We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
As long as we’re changing topics, I’ll weigh in on the current discussion.
In 1993 an attempt was made to take out the footings of one of the WTC towers. Thankfully, it was unsuccessful. What would be the damage and loss of life had the footings been taken out and the 1400 ft tall building fell over in downtown Manhatten?
Not only would the building have been destroyed, but it would have also destroyed but the collateral damage to buildings and infrastructure for about five city blicks would have been destroyed. That doesn’t take into account the additional loss of life within the “crash zone”.
Do you think the city, state, and federal government didn’t explore the “what ifs”? They must have. To not recognize the potential damage caused, not only to the WTC, but the surrounding area would be unbelievable. After recognizing this they had to do something about it. Placing thermite and charges capable of taking the building down within its own footprint would have been a reasonable solution. If the building tilted too far, it would initiate automatically. Look at the video of WTC #2. The top tilts, and the controlled demolition initiates.
Byron: “There was just too much destruction of the main support members and the additional thermal stresses in the remaining steel put to much stress in those members leading to the collapse.
I know you don’t think so, but my understanding of building systems leads me to that conclusion. I may be guilty of group think as well.”
Per the History channel and others like it, I no longer see them as ‘educational’ — not since they’ve been showcasing series about UFO’s and haunted houses, etc., etc.
Per the Towers, you may want to investigate it for yourself. With 47 vertical steel columns at the core of the buildings, none of which were compromised below the points of impact of the planes, I’m at a loss as to how 1)the South Tower fell first, when the plane blew most of its jet fuel while missing the core columns and creating a fireball upon exit; and 2) how either of them fell at free fall speed, down a path of increasing resistance (the columns). Three perfectly symmetrical collapses of steel buildings on the same day, when in the history of mankind no steel building had ever collapsed due to fire until that day; not to mention building 7 having not been hit by a plane (as if that mattered, structurally, to the portion of the building supporting the plane wreck).
On its face, Ockham’s razor demands the postulation of another entity to explain the contradictions.
And that’s my 2 cents.
Bob Esq:
“I think it would take me about six months to a year to get myself back up to speed with college level Physics I & II and three levels of Calculus just to approach your understanding of the topics; but my intuition and comprehension of the basics have served me well so far.”
I need to go back and review myself, most of what I do is statics and strength of materials. Pretty simple stuff really. F=ma can be applied only so many ways.
We never did finish our discussion on the Towers. I saw a couple of history channel programs that had a pro/con set-up. Rather interesting. The people that thought the towers had been destroyed by planes set up all of these field experiments and the cons dissected them and gave their thoughts as to why they thought the experiment did or did not hold water.
Honestly, I wasn’t sure the pros had proven their points, but I also thought the cons had not really debunked the experiments. I came away thinking what I thought before. It might be possible that it was controlled demolition but highly unlikely.
There was just too much destruction of the main support members and the additional thermal stresses in the remaining steel put to much stress in those members leading to the collapse.
I know you don’t think so, but my understanding of building systems leads me to that conclusion. I may be guilty of group think as well.
Bob, Buddha, Byron, etc.
I was going to weight in on the electrocution issue, but Medic!! did a better job of clarifying things (and adding additional information) than I could have, so I’ll just get to answering Byron’s post from last night. Just to emphasize, if a current on the order of 100 milliamps goes through your heart, it will disrupt the electrical system which makes your heart beat (which is fascinating, by the way) and stands a good chance of killing you.
Byron,
First off, I do not think that word means what you think it means…
e⋅pis⋅te⋅mol⋅o⋅gy [i-pis-tuh-mol-uh-jee] –noun
a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.
Origin: 1855–60; < Gk epistm(ē) knowledge + -o- + -logy
You said:
"I cant rebut your argument, our epistemologies are different. And that, I think is why people who believe in government and people who believe in free markets will never see eye to eye on anything. My world is green, your world is blue and neither one of us can see yellow."
I have to disagree with you here, the only condition which precludes debate is if you agree with me (which I'm pretty sure isn't happening ;-)). If you don't agree with my conclusion (taxing companies who pollute is an appropriate policy from both a pragmatic -it's an effective way to produce a result – and a moral – the result produced is a desirable one – point of view) then there are several options available to you:
1) Attack my premises – there is no (or very little) cost for companies to pollute and companies can increase profits if they pollute. (Don't suggest you try this one, I'm on very solid ground here.)
2) Refute my argument – in light of (1), taxing corporate pollution is an effective policy for producing results (eliminating pollution, forcing the development of green technology, and providing a short-term income stream) and these results are desirable and appropriate public policy goals (I said that government, in fact, has a moral obligation to pursue this policy). There is a lot of ground here on which you may attack me (which will result in a response from me and hopefully a spirited debate in which forces both of use to sharpen our arguments and gain a better understanding of each other's positions – and it will be fun, too (at least I'm enough of a geek to think so)).
3) Leave me unopposed on the field of battle – a tacit admission that I am correct (this is what you seem to want to do and it's certainly your right to do so).
So let me know which option you'd care to take (or point out another option which I didn't consider). I would prefer it if you chose option 2 – I don't come to this blog to preach to the choir, I came looking for vigorous debate with people who have honest disagreements with me and are willing to engage rationally (well, that and to debunk the birthers – thanks Vince!). In any case, I've enjoyed our interaction so far and hope to continue it, thanks.
Tootie,
I'm preparing a response to your comment from last night, but this is already quite a long post, so I'll post it separately. And fair warning: As you will see, you touched a nerve with me and I strongly disagree with some of your statements on issues which are very personal to me. I mean you no disrespect and apologize in advance if I go over the top a bit.
