entire world: the Kyoto Protocol has been saved! In spite of this information being formally true, it hides the fact that this does not mean that the planet's climate has been saved, which is the real issue at stake. On the contrary, as it now stands, while not solving the problem it was intended to address, the Kyoto Protocol will impose further impacts on local people through the implementation of carbon sink projects.

Though anticipated, it is sad to confirm that the Bonn meeting of the Convention on Climate Change was more focused on "sinks" than on "sources" of greenhouse gases. This means that instead of seeking means by which to reduce the use of fossil fuels--coal, petroleum, and natural gas--which are at the root of the greenhouse effect, climate negotiators focused instead on means to avoid commitments on fossil-fuel emission reductions.

The meeting was held in a context where the United States--responsible for 25% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions--publicly stated that it refused to comply with the commitments agreed to in Kyoto in 1997. Such context facilitated arm-twisting by a major polluter such as Japan, which was finally instrumental in reaching an agreement to "save" the protocol. The solution to "save" it was the inclusion of tree plantations as carbon sinks.

Climate negotiators chose to ignore the increasing number of scientific studies questioning the capacity of tree plantations to be a long-term solution to climate change. They also chose to ignore that this mechanism will in fact result in a net increase of fossil-fuel emissions in the North. And they opted to ignore the impacts that large-scale tree plantations have on people and the environment.

As a result, polluters will now have a license to pollute under the guise of implementing plantation projects to act as "sinks" for their emissions. Unless local opposition prevents them from doing so, most of these plantations will be implemented in the South, where trees grow much faster than in the North, thus being more "efficient" for carbon sequestration. At the same time, they will be much cheaper than in industrialized countries (where labor and land are more expensive) and will receive all the necessary support from Southern governments--including the repression of local opposition--desperate to accept any investment that may leave some money in the country.

To understand the threat that this will mean to people, soils, water, and biodiversity, it is necessary to realize that this "solution" may result--to make theoretical sense from a climate perspective--in hundreds of millions of hectares of fertile land being converted to large-scale plantations of fast growing species, such as eucalyptus. In the South, those lands are already occupied by people who depend on them for their subsistence. Those people's lands are therefore now under the threat of appropriation to make way for plantations. The areas to be occupied by these carbon garbage dumps host much of the world's biodiversity, much of which could be wiped out by large-scale monoculture plantations. At the same time, these would deplete water resources and result in dramatic changes in the soils where they are implemented.

In sum, with their decision to include plantations as carbon sinks, climate negotiators have not only not addressed the problem they were meant to address--climate change--but have added new problems for millions of people who will now be facing the appropriation of their lands and resources for conversion to Northern carbon garbage dumps. The price for "saving" the process has clearly been too high, and the inclusion of sinks has sunk the Kyoto Protocol and the hopes it had raised. It is now up to people and organizations truly concerned with the Earth's future to stop the implementation of this false solution and to force governments to address seriously the issue of global climate change.

WMM

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 08:03 PM

International Group Searches For Missing Carbon Sink

A multinational research group led by atmospheric scientists at Colorado State University has uncovered new information regarding the Earth's carbon dioxide sources and sinks.
Among other results, the researchers conclude that North America may not be absorbing as much carbon dioxide as previously reported, according to a report in the current issue of Nature

Sixteen leading research teams in carbon transport modeling from the United States, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Japan and Australia are participating in the TransCom 3 project.

The group is completing a three-year study aimed at helping to resolve a controversy concerning the mysterious removal of a large amount of carbon dioxide from the Earth's atmosphere known as the missing sink.

In recent years, the missing sink has partially offset the large amount of carbon dioxide -- the dominant contributor to global warming -- emitted into the Earth's atmosphere.

"Something on land in the Northern Hemisphere is sucking up carbon," said Kevin Gurney, lead author of the paper and a research associate at Colorado State. "This missing sink is not a new phenomenon, but where it is and how it works has long remained a mystery. Unraveling this mystery is essential if we are to reliably predict future levels of carbon dioxide build-up and the resultant global warming."

The TransCom 3 research team agrees with previous reports that there is a large carbon dioxide sink on land in the Northern Hemisphere. However, contrary to a recent, widely cited study, the group does not believe the sink is entirely in North America.

"Our research found carbon uptake over the Northern Hemisphere continents distributed relatively evenly across North America, Europe and temperate Asia," said A. Scott Denning, assistant professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State and coordinator of the TransCom 3 project.

"We found the North American sink approximately 60 percent of the size suggested in the earlier study, as well as other large carbon sinks in Europe and Asia."

TransCom 3 also concluded that the southern ocean, long considered by oceanographers to be a massive carbon sink, is not as large as what has been suggested. According to the study, the ocean is taking up less carbon dioxide, and landmass, specifically in the Northern Hemisphere, is absorbing more than previously thought.

The research team additionally forwarded two conclusions that could improve future research into carbon dioxide sources and absorption.

First, prioritizing where and how to make more measurements needs to be a priority when studying the tropics due to a lack of data in those areas.

Second, for more accurately studying the Northern Hemisphere, efforts need to be focused on improving scientific air-flow transport models.

"If, for example, the goal is to improve the understanding of sinks in the northern continents, where the majority of us live, then the most important thing to do is to put resources toward improving air-flow models," said Denning. "However, even if you had really good models in the tropics, you would still be out of luck because of the lack of data."

TransCom 3 combined a database of CO2 measurements at 76 sites throughout the world with global wind information to determine where carbon dioxide comes from and where it is absorbed. Through inverse modeling and a unique, unified scientific approach, the group was able to map the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide in 22 regions: 11 on land and 11 at sea.

"What is so encouraging about these results is how robust they are to many of the assumptions used," said Gurney. "By enlisting the cooperation of the worldwide carbon-modeling community, the project was less sensitive to details that plague other studies."

WMM

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 08:06 PM

The impacts of climate change on natural vegetation
Back to Contents

Summary
Introduction
The distribution of vegetation and dieback
The global terrestrial carbon sink

Contributors: Andrew White and Melvin Cannell, NERC Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Edinburgh.

Summary Back to top
With unmitigated emissions, substantial dieback of tropical forests and tropical grasslands is predicted to occur by the 2080s, especially in parts of northern South America and central southern Africa. Forests in North America, northern Asia and China are predicted to grow considerably.
Under emissions scenarios leading to stabilisation of CO2 at 750 ppm, the dieback of tropical forests is delayed by about 100 years, but under stabilisation at 550 ppm, this loss is substantially reduced, even by the 2230s.
The absorption of carbon dioxide by vegetation increases during the 21st century in all scenarios. But, due to dieback in tropical vegetation, this sink is lost in the 2070s with unmitigated emissions and about 100 years later with emissions which stabilise CO2 concentrations. Without this sink, CO2 concentrations will be higher than assumed in the climate model, and hence climate change will be greater than current predictions.
Introduction Back to top
In Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), climate change is considered ‘dangerous’, and thus to be avoided, if it is likely to cause irreversible damage to global ecosystems. In this report we assess the behaviour of global ecosystems using an ecosystem model (Hybrid) under climate change predictions derived from three different scenarios of CO2 emissions. In particular we pay special attention to whether the terrestrial carbon sink, which currently sequesters around 25% of anthropogenic carbon emissions, can be sustained under the different scenarios of climate change and whether there are regions that are especially vulnerable to climate change. In this study, we take no account of the effect of changes in land use.

The Hybrid model simulates the global distribution of natural vegetation and carbon as it responds to changing climate, increasing atmospheric CO2 and nitrogen deposition from the atmosphere. The model simulates the cycles of carbon, nitrogen and water between the soil and individual plants, with combinations of different plant types forming seven possible vegetation types — temperate grassland, tropical grassland, savannah, broadleaf evergreen forest, broadleaf cold deciduous forest, coniferous forest and mixed broadleaf/coniferous forest, plus desert (no vegetation). The type of vegetation that dominates in any region depends on the outcome of competition for light, nitrogen and water and the ability of plants to survive extreme conditions.

The distribution of vegetation and dieback Back to top
The maps overleaf show the distribution of vegetation biomass (kilogrammes of carbon per square metre) in the 1990s and the change in biomass between the 1990s and 2080s in response to climate change with unmitigated emissions, and emissions leading to stabilisation of CO2 at 750 ppm and 550 ppm.

Continued at......

http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/B1999/imp_nat_veg.html

WMM

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 08:08 PM

Contrary to popular opinion, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the United States cannot accurately be labeled as all give and no take. In fact, of the 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide our consumer driven country coughs up a year, roughly 15 to 30 percent is reabsorbed back into the land. Scientists refer to such a draw down of carbon as a carbon sink. Though researchers have known of this North American carbon sink for the better part of the 20th century, they do not understand precisely what is causing the sink or why the amount of carbon absorbed seems to increase over the years.

The most popular theories revolve around an observed greening of North America. Plant life appears to have thrived over the last 100 years, and increased vegetation growth has simply absorbed more CO2 from the air, increasing the carbon sink and partially offsetting greenhouse gas warming. In the presence of water and sunlight, plants take in CO2 during photosynthesis to create fuel, glucose, and other sugars for building plant structures.

Viable causes for why plants have done so well include a revival of forests from agricultural and urban clear-cutting in the 1800s, greater concentrations of atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning, and warmer global temperatures in the 1900s. But a new study points to another factor vital to plant growth that may be at the root of the matter—more water.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/CarbonHydrology/

WMM

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 08:10 PM

Carbon sinks filling up
Wednesday, 14 November 2001

Time is running out for the world's carbon sinks.

Carbon sinks will not be able to keep absorb carbon dioxide emissions at current rates, leading scientists have warned.

An international team of 30 researchers, including three Australians, reviews a large body of research on carbon sources and sinks in the journal Nature.

"Although carbon sinks have a role to play in absorbing excess carbon dioxide, it is possible that the net global terrestrial carbon sink may disappear altogether in the future," said lead author Professor David Schimel, from Germany's Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry.

'Carbon sink' is an expression used for the uptake of carbon dioxide by oceans and land-based plants. Terrestrial and marine environments are currently absorbing about half of the carbon dioxide that is emitted by fossil-fuel combustion.

But there is no guarantee this situation will remain steady, the scientists argue.

They believe that current uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide by oceans and vegetation is inflated by forest regrowth and carbon dioxide 'fertilisation' — both of which are unlikely to continue.

Over the past decade, changes to land use in North America have seen young forests planted on agricultural land.

While trees are growing quickly, they absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they release. But once these forests reach maturity, they will absorb and release roughly equal quantities.

In addition, global consumption of carbon dioxide by plants is currently high because of carbon dioxide 'fertilisation' — more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes plants grow more quickly.

But there are physiological limits to this effect, and when CO2 reaches saturation point, plant uptake will slow down, the scientists predict.

"Land and ocean processes have, in essence, provided a major, but far from permanent, subsidy to humans," said co-author Professor Chris Field from the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Human activities that emit carbon dioxide include burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

There are two main terrestrial carbon sinks, one in North America, the other in Eurasia. The Eurasian sink is twice the area of the North America sink, but they absorb similar quantities of carbon dioxide, the researchers believe.

ABC Science Online

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_410600.htm

WMM

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 08:12 PM

Studies Measure Capacity of "Carbon Sinks"

By John Roach
for National Geographic News

June 21, 2001
After years of wide disagreement, scientists are getting a better grip on how much carbon Earth's forests and other biological components suck out of the atmosphere, thus acting as "carbon sinks." New research in this area may be highly useful in efforts to devise international strategies to address global warming.

The emission of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels is the leading cause of the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which many people believe is the main culprit behind an increase in Earth's temperatures.

For a long time, scientists have known that forests, crops, soils, and other organic matter soak up some of that carbon, thereby slowing down the rate of global warming. Yet their calculations of how much carbon is absorbed have differed, in some cases significantly.

A team of scientists led by Stephen Pacala, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University in New Jersey, set out to resolve this discrepancy in calculations. Their research is reported in the June 22 issue of Science.

Different Measuring Techniques

While some carbon is absorbed by organic matter such as trees and shrubs, carbon is also regularly emitted into the atmosphere by activities on land such as the burning of fossil fuels.

Researchers' lack of agreement on how much carbon is "stored" has been rooted in the use of two different methods of measurement—one atmosphere based, the other land based.

The first method involves measuring concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air as the air moves across landmasses from Point A to Point B. The second method entails making an inventory of all the carbon in a given area of ground and calculating the difference between the levels of carbon recorded from year to year.

Although there is wide variation among different atmospheric models of carbon measurement, their results have consistently indicated that higher levels of carbon are absorbed than the land-based models show.

Pacala said his team's land-based analysis was more thorough than earlier studies. "We did the first exhaustive analysis of the land sink," he said.

Previous land-based models inventoried mainly the amount of carbon absorbed by trees, he explained. He and his colleagues included measures of carbon absorbed by landfills, soils, houses, and even silt at the bottom of reservoirs.

"We found out that the land sink was bigger than had been reported by other analyses, about twice as big, and the atmosphere [models] gave numbers that were consistent," he said.

The researchers used their results to help answer a major question that has been a subject of much contention: How big is the entire "carbon sink" of the continental United States?

According to their findings, the scientists estimate that U.S. forests and other terrestrial components absorb from one-third to two-thirds of a billion tons of carbon each year.

At the same time, reliable figures indicate that the United States emits more than two to four times that amount of carbon each year, about 1.4 billion tons.

Taking into account the carbon sink effect, 800 million to 1.1 billion tons of carbon accumulates annually in the atmosphere, the researchers say. This refutes the idea that the U.S carbon sink is big enough to equal the amount of carbon that U.S. factories emit through the burning of fossil fuels, as some studies have concluded.

The results of the Princeton-led study are particularly interesting because the 23 scientists who participated in the research and agreed on the conclusions initially held strongly differing views about the size of the U.S. carbon sink.

Diminishing Effect

Pacala and his colleagues say the main reason the United States is drawing in a large volume of carbon is because many forests and areas of land that were logged or converted to agriculture in the last 100 years are now recovering with the growth of new vegetation.

These trees and shrubs absorb carbon dioxide from the air and channel it into the growth of massive tree trunks, branches, and foliage. This, in turn, gradually expands the overall size of the U.S. carbon sink.

Pacala emphasizes, however, that the U.S. absorption of carbon does not fully offset the emissions of carbon from fossil fuels and should not be seen as a license to release more carbon. A large part of the current sink effect, he said, is the land re-absorbing large quantities of carbon that were released during heavy farming and logging of the past.

"When we chopped down the forests, we released carbon trapped in the trees into the atmosphere. When we plowed up the prairies, we released carbon from the grasslands and soils into the atmosphere," said Pacala. "Now the ecosystem is taking some of that back." But, he added, the sink effect will steadily decrease and eventually disappear—as U.S. ecosystems complete their recovery from past land use.

"The carbon sinks are going to decrease at the same time as our fossil fuel emissions increase," he said. "Thus, the greenhouse problem is going to get worse faster than we expected."

continued at......

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0621_carbonsinks.html

WMM

whitemajikman

02-16-2005, 08:14 PM

Future trajectories of global terrestrial carbon fluxes

Wolfgang Cramer and Josep Canadell
[wolfgang.cramer@pik-potsdam.de] or [Pep.Canadell@gcte.org]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As CO2 emissions continue to increase over the next decades, the strength of the ocean and terrestrial sinks are expected to increase for some time. That is to say that, if assessments such as that by the IPCC are correct, the current proportion of carbon being locked on land and in the oceans would remain nearly constant in the future. Approximately one third of the total carbon emissions from human activities (fossil fuels, cement production and land use change) would accumulate in the atmosphere. One third would go into the terrestrial bio-sphere due to increased plant productivity, and one third into the oceans. If, however, this expected increase in sink strength were not realized, then atmospheric CO2 growth would take place at a faster rate than currently predicted, and policies to stabilize CO2 concentra-tions would face an even greater gap between climate protection goals and implemented emission reduction measures.

Obviously, this problem cannot be resolved with an accounting and monitoring scheme alone. Based on theoretical considerations and process-based model calculations, there are now strong indications that the terrestrial carbon sink might approach its limits (some say, "satu-rate") within the 21st century. The results suggest that the terrestrial carbon sink may increase over the next decades due to the CO2-fertilization effect, but will, for several reasons, reach a saturation point after which the sink strength will no longer increase. The mechanisms in-volved in this trajectory are complex-they include both physiological and structural proc-esses at the scales of ecosystems and landscapes (1), and they are affected in several ways by the expected climate change which is associated with atmospheric CO2 increase.

Some of the processes involved are physiological in nature. For instance, photosynthesis (carbon uptake) shows a saturating curve with increasing CO2, while heterotrophic respiration (carbon emissions from soil and litter microbial respiration) shows an exponential curve with increasing temperature. The combination of these two physiological phenomena alone results in a bell-shaped curve for the net carbon balance of a given system as CO2 and temperature increase. Other processes involved in the terrestrial biosphere response include the possible increase of CO2 emissions if fire frequency increased, e.g. as a result of higher temperatures and increased El Niño intensity as predicted by several climate models. In addition, there are structural processes that might diminish the strength of carbon sink. For instance, forest re-growth in large areas of North America and Europe after agriculture abandonment is thought to be key to the northern hemisphere sink (2). Once these forests reach maturity the carbon sink strength would gradually diminish simply due to structural limitations alone.

Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) are a class of models with global coverage that aim at including sufficient mechanistic information to deal with such a range of physiological and structural drivers of the contemporary and future exchange of carbon between the terres-trial biosphere and the atmosphere. These models explicitly represent the interactions of eco-system carbon, water, and energy exchanges with vegetation dynamics (distribution and physiognomy of vegetation structure) with various levels of complexity of the main processes involved.

Continued at........

http://www.gcte.org/Cramer-Canadell.htm

WMM

jayreynolds

02-16-2005, 08:42 PM

Boomer Chick

02-16-2005, 10:28 PM

Hey! WMM! Here's to let you know I read every one!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021305A.shtml

Deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia alone amounts to roughly four-fifths of the annual reduction in carbon emissions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol from 2008 to 2012.

Such initiatives are not the whole answer, which must include developing institutions capable of policing the frontier (see article). Yet the world has begun to recognise that it needs the Amazon and other tropical forests. The time has come to start paying for them.
_________________________________________________
http://www.amazoncoop.org/desktopmo...x?nws_itemid=65

"Destroying forests - turning them from a sink into a source - will shift the balance within the active carbon pool towards higher concentrations in the atmosphere and lower levels of carbon stored in the world's forests, but it will not increase the overall amount of carbon that interacts with the atmosphere. " Makes no sense!

