Academia, Bizarre, Environment, Media, Politics, Society

One Hundred and Twenty Percent of People Can’t Be Wrong: Fox News Shows People Are Dubious About the Accuracy of Global Warming Science With a Poll of 120 Percent of People

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

1,528 thoughts on “One Hundred and Twenty Percent of People Can’t Be Wrong: Fox News Shows People Are Dubious About the Accuracy of Global Warming Science With a Poll of 120 Percent of People”

  1. This one is just for fun. I want to see Slarti apply his “conservation of energy”. We’ll call this an isolated system. :>)

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LudNqf56AFo&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

  4. Here’s a bio on Steven Jones.

    Jones earned his bachelor’s degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

  9. Bob,

    I’m not really sure what studies Slarti has been willing to accept. All I know is that he thinks the mass (which was demonstrated in the video below to be leaving the scene) remained available to do work. Not only does the “system” lose mass, it also loses energy.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7g9XZB3yrY&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

  11. Slarti,

    Regarding this post:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical/#comment-103456

    Consider if you will the following:

    If the goal of Al Qaeda (with our without the assistance of inside help) was to take down the towers, wouldn’t the plane impacts provide a perfect diversion from those explosions taking place in the basements and lower floors? This is what bothered me about the removal of all evidence from the crime scene; long before all the other nonsensical crap making me skeptical of any ‘official story’ came out.

    Finally, your contention that the progressive collapse of the building at free fall speed brought down the core without the aid of any cutting forces violates the law of contradiction; the law of contradiction being used by analogy in this situation. The things that are allegedly failing via the failure of those bolts that were allegedly weakened sufficiently by the heat were connected to, by necessity, SOMETHING STRONGER–else they wouldn’t do the job they were designed to do.

  15. Slarti: “Not only are you misrepresenting my analysis (I begin my analysis with 400 GJ of GPE in the WTC on 9/10/01), but in suggesting that I use the heat in the rubble to work backwards to the GPE of the WTC”

    Your exact words: “So how much kinetic energy was in the rubble the instant before impact? The gravitational potential energy of one of the twin towers is estimated at 500 billion joules. If the towers had fallen at free fall speed, all of this gravitational energy would have been converted into kinetic energy. Assuming that the towers fell in 6.6 seconds and free fall took 6 seconds gives us a free fall speed of 60 m/s and a terminal velocity of 54 m/s for the rubble. Using the fact that kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity (KE = 1/2 m v^2), we calculate that the rubble retained 82.6% of the original gravitational potential energy as kinetic energy the moment before impact. This implies that 400 billion joules of kinetic energy were transformed into other types of energy at the moment of impact.”

    See that? “we calculate that the rubble contained 82.6% of the original gravitational potential energy as kinetic energy before impact”

    You started with the rubble and worked your way back to the 17.4% Work.

    You did it again here:

    “I calculated that 17.4% of the original gravitational potential energy went into collapsing and pulverizing the building. [aka WORK] Some of this energy left the system via particles in the pyroclastic flow. The rest of it remained in the debris as heat (I didn’t include this energy in my analysis – effectively assuming that all of this energy left in the pyroclastic flow). Consider an imaginary box that completely contains the WTC (from the subbasement to the tip of the radio masts). Initially, this box contains approximately one trillion joules of gravitational potential energy. All of this energy either remains in the box or is transferred out of the box – I have kept track of the energy that stayed in the box and estimated that enough of it was converted into heat to liquify approximately 1,000 metric tons of iron at room temperature. I have not in any way violated the law of conservation of energy.”

    And you didn’t engage in the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc here how??

    Slarti: “re conservation of energy and closed systems. I defined the closed system to be the universe as there are no energy flows into or out of the universe (by definition), thus it is clearly a closed system. Neither Bob nor Robert can tell me where the KE goes when the rubble hits the ground in this system either.”

    That’s about as meaningful for our purposes as subtracting infinity from infinity; i.e. you’ve defined the object of your analysis in such an ‘all inclusive way’ as to define it out of meaningful existence.

    Here’s another vague statement:

    Slarti: “*The 17.4% drop from the gravitational potential energy to the kinetic energy before impact is the energy that went into pulverizing and accelerating the debris, it remained in the debris as thermal energy. This source of heat is neglected in the analysis.”

    Work is NOT heat! Work may create heat as a frictional byproduct, but it is not heat. Accordingly WORK does not ‘remain in the debris as thermal energy.’

    Do you also see the problem your GENEROUS assumption regarding the thermal energy ‘naturally’ residing in the debris determining the amount of work required to tear down the building?

    Ask yourself this: How many buildings are able to stand with an 82.6% GPE to 17.4% opposing force construction? Hard to picture isn’t it? Imagine a building with the first few floors created out of balsa wood and the remaining floors created out of lead. Silly? Perhaps, but that’s exactly how your theory, DEMANDING the existence of FREE WORK, comes across as.

