Comments on: Messing with Mother Nature

By: garment sales worldwide

garment sales worldwide — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:14:04 +0000

Visitor recommendations…

[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……

By: slsorensen

slsorensen — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:50:36 +0000

In addition, how exactly did all those CFC molecules that were destroying the ozone layer get all the way to the stratosphere? They are all heavier than air and in my experience molecules with heavier molecular weights collect in low areas rather than high ones. In addition, most of the world (China, India, South America) continues to use the non-patented CFC refrigerants that are the supposed culprits of ozone depletion. So how the “hole” has mysteriously been repaired is a mystery to me. But I do know that the new patented refrigerants have made some companies a ton of money. Will the hole re-appear when those patents expire?

By: slsorensen

slsorensen — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:50:00 +0000

The whole ozone thing baffles me. Do you know what ozone is and how it is made? Ozone (O3) is a highly unstable compound that is formed when energy is added to O2 (the stable form) creating two O molecules which are highly unstable. These then react with O2 to form ozone. Where does one suppose the energy comes from to generate the O3? It is from the sun. At what time of the year does the “hole” in the ozone grow? During the winter when Antarctica gets less sun. When does the “hole” shrink? During the summer when Antarctica gets more sun to provide the energy to create the ozone. So could the changes in ozone concentration in the stratosphere possibly be caused by changes in the weather?

By: Mark_S

Mark_S — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:08:52 +0000

My favorite counter to this one is they there was an oil deposit in the Gulf of Mexico off the Louisiana coast that they thought they emptied out… they went back and did another survey only to find out that the oil deposit had "refilled"

By: kadaka

kadaka — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:22:35 +0000

Quick thought. The "dirt" method will be like a volcano erupting, and disperse particulates in the upper atmosphere. The effect will lead to Global Dimming, making sunlight less direct and more diffuse. Which will hurt all the solar energy technologies that use bright direct sunlight. Thus while we are to head to these solar technologies to avoid global warming, they're planning a remediation strategy that will reduce their already limited effectiveness. Just a thought.

By: kadaka

kadaka — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:22:35 +0000

By: Nathan_

Nathan_ — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:09:06 +0000

…but secretly selling their secrets to the Old Man in the Mountain. Pesky double agents….

By: mrm-in-wnc

mrm-in-wnc — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:05:57 +0000

speaking of nuclear winter, i have the solution for two major problems: we detonate every nuke on the planet thus bringing on nuclear winter. Voila! no more nuclear weapons and no more global warming. (there may be some negative side effects, but this IS A CRISIS, DAMMIT!!!!)

By: kadaka

kadaka — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:58:46 +0000

"3) As I stated, a traditional fluorescent bulb contains more mercury than a CFL. "

Is that taking into account how much larger a traditional 40 watt (nominal) 4 foot bulb is than a CFL? On either a per watt consumed or a per lumen emitted basis, which has more Hg? Upon disposal, are the extra toxic products contained in the circuitry of a CFL being considered? Standard fluorescent bulbs are recyclable, businesses are often required to collect their used ones. Are you aware of the available low-Hg fluorescent tubes, denoted by a green end cap, that are considered so low that businesses may dispose of them in bulk?

Are you even aware that it's well possible that ordinary people will not see any cost savings from CFL's due to the higher purchasing costs vs energy saved, plus the real world lifespans are running short of the advertised ones requiring more frequent purchasing than in those "savings" estimates?

If you have already been sold on how great CFL's are with the meager and incomplete data that's been fed you, without considering or even knowing to consider all the other factors involved, that does not speak well of your understanding of the truth of the whole environmental "climate change" debate.

Oh, number 4? I had heard they existed, but I never knew anyone who actually worked at one of those 900 numbers for women. Good to know you have a job!

By: MrsSpooky

MrsSpooky — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:50:26 +0000

… working at the behest of the Vatican…