The role of land carbon sinks in mitigating global climate change.
The Royal Society. Policy Document 10/01. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/sta...ocument-150.pdf -- link didn't work.
________________________________
Canada is now putting in place the systems it will need to obtain good measurements of the effects on carbon of our agricultural soil and forest management. We also strongly support international efforts under the IPCC to create strong rules to ensure quality measurements and acceptable approaches for uncertainty.

http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/cop/.../forests_e.html --- Good one about Canada!
_____________________________
The Inclusion of Sinks Has Sunk the Kyoto Protocol
World Rainforest Movement --- No date, no link???

in the rush to gain an agreement at any cost, the livelihoods of forest dwellers may be threatened, and the goal of emissions reductions has been sacrificed by including carbon sinks in the agreement.
________________________________

International Group Searches For Missing Carbon Sink -- no link, no date?

The TransCom 3 research team agrees with previous reports that there is a large carbon dioxide sink on land in the Northern Hemisphere. However, contrary to a recent, widely cited study, the group does not believe the sink is entirely in North America.
_________________________________
The impacts of climate change on natural vegetation
Back to Contents

Summary
Introduction
The distribution of vegetation and dieback
The global terrestrial carbon sink

Contributors: Andrew White and Melvin Cannell, NERC Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Edinburgh.

In this study, we take no account of the effect of changes in land use. ?? Too bad. But a great model prediction. Kind of scary, too!
___________________________________

2002 -- Nasa site.... good maps, good research....http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/CarbonHydrology/

Though the results appear optimistic at face value, there are many interdependent variables at play here that impact the water and carbon cycles. Such carbon sinks, however, are unlikely to lower CO2 concentrations enough to cure global warming. Nemani also warns that changes in the hydrologic cycle will not occur uniformly around the world. Some places will receive more rainfall and other places will receive less, as is the case with current droughts in the Pacific Northwest and in much of Africa. “There will be winners and there will be losers,” Nemani says.

_____________________________________

Carbon sinks filling up
Wednesday, 14 November 2001 ------ 2001? Well let's see what it says! Well, not much. Just kind of negative
toward carbon sinks in general.

ABC Science Online

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/...lish_410600.htm

________________________________________

By John Roach
for National Geographic News

June 21, 2001 --- WHY SUCH OLD ARTICLES???

Previous land-based models inventoried mainly the amount of carbon absorbed by trees, he explained. He and his colleagues included measures of carbon absorbed by landfills, soils, houses, and even silt at the bottom of reservoirs.

"We found out that the land sink was bigger than had been reported by other analyses, about twice as big, and the atmosphere [models] gave numbers that were consistent," he said.

INTERESTING.... land sinks as well. Total "sinkage" still doesn't compensate for total emissions of CO2.

__________________________________________

http://www.gcte.org/Cramer-Canadell.htm
Future trajectories of global terrestrial carbon fluxes

Wolfgang Cramer and Josep Canadell
[wolfgang.cramer@pik-potsdam.de] or [Pep.Canadell@gcte.org]

Had already read this from your previous postings.

_________________________________________

OK, WWM, thanks for posting all the stuff on carbon sinks. I would like to see a copy of the Kyoto protocol that the US, China, and India (is it?) won't sign. All in all your articles were relatively old, sorry to say. The recent ones I posted are newer and the studies on atmospheric measurements I've posted lately are also the latest and quite thorough regarding carbon and green house gas measurements in all areas. But I still learned something and I thank you!. Since 2000 and 2001 there have been great strides in measurement and modeling and recent meetings have discussed temperature in terms of clouds and cloud production, the equatorial forest contribution not as just a sink, but as a heat buffer as well, and the understanding of the equatorial pump mechanism redistributing air masses and temperature all interact as well. Since the ocean is reported as more acidic, the CO2 situation changes with that situation, too. There are so many interrelated systems that at least the Kyoto protocol is a step in the right direction as long as there are some emissions restrictions in it as well. And , yes, the whole world must invest in keeping the rain forests as well. Compared to the thriving rain forest, a same size plot of land being farmed may soak up CO2, but it also reflects more heat from the sun as the plants do not cover the earth at as great a height. The rain forest also produces it's own small water system within it--- mists and retension of humidity. The humidity factor considering farming, therefore, is decreased as well.

So the rain forests themselves are more important to the overall balance (heat, humidity, CO2 sink, oxygen generator) of the planetary system than the same amount of ground used in farming. Farming continues to use the forest floor rich soil, but in time the organic material will be depleted without the system of decaying of rotting leaves and fungi that existed before they cleared and farmed the land. Just a matter of time before farmers need to replenish the soil with decaying organic matter. Perhaps World Parks would be a solution, where various countries fund to protect large tracts of forest from development in the equatorial regions. Along with protecting carbon sinks, reducing emissions through alternative energies (repairs the ozone problem), and increasing cloud production (not cirrus), a balance could establish itself.

And Yaak, without some human consideration, if you read even these old models, the planet will continue to dry up and overheat. Is this what you want? Deserts? Dry, arid, plantless land over most of the planet? I don't think so. Do you want to live in biodomes in the future? With just a little consideration and technical know how, we can help the planet to stay healthy and green. THAT IS a form of adaptation. And it's assuring that our legacy won't be one of disdain and torture for our future generations. Yes, torture. UV rays?

BC

hoot

02-17-2005, 01:00 AM

CARBON DINKS 101~~~~~~~This is the water planet{7/8ths coverage}. The CO2-CO3 content of that ocean water if solidified would cover the entire planet to a depth of 20 feet. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere if solidified would cover the entire planet to a depth of O.2 INCHES!!! Since anybody, with half a brain, that has had any dealings with carbonated water can tell you that cold water can hold a lot more CO2 than warm water; a reasonable assumption seeing the comparative size of the loads, would be that increased atmosphereic CO2 is a sign of global warming and not a cause. But, we are not dealing with reason here; we are dealing with a power grabbing agenda by the elite and their "scientific" lap dogs. Given the thousands and thousands of feet of sedimentary limestone on its crust , the earth knows very well, how to deal with CO2.

jayreynolds

02-17-2005, 03:37 AM

Insurrectionchemistry

02-17-2005, 05:55 AM

Very good Hoot,

CO-2 is a minor GW source compared to the HF synergistic effect on making the light IR absobing H-C gas layer.

Only when the CO-2 contribution becomes equilavalent to the light H-C gas layers absorption value will the switch be made from fossil fuels to non-carbon systems like nuclear, cold fusion, or Tesla Free Energy designs. That will happen out past 2030 sometime.

It is a simple cost-benefit comparision, inclusive of the HF synergism in the US and not in Euro/Kyoto.

That is the real difference between the US Bush thinking and the European thinking on GW.

Bush and the national lab systems go after the HF effect to control GW, while the Europeans, who are not aware of the HF factor, go after direct emission cuts via Kyoto agreements.

CO-2 is a long range problem, with HF synergism being the clear and present problem.

The dichotomy of thought on GW management is the main difference between the Euro and Bush games and it stems from the non-disclosed HF synergism effect that gave rise to the chemtrails methods.

It is also the central issue per this Forum's "stupids" wanting of covering up the chemtrials issue on HF.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-17-2005, 07:29 AM

Sticky Note to the agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

The Decision on the Guilt or Innocence of the Jay Reynolds Mafia appears to be Guilty.

This supported by the fact that the dominate Global Warming effect per HF in the atmosphere forming the NFO compound that enhances the Global Warming blanket effect with hydrocarbon synergism. Once that is revealed, it becomes clear this exceeds the CO-2 effects on Global Warming.

Jay Reynolds and his Hate Mafia actions clearly exhibit the same conspiracy games that have gone on for decades in the Govt. circles dedicated to the cover up of HF and fluoride environmental and health effects.

In fact, we see that the CO-2 factor is being played up by WMM [aka Shanon from Canada], who is a near 33rd degree Blue Lodge Mason and Jewish. The Masons have long been a part of the huge Jewish money monopoly that is an economic tyranny process in the US to promote a New World Ownership with themselves at the helm. WMM is part of the Jews against Zionism that fails to disclose the Jewish monoply of the US money system, using methods of racketeering and even murder of US presidents in their criminal zeal to control / conquor the US.

Reynolds and his Hate Mafia clearly show the cover up intentions toward the HF problems and downplaying the dominate HF synergistic effect on GW gas production in the upper atmosphere.

Reynolds intent in going after the chemtrails issues is to suppress the connections to chemtrails methods to remove the HF and other acids from the air to cut this GW HF problem. Chemtrails also dump higher levels of acids onto areas under air corridors, and this liberates more metals such as aluminum that does harm public health.

Reynolds guilt in this process is hence obvious and shown by clear actions and reaction methods.

Reynolds and all his associates must clearly be assigned to conspiring and rackeering to cover up what has been going on with the oil and jet engines industry in regard these cover ups.

IMHO,
is

jayreynolds

02-17-2005, 10:03 AM

Boomer Chick

02-17-2005, 11:05 AM

;)

Just some facts on HF.

http://www.ipalco.com/ABOUTIPALCO/Environment/TRI/hydrogen_flouride.html
______________________________
http://www.unco.edu/chemquest/b_gloss.htm

weak acid - an acid that does not ionize completely in water. For example, hydrogen flouride, HF, is a weak acid. The equation for its ionization is HF(aq) + H2O(l) <=> H3O+(aq) + F-(aq).

_________________________________

Regs. on Hydrogen Flouride

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/pdfs/7902.pdf

_________________________________

WOW! COOL!

Excerpts:

A team of astronomers from the United States and Germany has discovered trace amounts of hydrogen fluoride gas in the near vacuum of interstellar space, using the European Space Agency's Infrared Space Observatory satellite, ISO, which was launched in November 1995.

The characteristic wavelength at which hydrogen fluoride molecules absorb radiation is approximately one eighth of a millimetre, much larger than the wavelength of visible light but much smaller than the wavelengths typically used for radio and television communications.

As in other clouds of interstellar gas, the environment in Sagittarius B2 is very extreme by terrestrial standards, with temperatures less than minus 220 Celsius, and pressures more than one hundred million million times smaller than the atmospheric pressure on Earth. And although the hydrogen fluoride is less than one thousand millionth as abundant as the hydrogen, the sensitivity of the ISO spectrometers made its detection possible.

"This discovery gives us the opportunity to study the chemistry of fluoride molecules in the frigid conditions that characterise the near vacuum of interstellar space," says Neufeld. "One of the key questions is how these molecules were formed. Our analysis suggests that the hydrogen fluoride we detected was produced by direct chemical reactions between fluorine atoms and hydrogen molecules. Unlike most atoms, fluorine atoms are extremely reactive and attack the relatively inert hydrogen molecules that are the principal constituent of the interstellar gas. The result is hydrogen fluoride."

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/image_galleries/ISO/lws/hfl.html

______________________________________

http://www.aep.com/environmental/emissioncontrol/rtk/default.htm

_________________________________________

???

12.3.1 Space Based Chemical Laser (SBCL)

The advantage of being space based gives the quick reaction laser the opportunity to destroy ICBM's in their most vul-nerable stages. A hydrogen-flouride (HF) chemical laser is designed to destroy targets in the boost and post-boost phases. Although the technology for this system is mature (begun in the '70's), the large number of space platforms and the limited fuel supply carried on each mitigate against its deployment unless transportation can be made less expensive.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part12.htm

___________________________________________

Excerpt:

Hydrogenated flourocarbons are non-toxic and do not exist for lengthy periods of time in our environment. Even if these compounds make it to the stratosphere where a reaction with the ozone layer would normally take place, their fragments are not efficient in reacting with and breaking down ozone molecules. A drawback to using hydrogenated flourocarbons is the resulting decay products of hydrogen flouride and flouracetic acid both of which can be harmful to the environment.

http://bengal-nn2.missouri.edu/~chemrg/212w00/group_16_project1.html

______________________________________________

Knowledge is power! :D

Boomer Chick

02-17-2005, 11:23 AM

Yes, I like deserts. Deserts teem with life and are easy to survive in for people like me. "plantless"? No, I don't believe so.

In your doomsday scenario, most of humanity would die off, solving all of the problems for those of us that do survive.

Just stop poisoning me!

I'm not talking living deserts! There is no doomsday scenario here. Never posted that, just scientists' models (computer generated) that predict future parameters and conditions plugging in various constants and trends. If we just tweek our emissions (poison), stop fooling with Mother Nature (example:destroy the rainforests, adding too many unnatural pollutants), switch to renewable and benign energies, and do some housecleaning we'll be fine. But if we don't care, don't bother, we (our progeny) may indeed suffer. Adapting means adapting with all the techo-nature knowledge we have. Nature is our Queen and our Mother and we must help her in her many natural balances and respect and understand her all the while. This is a beautiful planet and we want to keep it that way!

SCHWEETIE !!! :D

Boomer Chick

02-17-2005, 11:39 AM

Thank you, Jay.

While some of you waste your time and energy on imaginary problems like chemtrails, geo-engineering and man-made global warming, real scientists are tackling the real problem that faces us: providing inexpensive energy without poisoning us.

Real problems - Real Solutions.

Why do some of you insist on following illusions? Even more mysterious is your animosity toward those that attempt to help you see the illusions for what they really are.

I appreciate the real solutions, too, Yaak. Why divide people when we're all together, here?

Let's just help those that have illusions to strong doses of the real efforts that go on and the real facts. That's the best way to fight ignorance and panic! THANKS JAY for that post for reality!!!

Wait, Yaak, many of the pollutants and extra CO2 situations are caused by man. Not that he(we) did them on purpose. It was a byproduct of the industrial age and the fossil fuels that we've used over the decades. It's confirmed and you can't fight that fact. The destruction of rain forests also attests to that fact, but did those who were burning know the effect it would have on the atmosphere? No. But now we do and we're working on it. I am hopeful, but sometimes I see the leaders in our nation dragging their feet on this in favor of the polluters... aka energy companies at this time, and yet some are retrofitting and revamping their polluting ways and that is GOOD. Those who have cared for the last twenty years, "tree huggers", were the alarmists all along and guess what? They were right in terms of the big picture that now the whole world is concerned about. Isn't that the way it goes with humans?

Take care .... the right people are working on it now! We'll see if all the efforts pay off from our future views, wherever WE may be in 50 to 100 years, heh?

BC :)

Insurrectionchemistry

02-17-2005, 01:26 PM

Hydrogen Fluoride---Poison

http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/HY/hydrogen_fluoride.html

Hydrogen Fluoride is one of the strongest acids due to the fluoride component being the highest electronegative element. Hydrogen fluoride is so strong an acid that it dissolves glass. It has extreme affinity toward metals, displacing the hydrogen bond when in contact with most metals.

HF is considered "Hygroscopic," which is why it is absorbed well into chemtrail clouds and can be rained out via that method, which cuts its global warming effects down-----but poisons the people on the ground with HF and other acids that release metals into the food/water chain.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-17-2005, 01:28 PM

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/media_121634781_761555692_-1_1/Hydrogen_Fluoride_Gas_in_the_Atmosphere.html

The various concentrations of hydrogen fluoride (HF) gas in the upper atmosphere of the Earth are shown here. The weakest concentrations are in the lower latitudes around the equator and tropics; concentrations increase towards the poles where they are densest. As HF gas contains no chlorine atoms it has no ozone depleting effect. However, it is a powerful greenhouse gas and greatly contributes to global warming. From this image, a processing of data collected by NASA satellites, it is clear that the largest quantities of HF gas are to be found around Antarctica, where the levels of ozone are at their lowest (the white circle at the pole indicates no satellite data).

Insurrectionchemistry

02-17-2005, 01:31 PM

Old Chinese proverbs tell---Idiot with search engine is still an idiot.

I guess the latest recruit to the genital inspectors club is going to have a hard time explaining why those people that do satellite data are off aiming at HF. Or why the same people aiming satellites at HF also tell it is a global warming problem.

Gonna be hard for BC to explain why NASA tells: "However, it is a powerful greenhouse gas and greatly contributes to global warming. " and likes to take pictures of the problem using their satellites.

Even run away housewives can't get around this explicit description of the problem.

Boomer Chick

02-17-2005, 04:49 PM

Good find on HF in polar regions. We already knew it was in the atmosphere. And as you quoted from the Encarta site, it has no role in ozone depletion.

As HF gas contains no chlorine atoms it has no ozone depleting effect.

And if you could find a comparison chart of HF in reference to other gases in the polar regions, that would be appreciated.

http://www.unco.edu/chemquest/b_gloss.htm

weak acid - an acid that does not ionize completely in water. For example, hydrogen flouride, HF, is a weak acid. The equation for its ionization is HF(aq) + H2O(l) <=> H3O+(aq) + F-(aq).

acid - a substance that releases H+ ions in solution in water (Arrhenius).

electrolyte - a solution that conducts electricity because the solute is ionized.

ionization- reaction of a covalent compound with water resulting in the formation of ions. HCl (aq) + H2O(l) -> H3O+(aq) + Cl-(aq)

strong acid - an acid that ionizes essentially 100% in water. Hydrochloric acid, HCl, is a strong acid. The equation for its ionization in water is HCl(aq) + H2O(l) -> H3O+(aq) + Cl-(aq)

strong electrolyte - a solution in which the solute is completely ionized.

weak electrolyte - a solution that does not conduct electricity and thus is not ionized.

http://www.ipalco.com/ABOUTIPALCO/Environment/TRI/hydrogen_flouride.html

Hydrogen Fluoride -- MORE GENERAL INFO

What is hydrogen fluoride?

Hydrogen fluoride (HF) is a colorless, gas that has a pungent, irritating odor. Hydrogen fluoride gas easily dissolves in water and the resulting solution is hydrofluoric acid.
Hydrofluoric acid is an important industrial chemical. It is used to fabricate aluminum and stainless steel, etch circuit boards, and make solvents. Concentrated hydrofluoric acid is used to etch glass.

How is hydrogen fluoride released by electric utilities?

Trace amounts of fluoride are present in coal and oil. When electric utilities burn these fuels in their power plants, fluoride is released in very small amounts. Some of this fluoride combines with hydrogen to form hydrogen fluoride.
Some coal-burning power plants use pollution control devices to remove sulfur from gases leaving their stacks. These devices also remove some of the hydrogen fluoride from stack gas before it reaches the air. Fluoride-bearing wastes captured by pollution control devices are usually sent to ash ponds or land disposal sites.
Hydrogen fluoride from power plants is about 84% of all the hydrogen fluoride from human activities released into the air each year in the United States. Almost all hydrogen fluoride from power plants comes from burning coal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that U.S. power plants burning coal released about 32,100 tons of hydrogen fluoride into the air in 1994.

