Politics Junky

Jake, I do hope President Obama can do something about it.

Actually, what I hope is that government can provide incentives for private companies to take the initiative and investors to create new green/renewable industries.

What "always ceases to amaze me" are the virulent enemies who paint themselves "skeptics" on these issues. Why not just wear a sign on your back that says "corporate boot licker?" Even if the fucking data is "exaggerated," what the hell is wrong with you? It's like doctors who have no trouble pumping people full of pharmaceutical goodies, but who profess scientific detachment about simple nutrion and natural supplements' effects on health.

"Is there any chance the federal goverment will actually be able to solve this problem?"

Haha, no.

Man, I knew GloNo's political stuff would be funny, but this is priceless!

Yes, of course it's possible. They just need to act instead of being lazy, like they are currently doing. They could easily solve this problem, but no one is doing anything about it.

This is interesting, as is the fact that his Obama 08 site mentions his support for research that could turn Illinois coal into fuel for cars and trucks.

MR OBAMA, GLOBAL WARMING?

GLOBAL WARMING or GLOBAL COOLING?

By: Angelos Backus

Only a moron would have an answer!

Most likely it is the same moron that will make the claim that they know which came first: the Chicken or the Egg? all without asking about the role of the rooster!

INTRODUCTION

It is embarrassing to constantly read about or hear educated politicians, news reporters, news commentators, quack scientists, and even a past Vice President of the United States making claims that the planet Earth is undergoing a period of global warming or global cooling. It is especially disturbing when these claims are made without first offering any logical scientific or mathematical evidence. Listening to some of these unsubstantiated statements, I can’t help myself from wondering what century we live in. Is it during the life of Aesop, where we were governing our thoughts by Aesop’s fable The Wind and the Sun or maybe during the eighteenth century and The Caloric Theory?

If this is indeed the twenty-first century, then we must be aware of the historic Brownian Movement and the advancement of Dalton’s molecular and atomic theory, which led to the conciliation that all matter is composed of molecules.

THE PROBLEM

There is one overriding problem now surrounding the global warming/global cooling debate. It is this problem that is arguably causing much of the overwhelming confusion among the public. Simply stated, the central problem is that both the interested and disinterested parties to the debate have no solid or tangible scientific and mathematical understanding of what temperature and heat actually are.

Obviously, most anyone can provide a definition of the words temperature and heat. A normal person would define the word heat as how hot something is or feels. That same person would likely define temperature in mostly the identical way. While those definitions sound logical and correct, they are in fact complete misrepresentations of what temperature and heat are in a scientific and mathematical sense.

Unfortunately, in our society, the social and educational systems do not work to provide their students with the correct understanding of how the living world truly operates. Our societal and educational systems would rather have students memorize a basic and uninvolved definition, and then force this definition to be regurgitated, all for the quest to earn a phony grade. Thus, students are not inspired to actually think what the meanings are behind the words like temperature and heat. Instead, because the teachers, school faculty, and politicians are more concerned with making money, they push students through school as quickly and as easily as possible.

The result stemming from having our educational and societal systems push students through school, is that students do not gain a true understanding of what the school subject matter actually is. More importantly, these corrupted systems fail to allow students to understand the true meanings and workings of the world in which they live. As already stated, the system would rather have students memorize a definition rather than allowing the students to discover and understand what the defined word actually is and what the defined word actually does. In plain terms, it is like putting the cart before the horse.

This lack of actual knowledge is a perpetuating problem and one that has contributed immensely to the many prevalent misconceptions surrounding the global warming/global cooling debate. Most of the scientists, politicians, professors, and reporters discussing this environmental debate are victims of our societal shortcomings. These experts are causing undue panic and confusion all over the world and are doing so in a reckless manner. These parties need to seek clarification on the subjects they are speaking of because MOST OF THEM HAVE NO TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!

WHAT HEAT AND TEMPERATURE REALLY MEAN

Temperature is the word that describes the method by which we can measure the height of a form of energy, but not the amount of that energy. The interesting fact about heat is that it is never fixed in any one particular form. Additionally, heat is always in a constant state of motion as it enters the Earth’s atmosphere from the Sun, as it leaves the Earth on its way to outer space, and as it changes the state of existing matter on Earth. Heat also is constantly moving when it is being converted to another form of energy, such as water vapor or plant and animal cell material.