    Thus the reason I said, in so many different ways:
    “So 17.4% of the total GPE, i.e. that representing the existence (mass, height (& g)) of the entire building, was capable of shredding said entire building? That’s all the Work that was required to create the pile of rubble? Tell me, other than wishful thinking, what forces were holding up the building for the thirty years of its existence and where did they go on 9/11? And given this oddly excessive amount of free Ke, why don’t your calculations support the theory of controlled demolition? If demolition devices weren’t removing the supports (i.e. forces opposing collapse) of the building, then how did it fall at near free fall speed?”

    Do you really contend there were no shearing forces necessary to bring down the 47 Column core?

    Me w/ your bracketed notations: “Yet we know, in the absence of CD, the law of conservation of mass does not allow for the instantaneous disappearance of a single floor’s worth of perimeter steel as well as a single floor’s height section of the 47 steel column core. [As I’ve said, I find progressive failure the most reasonable mechanism to initiate the collapse.] And ASSUMING that Elfin magic (I like Keebler elves better than Tolkien elves; despite the hype created by Leonard Nimoy’s music video about Bilbo Baggins) [The man created the elven language. You have to give him props for doing something so completely geeky and pointless. And would you please post a link to said video.] did kick in, i.e. removing the law of conservation of mass and allowing for an approximately 12 foot free fall of the 30 story structure; WOULD EVEN THAT BE SUFFICIENT TO SHRED THE 47 COLUMN CORE? [Yes. It probably didn’t really start to shred until it got going, but it was enough to cause the structure of the first few floors to fail and quickly became strong enough to easily shred (it took an average of 1/20th of a second to tear loose each floor – it would have been slower in the beginning and faster as it neared the end).]

    No Slarti, the core was an independent structure that, in the absence of shearing forces which a vertical collapse does not account for, would have been left standing like a spindle on a 45 record player.

  16. Slarti decided to quote Pierre Sprey. Let’s examine what Pierre said, and see if it holds up.

    Who is Pierre Sprey? Is he a demolition expert? No. He designed airplanes. What makes him an expert on where charges should be placed? Nothing.

    And these comments from Pierre Sprey:

    “There is not the slightest need to postulate pre-placed explosive charges to explain why the towers collapsed at near free fall speeds. Let me note a few practical aspects of explosive demolitions that make the explosive charge hypothesis improbable to the point of absurdity:

    1. Any demolitions expert concocting a plan to hit a tall building with an airplane and then use pre-placed explosives to UNDETECTABLY ensure the collapse of the building would never place the explosives 20, 30 and 60 floors below the impact point. Obviously, he would put the explosives on one or more floors as close as possible to the planned impact level.

    –Pierre ASSUMES that those who flew the planes into the building and those who may have installed a means of collapsing the building were working together, but presents nothing to link them together. Pierre then goes on to make a statement without supporting it. Did anyone think to ask the OBVIOUS question of why?

    2. It is inconceivable that our demolitions expert would time his surreptitious explosions to occur HOURS after the aircraft impact. He couldn’t possibly be absolutely certain that the impact fires would even last an hour. Quite the opposite: to mask the booster explosions, he’d time them to follow right on the heels of the impact.

    Again, Pierre ties the explosions to the attackers without support. Is he trying to sell something? Who said that the collapse explosions were intended to be hidden?

    3. To ensure collapse of a major building requires very sizable demolition charges, charges that are large enough to do a lot more than emit the “puffs of smoke” cited as evidence for the explosives hypothesis. I’ve seen both live and filmed explosive building demolitions. Each explosion is accompanied by a very visible shower of heavy rubble and a dense cloud of smoke and dust. Just that fact alone makes the explosives hypothesis untenable; no demolitions expert in the world would be willing to promise his client that he could bring down a tall building with explosions guaranteed to be indistinguishable from the effects of an aircraft impact.”

    Again, Pierre is trying to claim that the explosions were meant to be hidden. Why? It gets better. Pierre claims that the explosions must be very visible and would emit “visible shower of heavy rubble and a dense cloud of smoke”

    Pierre, Watch this video, and tell me about the shower of heavy rubble and the dense cloud of smoke caused by the explosions.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

  18. Slarti,

    How did the top half of the building accelerate to 32m/sec? The first impact would have been with the floor below, and it happened in less than a second. It took less than 14 seconds for it to happen 75 times. The top section probably took about .5 seconds to hit the floor below. This is hardly enough time to accelerate to 32m/sec. The top section was probably traveling at about 2 m/sec when it struck the floor below.

    A story (floor) is about 10 ft. (3 meters)

  19. Slarti,

    Watch this video of the impact of the jet on WTC2. Look at the fireball. How much energy was used to create the fireball and where did all of that energy end up? Why do the fireball, and subsequent cloud, go up? Look at the distance the debris traveled. How much energy was used to send all of that debris flying?

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

  20. “It was an (obviously unsuccessful) attempt to convince you that the law of conservation of energy can be applied (since it obviously can be applied to the universe as a whole). And no, I didn’t see it in Wikipedia, I thought it up all on my own (although it is a standard technique).”

    You thought it up on your own (although i is a standard technique)????

    Please provide a reference to an accepted work of an event that took place on earth where the universe was considered to be the isolated system for the purposes of energy conservation. Just one will do.

Comments are closed.