Is hydrogen fluoride also released by other sources?

Most hydrogen fluoride released into the air by natural sources comes from volcanoes. Smaller amounts come from ocean spray, forest fires, weathering rocks, and dust.
Hydrogen fluoride released into the environment by human activities outside the utility industry comes mainly from industrial boilers that burn coal and oil, facilities that fabricate aluminum and stainless steel, and agricultural use of phosphate fertilizers. Industries reporting to EPA released 6,257 tons of hydrogen fluoride into the environment in 1996. Nearly all was released into the air.

What happens to hydrogen fluoride after it is released by electric utilities?

Hydrogen fluoride released into the air from power plants easily dissolves in airborne water to form dilute hydrofluoric acid. Some of this hydrofluoric acid forms tiny liquid droplets or thin films on tiny dust particles. As droplets and particles incorporate more water, the hydrofluoric acid they contain becomes more dilute. By the time these droplets and particles reach surface soil and water by settling to the ground or washing out of the air in rain and snow, the hydrofluoric acid they contain is very dilute. The amount of hydrocchloric acid that stays in the air or falls to the ground depends on local wind, rain, and moisture in the air.

How might people be exposed to hydrogen fluoride?

People are commonly exposed to trace amounts of hydrofluoric acid when they breathe airborne droplets or particles that contain it. Industrial workers may be exposed to concentrated hydrogen fluoride fumes or hydrofluoric acid solutions.

What are the potential effects of hydrogen fluoride on human health?

Hydrogen fluoride fumes can irritate people's eyes, skin, and breathing passages, and concentrated fumes can damage body tissues over time. Direct contact with concentrated hydrofluoric acid solutions can burn the skin. However, there is no evidence that common exposures to dilute hydrofluoric acid in airborne droplets or particles can harm human health. Also, hydrogen fluoride has not been found to cause cancer.

How likely is it that utility releases pose a risk to human health?

It is unlikely that hydrogen fluoride from power plants poses a significant risk to human health. In its 1998 Report to congress, EPA evaluated potential exposures to hydrogen fluoride from nearly 600 U.S. power plants. It concluded that the amount of hydrogen fluoride released into the air by power plants would never reach unhealthy levels at any location in the United States.

How is hydrogen fluoride regulated?

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have set limits on the amount of hydrogen fluoride in workplace air.

Where can I get more information about hydrogen fluoride?

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has a fact sheet with answers to frequently asked health questions about hydrogen fluoride. It is available through the ATSDR Information Center at 1-800-447-1544, or on the Internet at http://atsdrl.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080ltfactsl1.html
Those interested in detailed information about hydrogen fluoride from power plants may read EPA's report, Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. This Final Report to Congress, issued in March 1998, is published by the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development. It is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.govlttnloarpg/t3rc.html

This Toxics Release Inventory Chemical Profile is available by email at tricoord@epri.com. Funders of the Environment Division may download it from the Internet at httpJ/www.epriweb.com/eglfunders/tri/index.htrnl

EPRI, 3412 Hillview Avenue, P.O. Box 10412. Palo Alto, California 94303 U.S.A. 800.31 3.EPRI or 650.855.2000 www.epri.com
© 998 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRJ). Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research Institute, and EPRJ are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-17-2005, 05:39 PM

http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-powerplants.htm

Fluoride Emissions from Coal-Burning Power Plants

Fluoride Emissions from Power Plants
1998 marked the first time in which the electric utilities industry reported their emissions to the EPA. According to their data, Hydrogen fluoride is the 3rd main pollutant, due predominantly to the burning of coal.

(The above chart comes from Clear the Air: The National Campaign Against Dirty Power which issued a report in August 2000 on power plant pollution.

Power Industry Primer on Toxics Release Inventory (pdf file)

Of the chemicals that leave a typical plant through its stacks, and therefore must be reported under the right-to-know program, by far the largest are diluted hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and sulfuric acid (H2 SO4 ).

Electric Power Research Institute - Hydrogen Fluoride.

Hydrogen fluoride from power plants is about 84% of all the hydrogen fluoride from human activities released into the air each year in the United States. Almost all hydrogen fluoride from power plants comes from burning coal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that U.S. power plants burning coal released about 32,100 tons of hydrogen fluoride into the air in 1994.

To the problem of trace elements and hydrocarbons emissions from combustion of coal. J Hyg Epidemiol Microbiol Immunol 1984;28(2):129-38

The air pollution emission data presented here are a result of systematic measurements of actual emissions. The measurement included virtually all larger power plants in Czechoslovakia and were carried out between 1975 and 1981...Apart from organics the condensate was found to contain a relatively large amount of fluoride compounds. There is suspicion that this fluorine may occupy an important position among the factors responsible for the ecologic damage caused by emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Fluoride Pollution from Coal Burning in China Compilation of recent studies, 1990-2001

Recently a huge amount of fluoride in coal has been released into indoor environments by the combustion of coal and fluoride pollution seems to be increasing in some rural areas in China...Since airborne fluoride from the combustion of coal pollutes extensively both the living environment and food, it is necessary to reduce fluoride pollution caused by coal burning. ("Health effects of fluoride pollution caused by coal burning." Sci Total Environ 2001 Apr 23;271(1-3):107-16)

Florida Power Companies Release Pollution Reports: Hydrogen Fluoride 3rd Main Emission Tampa Tribune artuckes June-July 1999
Power to Kill: Death and Disease from Power Plants Charged with Violating the Clean Air Act (pdf file) Clean the Air July 2001
Going Backwards: Bush Expected to Weaken Portions of Clean Air Act Baltimore Sun December 23, 2001
Most Dirty Power Plants Getting Dirtier Clean the Air

Insurrectionchemistry

02-17-2005, 06:17 PM

One of the problems with housewives attempting to evaulate chemistry is zero experience----the more extensive answers for such questions would be:

"What is hydrogen fluoride?"
=====

Hydrogen Fluoride is one hydrogen atom bound to one fluorine atom. The fluorine atom has the highest of all electronegative binding strenghts of all atoms. This means HF binds hydrogen tighter than any other acid, which in the classical sense makes it a weak donor of H+.

There are serveral defintions for acids. In terms of dissolving power toward metals---HF is second to none. In terms of harm to the flora and fauna--HF second to none. In terms of damage to humans exposed to acid spills on skin----second to none.

HF is a cumulative poison.

How is hydrogen fluoride released by electric utilities?
=======

HF comes from coal fired emissions. About 8% of the acids released by coal burning is HF. When the fluoride is released it also can bind to nitrogen or oxygen and these two are products, and these react with H-C's in the environment.

HF and many fluorides, in general, are considered "protected pollutants" because many industries can't operate without HF emissions. So, there is much in terms of the sciences trying not to identify problems.

In terms of risk in the chemical industry, HF is one of the worst. In oil refinery accidents the ring of death and injury can go out to around 30 miles.

HF is also released heavily from the steel mills as a flux and released in all the coal burning counties for home heating---China especially.

Fluorine is the main component in nerve gases. Nerve gases are methylated phosphoric fluorides------which means chemically the penetrate skin easily due to the methyl effect and vector toward the nervous system due to the phosphorus----and permantly screw up the nerves due to the extreme binding effect of the fluorine atom.

Is hydrogen fluoride also released by other sources?
=====

With global warming fluorides are made airborne from increased volcanic releases and fluorides go up in ground water and surface waters around fault zones. The East African Rift zone has the highest fluoride levels in water and food supplies of nearly any place on Earth.

What happens to hydrogen fluoride after it is released by electric utilities?
======

HF is lighter than air, much of it goes to float on top of the air at high altitudes. Here is supports global warming by the NFO2 generation effects.

How might people be exposed to hydrogen fluoride?
=======

Oak Ridge,at K-25, exposed their entire work force to chronic levels of HF releases. It is the root of most of the worker illnesses. HF in the body results in a very high retention of the fluorine atoms. Fluorine is cumulative with age.

Aluminum company pot line workers are exposed to HF as part of the processes.

Steel workers are exposed to HF. Persons in Donora Pa. were exposed to high levels of HF due to an air inversion around a steel mill town that killed many persons due to heart attacks. The problem of coal smoke in Donora as well as London is captured well in the recent book called When Smoke Ran Like Water by Dr. Devra Davis.

The very same problems happen from phosphate mills in Florida that have to remove fluorides from phosphate fertilizers, and they have been forced to capture the HF in the release stacks to keep from poisoning the surrounding peach crops, cattle, and people.

HF is very deadly. One worker at Oak Ridge sat on some uranium wet with HF and it soaked into his skin and he died of heart attack soon thereafter.

In China, people heat and cook with coal that increases the HF in their homes. It gives many persons fluorisis and blacken teeth. It also give then a predisposition toward immune illnesses.

Persons with brittle bones have a high bone concentration of fluoride. Persons that die of old age all have around the same levels of high bone fluoride.

What are the potential effects of hydrogen fluoride on human health?
======

Fluoride levels in the body rise with age. Fluorides tend to upset the trace metals balance in the body. Fluoride will complex with metals like aluminum in the blood steam and bond with cell G-protein sites--permanently. Which severely upsets the immune system, per dendritic cells.

Fluorides are used as bug killers or pesticides and the way they kill is alter the cellular metal metabolism.

How likely is it that utility releases pose a risk to human health?
======

HF is a slow poison, it accumulates with age from all sources. Power plants, water, food.

How is hydrogen fluoride regulated?
========

HF is only regulated on a cost basis----for the industries that can't run without emissions they allow it to go on. Most coal plants are grandfathered, or just ignore the rules.

In areas like aluminum pot lines----new platinum rods techniques and sealing the processes have helped. Coal burning industries were forced to make stacks higher to lowed the local deposition of HF and other toxic products. Phosphate processers in Fluorida were forced to put HF scrubbers on the stacks to stop poisoning the peach crops in Fluorida and the people too. Still the scrubber ponds get rains that dump the poisons into rivers and lakes.

In Oak Ridge the emissions of HF in many locations now have total emission controls and wash the air to get the HF emissions down very low. It cost millions of dollars to do these upgrades, but they were needed to keep from injuring the work force making nuclear weapons.

There is a huge unmistakable trail of HF poisoning problems from industry, beginning in the late 1800s in Europe per aluminum processing.

Where can I get more information about hydrogen fluoride?
=======

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has a fact sheet with answers to frequently asked health questions about hydrogen fluoride.

ATSDR is one of the worst places to find real information on hazards for chemicals. In the case of HF, they cater to industry to keep them running and not in litigation.

ATSDR supports industry-----not protection of the workers from chemicals like HF.

ATSDR is politics----not science or protection.

Real information on the dangers of fluorides and HF comes in the form of books like:

Fluoride, The Aging Factor by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis
Fluoride The Great Dilemma by Dr. George Waldbott
The Donora Fluoride Fog
The Florida Phosphate problems
When Smoke Runs like Water by Dr. Devra Davis

Boomer Chick

02-17-2005, 07:19 PM

Politics:

http://www.environmentcolorado.org/blog/home/archives/000519.html

January 23, 2005

Clean Air in Colorado?
The state of Colorado is about to take a big step backward by permitting more air pollution. The story starts in Washington DC where the Bush Administration has issued rules that would allow older power plants, oil refineries and other large emitters of air pollution to avoid installing modern pollution control devices.

You see, when the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, it created national standards to make sure all our air was safe to breathe. As a compromise, the large utilities succeeded in getting all their existing power plants exempted from the Clean Air Act. The assumption was most of these plants would eventually retire and be replaced by state of art cleaner burning power plants. Unfortunately the utilities used this loophole to upgrade their existing fleets so that now thirty years later, these dinosaurs and their pollution are still with us and will be with us for the foreseeable future.

In the 1990’s a coalition of state Attorney Generals, environmental groups and finally the US Environmental Protection Agency started to crack down on these old plants. They started to bring enforcement action against plants that increased their capacity by did not install pollution controls. They used a provision of the Clean Air Act called New Source Review. The idea is if you upgrade your power plant to produce to more electricity they you should lose your immunity from having to install modern controls and meet current clean air standards. Cleaning up existing coal burning power plants will do more clean up our air and do so at a lower cost than going after any other source.

Unfortunately this was too much the Bush administration and they changed the rules that required companies to install new controls if they significantly upgraded their facilities. (this is only the tip of the iceberg – this Spring the Bush Administration will push Congress to outright repeal parts of the Clean Air Act. In Orwellian fashion they have called this the ‘Clear Skies Initiative.’ Despite the clever name it is supported by the utilities, coal companies and oil industry. It is being opposed by the health groups, such as the American Lung Association, and every environmental group)

In Colorado our Air Quality Control Commission went even further and began to adopt the most extreme versions of these new rules. Today’s Denver Post has a great editorial on how our air guardians are asleep at the wheel and why the legislature should stop this violation public trust. Check it out.

Luckily we can stop these rules. A single legislature can call on the legislature to review these rules, but they must do so by February 15.

Posted by MATT BAKER at January 23, 2005 09:47 PM

For Immediate Release:
January 13, 2005

National Academy of Sciences Report Criticizes Clear Skies

DENVER—Today, the National Academy of Sciences is releasing its interim report on the Bush Administration's changes to the New Source Review program. Congress commissioned the report to review the impacts of these air policy changes on air quality and human health.

The most interesting finding of the interim report is its criticism of the proposed Clear Skies legislation. The report finds that the Clear Skies plan would likely be weaker than current law in terms of cleaning up existing sources of pollution, including power plants. If passed by Congress, the Clear Skies legislation would be the first major revision of the Clean Air Act since 1990, impacting every state's air program.

"Time and again the Bush administration has favored big energy companies over science and public health," says Elizabeth-Ann Rowlison, Environmental Advocate for Environment Colorado. "Hopefully this report will underscore for Congress the importance of current Clean Air Act programs such as New Source Review in keeping our air healthy."

New Source Review is a key program under the Clean Air Act that is designed to require existing industrial facilities to install state-of-the-art pollution control technologies. The Bush Administration has weakened requirements under this program through two rulemakings, which is the subject of this National Academy of Sciences report. Last spring the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission adopted the first grouping of these New Source Review changes, which will be reviewed by the Colorado legislature during this legislative session.

Environment Colorado's Clean Air Advocate, Sarah Niess asserts that simply enforcing the current Clean Air Act will help protect Colorado's communities. "We should not push through the Bush administration's pollution-allowing policies which will achieve fewer emission reductions and take significantly longer than the current law. The better way for Colorado is maintaining the highest air protections for our families and our future."

____________________________________

Crap site:

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/

__________________________________________

Coal Plant Generation Draws New Interest: only one plant offers no emissions (not a good percentage for the people or the atmosphere)

http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20040315b.asp

_________________________________________________

Insurrectionchemistry

02-17-2005, 07:26 PM

Do take note in the book quotation below that fluoride issues have long been protected by harassment and other measures.

Then compare these long standing methods in Govt to the very same thing occuring here due to the Jay Reynolds Mafia in coving up the chemtrails associations to HF and global warming.

http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000070.htm

From:

FLUORIDE ... The Aging Factor
How to Recognize and Avoid the
Devastating Effects of Fluoride

by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis

Health Action Press

========
Chapter 17 . . . The Conspiracy: The Second Generation

At the center of the second-generation conspiracy is John Small. While he is only a high school graduate with no college degree, his credentials do include six years as an information officer for a government department on chemical warfare. He is now and has been the U.S. Public Health Service 'expert' on fluoridation since the 1960s.

Mr. Small's functions at the USPHS include the writing and printing of anonymous memos, on USPHS letterheads, covering up the harmful effects of fluoridation, and distributing these memos to promoters of fluoridation, and when necessary, geting his hands on memos and reports put out by the government (even the White House) and rewriting them so they no longer express their original concerns about the toxicity and ineffectiveness of fluoridation. Most of the information supplied to dentists and physicians concerning fluoridation comes either directly or indirectly from Mr. Small. He is the cover-up supervisor, an expert relied upon by the USPHS to supply answers to Congress.

He also has the task of harassing, intimidating, and destroying anyone whose publications, utterances, or activities work to the detriment of fluoridation. In some cases, he calls upon other divisions of the Public Health Service to 'neutralize' studies or articles showing adverse effects of fluoridation.

In 1969, when Dr. Yiamouyiannis was a biochemical editor for Chemical Abstracts Service, the world's largest chemical information center and the largest division of the American Chemical Society, he began to publicly express his concern about the health risks associated with fluoridation.

Mr. Small contacted his employer and communicated his displeasure with the statements of Dr. Yiamouyiannis. Dr. Yiamouyiannis was notified by his employer several times and finally told that if he spoke out against fluoridation one more time, he would be fired. He was told that $1.1 million in federal funding was in jeopardy if Chemical Abstracts Service did not shut him up.

After the meeting, his employer wrote to Small, "I have again talked to Dr. Yiamouyiannis and I have again made my position as strong and as clear as possible. He will not repeat this kind of performance and remain as an employee of Chemical Abstracts Service." Within weeks after Dr. Yiamouyiannis next spoke out against fluoridation, he was put on probation, was told that he would never receive a raise again, and was advised to find another job. He was ultimately forced to resign.

Two years later, Dr. Yiamouyiannis was appointed science director of the National Health Federation where he was able to devote more time on the fluoridation issue.

Boomer Chick

02-17-2005, 07:29 PM

ONE SOLUTION TIMES HOW MANY? Science This was given at an engineering conference in Colorado Springs in 1998)

From Equitech: (I'd like to buy stock in this company! OOH YEAH!! )

http://www.equitechllc.com/index.html

WHITE PAPER ON:

REDUCTION OF CARBON EMISSIONS FROM COAL ENERGY PLANTS

March 23, 2001

Terry R. Galloway, PhD William L. Millerd, PhD, S.J.

President Federal Relations

Intellergy Corp. Georgetown University

Berkeley, CA Washington, DC

ABSTRACT:

A combination of new technology is proposed to be applied in the repowering of the smaller and older coal power plants in the U.S. using steam gasification instead of a coal combustion furnace/boiler and use syngas powered fuel cell- enhanced turbo-generators instead the simple turbo-generators. This new technology allows the fuel-to-electricity generation efficiency to be increased from around 34% to around 55%-70% while simultaneously producing specific hydrocarbon products to sequester the carbon dioxide and avoid greenhouse gas emissions. By aggressively retrofitting only 97 of our old 1000 MWe coal plants, a 15% carbon emission reduction of 302 million tons can be met by 2010 ? the goal of the European Nations. The application of this new technology opportunity can reposition the coal industry to a futuristic position as producer of energy and chemical products in a future greenhouse gas-sensitive world.