Heat in transit is known as sensible heat and is heat that can be detected by the temperature method of thermometer measurement. However, because the Earth is round and rotates on its axis at an incredible speed, there is a constant potential difference of temperature level at all times. Therefore, heat is directed in every possible direction in an attempt for it to reach one constant level. This characteristic of heat is what contributes to the formation of rain, snow, or hail (sublimation) due to the voids of equal heat levels existing throughout the atmosphere. Like the changing levels of ocean tides and waves, the heat levels are constantly changing.

In addition, how in the name of science can anyone make a determination whether the Earth is gaining heat or losing heat by the use of a thermometer (temperature scale) reading? How is it possible to obtain the Earth’s heat content by measuring the height of sensible (unused) heat, where the Earth’s heat content is converted into latent heat and cannot be read by a temperature (thermometer) scale!

The hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 136 degrees Fahrenheit in Al Aziziyah, Libya on September 13, 1922. The second-highest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 134 degrees Fahrenheit in Death Valley, California in 1913. Does that mean that the Moon is hotter than the Earth? Certainly not, for the Moon ranges from daytime highs of about 265 degrees Fahrenheit to nighttime lows of about -170 degrees Fahrenheit.

UNPROVEN THEORIES

Many unproven theories surround this debate. One such unproven theory involves the existence of man-made gases in the Earth’s atmosphere (vapor state). It is forgotten that gases are unstable vapors and the slightest change of the latent heat will cause a change in state. In turn, this change will cause the gases to return to liquid form. Moreover, our modern society is causing heat transmission from the Sun to be slowed down or reflected back to space. The overall result stemming from the potential difference of heat between the Sun and the Earth is that engineered gases will slow down the movement of heat in our atmosphere. Therefore, with the movement of heat being restricted, the existence of a long-term global cooling theory can be supported as existing in our atmosphere.

This theory of global cooling becomes clearly probable when analyzing the physical actions using a simple visual demonstration. Imagine a bucket that is placed under a flow of running water. Now imagine that a water-deflector is placed in between the water source and the bucket. Do we know what the ratio of gains and losses will be as a result of potential difference of intensity between Object One and Object Two (i.e., Sun to Earth)?

And as in another example, the Ocean’s level in relation to the polar ice caps. If we use a glass pitcher with water and on the outside of the pitcher mark the water level with a marker, then place an uncracked raw egg in that water. We will quickly see that the water level has risen! The egg will be 90% immersed in the water, only about 10% of the egg will be above the water level, similar to that if a piece of ice was put in water. After the water level in the pitcher with the egg has equalized, we will now put a mark at that level. If we break the egg and drop the total substance of the egg in the pitcher, what will the water level be now?

CONCLUSION

To those who advocate the theories of either global warming or global cooling, on what did they base their conclusions and viewpoints? What evidence have they found after thoroughly investigating the critical subjects and concepts I have outlined below?

It must be understood that no substantive conclusions surrounding this debate can be reached without first determining the answers to the following questions:

What exactly is matter?

What is energy?

What is the basic energy on Earth?

What is the name of the Earth’s basic energy?

What are the sources of basic energy?

Why are all other forms of energy derived from the basic energy?

What effect does basic energy have on matter?

What is sensible heat?

What is latent heat?

What is specific heat?

What is super heat?

What is subcooling?

What is saturation?

What is the first conservation law of thermodynamics?

What is the second conservation law of thermodynamics?

What are the effects of potential difference?

What are the three methods of heat movement?

What are the three states of matter?

What influences the three states of matter?

What is Absolute Zero?

What effect does the level Absolute Zero have on matter?

How do we measure the quantity of heat energy?

How do we measure the level (intensity) of heat?

Which form of energy do we use as a standard to measure the specific heat of all forms of energy?

What is Temperature, and what does it represent?

What are the differences between the concepts of heat and temperature?

What is diffusion?

What percentage of the Earth’s waters make up the polar ice caps?

What effect does the weight of the polar ice caps have on the level of the Earth’s oceans?

What percentage of the polar ice caps is part of the ocean levels?

What happens to the ocean levels when the polar ice caps melt, and their weight decreases?

What percentage of land erosion is deposited in the oceans daily?

What effect does the daily land erosion of the Earth have on the oceans’ level?

What percentage of the total Earth contents as in solid, liquid, and vapor states 50 years ago?

What changes have occurred in the Earth’s states 50 years later?

What was the Earth’s vapor state diameter 50 years ago? What is it 50 years later?

What was the atmospheric pressure at ground level 50 years ago? What is it 50 years later?

How many total units of heat energy are required to be converted into latent heat from the creation of one cubic foot of rain, and how many for the creation of a cubic foot of snow?

How many tons of latent heat did the planet Earth contain 50 years ago? How many 50 years later?

