Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
This solution is...
Right. 11%
Completely right. 11%
So very, VERY right. 33%
Left. 33%
Adequate. 11%

Votes: 9

 Global Warming: A Proactive Solution (Part 2 of 2)

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Sep 01, 2001
As I fully expected when I understook the task of writing a scientific essay for America's most controversial Weblog, reaction to the first part of my controversial essay Global Warming: A Proactive Solution was strong and varied. Exactly as I predicted, Liberals and Conservatives were both harshly critical of the piece, with the Liberals ranting that the essay was far too Conservative and the Conservatives believing that the essay was a piece of Liberal propoganda. This proves quite clearly one of the first points I made in Part 1: that the fracturization of the political landscape into warring camps is ultimately counterproductive and leads otherwise rational people to behave as political demagogues enslaved to their particular Zeitgeist rather than acting together in unity with the rest of humanity to solve the serious problems facing the world here in the first year of the 21st century.

I was not expecting, though, to have to deal with the number of mail bombings, death threats, harassing messages over ICQ, and harassing phone calls that I received over the past 36 hours. I knew that many people would disagree with my message, but it was silly of me to believe that those people would have the capacity to react to something they disagree with in a way that's tactful, productive, or even legal.

In addition to those who were merely fearful of my message of unity, there were several self-proclaimed "scientists" and "intellectuals" who challenged my well-researched scientific facts. Although many of these people were deliberately posting misinformation in order to cause trouble (such as those posting fake definitions of "aerobic" and "anaerobic" with the words reversed), some wrote some genuine, although often misinformed, critiques of the work. I spent a great deal of time researching each of the objections that was raised to determine which of them had merit and which did not, and my first objective here in Part 2 is to deal with those objections one by one before I proceed to the plan itself.

More stories about Future
Milosevic, Sovereignty, and the War against Terrorism
Using the Myers-Briggs System for a Better Society
Real Men use Realdolls?
2001: A Historical Odyssey
A final solution to the problem of Evil
C++ Should Be The Only Programming Language

More stories by
Craig McPherson

Global Warming: A Proactive Solution (Part 1 of 2)

A general note to all the scientific "elites" who hold themselves above other people: your college degree does not make you better than other people. It does not mean you corner the market on truth. Just as Adequacy's Building Your Dream PC (which was a VERY helpful article intended to cut through all the technobabble and elitism and geek clique-ness) prompted a mountain of responses from pseduo-intellectual "Information Technology Professionals" telling the author how absolutely wrong he was about every tiny detail, so the same happened with my article. The "intellectuals" grew jealous about someone trying to bring their "exclusive knowledge" to the masses. With DMG's article, he was trying to bring PC building (formerly an "only for us!" hobby among elitist geeks) to normal people who have a life in the outside world, while my attempts to bring some scientific knowledge to normal people with real jobs and real lives who don't wear pocket protectors and run Communist OS's. This prompted outraged response from the scientific elites who were threatened that the scientific establishment's stranglehold on science might be cast into doubt. It's time for the elitism in the world to be torn down bit by bit. And if I get a few details wrong here and there, or forget to explain that the third coefficient of Martin's Conjectural Gravitational Formula has no positive cubic root over the domain where energy output is inversely proportional to the negative cotangent of the displacement triangle, it's because I'm writing for normal people who don't need to know every detail, they just need to know what's going on.

I believe that once I present the details of my plan, everybody who insulted me for getting one or two chemical formulas wrong is going to be feeling a little bit bad for having insulted the guy who disproved the Global Warming threat.

I will go ahead and correct a few specific errors I made, and respond to some of the other accusations that were made against me. I know that I'm not perfect. I did make several minor errors in my original essay. Although there weren't nearly as many as some critics would have had you believe, I do regret the errors I made, and I'm going to provide retractions for them now.

Logical Facilities: It turns out that I was in error about these. They're not actually called "Logical Facilities", they're really called "Logical Fallacies," and they're bad things, rather than good things as I originally stated. This was due to a simple misunderstanding during my research. The font size on one web site I visited was too small, and I misread "fallacies" as "facilities" and "they are to be avoided" as "they are to be avowed."

And to the person who called me "a [L]ibertarian whose first-year-philosophy-class ideals blind him to the fact that global warming will have huge impacts on the global environment and economy," I'll have you know that I am not a Libertarian with first-year-philosophy-class ideals. I dropped my first-year philosophy class because it was dumb.

Phrenology: I appreciate the (mostly) polite and friendly e-mails I have received from representatives of The North American Phrenology Consortium in the wake of my essay being mentioned on their weblog. The Phrenologists were quite eloquent and erudite in defending their science, and I'd like to issue a formal apology for lumping Phrenology in with the other junk sciences on my list. Although I'm still not convinced of the scientific accuracy of Phrenology, I now realize that there's room for ambiguity and disagreement on the subject.

And regarding the e-mail from the gentleman who told me I have the cranial curvature of an Italian Mafia goon with passive-aggressive tendencies, latent paedophilia, and a possible abnormal fixation with Volvos-- wow, that stuff really does work!

Mirrors coated with Ozone: Well, according to several websites, I was right about this, but in the name of scientific accuracy, I found an old handmirror and cracked it with a brick. I couldn't find any evidence of Ozone. Maybe I was wrong, or maybe there are just different kinds of mirrors.

Newton's Laws vs the Laws of Thermodynamics: I feel really bad about this one, because I consider Thermodynamics to be one of my major areas of expertise. This was a very bad typographical error on my part.

"Dealing with Depression" in New Hampshire: Your e-mail brought a tear to my eye. No, it's not wrong of you to avoid dating so soon after your terrible loss. Your friends are doing you a great disservice by not respecting your wishes in the matter. I'd suggest you steer clear of those friends and get involved with like-minded social groups in your area. You can't take away the pain or hide from it, but seeking out new hobbies and companions in life can help you to heal. It's normal to not want to seek out a new romantic relationship after such a tragic loss of your beloved, and you shouldn't do anything that feels wrong. You have to give yourself time to mourn. That may take a week or it may take a decade. In matters of the heart, your heart is the only guide. If in the future you do strike up a new relationship similar to your old one, get the goat vaccinated for Rabies early on to prevent this tragedy from happening again.