BACKGROUND & NEED:

As you know the research community continues to be focused on identifying commercially attractive gas separation technologies to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from stack gases and use new chemistry to utilize this carbon dioxide as a raw material to manufacture useful products that sequester the carbon. This has, indeed, been a very large challenge with poor successes as summarized by the review papers [1,2]. Trying to scrub the CO2 from nitrogen-rich stack gases and trying to chemically react the recovered CO2 dissolved in scrubber liquid clearly is not the right path of research because of the technical difficulty and the process expense of reacting a carbon dioxide feedstock.

The new concepts presented here (for which Patent #6,187,465 has been awarded) use commercially available steam reforming/gasification technology combined with fuel cells to generate electricity at high efficiency while being able to recover the greenhouse gases for the production of useful chemical products; thus, sequestering the CO2. In this way, a combustible fuel feed gas can be fully oxidized without having the final oxidation products comingled with each other and hard to separate.

One of our projects underway is to upgrade a typical old coal plant to a first-of-its-kind coal plant of the future, where coal co-mixed with waste can be fully utilized as an important energy and chemical resource without any emissions of CO2 and without the typical problems of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur, and other particulate emissions [3,4].

Using these new concepts, energy production also has several options that involve producing power that is on-peak only, power that is produced by the fuel-cells that is base loaded, and a combination tailored to optimally fit the local utilities load-following needs.

The chemical production options are: methanol, higher molecular weight middle distillates (i.e. kerosene), lubricating oil, highway asphalt-extender, inorganic concrete additives; the latter products would utilize the carbon source so as to eliminate any carbon dioxide emission and at the same time sequester the CO2 for longer periods or forever. So we see that the fossil plant of the future can be an integrated and combined simple chemical plant and power plant. Methanol or hydrogen/fuel cell vehicles are another sustainable futuristic element in this community plan capitalizing on this energy/chemical plant.

Since the fuel cell/turbine combined cycle system will produce electricity at a very high efficiency up to 70% for heat and electricity, compared to the old coal plant's efficiency of about 34% ?? more than double; the plant will produce the same electric energy but will now have extra syngas to make co-products. The recycled carbon dioxide from the fuel cells is used to augment the syngas so that a portion can be diverted for the production of methanol or other chemical co-products. In this manner, about half of the plant's feedstock can be used to manufacture chemicals from 500 to 2000 tons/day and still supply electric power from 100 to 1200 MWe. And from a carbon balance standpoint, the carbon going into the plant equals the carbon leaving the plant as the carbon-containing co-product, with no objectionable carbon emissions to the environment.

With this new technology breakthrough, coal can be fully utilized as an important energy and chemical resource without troublesome emissions of CO2 and without the typical problems of NOx, sulfur, and other particulate emissions. Coal production in the U.S. was a record 1.062 billion tons in 1996, with 873 million tons burned by U.S. public utilities (5) producing about 742 millions tons of greenhouse gases (GHG). Additonally oil and natural gas is burned in power plants as well to produce 698 million tons of GHG (6). At the Kyoto and following conferences, the toughest issue was assigning the fair share of GHG reductions between the developing and the developed industrial nations (7). This was a particularly difficult task since the U.S. produces 23% or 1437 million tons of the world's total of carbon emissions of 6250 million tons (7). The developed industrialized countries produced 2970 million tons (2700 million metric tons) of annual carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels (6,7) in 1990 and 3190 million tons in 1996 that was the basis for the Kyoto protocol reductions. We believe, for the purpose of this paper, that the emissions have not increased significantly from 1996 to the present.

The bases for calculating greenhouse gas reductions involve 15% (instead of the U.S. proposed 7%) below 2900 million tons 1990 levels which is 21% below the 1996 level of 3190 million tons of annual carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels in the industrialized countries (6,7). If we focus on the coal industry, the coal feed to U.S. coal plants has a carbon content of 85% and an energy content of about 12,000 Btu/lb, and these plants operate at about 34% efficiency (from coal energy content to electrical energy output). Our proposed new coal plants with improved power generation trains and fuel cells would operate at 68-70% efficiency, which is possible as outlined (8). These old plants would be modified and restarted to provide the same electrical output as before. Note that the U.S. 7% GHG-reduction goals can be more than met by coal-fired plants only. This is a very reasonable retrofit program and it is certainly technically and economically feasible (9). It is possible also to evolve to meet >15% GHG-reduction goals with a combination of coal plants, refineries, and chemical plants, so that a big hit on one industry could be avoided. However, a DOE/EPA incentive program for upgrading our old sub-optimal coal plants could make these conversions attractive for the coal industry.

The Kyoto concensus (with the U.S. objecting) was to have all of the global GHG reductions to be made by the developed industrial countries that have contributed the great majority of the GHG emissions. An approach would be to address the entire world's carbon emissions level of 6250 million tons, of which 2900 million tons is from the developed industrialized countries. The majority of developing countries at Kyoto insisted that they should not be responsible for restricting their growth by having to reduce GHG that were caused not by them but by the developed industrial countries. The U.S. produces (0.23 x 6250) or 1440 million tons of carbon emissions. This reduces GHG emissions from burning of all fossil fuels, not just GHG emissions from coal plants. But we will show that just repowering the old coal-fired power plants can be a feasible solution for reducing GHG emissions from the burning of all fossil fuels. Thus, satisfying the demands of the developing countries for calculating greenhouse gas reductions would involve 15% (instead of the U.S. proposed 7%) below 1990 levels which is 21% below the 1996 level of 1440 million tons for the U.S.. To drop today's carbon emissions 15% below 1990 levels amounts to reducing carbon emissions by (0.21 x 1440) or 302 million tons for the U.S.. Thus, the coal feed involved for the 302 million tons of carbon emissions will be (302/0.85) 355 million tons/yr for the plants' input energy flux of 8.51x1015 Btu/yr. With an average plant efficiency of 34%, the plants' electrical output would be 2.89x1015 electrical Btu/yr or 8.51x1011 kWeh/yr or 97,020 MWe. This totals 97 coal-fired plants of typical 1000 MWe size that would be modified and restarted. Although this is an aggressive retrofit program, it is certainly technically and economically feasible.

continued....

Boomer Chick

02-17-2005, 07:30 PM

Deploying this kind of new "green" technology will also stimulate new market demands and lower component prices in fuel cells, efficient turbines, load-following plants, methanol/hydrogen production from syngas, energy storage, methanol/hydrogen vehicles, solar PV, etc.? all new directions toward which the world economy wants to transition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFERENCES:

Halmann, M.H., Meyer Steinberg, "Greenhouse Gas Carbon Dioxide Mitigation - Science and Technology, Lewis Publishers, New York, 1999.
Hileman, Bette, "Industry Considers CO2 Reduction Methods, Chem & Engin News, pg. 30, June 30, 1997).
Kaiser, Jocelyn, "Getting a Handle on Air Pollution's Tiny Killers, "Science, 276, 33 (1997)
Raber, Linda,"Applause, Censure for Air Standards," Chem. & Eng. News, 75, No. 27, 31 (1997)
U. S. Energy Agency, "U.S. Energy 1997, Washington, DC 20006
Dunn, S. in "Vital Signs" 1997; Starke,L, Ed. W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 1997, p.58
Cooney, Catherine M., "Nationals Seek 'Fair' Greenhouse Gas Treaty in Kyoto," Environ. Sci. & Technol., 31, No. 11, 5126A - 518A (1997).
T. R. Galloway, "Steam-Reforming of Fossil Fuels and Wastes to Produce Energy and Chemicals Without Greenhouse Gases," invited plenary paper for Fourth World Peace Conference, Washington, DC, November 27-30, 1997 and Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Colorado Springs, August 2-6, 1998
Intellergy Corp. and Big Sky Economic Development Authority, "Fuel Cell Technology Demonstration Project, Billings Montana -- Phase II: Feasibility Study on Repowering of the Corette Coal Power Plant," under DOE Grant DE-OHE-July 24, 2000.
GHGWhitePaper98.11.23

e-mail: info@equitechllc.com

___________________________________________

Why aren't technologies like this being retrofitted? HMMMMM?

BC

Boomer Chick

02-17-2005, 07:50 PM

Good News:
ConocoPhillips Reaches Clean Air Settlement Requiring $525 Million in Pollution Controls
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7021
These settlements, when fully implemented, will reduce emissions of air pollutants by approximately 240,000 tons per year at 57 refineries in 26 states," said Thomas V. Skinner, EPA acting assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

________________________________________

Ancient Beasts Raise Questions about Climate Change
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7075
February 07, 2005 — By Ed Stoddard and Spokes Mashiyane, Reuters

Yes, Virginia, animals will be affected by the changes in climate temperatures!

_________________________________________

Such a beautiful blue marble!

Boomer Chick

02-17-2005, 07:55 PM

Kyoto Protocol Takes Effect With Celebrations, Warnings

KYOTO, Japan, February 17, 2005 (ENS) - The Kyoto treaty to combat global warming entered into force on Wednesday with celebrations in 40 countries highlighted by a commemorative symposium and global video conference in the ancient Japanese capital city where the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997. But the celebratory mood was tempered by stern warnings such as that from UN Environment chief Klaus Toepfer, who said recent scientific reports "make terrifying reading, a vision of a planet spinning out of control."

In a video message to the Kyoto crowd UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged humanity to save the planet by adding to the limits on greenhouse gases set by the protocol. "Let us celebrate today, but let us not be complacent," Annan said.

“I call on the world community to be bold, to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, and to act quickly in taking the next steps. There is no time to lose,” he warned. “By itself, the Protocol will not save humanity from the dangers of climate change."

Read more:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2005/2005-02-17-02.asp

End of article:

The Convention’s Bureau accepted the offer of the government of Canada Wednesday at a meeting in Kyoto. The Montreal Climate Conference will take place from November 28 to December 9, 2005 at the Palais des Congrès de Montréal.

"Now that Kyoto is in force," said Dion, "we must ensure that it is implemented in the period from 2008 to 2012." The Canadian environment minister is already thinking ahead to what steps must be taken after the first Kyoto commitment period is over at the end of 2012.

"When humanity emerges from the 21st century," Dion said, "it will need to have gained control of its impact on the climate. The Montreal Climate Conference will be a turning point: it must enable us to create on a sound footing the international system that will apply after 2012."

"We must also give thought to our long-term objectives," said Dion, "in order to ensure that the whole of humanity contributes to the effort while developing a thriving economy for everyone, on all the continents, but an economy that is clean and does not affect the climate."

OH yeah, BAY - BEE, it's a start !

BC :D

jayreynolds

02-18-2005, 03:58 AM

HF is lighter than air, much of it goes to float on top of the air at high altitudes. Here is supports global warming by the NFO2 generation effects.
In Oak Ridge the emissions of HF in many locations now have total emission controls and wash the air to get the HF emissions down very low. .

The atmospheric fate of hydrofluoric acid(HF) is wet deposition. HF quickly gets rained out of the atmosphere. HF has no Global Warming Potential.There is no truth to Jim Phelp's "HF causes Global Warming" hoax. Any genuine scientist will agree that Jim's ideas are those of a madman. Jim Phelps has never provided any actual evidence proving any of his claims. he is a smokeblower, not a whistleblower. Don't believe me? Check it out.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-18-2005, 05:09 AM

Is the ill educated and prepared BC so stupid as to support cover up and harm to the public via her cheer leading and embracing of the Reynolds Mafia?

The run away Colorado housewife appears to be directly aiding and abetting in this type process to cover up chemtrail, HF, and fluoride syngestic dangers from the public:

Do take note in the book quotation below that fluoride issues have long been protected by harassment and other measures. The very same methods one BC endorses here.

Then compare these long standing methods in Govt to the very same thing occuring here due to the Jay Reynolds Hate Crime Mafia in covering up the chemtrails associations to HF and global warming.

With dumb BC often becoming a willing supporter of said methods of the Reynolds misinformation and harassment Mafia. At this point it becomes rather obvious BC is supporting the people engaged in the cover ups and hoaxing the public in the very same way exposed in the article below.

BC appears to be guilty by association and direct support of such......

http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000070.htm

From:

FLUORIDE ... The Aging Factor
How to Recognize and Avoid the
Devastating Effects of Fluoride
by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis

Health Action Press

========
Chapter 17 . . . The Conspiracy: The Second Generation

At the center of the second-generation conspiracy is John Small. While he is only a high school graduate with no college degree, his credentials do include six years as an information officer for a government department on chemical warfare. He is now and has been the U.S. Public Health Service 'expert' on fluoridation since the 1960s.

Mr. Small's functions at the USPHS include the writing and printing of anonymous memos, on USPHS letterheads, covering up the harmful effects of fluoridation, and distributing these memos to promoters of fluoridation, and when necessary, geting his hands on memos and reports put out by the government (even the White House) and rewriting them so they no longer express their original concerns about the toxicity and ineffectiveness of fluoridation. Most of the information supplied to dentists and physicians concerning fluoridation comes either directly or indirectly from Mr. Small. He is the cover-up supervisor, an expert relied upon by the USPHS to supply answers to Congress.

He also has the task of harassing, intimidating, and destroying anyone whose publications, utterances, or activities work to the detriment of fluoridation. In some cases, he calls upon other divisions of the Public Health Service to 'neutralize' studies or articles showing adverse effects of fluoridation.

In 1969, when Dr. Yiamouyiannis was a biochemical editor for Chemical Abstracts Service, the world's largest chemical information center and the largest division of the American Chemical Society, he began to publicly express his concern about the health risks associated with fluoridation.

Mr. Small contacted his employer and communicated his displeasure with the statements of Dr. Yiamouyiannis. Dr. Yiamouyiannis was notified by his employer several times and finally told that if he spoke out against fluoridation one more time, he would be fired. He was told that $1.1 million in federal funding was in jeopardy if Chemical Abstracts Service did not shut him up.

After the meeting, his employer wrote to Small, "I have again talked to Dr. Yiamouyiannis and I have again made my position as strong and as clear as possible. He will not repeat this kind of performance and remain as an employee of Chemical Abstracts Service." Within weeks after Dr. Yiamouyiannis next spoke out against fluoridation, he was put on probation, was told that he would never receive a raise again, and was advised to find another job. He was ultimately forced to resign.

Two years later, Dr. Yiamouyiannis was appointed science director of the National Health Federation where he was able to devote more time on the fluoridation issue.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-18-2005, 06:49 AM

http://www.fluoridation.com/donora.htm

http://www.fluoridation.com/atomicbomb.htm

http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-pollution.htm

jayreynolds

02-18-2005, 07:01 AM

This is something we can do non-antagonistically.

I don't believe that Jim Phelps is a smokeblower, though he may be right or wrong.

Do scientists collaborate in the manner that we have been relating to each other for the past year?

Real scientists publish data and document what they say with facts.
Jim Phelps only asks people to "believe" him, and offers no facts.
Wayne, I know that you are acquainted with a capable PhD. chemist named Dr. Nikos Katsaros.
I have communicated with Katsaros before. I would be very interested in his asessment of Phelps ideas.
http://www.biopolitics.gr/HTML/PUBS/VOL5/html/kat_gre.htm

If you will promise to ask Katsaros to review Phelp's current claims in full as he lists them on the CTC thread "Points to Ponder", and to publish Katsaros' review in full, you would be doing everyone a favor. Will You do it?

Insurrectionchemistry

02-18-2005, 07:10 AM

"He went DOWN, Down, down and the flame went HIGHER----That Ring of Fire."

It consumes the Reynolds Mafia in Hell, as they are caught lying and deceiving.

http://www.doewatch.com/chemtrails.html

Insurrectionchemistry

02-18-2005, 07:38 AM

http://www.doewatch.com/chemtrails.html

Reynolds propagation of decepton, lies, and hoax by using hate language is being systematically decimated and his lies incinerated and cast upon the winds.

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 10:53 AM

No I won't.

I'm doing other things with him.

But you have the floor here, and can find plenty of other collaborators.

Just lay off the abuse and the name-calling.

Once he sees you doing it, Phelps will do the same.

Halva,

Jay's recent post contained no name-calling. It was right on! Reread what I wrote you about YOU over on the other thread. I mean it, Halva, you have to allow others to change. You continue to put Reynolds in a box and that will never help us all to come together. He was right, he was accurate and you must now take a look at yourself and IS.

Time to grow.

Thanks, Jay, for just sticking to the facts. You were right and you are supported.

Halva, you must let go of your emotionalism here, and see the efforts that others make for change. You had no right to mention name-calling to Jay...... it only put the past into now and this will not help anyone get to the truth of matters.

JAY WAS RIGHT ON THAT LAST POST AND IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE FOR " IS," DO IT INTELLECTUALLY, BUT STOP YOUR JUDGING OF REYNOLDS RIGHT NOW.

I'M NOT DEFENDING ANYTHING FROM THE PAST , I'M INSISTING ON CHANGE NOW AND REYNOLDS HAS STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE WITH OBJECTIVE AND RELEVANT INFORMATION AND ALSO A REQUEST THAT YOU RUDELY DENIED HIM AND UPPED THE TENSION LEVEL HERE. NOT GOOD.

Get over it, and move on, Halva! This means move on in your mind. You are welcome here as long as you contribute to change and to intellectual pursuits with respect for all. Time to let the past go.

Thanks, Jay!

BC :mad:

jayreynolds

02-18-2005, 10:57 AM

Wayne, I know that you are acquainted with a capable PhD. chemist named Dr. Nikos Katsaros.
I have communicated with Katsaros before. I would be very interested in his asessment of Phelps ideas.
http://www.biopolitics.gr/HTML/PUBS...tml/kat_gre.htm
If you will promise to ask Katsaros to review Phelp's current claims in full as he lists them on the CTC thread "Points to Ponder", and to publish Katsaros' review in full, you would be doing everyone a favor. Will You do it?

No I won't.

For The Record

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 11:04 AM

This is something we can do non-antagonistically.

I don't believe that Jim Phelps is a smokeblower, though he may be right or wrong.

Do scientists collaborate in the manner that we have been relating to each other for the past year?

If you believe what you say, Halva, you would be putting pressure on IS to stop his antagonism. You need to change, Halva.

I'm not going to be your conscience much longer. Reynolds has made efforts to stick to points and facts of late and I see that. You should see it too. IS has not. Hold IS to the same standards you hold everyone else.

I am reporting every post of IS's that continues to berate and enflame. His recent postings of links and information are better and appreciated. But his flaming has continued.