Gretchen Carlson is an enigma, I think she must have either studied something easy at Stanford or she is playing the part of dumb blond as Stewart says.
Just Sayin: “Don’t worry about it, just know Buddah’s right and everybody else is wrong.
There are two types of people in this world, Buddah, and people who wish they could be him.”
Sorry, I like Buddha. I’m just F’n with him in more of a correcting his grammar just to piss him off kind of way.
Byron,
Yeah, but the thing about physics is it’s intuitive; mathematical confirmations of things you’d been observing since you were a kid. Maybe not so much the electro-magnetic or the lens formulas, but Newtonian physics? I’m pretty sure I learned the lessons of angular velocity and angular momentum with my attempts to build high structures with wooden building blocks. It always seemed to hurt more the further away I was from the structure when it fell on my head. lol
You know, having seen your web page this morning, I think I have a greater understanding as to why you couldn’t just laugh off those laws of physics that just happened to be deemed in abeyance on 9/11/01 (and through February of 2002 if you include the molten metal and the violation of such laws as thermal equilibrium.)
I think it would take me about six months to a year to get myself back up to speed with college level Physics I & II and three levels of Calculus just to approach your understanding of the topics; but my intuition and comprehension of the basics have served me well so far.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/when-120-makes-sense-fox-friends-defends-poll-display/#more-55071
BobEsq:
I was commenting on the Omega symbol, if I remember correctly it stands for Ohms = Voltage/Amps or some such thing. It has been over 20 years since I took circuits. And I dont use it. When I need to wire my house or kill someone with electricity, I call a professional electrician.
Byron: “that is all greek to me:)”
I’m sure it is.
All I said was that current does not kill without sufficient voltage and vice versa. Thus the reason a car battery, capable of TURNING OVER AN ENGINE, cannot kill you if you touch the terminals (ends of jumper cables) to your face. 12 volts ain’t enough voltage to get the current through.
Furthermore, all voltage and no current is equally innocuous.
Hasn’t anyone ever scared the shit out of someone with the jumper cable trick? It’s hilarious.
How did we go from 120% to 120 volts?
Death by electrocution or improper blood flow is the result of four factors Voltage, Amperage, Resistance, and Frequency.
We all know about why the electrocity killed the person whose body is burnt and smoking, so let’s look at the other stuff.
Impedance, the extension of resistance to A/C power, is a variable. The amount of current which passes through a body depends on the ratio of the voltage of the electricity to the resistance of your body. The smaller the resistance (or the larger the voltage), the more current passes through the body. A wet body has less resistance than a dry body, but is not necessarily more susceptible to death by electrocution. The body’s electrolytes can have a much greater effect. Those with flu-like symptoms generally have less resistance. If you’re feeling ill, it’s not a good time to play with electricity.
Most people are unaware the 60~ A/C power is the best frequency to stop the human heart. 50~ as used in Europe is not as efficient for stopping the heart, but does a better job at causing the heart to fibrillate.(uncontrollable twitching)
The most dangerous range of currents is from 0.1 to about 0.2 amps. Currents in this range can cause death by initiating fibrillation of the heart, which stops the regular flow of blood to the rest of the body. The human body is not very good at recovering from fibrillation on its own. This can result in death. Currents much above 0.1 amp DO NOT result in fibrillation and instead stop the heart completely. If the duration of the current is short, the heart will usually start to beat by itself after the current is removed.
The path of current through a body also determines the magnitude of the effect. Current entering a body wants to travel a path of least resistance and exit through the part of the body touching the ground. Because the heart is on the left side of the body, touching a live wire with your left hand means that the shortest path to the ground involves passing through your heart. If current travels through the right side of the body, the current is less likely to affect the heart. (Leave the electrical work for the right-handed people.)
Don’t worry about it, just know Buddah’s right and everybody else is wrong.
There are two types of people in this world, Buddah, and people who wish they could be him.
Bob Esq:
that is all greek to me:)
Skin Resistance
The voltage necessary for electrocution depends on the current through the body and the duration of the current. Using Ohm’s law, VOLTAGE = Current × Resistance, we see that the current drawn depends on the resistance of the body. The resistance of our skin varies from person to person and fluctuates between different times of day. In general, dry skin is a poor conductor that may have a resistance of around 100,000 Ω, while broken or wet skin may have a resistance of around 1,000 Ω[4].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_shock
“do with it. The voltage”
Bob,
I fail to see what impedance has to do with it amperage. The voltage and the resistance of the path through the body determine the current. A current with less than a 100 mA is going to be uncomfortable but not per se life threatening. Anything over 100mA and you’re looking at effects that disruptions of your heartbeat or even cause your heart to seize. That’s not to mention the natty burns you’d be sporting. This is why stun guns can have stupid voltages, to help overcome any insulation, but most have less than 5mA.
Bob, no it is you that is wrong, Buddah never is, you should know that.
Buddha: “It’s the amperage that kills you. Voltage (up to a point) is harmless if there aren’t enough amps to shut down your heart or brain.”
Not correct.
Sufficient amps (current) & insufficient voltage (pressure): I can put jumper cables on a fresh battery (with 600 cold crank amps) and take the other ends and touch them to my face without getting a shock because 12 volts is not enough to break through the insulation provided by the skin. That requires approximately 60 volts.
insufficient amps (current) & (more than) sufficient voltage (pressure): Witness the Tesla Coil.
P=IE Power = Amps x Volts
No I’ll call I really hate e-mail and text. Hang in there I have to go outside to talk.