Now, on to some of the other critiques I have received:

Nitrogen is the inert buffer gas in our atmosphere. Oxygen is about 20%, and CO2 is less than 1%
This is why gaseous-state psychics is so complicated. When you say "how much" of a particular gas is in a mixture, there are several ways to measure that, and there are several complex factors involved. Different gasses have different densities, gas can compress into a very small volume or expand into a very large volume, etc. Depending on what measurement system you use, both the critic and I are correct. I should have made the ambiguity clear in my original article.
Nitrogen is used by every plant and animal on this planet. This should be obvious since it's a fertilizer.
I was referring not to various Nitrogen-based compounds, including the amino acids you mentioned, Nitrite, Nitrate, etc., but to elemental Nitrogen (N2). Yes, Nitrogen compounds are certainly important to life. I'd never say otherwise. But molecular Nitrogen certainly is not.
The Strong force is what holds together nuclei, not what causes chemical bonding. A description of what causes chemical bonding would take far too long, but the short version of it is: It arises only from the potential you would expect from Coulomb's law (the law which describes attraction of charges), and it's a quantum-mechanical consequence of solving the Schrodinger equation.
I won't dispute that this is correct if you define "Strong Force" the way you do. However, you may not be aware of recent developments in Quantum Gravitational Theory discoverd by researchers at Princeton University that tie certain manifestations of the Strong Force inextricably into the Schrodinger Equation in way that's far too complex to explain here. Just last week, the Nobel Institute called this discovery one of the most important steps toward a Unified Field Theory, so you may want to read up on it. Sorry if I jumped the gun a bit on that and didn't provide the correct background information.
Ionic bonding can be described as "stealing" electrons. Covalent bonding is "sharing", not stealing.
Once again, this is partially a matter of semantics. Over the past four years or so since the debut of Napster, the Slashdot crowd of anti-corporate pseduo-Libertarians wants us to believe that "stealing" should be referred to as "sharing." I don't by into the hype: if we're going to antropomorphise, I call co-valent bonding is "stealing" and ionic bonding is "commerce." Ionic bonding is "commerce" because one atom has something it needs to get rid of (one or more electrons in its outer valence), and another atom needs those electrons in order to complete its own outer valence. A fair exchange is made in which both atoms are enriched by making a fair exchange. In co-valent bonding, two or more atoms "communally own" one or more electrons. "Communal ownership" is one of the tenants of Communism, in which the public steals all private property "to serve the public good," and the cries of "information is owned by all of us" is the mating call of the sexually repressed Geeks who are trying to undermine intellectual property and put content producers out of business.
Water is not a form of oxygen. It contains oxygen. That is not the same thing as BEING oxygen.
You're absolutely right. I'm sorry if the wording I used in my essay made this unclear.
A greenhouse gas is one which has certain absorbance/emission properties when exposed to infrared radiation.
Of course greenhouse gasses absorb electromagnetic radiation in the infrared range. Otherwise the electromagnetic radiation would just pass through rather than being absorbed.
Some greenhouse gases exist which are not lighter than ozone.
If they're not lighter than Ozone, they won't rise above the Ozone in the atmosphere. Hence they won't be able to prevent the Ozone from reflecting (or as you put it, "absorbing") the electromagnetic radiation. I think you may want to think a little bit about the logic (or lack thereof) behind your statement.
and some gases which are lighter than ozone don't absorb radiation in the sun's wavelengths, and therefore don't cause emissions.
This is scientific elitism again. There's ALWAYS some substance that doesn't follow the rules. There's always an exception. There's no need to explicitly mention that fact, though. I think most people will know that already. We still say "anything with mass cannot travel at or beyond the speed of light," even 22 years after Fermilab proved the existence of the Tachyon, and we still speak of "centrifugal force" even though we now know it's only an abstraction.
Ozone does not absorb in the visible range
I know perfectly well where visible light and infrared radiation fall relative to each other on the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Some people will say that the word "light" refers only to the visible wavelengths, while some people will say that all electromagnetic radiation, even microwaves and radio signals, can be called "light." Again, pure semantics. I generally refer to visible radiation as well as infrared and ultraviolet radiation as "light," but that's purely a matter of opinion. Also, using terms like "visible range" smacks of Species Elitism. What we call "visible light" might be entirely invisible to the population of Alpha Centauri, who may very well be able to see only X-rays. We never know. "Visible" is merely a semantic name we give in order to make things easier on us, it in no way represents truth.
Algae is NOT a fungus!
That depends on how you define "fungus." Toxonomy is a science that's subject to much debate and elitism. I'd argue with you further about this, but you're too much of a fun guy.
The polar ice caps are HUGE
The reason you might think this is that you've been looking at maps, not globes. Trying to project an entire three-dimensional body onto a two-dimensional surface is a science in and of itself, and most maps are wildly inaccurate because of it. With most common projection methods, the shapes and sizes of objects near the equator are displayed fairly accurately, whereas the sizes of objects closer to the poles are often grossly exaggerated in size. Since the ice caps are located at the poles, they look gigantic on a map, and even globes distort their size to some degree because of the non-spherical shape of th Earth. In reality, the North Polar Ice Cap is about the size of Nebraska, and the South Polar Ice Cap is about the size of Texas or Australia.

(As an aside, some newer map-making projection systems that have recently been developed allow maps to be drawn that are more accurate than was ever before possible. However, people who see these maps often say they look unfamiliar, distored, or just "wrong." I think anything that makes Canda look smaller has my ringing endorsement.)
Ozone does NOT stand for "Oxygen Zone"
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it does. Thanks for playing.

I think I've covered most of the objections I've received in pretty good detail. Time for business.


First, I'll list all the some of the problems that this plan will solve, in order to give you a rough outline of how it's going to go.

Problems caused directly by Global Warming:

  • The polar ice caps will melt, causing the level of the ocean to rise to as high as twenty feet above sea level.

  • The earth's temperature will rise by as much as 10 degrees C, causing other, related problems.