Jay is right, as far as IS's proving his HF and ozone depleation theory, it is indeed wrong and unsupported. His Flouride has more credibility. I've read much on it previously.

IS continues to flame Reynolds as well. He's begging to be flamed back, but Reynolds has held his tongue.

I suggest Reynold's report all flaming posts by IS. The mods are watching now.

Halva, get with the program.

BC

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 11:06 AM

For The Record

Thanks, Jay!

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 11:41 AM

From an IS link :

http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/HY/hydrogen_fluoride.html

General
Synonyms: hydrogen fluoride anhydrous [See also hydrofluoric acid which is an aqueous solution of hydrogen fluoride.]
Molecular formula: HF
CAS No: 7664-39-3
EINECS No: 231-634-8
Physical data
Appearance: colourless gas with a pungent odour
Melting point: -83 C
Boiling point: 19 C
Vapour density:
Vapour pressure: 1088 hPa at 20 C
Density (g cm-3):
Flash point:
Explosion limits:
Autoignition temperature:

Stability
Stable. Hygroscopic. Incompatible with glass, alkali metals, light metals, alkaline earth metals

Toxicology
Very toxic. May be fatal if inhaled or swallowed, and in contact with skin. Causes severe burns. Eye contact may lead to permanent eye damage, including blindness. May act as a systemic poison. Typical STEL 2.5 mg/m3.
Toxicity data
(The meaning of any toxicological abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.)
ORL-RAT LD50 1276 mg kg-1

Risk phrases
(The meaning of any risk phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
R26 R27 R28 R35.

Transport information
Personal protection
Rubber or plastic gloves, safety glasses or face mask, good ventilation.
Safety phrases
(The meaning of any safety phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
S7 S9 S26 S36 S37 S45.

[Return to Physical & Theoretical Chemistry Lab. Safety home page.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This information was last updated on September 8, 2003. We have tried to make it as accurate and useful as possible, but can take no responsibility for its use, misuse, or accuracy. We have not verified this information, and cannot guarantee that it is up-to-date.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This information refers to the concentrated gas, HF, in reference to people. Note that the gas is not compatible alkaline, alkali, or light metals. Nothing is mentioned in terms of ozone. All maps and articles so far point to HF's inconsequential role in high atmospheric levels. As a lab gas and as a local gas escaping into the lower atmosphere, the concentration is essential in determining the harm to people. All of this has been established in previous postings. When HF rises in the troposphere it combines with water and is rained down in a very weak acidic form.

Fouride is the present object of attention. I recognize it is an unneeded chemical in our water systems. We don't drink it (well water), and we advise our children to avoid it (city water). However, they were raised on flouridated city water, unfortunately, but were not brain damaged, nor did they receive tooth problems. They never had a cavity until one of them was 22 and only one. They are both intelligent and did not suffer a brain deficit whatsoever. Still, the information on flouride given is appreciated. I've read enough to satisfy myself and wish to return to the topic at hand..... climate and even weather modification. Yes, flouride and its dangers seems to have been covered up, but I recently read a government site that warned of its dangers, have read many articles on it in mainstream magazines, newspapers, and online articles. So all is not so secretive. The "dumming" down aspect is still up for debate. I really don't care about this in regard to joining an organization to fight it. I would rather fight mercury amalgums.

BC 8)

jayreynolds

02-18-2005, 12:21 PM

I am not the employer of Dr. Katsaros. I can only ask him to do things that he is spontaneously interested in anyway. And that would not include monitoring Jim Phelps at the request of Jay Reynolds.

I am interested in the quality of our coexistence on this board improving, but why should an outsider like Dr Katsaros care?

I can understand why Katsaros might not care. He may have had enough of "chemtrails" already. I can also see why you might not care to get a professional opinion on something you have invested so much time on, Wayne. Logically, you should have done the research before making the 'leap-of-faith'. I think Nikos might be ashamed you followed Jim so long, and you know it, Wayne. BTW, how is he liking it at the Food Safety office?

At this late date, you seem ego-driven to throw good intentions after bad in yet another tilt at the windmill. Well, you made your bed now you have to lie in it, I suppose.

For what it's worth, I'm still curious if the counter for this mesage board software can actually hold a 1000 page thread and 10,000 page views, and am quite satisfied to continue till my curiosity get's satisfaction. It will be nice to set a sort of record.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-18-2005, 03:27 PM

http://rense.com/general63/hlbo.htm

Global Warming Is Real - Experts
Wired News
2-18-5

(Reuters) -- A parcel of studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice
leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and
the weather is going to suffer, climate experts said on Thursday.

New computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of the atmosphere
show the clearest signal yet that global warming is well underway, said Tim
Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak
because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

"The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference.

His team used millions of temperature readings made by the U.S. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to calculate steady ocean warming.

"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over,
at least for rational people," he said.

The report was published one day after the United Nations Kyoto Protocol took
effect, a 141-nation environmental pact the United States government has
spurned for several reasons, including stated doubts about whether global warming
is occurring and is caused by people.

Barnett urged U.S. officials to reconsider.

"Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no,"
Barnett said.

His team used U.S. government models of solar warming and volcanic warming,
just to see if they could account for the measurements they made. "Not a
chance," he said. And the effects will be felt far and wide. "Anywhere that the
major water source is fed by snow ... or glacial melt," he said. "The debate is
what are we going to do about it."

Other researchers found clear effects on climate and animals.

Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that melting ice
was changing the water cycle, which in turn affects ocean currents and,
ultimately, climate.

"As the Earth warms, its water cycle is changing, being pushed out of
kilter," she said. "Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."

A circulation system called the Ocean Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting
down, she said. The last time that happened, northern Europe suffered
extremely cold winters.

She said the changes were already causing droughts in the western United
States.

Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels globally
by 23 feet, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly, Curry said.
Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the base and making it more
unstable.

Sharon Smith of the University of Miami found melting Arctic ice was taking
with it algae that formed an important base of the food supply for a range of
animals.

And the disappearing ice shelves meant big animals such as walruses, polar
bears and seals were losing their homes.

"In 1997 there was a mass die-off of a bird called the short-tailed
shearwater in the Bering Sea," Smith told the news conference. The birds, which migrate
from Australia, starved to death when warmer waters caused a plankton called
a coccolithophore to bloom in huge numbers, turning the water an opaque
turquoise color.

"The short-tailed shearwater couldn't see its prey," Smith said.

http://wired.com/news/techn

jayreynolds

02-18-2005, 04:43 PM

"He went DOWN, Down, down and the flame went HIGHER----That Ring of Fire."
It consumes the Reynolds Mafia in Hell, as they are caught lying and deceiving.

Jimbo, you can't even get the meaning of a Johnny Cash song right.
It's a LOVE SONG silly!

Johnny Cash: Ring of Fire

June Carter first met Johnny Cash while performing with her mother and sisters as the Carter Family. Though Carter and Cash were both involved with other people, they were also deeply attracted to one another. Indeed June, fearful of Cash's powerful allure, channeled her feelings into the song "Ring of Fire" (written with country star Merle Kilgore). "I was frightened of his way of life," she recalled. "So I thought, 'I can't fall in love with this man, but it's just like a ring of fire.' I wanted to play that song for John, but I knew he would see right through me. So I gave it to my sister Anita, and she recorded it – her version was like a folk song, like bells ringing in the mountains. When John heard it, he said, 'I want to do that song.'"
Several years later, Cash married Carter and, presumably, was surprised to learn that "that song" had in fact been written for him.

(In 2004, the Cash family blocked an attempt by advertisers to use the classic song - in an advertising campaign promoting haemorrhoid-relief products!)

[Trivia: Johnny Cash struggled with addiction and suicide (in 1967, he crawled into a cave in the Tennessee mountains planning to die). He later paid tribute to June Carter's "lifelong dedication to cleaning me up."]
------------------------------------
Johnny Cash - Ring Of Fire

Love is a burning thing
and it makes a firey ring
Found my wild desire
I fell into a ring of fire

I fell into a burnin ring of fire
I went down down down
and the flames went higher
and it burns burns burns
the ring of fire
the ring of fire

I fell into a burnin ring of fire
I went down down down
and the flames went hgher
and it burns burns burns
the ring of fire
the ring of fire

the taste of love is sweet
when hearts like ours meet
I fell for you like a child
Oh but the fire was wild

I fell into a burnin ring of fire
I went down down down
and the flames went higher
and it burns burns burns
the ring of fire
the ring of fire

I fell into a burnin ring of fire
I went down down down
and the flames went higher
and it burns burns burns
the ring of fire
the ring of fire

and it burns burns burns
the ring of fire (x3)

jayreynolds

02-18-2005, 06:16 PM

"In 1997 there was a mass die-off of a bird called the short-tailed shearwater in the Bering Sea," Smith told the news conference. The birds, which migrate
from Australia, starved to death when warmer waters caused a plankton called
a coccolithophore to bloom in huge numbers, turning the water an opaque
turquoise color.
"The short-tailed shearwater couldn't see its prey," Smith said.

Well, perhaps the EL NINO of 1997 might have had something to do with it?
I really don't like these people reaching back eight years for an example. As I understand it, these shearwaters are harvested in Tasmania for food

"El Niño” had become a household word around the world by the spring of 1998. The meteorological phenome-non made headlines throughout America andacross the globe. It was a top feature on the nightlynews. It had even worked its way into story lines ofprime time television series. From week to week, month to month, we saw everything from an unusually mild, almost snow-less winter in Washington, D.C. to record rains from California to Washington State. Forest fires raged out of control in Florida, Mexico, South America, and Southeast Asia; and devastating floods consumed land from the Midwestern U.S.to the eastern countries of Africa. A flurry of interest swept the globe. But El Niño itself is not new. The existence of a periodic warming of eastern/central tropical Pacific waters and an associated shifting of ocean currents and weatherpatterns has been recognized for centuries, and it has generally been considered a “natural” phenomenon — one that occurs every three to five years and lasts for one or two"

"El Niño-related food shortages also caused the widespread die-off of seabirds in western Alaska.In the fall of 1997, carcasses of hundreds of [u]short-tailed shearwaters, black-legged kittiwakes, andother species littered the beaches.28 The 1997-98 El Niño was not bad for all seabirds.The season’s unusual ocean currents brought a bounty of red crabs to California’s coast, and the region’s sea scoters and other birds reveled in the feast. Some of the birds reportedly ate so many crabs that they became “too fat to fly.”29 Nevertheless, while some species may benefit from El Niño, others can be devastated. El Niño provides a strong signal of how vulnerable life isto climate change."
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:B7pcfsJbuzsJ:www.columbia.k12.mo.us/ojhs/el%2520nino%2520article.pdf+short-tailed+shearwater+dieoff&hl=en

Boomer Chick

02-18-2005, 06:49 PM

June Carter Cash

12. Meeting The Air
13. Will The Circle Be Unbroken

May they live in heavenly love and light together, forever! They passed in the same year!

Loved your lyrics Jay, and your historical reference to the Cash couple!

BC :D ;)

jayreynolds

02-18-2005, 07:00 PM

Reynolds propagation of decepton, lies, and hoax by using hate language is being systematically decimated and his lies incinerated and cast upon the winds.
Jimbo, the folks at Chemtrailcentral are deliberately "bumping down your "Points to Ponder" with a bunch of mindless gibbersish posts. This is a tactic they use to silence people. Soon you will fall off the bottom of the page................
Watch your back over there. They don't like you one bit but are afraid to challenge you directly.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-18-2005, 08:35 PM

Getting back on the topic of chemtrails and the remediation for global warming:

Back in the mid-80's, I was working on problems connected with the K-25 gas diffusion plant. We were having high levels of thyroid illness at the plant and around the town. So, this lead rather rapidly to the high loss of poison HF, since fluorine screws up the thyroid.

Few persons that have not been around and know the systems of Oak Ridge would realize that chemtrails and the HAARP system are simply spin offs of the Manhattan Project. The WWII gas diffusion project was very bad for loosing HF from all the UF-6 processing. So, the way that was handled to reduce emissions was two ways: 1. Water absorption in bubblers and 2. alumina trap absorbers.

Alumina is just Al2O3. So, the very first idea to get HF out of the air was to dump a load of fine alumina dust into the air from high altitudes. Then one has to consider the air is loaded with HCl, H2SO4, and HF from coal burning, so as the aluma falls it will react with these acids in the air. And all the reaction products of aluminum with those three acids are hydroscopic. The chemicals were: AlCl2*6HOH, Al2(SO4)3*18HOH, and AlF3*3.5HOH. That was the birth of aluminum chemtrails idea. It just involved the very same technique used in the Manhattan Project to control the HF releases, and added only the airborne dispersion.

Once the hygroscopic idea came into view, it was a prime idea for making persistent clouds for reflection of IR heat, as well as complexing with the fluorine to pull it down via water affinity and by MW with aluminum. These were the Generation 1 methods of chemtrails and were about the same thing as a rocket with aluminum and chloride propellants and the similar big white water vapor trail from rockets.

HAARP was the idea to deal with the upper atmospheres sequestration of the light hydrocarbons. Its model was the ORNL Fusion Energy Divisions plasma heating method using the largest autotune synthsized HF / VHF transmitting made at the time. It was big as a freight truck trailer.

The Alaska version of the same plasma heating method aimed at the plasma in the sky was just a scaled up version of what ORNL experimented with to make D-T Fusion. These experiments happened at the very same DOE plant that makes the lithium-deuteride hydrogen bomb fusion weapons parts for the DOD. The Fusion Experiments building was a huge WWI vintage building that once made bomb uranium using calutron technology.

The inventions of chemtrials and HAARP were just common sense extensions of existing methods in use in Oak Ridge, just scaled up in size a bit.

Rather simple stuff. And really simple chemical methods employed to modify atmospheric problems. These ideas would lead to the Generation 2 methods of chemtrails that would take more than a decade to get into place, with the same goal of washing acids, particularly HF, from the air to reduce GW.

Rather obvious facts for intelligent persons, which are seldom seen in these parts.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-18-2005, 08:37 PM

It would appear that several persons are off topic, as this is not the music appreciation Forum.

This discussion is about global warming and remediation methods for it.

halva

02-18-2005, 11:56 PM

Real scientists publish data and document what they say with facts.
Jim Phelps only asks people to "believe" him, and offers no facts.

Jim Phelps has been invited to present the non-Jew-and-religion-related aspects of his claims elsewhere, where the criticism he receives, if he receives it, will be from people who are interested in investigating reality.

Not in systematically and compulsively generating cognitive dissonance.

All to perpetuate the American status quo of phony bipolar antagonism.

But he prefers staying here and arguing with you.

Which confirms what I have said on other forums: that the United States will have to be liberated from without, like Nazi Germany.

halva

02-18-2005, 11:59 PM

Jimbo, the folks at Chemtrailcentral are deliberately "bumping down your "Points to Ponder" with a bunch of mindless gibbersish posts. This is a tactic they use to silence people. Soon you will fall off the bottom of the page................
Watch your back over there. They don't like you one bit but are afraid to challenge you directly.

You would be lonely without him.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-19-2005, 01:47 AM

Halva writes:

"Jim Phelps has been invited to present the non-Jew-and-religion-related aspects of his claims elsewhere, where the criticism he receives, if he receives it, will be from people who are interested in investigating reality rather than perpetuating the American status quo of phony bipolar antagonism as a system of demagogic rule."

============

Well, the yahoo list you invited me toward looks all too much like the Cafe you keep sitting upon your head around each morning, the Ami Yahoo thing or some such. I don't happen to have a liking toward yahoo lists. Don't want the additional emails.

Plus, I told ya up front this was a little experiment here and data gathering.

I also told you, as I always tell you, that the issues of chemtrails cannot be removed from the Manhattan Project's highly Jewish orientation. Your insistence on sanitizing the facts on the liabities from inclusion of the Jewish Manhattan Projects industry suppliers and bankers was simply tossed out as unacceptable.

So, your request was declined on the basis several consideration points. And your little self interests in trying to convert BC, is still your own little problem. You seem to have contributed toward that, so you go play patty-cakes with her.

The facts are still being presented in the noise of the detractors here, just not in Wayne's World on Ami something. And the facts are going onto CTC, my little web page, and even the little alternative news world in Florida, and etc. with other zones they can't find.

Just not Wayne's little world of censorship. So sad.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-19-2005, 02:30 AM

Geee, one finds the Reynolds family name in the damn'dest places:

http://www.avotaynu.com/sourcebook.htm

And if you look at history one finds the metals mining and milling is dominated by Jewish family names. IE Reynolds Metals. And even the DuPont name is Jewish---the infamous name of the fluorine and the ozone hole Cl problems.

And all those came together to help make the Manhattan Project, because Europe's Jewish scientists wanted to blow up Hitler for kicking the Jewish money machine out of Germany, and soon to be greater Europe.

The same Jewish money machine were involved in the killing of US president Lincoln over usery payment issues, and also US president JFK over the same money machine and economic tyranny of the US.

This is the corrupt system of racketeers that sustain the cover up on chemtrails and HAARP real usages.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-19-2005, 04:16 AM

jayreynolds

02-19-2005, 06:12 AM

Then there is Jay Reynolds little island and all its aluminum company affiliations and even Jewish controlled Martin-Marietta, the company that primarily helped set up chemtrails and HAARP, which operated Oak Ridge for the DOE.

And Big Jewish Hess oil is there too. Harvey aluminum is jewish and polluted the entire zone of St. Croix with HF and VOC's for decades, making people sick.

Interesting associations, as almost all the St. Croix big industry is Jewish controlled----just as Jay Reynolds.
Hehe, let's see:

-a small island with a corrupt, bankrupt, government run by 'joos'.
http://welcometoparadox.blogspot.com/

-two deep water ports, 'landfill', and chemical plant contiguous with jewish owned oil refinery and high security "prison' facilities, all located directly adjacent to an international airport..............
http://www.perini.com/pmsi/specialized_body.htm
http://www.opmg.com/pdfs/Article-CBNusvi2001.pdf

-extensive aluminum chemical processing and alumina storage facilities and "brownfields"
industrial site, abandoned for years.......................
http://www.stxrenaissance.com/stx_industrial_site.htm.

-world's largest oil refinery surrounded with double layer high security fencing patrolled by security vehicles which produces jet fuel to order, and storage for 40 million gallons of liquids and gaseous products.......................
http://www.skypic.com/virgin/9-7832.jpg

'Mysterious' fish kill in lagoon adjacent to the plant...............
http://photos.orr.noaa.gov//Photos/PCD3652/IMG0025.JPG

And lastly, the 'Jay Reynolds' connection factor.......................

Yesiree, all the makings of a conspiracy theory straight out of James Bond............................

