50 reasons why global warming isn't natural

[VTX SPARTAN 0]

Nuclear waste in a ocean subduction zone FTW. All fission materials are about 4 times heavier than steel and would be depleted in a decade to totally replace hydrocarbons. Plus I couldn't imagine the havoc when a rocket fails (they will be cheap therefore solid fueled) and blows plutonium everywhere. 600 grams of that stuff can kill 6 billion people it's so toxic (http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html). Good times.

 

I don't think environmental wackjobs would approve of dumping a ton of radioactive waste in the deep ocean, however good of an idea it is.

 

Ok...Mr. Plutonium scare....there's been what...300/400/500? above ground nuclear weapon tests? The Chernobyl reactors were designed to produce power and weapons grade plutonium and one of them melted down. I'm still waiting for a a couple billion people to die from the fallout. While I do agree that launch reliability is not nearly good enough to bother risk throwing up a ton of radioactive waste. Also, the quantity of the waste wouldn't make this plan cost effective. Put the stuff in Yucca something similar or when the technology is available bury the stuff DEEP as in kilometers deep. Problem solved.

[VTX SPARTAN 0]

#1 Reason Man Made Global Warming is Not Real: Al Gore.

 

Whenever I see him on TV Gore get confused and think it's a South Park episode and laugh uncontrollably waiting for his next "excelsior" moment...until I realize he's serious and it isn't a cartoon.

[x626xBlack 0]

Obama threw his pitch at Copenhagen this morning 530 am out time. His speech was the usual yada yada.. However one thing did strike me as ironic. He used the word "Transparency"/"Transparent" 4-5 times.

 

Ummm

 

This is not an exact quote but what I can remember from one of his lines.

 

"I do not understand how there can be an International agreement with out there being transparency so everyone knows how is everyone is doing to keep their promise."

 

President Obama. I ask you. Why does the below quote not pertain to your presidency in the United States of America. With out the transparency you promised us in your election campaign, are your words not just empty words?

 

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

President Obama, please use your own CLEAR FORMULA when handling matters of your own country.

Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula –

This is not an exact quote. I know he used the transparent word more than two times and i remember a few other lines what are not in here.

I was just able to find a transcript so you can see what i am referring to. Also you can see Greeninc left some things out.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/president-obamas-climate-speech/

 

 

I found the quote

President Obama. Why are you not following your own words in regards to Health Care? Why are there a small number of men locked in a room handling our health care. If it is passed is that not a hollow victory?

"I don't know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and making sure we are meeting our commitments," Obama said. "That doesn't make sense. It would be a hollow victory."

Apparently the Denver Channel heard things The New York Times and GREENInc did not

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/weather/22002661/detail.html

[HedonisticRush 0]

I don't think environmental wackjobs would approve of dumping a ton of radioactive waste in the deep ocean, however good of an idea it is.

 

Ok...Mr. Plutonium scare....there's been what...300/400/500? above ground nuclear weapon tests? The Chernobyl reactors were designed to produce power and weapons grade plutonium and one of them melted down. I'm still waiting for a a couple billion people to die from the fallout. While I do agree that launch reliability is not nearly good enough to bother risk throwing up a ton of radioactive waste. Also, the quantity of the waste wouldn't make this plan cost effective. Put the stuff in Yucca something similar or when the technology is available bury the stuff DEEP as in kilometers deep. Problem solved.

 

It would be odd to divvy it up into micron amounts and administer it as such as well. Just saying the stuff is way worse than all the leaded toys in china combined. A plus is that plutonium reacts quickly with oxygen making it not soluble in water (not for long). A lot of animals flourished when the Chernobyl site was made off limits. So yes we are more dangerous than reactors blowing apparently.

 

But what I was commenting on was 2000 Kg of MOX (that's a fucking huge amount) in a rocket to the moon blowing up. That is not a fun thing for anything to deal with. No bomb big enough or land based reactor could spread it as well or as much as a rocket failing in mid-flight. It is also illegal in Canada to transport such things by air for that reason.