    Other problems that are facing our world:

  • Deforestation and a decrease in the amount of plant life on Earth is projected to cause a shortage of Oxygen in the future.

  • Much of the planet is uninhabitable desert due to a lack of fresh water.

  • Many people in third-world countries are dying due to unavailability or uncleanliness of water in their area.

  • Star Ships and other advanced technologies that we build in the future will require a great deal of fuel.

  • There is not enough arable land in the world to produce enough food to feed the entire world's growing population -- some say this is false, but people are obviously starving to death.

  • The world needs alternative energy sources to replace the diminishing supply of fossil fuels.

    Now, the plan:

    STEP ONE: Desalinization Plants. "Desalinization" is the process of removing salt from ocean water to create clean, drinkable fresh water. The first step is to build lots and lots of Desalinization Plants on all the major coasts. The United States's President Bush is probably going to refer to "desalinization" as "desaltering", and since the United States is the only country with the economic resources and infrastructure to build the number of plants required, we'd better get used to that name. From here on out, I will refer to Desalinization Plants as Desalterizers.

    If you've ever played Maxis's fine simulation game Simcity 3000 Unlimited (or this version if you're one of the 57 people in the world using Lignux -- this is one of the 3 games that's available to you, published by a now-bankrupt company, so you're not getting any more), you'll know that there are three basic ways to get fresh water: drilling down to the water table (expensive and inefficient), building pumping stations near a body of fresh water, or using Desalterizers. Desalterizers are able to turn salty, poisonous ocean water into safe, pure Dihydrogen Monoxide in a clean and efficient manner. They're the key to this plan.

    STEP TWO: Melt the polar ice caps. This is going to happen anyway. All we have to do is wait. As the ice caps start to melt, the Liberal god "Gaia" will try to "punish humanity for not living in harmony with nature," but we'll have proven ourselves smarter than some metaphysical slut. We've got our Desalterizers, and as the ocean starts to rise, we simply turn them on.

    OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE STEP. Instead of relying on our Desalterizers alone, we can instead build pipelines directly from the poles inland. Since the ice caps are already fresh water (salt falls out of suspension when water freezes), we can simply pump water directly from the ice caps as they melt, before the newly-melted water mixes with the salty ocean.

    STEP THREE: What to do with the water. Remember when I mentioned that a large portion of the Earth's surface is useless desert? It doesn't take a Kreskin to predict the water's future. From our Desaltifiers and from our polar pipes, we channel the water into rivers that flow through the dessert. We build massive lakes in previously barren areas, we build massive subteranian pumping systems, and we engineer crosshatches of rivers that will result in every single square meter of the Earth's surface becoming arable land. Even already-arable land will benefit by having a couple new rivers run through them: more water is good for agriculture, for health, for sanitation, for industry, and for people.


  • Rising oceans.

  • World hunger.

  • Lack of access to drinking water.

  • Uninhabitable areas of the world.

    We may still have some melting polar caps left over once we do this, though. Let's be ambitious. Let's do more.

    STEP FOUR: Electrolysis. Electrolysis is the process of separating water into Molecular Oxygen and Molecular Hydrogen. Electrolysis is very simple: you pass an electrical current through water, and it separates into Oxygen and Hydrogen. I'm sure one of the "I'm a leet scientist dood" trolls will explain it in more detail in the comments, so I won't comment on the process further here.

    This will allow us to get rid of any water we have left over after step 3. We'll be left with huge supplies of pure Hydrogen and Oxygen.

    STEP FIVE: The new energy source. We have a bunch of new rivers. This next step is easy. To quote the Gnomish parable: "hydrodynamics!"

    So that our new rivers will flow naturally rather than having to be pumped, which would require more energy than it produced due to entropy, we will build giant mountains with bowl-shaped tops. The bowls will gather rain water, and water will flow from the bowl/mountains into our rivers, downhill, where our dams will produce energy thanks to our no-longer-misunderstood-friend, Gravity.

    I can't sketch out exactly how this will be done, but we'll find some scientists to work out the exact details. Just trust me on the concept.

    STEP SIX: What do so with the Hydrogen and Oxygen. Our Electrolysis plants left us with massive quantities of Oxygen and Hydrogen. Now we get to put it to use.

    The Oxygen is simple. We release it into the air to replace the Oxygen lost to deforestation. That's what we'll do with some of it, at least: with the rest, we can create more Ozone, and release that Ozone into the stratosphere to cool the world back down to its original temperatures.

    STEP SEVEN: The future is today.

    Today's Science Fiction is tomorrow's Science Fact.

    The Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual tells us plenty of things we can do with the Hydrogen.

    If I could find my copy of the Technical Manual, I would provide direct quotes, but I haven't seen it in years so I'll just have to go by memory.

    DEUTERIUM - Deuterium is an isotope of Hydrogen. In Star Trek, Deuterium is the fuel source for the matter/antimatter reactor aboard the Enterprise, which is responsible for not only warp travel, but for almost all power generation on the ship. We can turn our Hydrogen into Deuterium and start building Star Ships of our own.

    ANTIMATTER - The aforementioned matter/antimatter reactor, more commonly called the Warp Engine, is powered by the mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter, specifically Deuterium and Antideuterium. The Technical Manual describes how to turn matter into antimatter (there are schematics for a device but nobody has built one yet), but it's somewhat inefficient: ten parts matter transforms into one one part Antimatter. That's okay, though, because at low warp speeds, the Warp Intermix Ratio favors matter over antimatter. It's only at Warp 8 that a 1:1 annihilation ratio is required.

    On Star Trek, Dilithium Crystals are required in order to contain the matter/antimatter reactions. I won't go into how this works exactly because it's very complex and I don't remember it. In real life, we may not need anything like Dilithium at all: human ingenuity will find a way.

    WARP TRAVEL - Superluminal travel in Star Trek is dependant on the existance of Subspace. We don't know if Subspace exists in the real world, but many scientists have their own pet theories on how superluminal travel could be achieved, and if none of them work, we'll think of something else. We'll certainly have the energy required to move very, very fast thanks to our matter/antimatter drives.