Analyze that......................
http://www.publispain.com/super-posters/Actors-RobertDeNiroAnalyzeThat.htm

Insurrectionchemistry

02-19-2005, 06:36 AM

Then there is the story of the Fluoride Activist and the Island of St Croix.

Darlene Sherrell used to live in Merrit Island, Fla. and she was having lots of health problems which she had pinned down to fluorides.

So, she decided to go live down in the Eastern Carribean. She was on a sail boat to get relief from all her illness and was feeling very well, until they anchored at St. Croix. Here all her illness symptoms returned within days and it took her a while to find the problem---but it came to be the huge emissions of HF from the aluminum company there.

Now Darlene Sherrell lives down in Granada and is one of the most knowledgable fluoride activists around. Check her web page: http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/s15.htm

Insurrectionchemistry

02-19-2005, 06:42 AM

NASA Says:

http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000050.htm

"All the fluorine in the upper stratosphere is due to humankind activity."

jayreynolds

02-19-2005, 07:32 AM

NASA Says:
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000050.htm
"All the fluorine in the upper stratosphere is due to humankind activity."

"Hydrogen fluoride (HF) is the end breakdown product of fluorine which reaches the stratosphere from industrial gases such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrogen-containing CFCs (HCFCs). There are no natural sources of stratospheric hydrogen fluoride, so its presence in the stratosphere is a clear manifestation of the ability of CFCs and related molecules to reach the stratosphere."
http://www.gcrio.org/ocp96/hilitec2.html

See, Jim has been telling you that HF is being emitted by industry and then rises to the stratosphere, where it is a "global warming blanket".
His claim is false, and he now debunks himself, above!

HF from industry is washed out of the atmosphere long before it could ever make it into the stratosphere!

As NASA and the JGR correctly state, above, most of the HF that exists in the upper stratosphere has gotten there ONLY because it traveled there only as part of the stable CFC's and HCFC's, and was subsequently released by photolysis of sunlight. And as the rerence states, HF is the END BREAKDOWN PRODUCT as specified, above.

HF is not, as Jim Phelps falsely claims, his design of some "conspiracy theoiry" to send hydrogen into space using HAARP transmissions!
http://www.doewatch.com/chemtrails.html

Insurrectionchemistry

02-19-2005, 08:37 AM

NASA's "speed" on some of the atmospheric models is about like its abilities to make telescopes. NASA is real inclined to make things out of focus.

The inclusive transport model of fluorine in the atmosphere:

Fluorine is released from coal burning and it tends to form HF from the immediate capture of hydrogen. However, some of it forms NFO. Dominately it goes to HF.

Once HF is emitted it is hygroscopic and attracts water molecules and even can lead to seeding clouds due to the effect. Most clouds are a sort of toxic soup. MW H20 is less than air, thus floats, plus it IR absorbs for heating effects. Thus, HF + water vapor floats.

This is all part of the fluorine transport model, as when HF becomes part of a cloud or water vapor, it can rise and linger in the upper atmosphere above 20,000 ft., where it is in the higher UV radiation effects. The Chlorine problem actually pushes the HF problems. This leads to free fluorine being generated by ionization and the capture of a nitrogen plus oxygen and the formation of NFO. The NFO is not hygroscopic and absorbs IR well and will rise, just as the hydrocarbons in the atmosphere will rise from heating effects.

NFO has all the same transport in the upper atmosphere as Freon, and even better since it is lighter than freon.

So, the clouds are only the launch phase of HF into the upper atmosphere and the agent that fixes it in place at high altitude to allow the UV conversion.

First stage separation starts the second phase booster via the UV ionization of the HF in the clouds and then the second state NFO and takes it higher like a non-reactive or non-hygroscopic freon.

When NFO encounters the only thing it can react with, a hydrocarbon, it reverts back to HF in a very dry atmosphere and continues its lighter than air climb into the upper atmosphere.

The HF is lighter than air and is obviously up there, and the NASA model just omits one of the booster stage processes for how it gets there.

These were the processes identified in Oak Ridge. It is enabled by ozone depletion and rise of UV affecting clouds.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-19-2005, 08:48 AM

So, if we look at the timelines of what was happening since I found this effect in the mid-80's, and I highly recommended the phase out of Freon to cut the ozone hole problems and slow the global warming factor down also.

The US and DuPont went along with the ban on Freon, because it had a mutipronged effect on both ozone hole and on global warming. Global Warming being the larger damage issue.

So, second phase of the attack was do rain out of acids, and to cut source terms. One can see great efforts to cut source term acid emissions beginning in the mid-80s and starting to show up well in the early 90's.

All those changes were being forced from my little discovery on fluorine transport, and its synergism with H-C's.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-19-2005, 09:37 AM

Sticky Note to FBI investigators:

The mechanism for radiolytic effects on HF synergism toward GW has now been introduced. This follows on a like mechanism that has been well known since the 80's that the CO-2 problems are due to the UV damage to the ocean plankton and this dominates the rise seen in air CO-2 concentrations.

Likewise, and via the same criteria the UV also breaks down the HF sequestered in water vapor and clouds and releases a fluorine atom, which then grabs a nitrogen atom to make the NFx injection vector for Global Warming.

The UV effects on Freon also are the same, except a chlorine atom is broken off and attaches to oxygen atoms to compete with ozone formation

Both the CO-2 and the HF GW effects stem from the ozone depletion problems and particularly the DuPont Freon problems. In this forum, we see these commiteed to covering up these factors laying down the CO-2 problems are all fossil emissions related, when the dominate factor is the rise in radiolytic factors on ocean plankton and upon HF supported in clouds.

Here we find Jay Reynolds, with close ties to Jewish oil companies, and a Jewish person, WMM from Canada, that appears to both be acting to conceal the damage vectors well connected to the Jewish owned DuPont company, Oak Ridge, big oil, etc.

All of them collectively aimed at confusing the issues and concealing the major problems cause and effect relationships.

Hence, the pathway toward the cover up intentions and those involved is becoming most clearly delineated.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-19-2005, 10:28 AM

HAARP is not the only thing named after Angel associated items, there is "HALOE" too. Yes, I suggested the name of the satellite being associated with religion and for it to gain a handle on the gas signatures by spectral emission sensing. HALOE is all about sensing the End-Times scinerios from religion prophecy.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Haloe.html

Note: Not shown schematically, but there is also a NFx injection pathway for getting HF into the skies. The NFx injection pathway was my discovery in mid-80's.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-19-2005, 10:56 AM

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=612488

Why Bush Advisers Fight
Evidence On Climate Change
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
The Independent - UK
2-19-5

For the Bush administration, global warming and climate change have so far been the great unmentionables, topics that interfered with the march towards the promised land of the perfect free market.

Many say that the discovery by scientists that there is an unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans, as reported to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is unlikely to change that. "There's a denial of the science by the upper levels [of the administration]," a spokesman for the Sierra Club said.

For "upper levels" read the President and vice-president. Their links with energy companies are well known and oil, coal and other natural resources companies have been prime contributors to campaign coffers.

In her book It's My Party Too, Christine Whitman, who resigned as head of the Environmental Protection Agency in 2003, wrote of the "obsession" of many in the energy industry and the Republican party "with doing away with environmental regulation". But there is also an ingrained and profoundly American opposition to the notions that climate change is harmful, that humans cause it, and that humans can do much about it.

A typical exponent of that school is Fred Singer, founder of the think-tank the Science and Environmental Policy Project. Since 1979, he says, the global climate has - if anything - cooled slightly, and what warming that exists is primarily an urban heat effect. "Climate keeps changing all the time," he says. "The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat, because, obviously, in the past human beings have adapted to all kinds of climate changes."

This approach is music to the ears of many American economic and business theorists. To accept that climate control is caused by humans and harmful means that humans must change their ways. That in turn implies more regulation, anathema to Bush's administration.

That philosophy overlaps with another American economic tenet; the free market, left to its devices, can solve every problem. Natural economic forces, of price and supply and demand, will induce humans to change their ways.

But attitudes may be starting to change. While the White House has done next to nothing to tackle emissions, states such as California are taking matters into their own hands. And on Capitol Hill, the Democratic senator Joe Lieberman and his Republican colleague John McCain are pushing to tighten emissions controls. It is likely to fail again but support is growing.

Even at the White House, optimists detect subtle signs of change. Maybe it is the disaster movie The Day after Tomorrow, perhaps it has been irrefutable evidence that change is already happening, in especially sensitive areas such as the shrinking polar icecaps.

"We care about the climate," Mr Bush said this week, on the eve of his trip to Europe where global warming will be a major issue. Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser, says the US is already "doing a lot with Europe" on climate change research, to make a contribution "in a positive direction".

Undoubtedly, those are in part sops to Europeans who still regard the 43rd President as "the toxic Texan". Whether US officials will accept the science linking the planet's warming to human activities is quite another matter.

Boomer Chick

02-19-2005, 12:38 PM

IS,

Please read my recent posts over at Climate Change. I agree with this (article directly above) to a large extent, but you must be aware of the states and alliances of states that are working on the emissions problems. http://www.pewclimate.org There are also private companies working on alternative enegies, retrofitting, and reduction of emissions.

http://www.asp.bnl.gov/

And yes, it is true above, the Bush administration drags its feet, but the Senate voted on a Bill that is a step in the right direction in 2002 and another one lately.... I know it seems too little too late, but citizens are working on it in terms of private business and non-profit orgs. and scientists at all kinds of universities and gov. entities are working on it too. I'm not condoning Bush, in fact I've found him to be the symbolic archtypical character (and his neocon cohorts) with which to alarm the sleeping complacent citizenry. Indeed, he plays his part so well that he has awakened much of the planet ! Let's hope we all can survive the next three years to see the pendulum swing again -- referring to contentiousness in the world, not climate change.

It's time to invest in clean up and alternative energy generation!

Please read the speech (not to mean the clone of Condi) over on Climate Change.

BC

foot_soldier

02-19-2005, 05:39 PM

.....And yes, it is true above, the Bush administration drags its feet,.....
That's an understatement if I ever heard one.

The world is weary of the Bush administration's obtuse, obstructionist and spiritually bankrupt orientation to matters of international concern. I just hope we in this country can make it through the next four years without incurring irreversible damage from the self-serving "policies" of this regressive group of bullies.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-20-2005, 05:57 AM

"Reynolds propagation of decepton, lies, and hoax by using hate language is being systematically decimated and his lies incinerated and cast upon the winds."

As he burns, burns, burns, in the pits of Hell---and the flames went higher.

jayreynolds

02-20-2005, 06:20 AM

That's an understatement if I ever heard one.

The world is weary of the Bush administration's obtuse, obstructionist and spiritually bankrupt orientation to matters of international concern. I just hope we in this country can make it through the next four years without incurring irreversible damage from the self-serving "policies" of this regressive group of bullies.

Yeah, the past four years have seen pollution skyrocketing out of control with absolutely no concern about the ""ireversible damage".
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/econ-emissions.html

Boomer Chick

02-20-2005, 09:20 AM

EPA Broke Law Making Secret Deals with Industry
The Natural Resources Defense Council

Thursday 17 February 2005

Private meetings with chemical companies violate federal laws requiring an open process.
Washington - The Environmental Protection Agency is illegally negotiating secret agreements with industry lobbyists over pesticide regulation, according to a lawsuit filed today by NRDC (the Natural Resources Defense Council). The lawsuit specifically cites private agreements between the agency and chemical companies over the regulation of atrazine, one of the most heavily used weed-killers in the country, and DDVP, a highly toxic insecticide. NRDC contends the agreements have undermined public health safeguards by failing to restrict the use of these dangerous chemicals.

"The EPA's secret, backroom deals with pesticide makers are clearly against the law, and they're a threat to our health," said NRDC attorney Aaron Colangelo. "EPA is required to make independent decisions on pesticide safety, instead of negotiating deals with the chemical industry."

According to government records obtained by NRDC through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPA officials met secretly more than 40 times with representatives from atrazine's main manufacturer, Syngenta, while the agency was evaluating the weed-killer's toxicity. Ultimately the agency agreed to allow atrazine to stay on the market even though the chemical has contaminated drinking water sources across the country. (See January 2004 NRDC backgrounder for more information.) The EPA also has been involved in private negotiations with the chemical company Amvac over the status of the insecticide DDVP (dichlorvos), which it sells under a number of trade names, including "No-Pest Strips." These negotiations violate EPA's regulations and federal law, specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Freedom of Information Act, according to NRDC's lawsuit.

"These deals are bad for public health, bad for the environment, and bad for democracy," said Erik D. Olson, an NRDC senior attorney. Olson noted that more than 20 years ago NRDC sued the agency for similar widespread violations committed under EPA Administrator Ann Gorsuch. After Gorsuch and other EPA officials resigned amid allegations of improper industry influence, William Ruckelshaus replaced Gorsuch and settled NRDC's case in 1984, agreeing to strict regulations that forbid secret meetings and private deal-making. "EPA apparently is back to its old bad habits," Olson said.

The regulations prompted by NRDC's 1983 lawsuit require open and transparent decision-making when the EPA is registering high risk pesticides or has placed them in "special review," which calls for a prompt evaluation of their safety. These regulations forbid EPA from making a final decision based on negotiations with industry, and require the agency to make such decisions independently. In addition, if the agency establishes a group of outside advisors, the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires it to create a balanced advisory committee that meets in the open and is not "inappropriately influenced" by "any special interest." Today's suit charges that EPA has ignored these requirements in its atrazine and DDVP negotiations.

Atrazine is used on most of the corn and sugarcane grown in the United States and has been detected in the drinking water of more than a million Americans at levels higher than EPA's safety standard. Scientific studies have found that atrazine can damage the reproductive system and cause higher rates of cancer.

The European Union recently banned atrazine because of pervasive drinking water contamination. Instead of restricting or banning atrazine in the United States, however, the EPA recently negotiated an agreement that only requires Syngenta to monitor streams and drinking water supplies for contamination. Under this deal, Syngenta will test fewer than 4 percent of the streams identified by the EPA as being at highest risk for atrazine contamination.

DDVP is one of a class of chemicals called organophosphates, which are neurotoxins that were originally developed as chemical weapons during World War II. DDVP causes permanent nervous system damage in young test animals, and may cause related abnormalities in exposed infants and children. Exposure to DDVP also can cause uncontrollable sweating, nausea, dizziness, muscle tremors, and even death. Despite the risks, EPA is privately negotiating with DDVP's manufacturer Amvac to allow the company to continue to sell this nerve poison for many home and agricultural uses.

The lawsuit was filed today in federal court in Washington, D.C. NRDC is represented in the case by Colangelo, Olson, and the public interest law firm Meyer & Glitzenstein.

The following documents show some of the negotiations between the EPA and industry lobbyists. These are just a small sample of the hundreds of documents NRDC has obtained that provide evidence of these illegal negotiations.

Atrazine 1: Report of a joint EPA and Syngenta work group that negotiated the "safe" level of environmental contamination of atrazine.

Atrazine 2: Report of a second EPA and Syngenta work group that negotiated an atrazine water monitoring plan that ignores more than 96 percent of the "most potentially vulnerable watersheds."

Atrazine 3: Example of a private meeting between EPA and Syngenta (July 10, 2003) to negotiate a monitoring plan in lieu of regulation.

Atrazine 4: Email presenting a proposed deal between EPA and Syngenta on watershed monitoring.

Atrazine 5: Negotiations between EPA and Syngenta regarding atrazine regulation (unlawfully withheld from the public docket for more than 18 months).

Atrazine 6: Final negotiated agreement between EPA and Syngenta, Dow, and other chemical manufacturers regarding the regulation of atrazine.

DDVP 1: Negotiations between EPA and Amvac to jointly "craft the terms and conditions" of DDVP risk mitigation.

DDVP 2: EPA staff email regarding ongoing negotiations with Amvac.

DDVP 3: EPA staff email regarding negotiations with Amvac over potentially risky "pest strip" uses of DDVP.

DDVP 4: EPA staff email discussing "verbal agreement" with Amvac regarding which uses of DDVP will be allowed.

DDVP 5: Small sample of EPA calendar entries noting frequent meetings with Amvac regarding DDVP risk management.

DDVP 6: EPA memo noting four additional meetings with Amvac regarding DDVP risk mitigation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, non-profit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 1 million members and e-activists nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco. More information is available through NRDC's Web site. [an error occurred while processing this directive]
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Boomer Chick

02-20-2005, 09:25 AM

S.F. Court to Hear Challenge to Bush National Forest Rules
By Bob Egelko
The San Francisco Chronicle

Friday 18 February 2005

Environmental groups chose a San Francisco federal court on Thursday for their challenge to the Bush administration's new national forest management rules, which simplify the planning process while scaling back long- standing requirements for species preservation and public input.

The regulations for the 192-million-acre system of 150 national forests and 20 national grasslands, which took effect Jan. 5, caused a furor when they were announced two weeks earlier. They replaced regulations adopted in 1982 during President Ronald Reagan's administration.

Promoted as a way to bring flexibility to a bureaucratic process where proposed changes in land use are tied up for years, the new rules were denounced by conservation groups as giveaways to timber companies. Opponents noted that Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, the administration's point man on forest policy, is a former timber industry lobbyist.

In Thursday's lawsuit, environmentalists argued that the changes violate requirements of the 1976 National Forest Management Act that logging must be restricted to protect streams, soils and the trees themselves, and that guidelines protect the diversity of plants and animals in each national forest. They also contended that the new rules illegally curtail public involvement in forest planning and were adopted without adequate public notice.

"This administration just went on a search-and-destroy mission for any environmental safeguard that might stand between the administration's industry donors and the public's trees," said Mike Anderson of the Wilderness Society, a plaintiff in the suit. The other plaintiffs are Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club and the Vermont Natural Resources Council.

Stephanie Gomes, regional spokeswoman for the U.S. Forest Service, said the new rules actually provide "more opportunities for the public to be involved" in collaborative development of forest plans. She also said the regulations "will give us the ability to adapt to new information" by transferring planning authority to individual forest managers attuned to local conditions.

"We're still committed to sustaining the health and diversity and productivity of national forests," Gomes said.

One major effect of the new rules is a repeal of the 1982 regulation requiring that fish and wildlife habitats be managed to maintain "viable populations" of fish and wildlife species, a rule that led to restrictions on logging to protect bellwether species like the northern spotted owl.

The new rule instead directs forest managers to provide "ecological conditions to support diversity of native plant and animal species," with no requirements to protect individual species. The lawsuit said the new standard is toothless and was adopted without any supporting scientific studies or evidence.

