|
Post by gdfernan on Nov 28, 2009 15:32:45 GMT
The Science Museum in UK is running a poll where respondents can vote to urge the world governments to set up a "world government" in order to enslave humanity regulate CO2 emissions by increasing taxation. This was to be a build up to Copenhagen and the charlatans scientists at the musuem presumably expected an overwhelming "YES" vote. However, at the moment, the Nays (no we do not want further regulation, taxation and no we do not believe the evidence for AGW is beyond reasonable doubt) are in a majority although the brain dead "YEAS" are catching up fast. So, for the sake of our future and our children's future, I urge all of you to go and vote for "Count me out" on the poll. You will have to enter a valid email address and the site will send a confirmation email to that account. Only once you click on the confirmatory email will your vote be counted. www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspxDont let the Liars win this. Do your part and vote "count me out"
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 29, 2009 1:31:54 GMT
After responding, "they" will know who the Nays are .... off to the work camps, the detention centers, the GULAGs, the Stalags for all naysayers. I saw "Conspiracy Theory" with Mel Gibson. Be careful, be very careful ....
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 29, 2009 1:40:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 29, 2009 1:48:23 GMT
You do not have to be a chemist, a carbon atom is a carbon atom. Just more B.S.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 29, 2009 1:54:13 GMT
Shouldn't you be getting ready to go out on the town, not sitting in front of the computer?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 29, 2009 3:50:32 GMT
You do not have to be a chemist, a carbon atom is a carbon atom. Just more B.S. I am a chemist, and a carbon atom is NOT just a carbon atom, we have (naturally occurring) C-12, C-13 and C-14(radio-active) C-12 (lighter) is preferentially used up in photosynthesis. C-13 is present at about 1% normally, C-14 is a tiny trace, but detectable by radiation it gives off as it decays. Other chemical processes will also run at different speeds for C-13 and C-14. What tiny ratio changes in C-13 actually mean is probably conjecture, and I certainly wouldn't give much credence on any science "proving" anything by looking at C-12/C-13 ratios. It is a typical area where one can choose ones theories to match the data. I'd be very skeptical! You can check out the ratio stuff here: homepage.mac.com/uriarte/carbon13.htmlThe formula in the above link is incorrect, the factor is 1000, not 1 (13C/12C)sampled – (13C/12C)standard ——————————––––––––––––––– x 1,000 (13C/12C)standard Whenever you subtract two nearly equal numbers, error are magnified. But the chemistry is real, and the principles are correct, though data needs to be carefully interpreted. Coal and oil have gone through many chemical processes, and it is conjecture what the ratios truly mean.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 29, 2009 5:32:18 GMT
Kiwi, what does that mean for carbon dioxide? Can any of the three isotopes combine?
And, is the British Museum i) correct ii) partly correct or iii) wrong?
Or, is this another part truth to - support a position - that we weren't supposed to notice?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 29, 2009 5:40:49 GMT
Isotopes are separate molecules. Museum is at least partly correct, but like all data, it is how it is interpreted. Given the tendency for "data" to be misused, I remain skeptical. The principles of isotopic filtering by chemical reactions is sound. The lighter C12 containing CO2 are going to react faster, but all "past" historic data is interpreted by a certain set of pre-conceived ideas.
I haven't given this a critical examination, but I can confirm the "theory" is sound.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Nov 29, 2009 7:17:43 GMT
I've written a strongly worded comment to the BBC concerning recent developments regarding CO2:
"Ye Gads, My apologies for the further interruption, but another urgent matter has caught my eye. It seems that carbon dioxide is causing brittle bone disease among fish. I read it just now. The carbon dioxide that stopped warming the planet 10 or 11 years ago is now giving fish brittle bones. This is an outrage since, as any elite climatologist will tell you, fish have the hardest bones of any mammal. I feel that I must demand an immediate cessation of all carbon dioxide emissions. I mean, what if some hapless fishery worker were to gut one of these unfortunate fish? They'd most likely faint at the sight of the first recorded case of ichthyological osteoporosis. The fact that the mass of the Earth's oceans is a buffer for such things which is too large for the human mind to conceive of is no excuse. Everyone reading this should immediately cease breathing in order to preserve the bones of our precious fish."
I hope they follow my advice soon.
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Nov 29, 2009 17:15:30 GMT
I can say, without a doubt, that is bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 29, 2009 17:58:24 GMT
kiwi OOOps my bad. I was not being disingenuous C is C and C-12 is C-12 as you well know. Atoms are atoms and molecules are molecules as you well know. I took the words as stated. Now if someone wanted to talk about buckyballs then we would be talking about Carbon yet again.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Nov 29, 2009 19:42:07 GMT
So it's a different type of co2? So is it co3 or something? no that would make it heavier. It's probably co1, That's what's making it lighter. I thought maybe c2o2, but then that would be heavier still. Hummm, outside of looking at isotopes, I can't see how you can make some co2 lighter than other co2. Is breathing out co2 different than co2 from a fire? That would change chemistry!!! Is there a nobel prize for that?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 29, 2009 20:16:01 GMT
What the museum site says is: "The carbon atoms in fossil fuels are lighter, on average, than those in air."
Does that make for a different discussion? Are they not talking about CO2 at all? Is it BS anyhow?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 29, 2009 20:28:43 GMT
spaceman Unless the "science" museum was more explicit it is hard to know what they were referring to. CO is carbon monoxide. CO2 is carbon dioxide. CO3 is unstable and is a temporary product of CO2 and O. I think kiwi would have a better take on the subject. I do stand corrected on the issue of C12 atoms and C13 atoms I guess age is a factor as with sigudur. Here is an interesting paper somewhat related www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5692/abs/277121a0.html
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Nov 29, 2009 23:49:23 GMT
I guess C-13 and C-14 are produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays, but since they're both radioactive and fossil fuels have necessarily been underground for millions of years, there's less radioactive Carbon. They're right, but it's pretty much insignificant.
|
|