    MATTER REPLICATION - The Technical Manual also has specifications for a matter replicator that can be used to create anything from a bottle of liquor to a weapon of mass destruction. What does it create this stuff out of? You guessed it: Hydrogen


  • Rising oceans.

  • World hunger.

  • Lack of access to drinking water.

  • Uninhabitable areas of the world.

  • Limited energy supply.

  • Temperature issues.

  • Dwindling oxygen supply.

  • Fuel required for high-tech goodies.

    All solved! I think we've about covered everything!

    STEP EIGHT: Interplanatary Exploration. The moon, the asteroid belt, and other extraterrestrial bodies, there's a lifetime supply of ever element, rock, metal, or mineral that we could possibly need to survive. There's even water, although I think we have enough of that for now. Once we start mining the asteroid belts, there literally nothing that can stop us or threaten our survival. Our galactic expansion will become exponential after that, as we eventually colonize the entire universe.

    What we do once the entire Universe is colonized is left as an exercise to the reader.


    Simple, yet elegant.

    The next time you see a Liberal crying "We're hurting Mother Gaia so we should all live in caves and eat nothing but berries and grass, and we should blow up all our cities and industry because civilization hurts Gaia," punch her in the face and show her this document.

    I'm always open to feedback that'll help me expand and improve my plan. If you have constructive feedback, please post it as a comment. The Adequacy editors did a very good job yesterday of deleting most of the trolls from Part 1, so if you're just planning on trolling, you can expect the same to happen to you. I expect I've placated all the serious naysayers, but I'm always open to critique.

    For a brighter future,



    You're doomed! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 01:53:29 AM PST
    I found an old handmirror and cracked it with a brick.

    You do realise that the going rate for a broken mirror is 7 years of bad luck, don't you?

    this article is tres, tres shoeboy (1.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 03:04:00 AM PST

    The Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual tells us plenty of things we can do with the Hydrogen.

    Heh. I was reminded of the striking similiarities between star trek and libertarian conventions. Ever see a libertarian pow-wow on CSPAN? Wacked.

    Do us all a favor (1.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 04:13:40 AM PST
    Please try this experiment on the planet you came from before trying it on the Earth.

    Hooked on Phonics should work for you (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 04:20:25 AM PST
    Ozone does NOT stand for "Oxygen Zone"

    According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it does. Thanks for playing.

    Ozone - German Ozon, from Greek ozon, neuter present participle of ozein, to smell. is not a valid source (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by bc on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 09:29:47 AM PST
    It is some cheap dotcom, and really best avoided. If I have to choose between the word of the Oxford English Dictionary, recognised for hundreds of years as the definitive guide to the English language, and some two bit commercial operation by slimy californians, I choose the former.

    ♥, bc.

    Dotcom or not (1.50 / 2) (#17)
    by twodot72 on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 09:43:28 AM PST uses (among others) The American Heritage and Webster's dictionaries as its source. Are their definitions invalid just because you got them through a "cheap dotcom"?

    The OED is the only source (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by bc on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 09:53:58 AM PST
    I have heard of this Websters before, and I have to say I am suspicious of the integrity of any dictionary that gives its content away for free. Unlike the OED, they have no tradition of scholarly investigation. The OED is the definitive dictionary, and in the dictionary world, that means a lot.

    American dictionaries tend to be dumbed down and lack proper methodology. I like Americans and America, they produce some wonderful popular culture, like 'Staying Alive' by the Bee Gees, and tend to be very open and honest, but when it comes to word definitions, Oxford is the only source. If it isn't in the OED, it's not a word.

    ♥, bc.

    Oxford? (1.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 12:32:12 PM PST
    Are you going to believe a bunch of Brits? My god, man, they have no idea why people should go to the dentist, refer to soccer as football, drive on the wrong side of the road, and eat things like Shepherd's Pie and Toad in the Hole. That is who you're going to believe? People who eat shepherds and toads? You are a sick man.

    I'll take an American dictionary any day over that British rubbish. And that Encyclopedia Britannica is just as big a bunch of tripe as their prissy Oxford dictionary.

    American Heritage is an oxymoron (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by iat on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 11:17:32 AM PST
    How can the United States, which is little more than a century old, have any heritage? The credibility of any dictionary that calls itself "American Heritage" must surely be questioned. The abundance of crazy space age spellings in USian "English", such as the preference for using "z" in place of "s" in many words, is evidence of USia's lack of expertise in linguistic matters.

    On the other hand, the Oxford English Dictionary invented the English language. As the copyright holders on the English language, whatever the OED says is, by definition, correct. The OED is therefore the only credible source of information on the English language.

    To answer your question: the definitions provided by other lesser dictionaries are invalid. - love it or leave it.

    History lesson (1.00 / 2) (#20)
    by twodot72 on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 12:14:47 PM PST
    How can the United States, which is little more than a century old, have any heritage?
    A little more than a century? 125 years more than a century to be precise. 225 years is more than plenty for a proper heritage. Especially for a country that has dominated the world for most of its existence.

    And by the way, using z instead of s just looks cooler, that's why.

    Now, what was this story about again....

    Underachievers (1.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 12:42:36 PM PST
    At one time, "the sun never set on the British Empire". Then they got a bit complacent. Suddenly, their colonies were kicking them out left and right. Now all they have is their small island to the north of world superpower and center of the cultural elite, France and a few other minor islands.

    England is a bunch of no good slackers. History proves this. How else could the unstoppable Imperial army of the 1770s go to America to subdue their colony and restore authority of the Crown only to have a pathetic ragtag army of malcontents hand their "arses" (a cheesy British word) to them. They could still be running the world, but they got lazy and were unceremoniously booted out of the seat of power. Why would I care about the dictionary of a bunch of tired, lazy, goodfornothings? They're so lazy, probably half of the definitions are wrong because the writers figured "ah that's good enough - time for some tea."

    Thank you! (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Craig McPherson on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 06:07:29 PM PST
    BC, you're once again a voice of reason. I get very annoyed by people continually quoting (and mis-quoting) these little children's dictionaries. "Merriam/Webster"? Webster was a known Socialist, so let's not even go there. "American Heritage"? Yes, let's trust an AMERICAN dictionary for help with the ENGLISH language.