The new rules also eliminate the 1982 regulations that limited clear- cutting of trees in national forests and required buffer zones for logging around streams. Instead, logging and other development will be governed by management plans developed by each forest supervisor, subject to periodic audits of their environmental effects.

Another repealed regulation required formal environmental reviews, with advance notice and comment by the public, before plans are adopted for each national forest, a process that typically occurs every 15 years. The administration says its new rules leave room for public participation in forest planning while continuing to require environmental reviews for individual projects, like a timber sale or a natural gas well.

The lawsuit said the new regulations discard a system of clear environmental standards, as envisioned by the 1976 act, in favor of vague guidelines administered by local forest managers with reduced public oversight.

"For 23 years we've been operating the national forests under regulations approved by the Reagan administration, and things have been working pretty well," said Trent Orr, an Earthjustice lawyer representing the environmental groups. "This is an utter abandonment of a balanced set of regulations."

Boomer Chick

02-20-2005, 09:30 AM

Forest Service Becoming Rogue Agency
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
News Release

Thursday 17 February 2005

Forty-four recent court rulings find environmental lawbreaking.
Washington, DC - The U.S. Forest Service lost 44 court cases during the past two years in which the agency was found guilty of violating environmental laws by a federal court, according to an internal memo released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The rate of adverse court findings has been steadily growing with each passing year of the Bush Administration.

The list of 44 cases, covering the period 2003 and 2004 fiscal years, is limited to cases where the court found both that the Forest Service violated the law and that its position could not be "substantially justified." In those instances, the agency was ordered to pay the attorney fees of the environmental group bringing the lawsuit. As a result, the Forest Service made payments to environmental groups totaling $2.2 million over the last two years.

"More than once every two weeks, the Forest Service is found by a federal judge to be violating the very laws it is supposed to be enforcing," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "The Forest Service is becoming a rogue agency."

The agency figures point to a growing rate of court rulings against the agency, with 27 adverse rulings in FY 04 and 17 adverse rulings in FY 03. An online search of federal court decisions in cases where the Forest Service was a defendant showed 10 adverse rulings in 2002 and only 4 in 2001. The totals for prior years were even smaller with the highest total for any year back to 1994 being 3 adverse rulings.

"More disturbing than the rulings is the fact that not a single Forest Service manager has been disciplined or suffered any negative career consequences for committing environmental violations," added Ruch, noting that these cases involve deliberate violations where a federal court has found that the agency acted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. "In other words, the Forest Service rewards its line managers for breaking the law - a posture not that distinct from the Mafia's."

The cases grow out of illegal logging operations, over-grazing violations and mining claims within national forests. Every region in the country, except the southeast, reported cases, with the most coming out of the region covering Idaho and Montana, and the region covering Oregon and Washington.

The list of 44 cases understates the extent of violations by the Forest Service in that it does not include cases that were settled by the agency in order to avoid adverse rulings. Nor does it include cases that were thrown out on technical grounds even though substantive environmental violations occurred.

______________________________________________

All above forest and chemical articles linked at :

http://truthout.org/environment.shtml

BC

Boomer Chick

02-20-2005, 09:37 AM

Momentum Builds for Emissions Bills
By Katherine Stapp
Inter Press Services

Tuesday 15 February 2005

New York - With most of the world about to leave the United States in the dust on climate change policy, the fray is shifting from global summits to Washington's Capitol Hill, where a growing coalition of Democrats and Republicans is lobbying for a national cap on carbon dioxide emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol to regulate emissions of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases, which takes effect Wednesday, has been dismissed by the George W. Bush administration as too pricey and damaging to the U.S. economy.

The party line at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been to emphasise the "uncertainties" of climate science. High-profile officials like Dr. John Marburger III, Bush's science adviser, have also disputed the data underlying computer models on global warming, the latest of which predict catastrophic temperature increases of up to 11 degrees by mid-century.

But in a reflection of the widening divide between Washington and the states, which are looking at the very real possibility of lost agricultural production, wildfires and coastal flooding, many elected representatives are rejecting Bush's voluntary approach to controlling emissions.

The biggest piece of legislation, the Climate Stewardship Act, was first introduced by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman in 2003, when it won backing from 43 out of 98 senators.

"The issue is not going away and the cost of inaction will continue to rise," McCain said on Feb. 10. "To further define the problem is not enough. We must take a more active role in finding a solution."

The United States produces about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, with the state of Texas alone regularly exceeding France in annual emissions.

The McCain-Lieberman bill targets the utility, transportation, and industrial sectors -- which together represent 85 percent of all U.S. global warming emissions -- and would create a market for companies to trade pollution credits, modelled on the successful 1990 Clean Air Act's plan to address acid rain.

Compared to Kyoto, which calls for industrialised countries to cut emissions an average of five percent below 1990 levels by 2012, the U.S. bill is modest, ordering industry to return to 2000 levels -- about one to two percent less than the United States emits today -- by 2010.

Economists say the plan could create 800,000 jobs by 2025, and that energy and fuel industry losses would be relatively small.

Efforts to bring the legislation to a vote again in 2004 failed due to opposition from the Republican Party, but the bill's backers reintroduced it last week and say that momentum has grown in both houses of Congress to take action with or without the White House's blessing.

"We're seeing a phenomenal increase in interest, especially in the Senate, but we still have some distance to go in the House (of Representatives)," said Malik Roy, director of congressional affairs at the Virginia-based Pew Centre on Global Climate Change.

In a notable turnaround, even Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican who once called the Kyoto Protocol "outrageous" and "arbitrary", says he will introduce three global warming bills next week.

"Achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is one of the important challenges of our time," Hagel said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, last week. "Human society has contributed to pollution and, evidence suggests, a global warming trend."

And Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, who voted against the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003, has now convened a subcommittee on global climate change and says he is especially concerned about the effects of global warming on his state's native Inuit population.

While the House of Representatives is dominated by Republicans that adhere more closely to the White House agenda, legislation mirroring the Climate Stewardship Act has been introduced there as well.

"Even conservative Republicans are saying that climate change is a real problem," Roy noted. However, he cautioned that "saying that they're starting to deal with this as an issue is different from saying they will support specific legislation."

Meanwhile, Bush is taking his energy policy in a wholly different direction, seeking expanded oil, gas, and coal development on public lands, including in the ecologically sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska -- plans that have been repeatedly blocked by Congress.

The president also praised nuclear power as "clean" and "safe" in his State of the Union Address, and his recent budget proposal includes federal support for the first new nuclear plants in the United States since the end of the 1970s, when there was a partial meltdown of the reactor core at Three Mile Island in the northeastern state of Pennsylvania.

So where is industry itself in this debate? In fact, many U.S.-based multinationals that do business in countries where greenhouse gases are about to be regulated have long seen a financial incentive in getting a head start.

The chemical giant Dupont, for example, earns a third of its 26.9 billion dollars in annual sales in countries that have ratified Kyoto. Over the last decade, Dupont has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent, largely by targeting non-carbon greenhouse pollutants, like nitrous oxide.

By 2010, some analysts predict that global commodities trading will reach more than nine trillion dollars, driven by crude oil, natural gas, and carbon dioxide. Washington's refusal to ratify Kyoto could end up costing U.S. companies millions, they say, because U.S. industry will be mostly cut out of the potentially lucrative emissions market.

"There are leaders, laggards, and a vast group in the middle that is hedging its bets," said Roy. "But partisan interests are preventing a rational discussion of business interests in Congress. Corporate leaders are being told not to be too conspicuous about their leadership in addressing climate change."

Meanwhile, with analysts predicting that Congress is unlikely to take action this year, almost every U.S. state has unveiled plans to reduce global warming pollution, and many have moved to the next step by working together in regional blocs.

The most prominent include a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide emissions from utilities developed by nine northeastern and mid-Atlantic states, and an alliance to boost energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy in the power grids of 19 western states.

"On virtually every major environmental law, the states have been out in front, taking it beyond the modelling," Roy said. "They've helped industry get beyond their fears, showing that it can be done and they're still in business."

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

________________________________

BC

Boomer Chick

02-20-2005, 09:50 AM

"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

~ Albert Einstein

I found Leonardo Dicaprio's site to be quite activist and wonderful! The above quote he displays on his first page. He knows that we must reduce our emissions and is quite aware of global warming. He offers a petition for our total freedom from fossil fuels. Well worth a visit and some exploration.

We'll be seeing "Aviator" this afternoon!

http://leonardodicaprio.org/

All and any efforts to add to global awareness are worthy and commendable! WTG Leornardo!

BC :D

Boomer Chick

02-20-2005, 10:03 AM

George W. Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife.

- Robert Kennedy, Jr.

February 16, 2005 | Back Issues
Gore Claims Bush Has 'Crisis' Analysis All Wrong

Today the Kyoto Protocol enters into effect for the 141 nations
that are signatories to the treaty. While most of the
industrialized world has signed on to this global effort to
combat climate change, the United States, the largest emitter of
greenhouse gases, has been noticeably absent from the process
since the Bush administration's withdrawal in 2001. Yesterday
former Vice President Al Gore spoke out on the Kyoto Protocol,
below are excerpts from his speech.

"Unfortunately we have also seen over the last few years a
decision on the part of the Bush White House to withdraw from
the global process by which this crisis is being confronted.
President Bush has instead directed the nation's attention and
resources toward false crises while refusing to acknowledge a
real crisis that is unfolding right before our eyes..."

"...Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and the alleged need for
privatizing Social Security are examples of false crises. But
here's a real crisis staring him in the face that desperately
needs leadership from the President of the United States and his
financial supporters in the oil and coal industry don't want him
to acknowledge the reality of the crisis so he pretends that it
doesn't exist. And he relies on individuals who are pretty much
- their relation - the people he relies on relate to the
scientific community pretty much the way that phony reporter
related to the White House Press Corp..."

"The Kyoto Treaty formally takes effect tomorrow and it marks
the beginning of the world's first legally binding effort to
deal with the climate crisis. It is an historic event. It will
be the first of many efforts that will follow Kyoto, all of
which will build on Kyoto.

It is unfortunate that the United States has abdicated its
responsibility to join in leading this effort and I hope that
the Bush White House will rejoin the coalition of the willing
and confront this issue.

During the seven years since Kyoto was first addressed, we have
learned a great deal. First, we have learned that the scientific
evidence for the climate crisis is even stronger than was known
seven years ago. A recent paper in Science, for example,
examined every single peer reviewed scientific journal article
from 1993 to 2003 that contained the phrase "global climate
change". Of the 928 articles that used that phrase, not a single
one disagreed with the consensus view that current climate
change is caused by human activity -- not a single one. There
have been faux controversies created by other articles but not
any peer reviewed scientific article..."

"During the last seven years we have also learned that the
solutions to global warming will be cheaper and easier than was
thought when Kyoto was first drafted. A lot of major companies
including Intel, DuPont, BP, Alcoa, and others have reported
cost savings totaling billions of dollars as a result of
programs to reduce heat trapping gases. Technologies for
improving the efficiency of coal combustion have taken big
strides forward as have technologies for capturing and storing
heat-trapping gases offering some new hope for using plentiful
resources without worsening the climate crisis..."

"Because the US has abdicated national leadership California and
states in the Northeast have filled the leadership vacuum and
have taken steps on their own. It is vitally important that our
federal system be allowed to operate in confronting this crisis.

It takes a moral courage to attack a real crisis and this
current administration has failed to demonstrate moral courage
and has failed to confront this real crisis. But the problem is
so vast that there is a great need for leadership from other
quarters such as from California and the Northeast compact
states and I applaud them and applaud the selected companies
that are providing leadership in confronting this crisis..."

"Now can the protocol be effective without US participation?
Eventually the US must participate. All multi-national companies
located - based inside the United States will have to comply
with the Treaty that takes effect tomorrow with respect to their
operations in 141 different countries and 34 industrialized
countries. The United States and Australia are really the only
industrialized countries in the entire world that are not a
party to this treaty.

Companies based in the US already have to face tougher
environmental restrictions in China than they do in the United
States and this process is going to accelerate and so the
dynamic created will eventually lead our country to join this
process. It will start to be effective even without US
participation but it will only become truly effective when the
provisions are toughened and when the US does join the
process..."

"There is with the Bush Administration an unreality bubble that
will burst. The rest of the world is beginning as of tomorrow,
for the first time in a legally binding way, beginning to
confront the reality of the climate crisis. By choosing to stick
his head in the sand the Bush Administration not only
embarrasses the country when the world expects leadership from
the US but it also puts our economy at risk by encouraging
illusory decision making.

The rest of the world is going to begin to constrain carbon
emissions and those businesses that are lulled into a false
sense that there is no problem and they don't have to take steps
to solve the problem are going to find themselves facing much
tougher competition in the global marketplace from competitors
who adapt to the emerging new reality that the rest of the world
begins to embrace tomorrow..."

###

http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/

Boomer Chick

02-20-2005, 10:05 AM

February 10, 2005

Bush EPA Planning Two-Year Amnesty for Factory Farm Polluters

During the past decade a new form of pollution has grown into a serious problem--one the framers of the Clean Air Act could never have anticipated. It is caused by the consolidation over the past decade of countless small farms into huge, factory farms that raise thousands of hogs, heifers and chickens in impossibly cramped quarters.

Euphemistically called "concentrated animal feeding operations," or CAFOs, the giant facilities also raise an enormous stench, as giant piles of rotting waste produce clouds of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds, and particulates. Their emissions have become so obnoxious that news reports regularly pop up when area residents demand that these corporate farms clean up their mess.

There was little coverage, however, when on the day after last month's presidential inauguration, one of the first acts of the second Bush Administration was to hand these polluters a generous free pass. Judiciously timed for release after the election--and on a day when the story was certain to be lost amidst inaugural euphoria--the EPA offered CAFOs more than two years' immunity from the Clean Air Act--as well as from certain toxic discharge standards--in exchange for participation in a program that would measure their air emissions.

The problem, according to Michele Merkel of the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), is that EPA's two-year pass is superfluous: the Clean Air Act already requires polluting facilities to provide this kind of data. As Merkel pointed out in an interview with Grist Magazine, there is no need to paralyze law enforcement for two years in order to collect it.

A former EPA attorney who brought the first CAFO lawsuit five years ago, Merkel says the enforcement hiatus can mean increased health risks for farm workers and nearby residents from emissions such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. A 2002 study by Iowa State University found widespread bronchitis in workers exposed to these pollutants.

In the same Grist report, Ed Hopkins, environmental quality director at the Sierra Club, described one egg farm in Iowa that was found to have ammonia emissions on a par with a fertilizer plant ranked as the ninth largest producer of hazardous gas in the country.

Under the Clean Air Act, said EIP's Merkel, farms violating the law can be fined $27,500 per day. CAFOs signing up for the new EPA plan need only pay a "membership fee" of $2,500, plus a one-time penalty of from $200 to $100,000 (depending on size) for "presumed" past violations. That, says Merkel, is "chump change."

Indeed, one of the biggest factory farmers, Tyson Foods, had ante'd up $100,000 just the week before to enjoy an inaugural candlelight dinner with President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Environmentalists still have one hope for reversing EPA's amnesty. Thanks to a tip obtained by EIP, an EPA plan to omit the usual 30-day public-comment period was reversed when EIP prepared to reveal it publicly. Knowing this would provoke unwanted headlines, EPA reversed itself. A 30-day public-comment period is now underway.

###

TAKE ACTION
Sign a petition with Organic Consumers.

###

This story was jointly produced by BushGreenwatch and Grist Magazine. For more on this story, visit Grist Magazine.

http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000239.php

Great link on the major oil players and the green house scenario-- history and facts:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1048

BC

jayreynolds

02-20-2005, 10:32 AM

That's an understatement if I ever heard one.

The world is weary of the Bush administration's obtuse, obstructionist and spiritually bankrupt orientation to matters of international concern. I just hope we in this country can make it through the next four years without incurring irreversible damage from the self-serving "policies" of this regressive group of bullies.

It's absolutely true. When we see all these scientific studies on global Warming, absolutely none of it has been the result of Bush dynasty funding. Virtually all climate change research dollars have come from private sources such as Greenpeace, World Wildife Fund, Natural Reseources Defense Council and the Sierra Club:

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-budget-table3.htm

foot_soldier

02-20-2005, 11:04 AM

Oh, stuff it, Reynolds. I wasn't referring to environmental issues specifically when I made that comment. In fact I was thinking primarily of the Bush administration's arrogant and bellicose orientation to foreign policy in a world that wants very much to evolve beyond the "Us vs.Them" frame of reference and get on with the business of working together to improve conditions for all.

Your knee-jerk reactionary responses to anything that doesn't fall in line with Reality According To Jay Reynolds speak volumes. I don't think you even read most of the posts upon which you aim your idealogical flamethrower (and, I might add, your consistently outdated information.)

Boomer Chick

02-20-2005, 12:20 PM

Thanks for reposting your post to FS, Jay, after I posted a few dang good articles supporting her statement including the fact that Bush is the worst environmental president ever.

Your reposting just prevented her from reading the relevant articles concerning her statement and yours.

NOT NICE!!!! You obviously, similar to Halva, would rather keep up some level of emotional argument than face the facts. From this kind of posting, I see you want to cover the facts.

Am I right? Jaybo? .................................. A tad, heh?

FS, go back and see the latest articles and yes, you are right (and very articulate) on Bush's record including the environment . I was understating it, quite a bit.

BC :rolleyes:

jayreynolds

02-20-2005, 03:26 PM

Gosh, gals, I posted two links, one showing continued cleanup of air pollution in the US from the 1970's up to and including the bush administration. One shows the mysterious fact that, while the current and past administration and our congress see no reason to jump on the Kyoto treaty that only forces developed countries to sacrifice their economies, the administration does supply the hundreds of millions of dollars which produce the research most of you depend on to prove your case for Global warming!

Not exactly a cover-up, it seems.

As far as foreign policy? Well, for years now I've been seeing the US criticized for supporting dictatorships. Well, I have to admit sometimes you have to make deals with countries, even if the place is run by someone you don't like.

At the same time, we get criticized for not intervening when a country goes bad and turns against it's people or another country. Well, I have to admit that our country can't be the policeman of the whole world, even if a country goes bad, we can't always invade and straighten things out. Sometimes such a course might make things worse! Still, it seems that neither the doves nor the hawks could be satisfied, and after eight years of Clinton wringing his hands, and after America was attacked in a way which couldn't be ignored, Bush decided to act. Like it, or not, America opened a new gambit which has already had a profoundly beneficial effect on tens of millions of people. There is no disputing that fact.

