Roses are red. Bees are swarming. We’re all going to DIE from global warming!
Reader Mark S. passes along word of a state-funded global warming poetry contest for kids in Illinois:
Dear Fifth/Sixth Grade Educators,
We invite your students to participate in the annual Environmental Pathways statewide poster and poetry/prose exhibit. The theme of the 2008 event will be “Global Warming – What Can We Do?” focusing on the importance of clean air and protecting our environment.
We ask that you use our educational packet, “Environmental Pathways - Youth Investigating Pollution Issues in Illinois,” in your classroom during the month of January. Following this year’s theme, emphasis will be on air pollution issues and global warming.
We believe that the creation of posters and written works gives your students an opportunity to express and share, on a deeper and more personal level, what they have learned. The student exhibit also draws attention to environmental issues.
The winner gets to burn photos of George W. Bush at an anti-conservative bonfire with unhinged enviro-nutball Dave Lindorff.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Conservative Compendium
- Grizzly Groundswell » Poetic Brainwashing
- Blue Collar Republican » Blog Archive » Blog Burst - December 28, 2007
- Michelle Malkin » Eco-anxiety? Get Eco-therapy!
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Enviro-nitwits
Hot Air
» McCain Ad: “Love”The Sundries Shack
» Just Call McCain “The Imaginer”.The Sundries Shack
» Go, Mount Shasta! Go Mount Shasta! Go, Mount Shasta, Gooooo!protein wisdom
» G. K. Chesterton on the political corner-cutting of socialists…(The Sanity Inspector)
Now this should be good.
Oh FFS now…
Seriously Illinois. Must you constantly find new ways to make me ashamed to live here?
Obama doesn’t do enough of that Swj?
Of course there IS such a thing as “Global Warming” - it’s caused by all the hot air that’s being spouted by these lunatics. If we could shut them up, poof! no more global warming.
Got to indoctrinate them young ones you know!
Mold and shape them as your agenda fits!
I wonder if all the hairspray on Gov. Bag-o-chips hair contributes to the warming.
Division of labor. The State of Illinois teaches kids to respect and care for their environment. Conservative blogs teach mean spirited ignorance. The yin and yang of America.
The temperature is normal. New taxes are alarming.
Soon we’ll all wish we had died from global warming.
I’m no poet.
Though most didn’t know it.
Everyone calm down.
Too much do you frown.
I have a new word.
It stands only to reason.
To replace global climate change.
Just call it a season!
I’ll shut up now.
Rising Temps
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
We’re all gonna drown
Cause Oceans rise too
Mass hysteria. To control a population, create an enemy…global warming. Create mass hysteria, and “show” how much you care, by passing laws, taking away liberties. Boy, when they talk about “for the children”, they certainly mean it. Indoctrinate them into the liberal, hysterical philosophy by getting them to think with emotion, not logic. We’ve become a society “hysterical” over the enviroment, smoking, lead in toys, insurance companies, global warming, global cooling, animals,etc.. I wonder what will be next. Aliens?
I missed the part about the contest being pro-global warming, so I’ll try again:
Red states are now blue. Al Gore is so alarming.
Please raise my taxes to fight global warming.
Did I win? My poem puts the Dems in charge and raises taxes. Other than being redundant, what more could they want for their poster?
Nothing wrong with teaching kids respect and to care for the environment. I think we can all agree to that.
But to assume because someone is not drinking the koolaid of man made global warming they don’t care about the planet is plain ignorant. I’m talking to you LGM.
The U.S. has come a long way in making major strides in preserving and protecting our environment. You just don’t hear about it because the nuts/liberals/Goreists are shouting too loud.
You can be concerned about our planet, recycle, use less energy, and all the other positive things many of us are doing. You can do that AND not be ready to make knee jerk reactions and commitments that ultimately could damage our planet and people more than any perceived increase in temperature.
You can try to conserve. Try, try as you might.
But there’s really no point, if the data is right.
Kyoto’s too weak. It can’t get the job done.
It’s already too late. We might as well have fun.
But alas, I’m quite certain. So relax feel and free.
CO2 is not warming. Cooling the world it should be.
Resist what you hear. Try not to be sold.
AGW is fraud. The greatest ever told.
These enviro-follies are too silly. They really should know.
Their gestures are too small, even if warming was so.
Don’t let them off the hook. Write down who said whats.
When the theory blows up, we’ll make them feel nuts.