    By yourself an OED, it has 20 times as many words.


    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    I think you have a great idea (1.00 / 2) (#10)
    by xopowo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 05:18:52 AM PST
    I knew someone would come up with a good use of seperating water into hydrogen and oxygen with an electrical current. I could only think of the explosive properties of the gases and my nieghbors loud stereo in the middle of the night.

    Oxygen is not explosive. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by iat on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 06:38:59 AM PST
    I knew someone would come up with a good use of seperating water into hydrogen and oxygen with an electrical current. I could only think of the explosive properties of the gases

    If oxygen was explosive, then there would be an explosion every time someone struck a match or lit a cigarette. Since "explosion" is just another name given to rapid oxidation, the very idea of oygen being oxidised is ridiculous. If oxygen could be oxidised, it would inevitably produce ozone (03 AKA oxygen oxide), which is nothing more than an absurd invention of the anti-capitalist environmental lobby. The existence of ozone as never been proven, since it is nothing more than an liberal myth!

    And any chemistry graduate will tell you that you cannot separate water into its constituent elements with an electric current. It is common knowledge that water is an electrical insulator, so any attempts to pass a current through it will be futile. "Electrolysis" of water simply results in a dielectric polarisation of water molecules. Any stories you hear about people being electrocuted by pouring water into electrical equipment are simply urban myths. There is no evidence to suggest than any of these "accidents" have ever occured. - love it or leave it.

    Myths (1.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 07:43:43 AM PST
    Any stories you hear about people being electrocuted by pouring water into electrical equipment are simply urban myths. There is no evidence to suggest than any of these "accidents" have ever occured.

    Well then, for the good of science, we ask that you fill a bath tub full of water, step into it, and have an assistant drop a plugged in electrical appliance like a radio or hair dryer into the tub. Then report to us the results. Hopefully, the intensive care ward at the hospital nearest you will have net access.

    I just did it! (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by zikzak on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 02:19:02 PM PST
    Well Mr. Smarty Pants, I just tried it and you are wrong! I filled the tub with water and plugged a toaster into the outlet with the little black and red on/off buttons. I then sat in the tub, set the toaster to 'Dark' and dropped it in.

    Guess what? I'm still alive and NOT in the hospital. You see, what happened is all that non-conductive water stopped the release of elctrons that would normally brown my Eggo Waffle™. The insulating powers of the water was in fact so powerful that it caused the electricity to back up the line with enough pressure to pop the switch on the outlet from 'On' to 'Off'.

    In case you don't know, that's why we use those types of outlets around water. They function as release valves. If they weren't there and the hair dryer went into the toilet accidentally, the back-pressure could cause a rupture in the cord which would then leak valuable electrons all over the bathroom like an old garden hose.

    OK (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 04:50:06 AM PST
    Now do it without a GFCI outlet.

    One right, one wrong (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 07:22:13 AM PST
    His statement was "explosive properties of the gases" (plural) which is quite correct. Oxygen, in and of itself, is not explosive. However, oxidation--which refers to most combustive processes--does require oxygen. In this case, the actual reaction is:

    2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H20

    This is, in fact, a highly explosive reaction. As someone who has done numerous chemistry demonstrations at high schools, I can attest to the following:

    1) A balloon of pure oxygen gas will not explode if popped with a candle flame.
    2) A balloon of pure hydrogen gas will explode, with a fireball sort of effect. It's hot but it's also slow--this is because it grows at the rate of oxygen in the atmosphere.
    3) A balloon of mixed hydrogen and oxygen will explode with an incredible noise.

    The space shuttle, in fact, already carries liquid hydrogen and oxygen. So, while this is a viable solution it is ALREADY IN PLACE. So the comment in the above post is wrong, because the poster was referring to the oxidation of hydrogen gas.

    The right comment is that water does not carry a current. Yes, this is true. However, let me add that once you add ions to water, all bets are off. Water with a soluble acid or salt added to it can in fact be incredibly conductive. Tap water has ions added to it, so in fact it's possible for people to be electrocuted by appliances.

    World Championship for Ego (1.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 08:27:46 AM PST
    There is obviously an ego problem here.

    I expect I've placated all the serious naysayers

    or snide comments about second best technical article on either, immediate labelling of people as "idiots" (liberals and conservatives), Messianism ("I am proposing the solution").

    Megalomania, with a salt of paranoia is my diagnostic.

    If you want a constructive comment here he is: compute the total cost of your proposals, and the time needed. I expect them to be something like 10 times the world GDP, and 2 centuries.

    Ad Hominem (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Craig McPherson on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 06:02:38 PM PST
    At least you snuck a constructive comment in at the end, after a dozen posts of pure garbage.

    In fact, I did do the math.

    If the United States eliminates welfare, Social Security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, donations to foreign countries, and other Unconstitutional and illegal socialist programs, my calculations show that raising the money would take about 8 years and constructing all of the neccessary infrastructure would take up to 20.

    Of course, we don't have to have all the infrastructure ready at once. The oceans will rise slowly at first, so we can start small and "ramp up" as the small causes the economy to skyrocket.

    Labour is not a problem. Remember all those third-world people who need fresh water? There's probably about a billion of them. There's our labour. Using people instead of machines for labour will save a ton of money; these people are already used to working for no money and very little food so upkeep will be quite cheap.

    "You work for us, or you don't get a new river, you don't get new farmland, you don't get clean water, and you die."

    I think they'll go along with it.

    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    Desalterizers are a very good idea (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by bc on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 09:22:09 AM PST
    I have done some calculations to prove this. It is estimated that sea levels will rise, say, 10 metres because of global warming. Now, the equation for the volume of a sphere is (4/3)πrE3 (r cubed, the radius). The (Equatorial) radius of the Earth is 6378136 metres (according to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory).

    Now, clearly if the sea level rises 3 metres due to global warming, the equatorial radius will become 6378139 metres. How much extra volume is this? Lets calculate:

    V=[(4/3)xπx(6378139)E3 - (4/3)xπx(6378136)E3] x 0.70

    (I put the 0.70 there because only 70% of the Earth is covered by water, not all of it)

    This little equation give us this: V=326056778217564453648.01801310617 cubic metres! This is the 'extra' water that the desalterisers will have to get rid of. (btw, a cubic metre of water is 1000 litres, or 2200 pints or so.)