How much of the Earth’s totals latent heat was distributed among the solid, liquid, and vapor states of the Earth 50 years ago? How does this vary 50 years later?

These are only a few of the subjects and concepts that need to be thoroughly investigated. These alone cannot determine the loss or gain of heat content on Earth. Many other questions also need to be investigated before a conclusion can be drawn. That is the reason to keep politics and ignorance out of the debate, so the scientific body can do its work without any undue pressure.

Hi Angelos,

You are an ignorant dipshit. People like you are like Nero fiddling while Rome burned around him.

The issue has been settled - global warming is real, and it is human-induced. Check out the reports from the IPCC. Thousands of reputable scientists around the world contributed to it, and their conclusions are stark: we have only a few years to take drastic action to ensure (if we're luck) that future generations inherit a livable planet. Crawl out of the fantasy world you live in, join us in the real world, or shut the fuck up.

MIKE,
Please have one of those reputable scientists of yours, write to me and dispute my questions on the subject, better yet have Al Gore call me!

thats pretty much true I think. Has anyone ever heard that the world is to go under a incredible change in 2012? Maybe thats what they mean?

Angelos,

You and the rest of the global warming deniers already lost the argument. If you want refutation of your lunatic ranting, take the time to read all 4 of the IPCC reports. Take your serial/spam posting elsewhere, monkey boy.

Everyone can start helping the enviornment by using enviornmentally safe cleaning products, light bulbs, paint. Turn off all of the energy sources in you home when not in use, try sing less water like when you brush your teeth turn off the water while brushing.
Just some free advice for you for a beer enviornment.

Mike,
You are right. Obviously some people on here see global as such a huge problem that they try and convince themselves that it is not real.

Mike

I think what you do not realize is that you and your "believers" are the old version of the "world is flat". As we found out, the world is not in "fact" flat. It is a wonderfully round, spherical shape. Maybe you should open your narrow mind to the opinions of others who clearly understand the complex nature of the problem. This is way above the IQ of Al G to trust his opinion alone.

u suk mah big balls

I love it. This is the thread that won't die. Mic dik's comments are particularly insightful.

- I think what you do not realize is that you and your "believers" are the old version of the "world is flat".

Look in the mirror. At least that's flat.

I'm waiting for one, just one, global warming denier to explain how it is that the thousands of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gasses that humans the world over spew into the atmosphere every day have absolutely zero effect on the environment.

Also, I don't think Angelos is an ignorant dipshit, but he could probably find answers to most or all of his list of question if he took the time. While he's doing his research, however, the polar ice will continue to melt. That it is melting is undeniable. There may be too many variables to accurately predict what that exactly means for different regions of the world (some may get hotter, some may get cooler, at least breifly, as all of that cold water is introduced into the oceans' currents), but in any event, it looks like humanity is in for dramatic changes to life as we know it.

Who gives a shit? Bring on the Global Warming. Whatever. If a less expensive form of fuel comes into effective use, then that would be great. That should be a priority with or without "Global Warming".

Nikki,

Who gives a shit? Are you serious? Whatever, la-de-da...

There's a hell of a lot more at stake than fuel costs, but your home-school curriculum probably didn't cover that.

Sorry, Jude. I didn't eat up the crap my professors and media tried to throw down my throat. Maybe you should try using your brain instead of being a carbon copy Global Warming junkie.

Nikki,

"I didn't eat up the crap my professors and media tried to throw down my throat." (So, was I right about the home-schooling? Never mind that the whole point of going to school is to learn from people who know more than you do, not to have your preconceived misinformed opinions reinforced.)

Do you disagree with expert analysis of the global warming issue because you were born with so much more knowledge than everybody else? Since you know so much more than your professors, please take up the challenge that I posed up-thread to all of the global warming deniers:

"I'm waiting for one, just one, global warming denier to explain how it is that the thousands of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gasses that humans the world over spew into the atmosphere every day have absolutely zero effect on the environment."

I eagerly await your proven, scientific explanation. Please, bring us all into the light.

What scares me are long-winded, self-centered posts like that of Angelos. He tries so hard to sound like he knows what he's talking about, but all he reveals is his own ignorance and that he has an axe to grind with reality. He doesn't want to know what's going on. He prefers to play the word game. This pathetic fool could give a 24 hour speech on how 2+2=7. Angelos - time to stop masterbating to pictures of yourself.

Exactly, Eric. Angelos needed to show us that he reads science books and knows all the terms and definitions. He avoided the entire issue and made a lot of noise. Don't waste your breath on this dork.

you stink

fuck fuck fuck

I am not raised