There is no dispute about Afghanistan. We did the right thing. That country of 25 million is now on the right track, almost all because of The US.

What the current administartion did in Iraq appears to be turning out just fine. I say this based not just on the "media", or my own personal belief. I say it because a member of my family, my own brother-in-law, an Iraqi born American citizen, is now over there and communicating this information back to me. He and my sister are in charge of the largest environmental restoration project in the country, and also do other work.

The invasion was a success. About that there is no dispute.
Freedom was given to the Iraqi people solely because the Bush administration had the courage to do so, despite much of the balance of the world who would have seen Saddam continue his brutal ways. Damn anyone who disputes it because they are wrong, and they were wrong to allow it to go on so long.

The invasion of Iraq created a "shooting gallery", which attracted as many jihadists as possible.
In the shooting gallery many thousands of dead-enders met their fate, and the process continues. This is good, and what Bush has said all along is actually happening, we are "fighting the terrorists over there, so we won't have to fight them over here"! A masterpiece of strategy, really, to get these terrorists to duke it out against numerically and technically superior Us troops, rather than wait for them to conduct covert terorist operations here in the US, and clean up the mess afterwards. This is probably the main reason why we haven't had continued attacks here at home, and all Americans should give some of the credit to Bush's policies.

According to my sources, since the Al-sadr thing was concluded, the majority of Iraqis, which means Shia people, have been on our side. Now that elections were held, despite the rest of the world, which hollered about how they couldn't happen, the Sunnis are coming back to the table, and ordinary Iraqis have developed a new sense of nationalism. The insurgents isolate themselves day by day as they are now seen to be attacking the very government elected by the people. An Insurgency that loses it's popular base and becomes seen as against progress and the ordinary people is an insurgency that is in the process of dying.

With the fortuitous assumption of room temperature of Arafat, and also just as the bush administration was telling us for over two years, we see a new opening of possibilities for the palestinians. As it turned out, Arafat had held his own people hostage as he and his shake-down crew pocketed hundereds of millions, if not billions. Once that situation shows further progress, and God willing becomes resolved, practically the whole of the ME will have no further use for terrorism, and certainly no excuse for it. Terrorists wil become unpopular figures, and the marginalism will make them an anachronism.

Now, as far as sucking up to yerp and those who would have our nations power to do good hamstrung, countries like France and Germany, or the ones who git bought off or are simply jealous of our success, they can go to hell as far as I care. They have made themselves irrelevant in the world of today. The world has moved beyond them, and they can yell, scream, and protest all they want. People who become irrelevant, well they really have no one else to blame but themselves now, do they?

jayreynolds

02-20-2005, 06:05 PM

Your knee-jerk reactionary responses to anything that doesn't fall in line with Reality According To Jay Reynolds speak volumes. I don't think you even read most of the posts upon which you aim your idealogical flamethrower (and, I might add, your consistently outdated information.)[/color]

Dear, 'footsoldier', The information I provided was as recent as I could obtain. In the case of environmental improvement, up to 2003, as for the budget that Bush has requested for clmat change research, where he has asked to spend over 200 millioin dollars, it is the most current, for 2004-5. If you have more curent figures, please post them.

jayreynolds

02-20-2005, 06:15 PM

[Your reposting just prevented her from reading the relevant articles concerning her statement and yours. NOT NICE!!!! You obviously, similar to Halva, would rather keep up some level of emotional argument than face the facts. From this kind of posting, I see you want to cover the facts. BC :rolleyes:
Sorry you saw it that way. I only posted twice, each time took up a couple of sentences and a link for supporting documentation. Your posts were complete texts, and took up far more space.
When Wayne wants to coverup, he posts reams of text, sometimes in foreign fonts no one can even read. No, I'm not trying to "cover the facts" by my puny posts with only links and a statement, anymore than you are trying to spam the board posting full texts. I'm sure that after a year here, 'footsoldier' knows how to go back a page to read what she has missed. Gaiacomm used to post up to ten pages/day and we all kept up.

I hope you enjoyed 'Aviator' as much as I did. I must wonder at what Hughes might have accomplished if he had some help in the mental health area.

whitemajikman

02-20-2005, 07:35 PM

Understanding the Global Carbon Cycle
We (ecologists) have been interested in carbon for a long time, first, because carbon is what we (as well as all of the other plants and animals on earth) are made of (50% of our dry weight). Ecologists can learn a lot about ecosystems and what they do for us by constructing carbon budgets (or energy budgets) from measurements of productivity, food chains, and nutrient cycling.

The second reason that carbon is of interest is because carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), is the major greenhouse gas released to the atmosphere as a result of human activities. The continued release of greenhouse gases is raising the temperature of the earth, disrupting the climates we and our agricultural systems depend on, and raising sea-level. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already increased by about 30% since the start of the industrial revolution sometime around the middle of the 19th century and will continue to increase unless societies choose to change their ways.

Most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations came from and will continue to come from the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) for energy, but about 25% of the increase over the last 150 years came from changes in land use, for example, the clearing of forests and the cultivation of soils for food production [Figure 1].

Continued at.......

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/

WMM

whitemajikman

02-20-2005, 07:46 PM

I Think Everyone should check this Link out.......

At the very least it's validity.........

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~doetqp-p/courses/env470/Lectures/lec41/Lec41.htm

WMM

foot_soldier

02-20-2005, 08:06 PM

Re: February 10, 2005

Bush EPA Planning Two-Year Amnesty for Factory Farm Polluters:

Here is a little local follow-up on the article posted by Boomer Chick:

February 20, 2005
Iowa critics oppose EPA action on factory farm emissions
http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2849484

DES MOINES, Iowa Conservation and rural advocacy groups say federal regulation of livestock emissions is still years away under the government's offer to allow farms to avoid fines if their air pollution is monitored.

The offer by the E-P-A is aimed at factory-style farms that process animals, particularly hog, chicken and egg operations.

Tarah Heinzen of the Sierra Club in Des Moines says rural communities have been waiting for years to see some meaningful enforcement, and waiting for untold years is a "slap in the face" to Iowans.

"Rural groups and lawmakers in Iowa have been arguing over farm pollution limits since 2001.

The E-P-A has taken action against some factory farms in the past, but agency officials say additional data will help them better estimate emission levels, which is key to enforcing emission standards.

and here is how this situation can be (and in fact recently was) exacerbated by weather conditions:

February 1, 2005
Monday Air Quality Unhealthy Across State
http://www.iowadnr.com/air/news/articles/05feb01.html

DES MOINES-Air quality across large areas of Iowa was unhealthy for sensitive groups on Monday due to microscopic sized particulate matter, and similar conditions could persist through Wednesday, the DNR reported today.

As a precaution, persons with heart or lung disease including asthmatics, and healthy children and active adults should consider avoiding or postponing vigorous or prolonged outdoor activities until conditions improve, say state officials. A cleaner air mass is expected Thursday.

The Air Quality Index measured 119 in Des Moines, 112 in Cedar Rapids and 104 at a monitor at Viking Lake State Park in Montgomery County in southwest Iowa. Surrounding counties experienced similar levels. Sunday levels were also unhealthy in Linn and Polk Counties. All other areas of the state are experiencing elevated, but moderate pollution levels. Widespread areas of the Upper Midwest are experiencing similar conditions.

The Air Quality Index (AQI) reports pollution levels using a color-coded and numerical range for pollutants. The higher the AQI, the poorer the air quality. An AQI of 1 to 50 is green or good, 51 to 100 is yellow or moderate, 101 to 150 is orange or unhealthy for sensitive groups, 151 to 200 is red, unhealthy for everyone. Rarely monitored are purple for very unhealthy (201 to 300) and maroon for hazardous (301 to 500.)

“There is relatively little difference between surface and air temperatures up to about 8,000 feet and this is limiting air mixing,” said the DNR’s Brian Button. “This can elevate pollution levels across multiple states as emissions are not diluted. A new air mass is expected to move into the region Wednesday night, and air quality conditions should improve,” he said.

Particulate matter is a generic term to describe microscopic sized soots and aerosols. Because small particles can penetrate the deepest parts of the lungs, increasing the likelihood of symptoms in sensitive individuals, including children, the elderly and those with heart and lung disease.

Particles are directly released as smoke when coal, gasoline, diesel fuels and wood are burned. Particles also form from chemical reactions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, organic compounds and ammonia. (I.e. fertilizer constituents.)

Particulate pollution can form year-round, unlike summertime ozone smog, which requires hot, sunny conditions.

and the follow-up on the above-reported situation:

February 2, 2005
Tuesday air quality unhealthy across much of Iowa

February 3, 2005
Air quality advisory lifted
http://www.iowadnr.com/air/

and additional information on factory farms and their impact on local and regional air quality:

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
http://www.iowacci.org/Issues/farming/factory%20farm%20campaign/ffcampaign_campaigns_air.htm

foot_soldier

02-20-2005, 09:32 PM

February 18, 2004
Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking
Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320

On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists–Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents–signed the statement below, voicing their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration. UCS is seeking the signatures of thousands of additional U.S. scientists in support of this effort.

Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.

When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.

For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.

The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies Act, which the administration is portraying as an improvement of the existing Clean Air Act. “Clear Skies” would, however, be less effective in cleaning up the nation’s air and reducing mercury contamination of fish than proper enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act.

Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can have serious consequences. Had Richard Nixon also based his decisions on such calculations he would not have supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, which in the following 20 years prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Similarly, George H.W. Bush would not have supported the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and additional benefits of comparable proportions would have been lost.

The behavior of the White House on these issues is part of a pattern that has led Russell Train, the EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, to observe, “How radically we have moved away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and driven primarily by political considerations.”.....

foot_soldier

02-20-2005, 09:36 PM

February 20, 2005
Scientific influence wanes, research funding weakened in Bush adminstration, experts say
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050220-1358-bush-science.html

WASHINGTON – The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration, with fewer scientists heard in policy discussions and money for research and advanced training being cut, according to panelists at a national science meeting.

Speakers at the national meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science expressed concern Sunday that some scientists in key federal agencies are being ignored or even pressured to change study conclusions that don't support policy positions.

The speakers also said that Bush's proposed 2005 federal budget is slashing spending for basic research and reducing investments in education designed to produce the nation's future scientists.

And there also was concern that increased restrictions and requirements for obtaining visas is diminishing the flow to the U.S. of foreign-born science students who have long been a major part of the American research community.

Rosina Bierbaum, dean of the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, said the Bush administration has cut scientists out of some of the policy-making processes, particularly on environmental issues.

"In previous administrations, scientists were always at the table when regulations were being developed," she said. "Science never had the last voice, but it had a voice."

Issues on global warming, for instance, that achieved a firm scientific consensus in earlier years and now being questioned by Bush policy makers. Proven, widely accepted research is being ignored or disputed, she said.

Government policy papers issued prior to the Bush years moved beyond questioning the validity of global warming science and addressed ways of confronting or dealing with climate change.

Under Bush, said Bierbaum, the questioning of the proven science has become more important than finding ways to cope with climate change.

One result of such actions, said Neal Frank of Rice University, a former director of the National Science Foundation, is that "we don't really have a policy right now to deal with what everybody agrees is a serious problem."

Among scientists, said Frank, "there is quite a consensus in place that the Earth is warming and that humans are responsible for a considerable part of that" through the burning of fossil fuels.

And the science is clear, he said, that without action to control fossil fuel use, the warming will get worse and there will be climate events that "our species has not experienced before."

Asked for comment, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said, "The president makes policy decisions based on what the best policies for the country are, not politics. People who suggest otherwise are ill-informed."

Kurt Gottfried of Cornell University and the Union of Concerned Scientists said a survey of scientists in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that about 42 percent said they felt pressured to not report publicly any findings that do not agree with Bush policies on endangered species. He said almost a third of the Fish and Wildlife researchers said they were even pressured not to express within the agency any views in conflict with the Bush policies.

"This administration has distanced itself from scientific information," said Gottfried. He said this is part of a larger effort to let politics dominate pure science.

He said scientists in the Environmental Protection Agency have been pressured to change their research to keep it consistent with the Bush political position on environmental issues.

Because of such actions, he said, it has become more difficult for federal agencies to attract and retain top scientific talent. This becomes a critical issue, said Gottfried, because about 35 percent of EPA scientists will retire soon and the Bush administration can "mold the staff" of the agency through the hiring process.

Federal spending for research and development is significantly reduced under the proposed 2005 Bush budget, the speakers said.

"Overall the R&D budget is bad news," said Bierbaum.

She said the National Science Foundation funds for graduate students and for kindergarten through high school education has been slashed.

NASA has gotten a budget boost, but most of the new money will be going to space shuttle, space station and Bush's plan to explore the moon and Mars. What is suffering is the space agency scientific research efforts, she said.

"Moon and Mars is basically going to eat everybody's lunch," she said.

Frank said that Bush's moon and Mars exploration effort has not excited the public and has no clear goals or plans.

He said Bush's Moon-Mars initiative "was poorly carried out and the budget is not there to do the job so science (at NASA) will really get hurt."

foot_soldier

02-20-2005, 09:39 PM

February 10, 2005
U.S. scientists say they are told to alter findings
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scientists10feb10,0,4954654.story?coll=la-home

More than 200 scientists employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say they have been directed to alter official findings to lessen protections for plants and animals, a survey released Wednesday says.

The survey of the agency's scientific staff of 1,400 had a 30% response rate and was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

A division of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with determining which animals and plants should be placed on the endangered species list and designating areas where such species need to be protected.

More than half of the biologists and other researchers who responded to the survey said they knew of cases in which commercial interests, including timber, grazing, development and energy companies, had applied political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions deemed harmful to their business.

Bush administration officials, including Craig Manson, an assistant secretary of the Interior who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, have been critical of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, contending that its implementation has imposed hardships on developers and others while failing to restore healthy populations of wildlife.

Along with Republican leaders in Congress, the administration is pushing to revamp the act. The president's proposed budget calls for a $3-million reduction in funding of Fish and Wildlife's endangered species programs.

"The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," said Lexi Shultz of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Mitch Snow, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency had no comment on the survey, except to say "some of the basic premises just aren't so."

The two groups that circulated the survey also made available memos from Fish and Wildlife officials that instructed employees not to respond to the survey, even if they did so on their own time. Snow said that agency employees could not use work time to respond to outside surveys.

Fish and Wildlife scientists in 90 national offices were asked 42 questions and given space to respond in essay form in the mail-in survey sent in November.

One scientist working in the Pacific region, which includes California, wrote: "I have been through the reversal of two listing decisions due to political pressure. Science was ignored — and worse, manipulated, to build a bogus rationale for reversal of these listing decisions."

More than 20% of survey responders reported they had been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information."

However, 69% said they had never been given such a directive. And, although more than half of the respondents said they had been ordered to alter findings to lessen protection of species, nearly 40% said they had never been required to do so.

Sally Stefferud, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency, said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results, saying she had been ordered to change a finding on a biological opinion.

"Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases," she said. "As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust the science coming out of the agency."

A biologist in Alaska wrote in response to the survey: "It is one thing for the department to dismiss our recommendations, it is quite another to be forced (under veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter to our best professional judgment."

Don Lindburg, head of the office of giant panda conservation at the Zoological Society of San Diego, said it was unrealistic to expect federal scientists to be exempt from politics or pressure.

"I've not stood in the shoes of any of those scientists," he said. "But it is not difficult for me to believe that there are pressures from those who are not happy with conservation objectives, and here I am referring to development interest and others.

"But when it comes to altering data, that is a serious matter. I am really sorry to hear that scientists working for the service feel they have to do that. Changing facts to fit the politics — that is a very unhealthy thing. If I were a scientist in that position I would just refuse to do it."

The Union of Concerned Scientists and the public employee group provided copies of the survey and excerpts from essay-style responses.

One biologist based in California, who responded to the survey, said in an interview with The Times that the Fish and Wildlife Service was not interested in adding any species to the endangered species list.

"For biologists who do endangered species analysis, my experience is that the majority of them are ordered to reverse their conclusions [if they favor listing]. There are other biologists who will do it if you won't," said the biologist, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

foot_soldier

02-20-2005, 09:53 PM

Re: Leonardo DiCaprio's web site:

Leonardo DiCaprio Eco-Site
http://leonardodicaprio.org/

I agree. This site is well worth an in-depth exploration. It's beautifully organized, very attractive and very positive. The following section on Oil Dependency is particularly informative:

http://leonardodicaprio.org/whatsimportant/globalwarning_oildep.htm

I also appreciate his inclusion of the GM crop issue, which he has linked to here:

Center for Food Safety
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall2.cfm

Insurrectionchemistry

02-21-2005, 04:42 AM

The real CO-2 equation:

Everyone knows the CO-2 dynamic equilibrium is set by plant life's conversion of CO-2. The biggest source of this conversion is the ocean's plankton.

Ocean plankton are being damaged by the increased UV effects from the ozone depletion effect and with this effect, so goes an increase in the CO-2 balance.

The CO-2 problems are manmade only in the sense of man upsetting the UV equation, as the oceans can absorb lots of CO-2. However, when 100% of the oceans CO-2 converters are damaged 20% by UV radiation------the CO-2 in the atmosphere rises. The same goes for the landmass effects, but the ocean is the dominant sink.

Acids also upset the plankton's health and the CO-2 equilibrium. Hence, one of the reasons chemtrails are set to lower the levels of acid rain on oceans and increase it over landmasses.

Connecting the rise in CO-2 with the emissions of man in a direct sense is a false lead. CO2 rise only works correctly when the damage to the oceans plankton is included and the ozone depletion.

Similarly, the rise in HF in the upper atmosphere and this associated with the rise in global warming gases are also directly connected to the damage factors of the UV.

The reason NASA's satellites watch the ozone hole, HF, and hydrocarbons in the atmosphere is about getting a visual meter on this process.

The UV effects on plankton dominate the CO2 problem, over the direct generation term.
Just like the UV dominates the HF issues and the GW blanket effect.

Lots of the current kyoto and euro objectives miss taking aim at the prime vector problems, like going after source term cuts in CO-2 can help----but not help anywhere near as much as going after the UV problems. In the US, the science says go work on the prime vectors, not the secondary.

This is why the 80's research paper on oceans and UV by Dr. Joyce Dickerman from ORNL's Env Sci Div. is such an important piece of the overall equation.

The CO2 rise is a radiation damage effect, and very little the direct releases effect.

It was this type radiolytic study on CO-2 being dominated by UV that set up the search for other radiolytic dominated effects, which is how I found the NFx injection vector for global warming dominance.

The radiolytic effects of UV on HF spawned the chemtrials business.