    We can see that the desalterizers can easily eat up this volume of water. If the US, the only nation in the world prepared to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to the environment, builds 1000 desalterisers, and if the 'extra water' above is produced by global warming over the next 100 years, we can see that each desalterizer need only get rid of 326056778217564453 litres of water per year, a perfectly feasible task. The average american gets rid of 100 litres of water per day. If we up this a bit and pipe all the desalterised water to deserts and whatnot, we can create a veritible garden of Eden whilst getting rid of all this pesky extra water.

    Other Bonuses:

    Because we will be redusing the mass of the earth by drinking all this extra water and thus making it disappear, the Earth will start to spin a little bit faster (because its Angular Momentum will decrease but the overall kinetic energy will remain the same). And because the mass of the earth will have decreased by 1% or something, whilst the earth is still travelling at the same speed, the Earth should, in all probability, drift out a little bit from the sun, cooling things down a little bit and helping to alleviate global warming.

    I for one congratulate Craig for producing a workable solution to the Global Warming Crisis.

    ♥, bc.

    Blasphemer (2.50 / 2) (#26)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 04:00:58 PM PST
    Your formula is not only incorrect, but a tool of the Devil. How do I know this? iat says so. Please go to the nearest church/synagogue/pile of stones to be cleansed of your evil.

    Sorry bc (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by iat on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 01:02:23 AM PST
    I have no choice but to agree with the Anonymous Reader. My opinion that mathematics is a tool of the Devil is on record. Mr. McPherson's idea has many merits and bc's attempt to soil his masterplan by associating it with blatant Satan worship is both subversive and immoral. bc, you should go to church ASAP, and confess your sins! - love it or leave it.

    Is there any chance of a compromise? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Craig McPherson on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 01:19:58 AM PST
    Perhaps we can reconcile these two warring philosophies, or at least hold a death-match to determine which of them is better.

    I propose that when we institute my plan, we use fix the Northern Hemisphere using strict mathematical accuracy, and we fix the Soutern Hemisphere using sound, Biblical, Christian virtues.

    We can then compare the relative success of the two projects to determine once and for all which of the two mutually-exclusive opposing forces in the world is correct: science or faith.

    That should make everybody happy.

    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    Good idea (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by iat on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 01:28:08 AM PST
    I believe this would be a fair challenge. I would be particularly interested to observe your attempt to singlehandedly convert the entire population of India to Christianity. But, I think that would be a relatively simple task in comparison to teaching numeracy to the residents of southern USia. - love it or leave it.

    Since when is India in the Southern Hemisphere? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Craig McPherson on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 01:47:01 AM PST
    "I would be particularly interested to observe your attempt to singlehandedly convert the entire population of India to Christianity. "

    As an evangelical Christian, I know a lot of people who've done missionary work in India and other places like it. I've done some short-term missionary stuff but not out of the country. I want to go overseas someday, though.

    Anyway, India is in a very interesting location with regards to Evangelism. India is located in what's known as the "10-40 window." The "10-40 window" is home to over 90% of the world's non-Christians, contains the home bases of all the world's major non-Christian religions, and there's a bunch of other interesting stuff about it but I don't remember them all.

    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    My bad (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by iat on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 02:02:57 AM PST
    I just looked at an atlas, and it appears that India has moved since I did geography at school. While India used to be in the southern hemisphere, it is now just north of the equator. This is obvious proof of the damage done by global warming. Melting of the polar ice caps has caused a rise in sea levels, which has resulted in countries (which are less dense than water) floating up into the northern hemisphere. Immediate action must be taken to prevent global warming, before any other innocent people lose their (already slim) credibility by making embarassing geographical blunders. - love it or leave it.

    Understandable. Geography is very subjective. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Craig McPherson on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 02:28:56 AM PST
    The professional Geographers won't tell you this, but did you know that they can't even decide where the equator IS? There's a hot debate about it lately. It seems the magnetic fields of the earth are more complex than were previously imagined, and it's hard to decide exactly where the poles and equator really are.

    India has definitely been subject to some continental drift of late. Although it's classified as a "subcontinent" of Asia now, it used to be its very own free-floating continent. I'm not sure when the collission with Asia took place, but things on a geological scale happen very slowly, so it has probably been at least a few decades.

    I had a few people from India at my High School. They'd get very mad whenever someone called them "Asia", retorting "We're not Asians, we're SUB-CONTINENTALS." I imagine the people of India are struggling to maintain their identity now that their country has slammed into Asia and is slowly being integrated into it.

    Also back in High School, I once told a pen pall in another state that there were several Indians at the school, and he immediately replied, "You politically insensitive JERK, they're supposed to be called NATIVE AMERICANS."

    People are so dumb.

    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    How can there be a compromise? (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 05:12:19 AM PST
    If math is a tool of the devil, you can not just reason that away. We're talking about the immortal souls of millions and millions of kids who are about to go back to school and be subjected to immoral math classes. There can be no compromise in defense of morality and anyone who says otherwise is just as big a tool of the devil as math.

    context regarding Satan (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jsm on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 04:57:52 AM PST
    I'd just like to point out that although mathematics may or may not be a tool of the devil (let us just remember that even if it is a wanton tool of Satanic evil, it is protected under the 2nd amendment precisely for that reason), Satan is by no means universally reviled, particularly not on, where nothing is sacred. At least one member of the adequacy staff is a Satanist, albeit a worshipper of "a generalised concept of human power, rather than an actual physical Satan".

    ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the editors
    ... now also Legal department and general counsel,

    Just because it's popular... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by iat on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 05:54:45 AM PST doesn't make Satan worship acceptable. I think it's time that we at Adequacy used our credibility and influence to try to convert our many readers to a wholesome Christian lifestyle. If we can save just one soul, our hard work on Adequacy will not have gone to waste. It is time for us to abandon our role as the "World's Most Controversial Website", and strive to be the "World's Most Righteous Website". We must educate humanity to abandon its dependence on the evils of science and mathematics, for they will inevitably lead to eternal damnation.

    In the meantime, I am going to update the DNS records for Adequacy so that our readers are redirected to enlightenment at - love it or leave it.

    Quite right. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 03:37:25 PM PST
    I agree.

    BC -- you are a great and noble person. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Craig McPherson on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 05:49:07 PM PST
    Thanks for working out the math for me. I was pretty sure it'd all work out, but I decided to leave the details until later. I knew it looked good in theory, now thanks to you I know it also looks good in practice.

    This is EXACTLY the kind of open dialog and productive discussion I was hoping for. It seems, unfortunately, that most of the readers of this site are Luddite flamer AnonymousCowards who are afraid of open dialog and progress.

    You've contributed some great new ideas to my plan. If everyone in the world were as smart and comitted to the future as you, we'd have all the problems in the world solved by next Thursday.

    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    Since you seem to ingnore reality (1.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 07:15:52 PM PST
    I just talked to Dubya. Yeah, that Dubya. Got his cell phone number and everything. Anyway, I told him about your plan to save the world. His response, and I quote, "Christ, I may be dumb, but I'm not that fucking dumb." He also mentioned something about if any of you ever show up in Texas, they have some new fangled death penalty device they need to try out. He was kind of mumbling at that point so it wasn't too clear. Anyway, just thought you should know.

    no, see, satire requires lots of irony... (2.00 / 4) (#16)
    by venalcolony on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 09:36:56 AM PST
    ...and as little pretense of stupidity as possible.

    Would be adequacy authors should learn that proper satire and parody are literary genres with their own rather well understood rhetorical devices. Surely I am not the only one who has read the second book of Aristotle's Poetics? In order to demonstrate absurdity in a real life position, one must imply a discrepancy between what is said and what is actually meant or practiced. Feigning obtuse stupidity or inventing inane situations (or technologies, for that matter) that nobody can relate to is just sit-com crap.

    The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

    Hua? (3.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 02:57:52 PM PST
    What the hell are you talking about?

    What in the name of "Gaia" are you talki (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Craig McPherson on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 05:56:11 PM PST
    Typical Ad-Hominem attack from a typical Luddite Gaia-worshipper.

    People who are insecure with their own beliefs, upon seeing any opinion that differs significantly from their own, will immediately say "this must be a joke," or "this must be a troll," or "this is obvious satire." What the short-sighted hypocrites don't realize is that with 6.1 billion people in the world, there exists a WIDE range of opinions and a WIDE specturm of views, and yes, people actually exist outside of your in-bred white-trash trailor park, and they DON'T think they way that you do.

    Live with it.

    I suggest you read the mission statement for this site before you start making accusations of "satire." Satire is generally considered a form of trolling, and trolling is not allowed on this site. Therefore, anything posted on this site can not be satire because it would violate the "no trolling" rule.

    If you're so insecure that you attack the person delivering the message instead of the message itself, the future doesn't need you. If you don't have anything constructive to say, log off and go watch TV because I think you're missing one of your 37 regular professional wrestling shows.

    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    live with this (0.00 / 2) (#31)
    by venalcolony on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 06:58:55 PM PST
    If you're so insecure that you attack the person delivering the message instead of the message itself,

    You dont understand. You're the message here, you, and not the content for obvious reasons; and you suck. That's it. Simple. In absence of a message, we shoot the messenger because there is no other target. The alternative is to ignore you, but you likely get enough of that in real life so I'm doing you a favor. Similiarly, I dont discuss the merits of Gilligan's Island, I say it has no merits worth discussing.

    But hey, if you're amused at trolling anal retentive geeks with scientific boners, knock yourself out.

    People who are insecure with their own beliefs,

    What beliefs, you meathead? I'm quite secure at pointing out how badly this article sucks as parody.

    I suggest you read the mission statement for this site

    I suggest you not take the site down with your vanity.

    The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

    Wait, I figured it out (1.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 07:23:54 PM PST
    If Craig shuts his mouth, no more hot air will escape, thus ending the global warming crisis. It's so simple!

    As I expected, there has been no serious objection (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Craig McPherson on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 01:26:07 AM PST
    All of the serious responses I have received to this final chapter of my plan have been positive and helpful. Nobody has yet pointed out any major flaws or objections, which I can only take to mean that there ARE NO flaws in this plan. Thorough research and "thinking outside the box" have developed a sound, workable paradigm for entering the future. I don't claim to have all the answers to all the issues, but I do have the general outline right.

    Thanks to all the support and encouragement I've received from the intelligent readers of this site.

    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    Why it's good to know science, part II (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 07:55:47 AM PST
    I last posted a long list of incorrect science in the previous article. I'm not going to go through and rip out all the major scientific flaws in this one, but I will make a few points.

    1. Craig, you can't, on the one hand, claim that I'm part of a "scientific elite" which is trying to restrict people's knowledge about science to maintain my power base while you are trying to make your science accessible to everyone, and then say, "Oh I was right about the strong nuclear force because of quantum gravity work".

    In fact, both points are wrong. The scientists I know are exuberant about their work and will explain both easy and arcane points about what they do to anyone who asks. They love what they're doing, and they'd love to help anyone understand what it is they do.

    As for the second point, I don't want you to accuse me of scientific elitism, but the fact is--you're wrong. Quantum gravity work, in fact, tries to include gravity under quantum mechanics (as the name implies). The effort to unify relativistic physics and quantum mechanics is very old. It has not yet been successful. On the other hand, it is well known that in the specific case of molecular oxygen, any relativistic effects which should be introduced to the Schrodinger equation are, for all intents and purposes, zero. Furthermore, quantum mechanics and relativity still don't have anything to do with the strong nuclear force.

    The claim of scientific elitism, essentially, is an ad hominem attack which you have employed, to hide behind the fact that while you may have read a lot of pseudo-science on the subject, you have never conducted original research or experiments, at your own admission, you have never even run preliminary numbers to determine feasibility, nor have you any evidence your plan will work. I don't mean to offend you, but it seems that some people honestly believe that they are so smart, they don't need to do the work to get up to speed. Nobody is that smart. So my advice to you is to start going deeper. Really *learn* the material. You have a brain on your shoulders, but you should recognize that many other people have, too. This means that rather than making up your own stuff (recipe for disaster) you should first understand what others have said on the subject. Why? Because nothing substitutes for original research and experimentation. Thought only goes so far; nature, not our petty arguments, is the only arbiter of who is wrong and who is right.

    2. You claim we can desalinize the water and use it to reduce deserts. But it is not the lack of water going in which makes a place a desert. As a matter of fact, if you're aware of the problem with deforestation, one of the major problems is this: people cut down rain forest to produce arable land. Without the major plant systems in place, the top soil is blown away. What was previously rain forest soon becomes desert. It's not water that makes a place barren. It's soil quality.

    Try this experiment at home. Take a strip of sod and put it in a container with holes at the bottom. Then pour a lot of water over it. Water retained, yes? Now put a bunch of sand in the same container. Pour a lot of water over it. In this case, the water will all run out of the container.

    Deserts are deserts not because (or not only because) they don't have water. They need top soil in order to support plants. On the other hand, this is a vicious cycle, because top soil will blow away if it is not held in place by a root system; its beneficial microorganisms will die if it is not shielded from the suns rays by plants. Plants need soil, but soil needs plants. A plan to reduce the number of deserts requires more than water inflow; it requires water retention in water-poor areas. This is a much more complicated problem than dumping water all over the place.

    Really, the major problem with global warming is not the ocean levels rising--it's the unpredictability of the climate changes which may ensue. For instance, more hurricanes may ensue, and in areas which have up to this point, not experienced any. What kind of damage would that do? Well, the plant life could be stripped, the top soil in that area blown away, and entire swaths of arable land could be destroyed. Some people laugh when they say that California could be underwater, but frankly, look at where your groceries come from. California's central valley produces a lot of agricultural products.

    We don't know what will happen next. It's a chaotic system, and one which we haven't yet adequately simulated (as a matter of fact, cannot adequately simulate!) Nature moves with surprising speed. Excuse the personification there; I'm not some Gaia-worshipper, and I don't believe in mother earth. I do believe in chaotic systems, and weather patterns were the prototypical chaotic system.

    My final comment is this: I know many many people who are deeply involved in original research in atmospheric science, in combustion research, and electronic structure theory. I know people who are biologists and climatologists who are trying to grapple with the incredibly complex issues, and to develop contingency plans for the most probably outcomes. If you really care about this issue, try and join them. You'll find that most scientists are ready and willing to discuss these issues in an intelligent and rigorous fashion, with anyone interested. They'll tell you when you're wrong, and if you ask, give you lists of reading material to help you figure out what to do from there. And maybe if you do, you can make a difference.

    Frankly, though, your current arrogance--that you believe that without doing a decent literature survey you can dictate a pristine solution to a complicated problem when you don't even understand the basics--won't do a darned thing.

    who said something about fanatism?? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Hano on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 01:29:41 AM PST
    I'm agree with Anonymous, hey Craig, i have about 3 hours reading all this discussion, and now read what i have to say:

    You automatically reject conclusions of people with religious fanatism, but i'm afraid that yourself aren't but a religious fanatic of a liberatorium credum whose mainly prophet is Ayn Rand.

    I didn't want to do this, but since you're talking in name of science, let's hear what science says:

    From the system dynamics point-of-view, every system of enormous quantity of subsystems
    tend towards chaos, that is, the whole system is unstable to small perturbations. There are dynamical systems that their equations are intrisically chaotic. Poincare discovered in 1904 that Navier-Stokes equations (those used to describe fluids, and, hey! hence the climate) where chaotic.

    But there's a question; If a system is inherently exponentially unstable (that means chaotic) how could arise such deeply stable climate phenomenons like hurricanes? (think for a while in the red spot of jupiter). This brought up the idea that while the vast majority of the time & space systems behave chaotically, there sometimes are ocurrences of matter that self-organize in big clusters around dynamical holes, called attractors.

    In this point of view, a whirl is water around an atractor, a plant is also a whirl of carbonides molecules entering in the system through nourishment and leaving through leaves that fall. In fact, life can be understanded (which i think a must-goal) as a very complex set of auto-replicant atractors. You could add at this point that conciusness is the last step in attractor evolution, because this new attractors are mostly kinesthesical images which reproduce mainly through language some years ago, now with other more efficient ways, "media".

    People that has this big issue about religion let their belief take over his mind, unknowingly of becoming in that way believers of false. The mayor credo of the scientist is doubt, but then constant doubt make your knowledge grow only stronger, or in other words, "believe with unattachment will not take you where the truth is, but will put you in the way".

    At this point of my life, i dont care if a believer declares himself in words an rationalist atheist, i now only perceive the excitement in his stare.

    Hello? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by manifold on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 02:39:27 AM PST
    Furthermore, quantum mechanics and relativity still don't have anything to do with the strong nuclear force.

    And here you show your ignorance of matters scientific, as the theory that describes the strong nuclear force is quantum chromodynamics, which is part of quantum field theory, the relativistic version of quantum mechanics. Nice try though.

    Rising oceans? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 03:50:23 PM PST
    The polar ice caps will melt, causing the level of the ocean to rise to as high as twenty feet above sea level.
    Thats only true for the south pole, by the way. The north pole is a massive icecap floating on water and as such the force of its weight acting down on the water beneath it pushes up the sea level around the rest of the planet. Wether the H2O at the north pole is ice or water its mass is the same and as such its effect on sea levels is the same.

    Just a minor nitpick. Of course as the icecaps at the south pole are resting on land, not water, when they melt and flow into the ocean that will have a definate effect on sea levels.

    No basis in fact (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 05:21:30 AM PST
    It's really too bad that you're thoughts and ideas on the matter of global warming have no basis in fact. However, the pure comic and entertainment value of your writings are evident, as I'm sure you intended.

    I think that anyone who took this piece seriously should go hop on the Star Ships you talk about, the ones we can power with our new found fuel supply, and get away from this planet!

    Great ranting here! You should think about going on Letterman or Dennis Miller someday with this stuff! Funny!

    C Knoch


    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to