There once was a man named Al Gore
whom voters just thought was a bore.
In his quest for attention,
(post losing the election),
he conned us with eco-manure!
lgm posts on a conservative blog. Self p3wnage is the best! ROFL
lgm,
Please explain to me how carbon dioxide can warm the earth? Something about lower atmospheric convection disrupting normal radiation? I can never remember that concocted theory.
I think AGW concerns siphon resources away from real environmental issues.
lgm, even if AGW is real as claimed, there’s no way to do anything about it now. Do the math. Gore’s website recommendations are a joke. They wouldn’t curb anything. In other words, according to him, it’s already too late.
BTW, I am not funded by the oil industry. I’m just capable of looking at black body radiation charts for the earth and sun for carbon dioxide that were published BEFORE this controversy erupted.
“Global Warming – What Can We Do?”
A poem by a vast right winged, bigoted, conservative, mean spirited, ignorant, intolerant Christian.
Global Warming – What Can We Do?
I laugh and laugh ‘til my face is blue.
The End
Thank you, thank you very much!
Okay, not much effort but we are talking global warming here for goodness sake.
Illinois schools can’t afford to waste 30 seconds on this craptastic contest. There are much more important things on which to indoctrinate children and some of those might accidentally teach the children something valuable along the way. It takes some combination of mental illness, gross ignorance, a sheltered existence, unmitigated arrogance or extreme narcissism to be a die-hard liberal. Since schools are wasting time with this crap instead of teaching, Illinois is ensuring that the ignorance part of the equation is well ensured.
Michelle wins the poetry contest, Max #15 comes in second!
Me, I think the old cold war Soviets would be proud of the state of Illinois’s manipulation of the children in their care.
Poetry contests in school are such fun
the global warming debate is done
If you don’t believe you are the fool
a ringing endorsement to home school
thanks Z…
i agree, Michelle’s headline is a real snorter…
This article made me realize how important it is that we wrest control of the school system back from left wing teachers’ unions.
The left gets an agenda item idea, and uses the school system to promote and distribute it with tax dollars. It’s like the liberal media except for most kids there is no off button for the propaganda.
Vouchers please.
On December 27th, 2007 at 3:05 pm, lgm said (#7):
“Division of labor. The State of Illinois teaches kids to respect and care for their environment. Conservative blogs teach mean spirited ignorance. The yin and yang of America.”
My first response and recvommendation was going to be
JUST
IGNORE
HIM
But, on second thought, it’s worth a look at post #7 if only to see a clear, in-your-face example of the extreme, brash arrogance of socialists/secularists…which, by the way, they seem never to be able to back up, or match, with clear thinking nor logical arguments.
Priceless, actually!
sorry…recommendation…
“Preview” does not work on the computer at work.
To emphasize: the arrogance of leftists and socialists comes nowhere near being justifiable when one considers their apparent intellect and debate technique.
Ditkaca said (#13):
It’s not that people who disagree are ignorant, it’s promoting ignorance as a form of argument: “Evidence, I don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.” Read any conservative blog post and see whether it treats the opposing opinion with respect. I’m not just talking about Democrats. Suppose a conservative Republican libertarian claims that invading Iraq is not worth the enormous cost in US dollars and lives. Conservative bloggers don’t refute Dr. Paul’s arguments, rhey simply try to drown then in scorn. The names they call Ron Paul are as nasty as those they use on Hillary Clinton.
corkie (#17) said:
May I politely wonder whether corkie actually understands blackbody radiation at the level of, say, the definition or the formula of Max Planck? I’m asking because it’s not that common for people with even a minimum of scientific training to dismiss science as easily as corkie does.
Hope the teachers implement SpellCheck before presenting this drivel.
Heck, most cannot even use proper grammar nor spell correctly.
How about working on THAT problem first?
You mean the same Dr. Ron Paul who said 19 thugs flew aircraft into the twin towers? You want to know why we do not take him seriously??? Kidding right???
Do you drink cherry or lime flavored KoolAid?
One question? According to science, are we not supposed to be in the midst of an ice age?
The short-comings of a man
I’ve heard its been said
Are directionally proportionate
to the lies in his head.
So when I hear the claim
that our planet will be like Venus
It occurs to me
that Al Gore has no *****.
Oops!…that should be inversely proportionate. but you get it
I don’t get the “bees are swarming” part? Was that just to have something that would rhyme with “warming”?
ROFLMAO #29, So, if my carbon footprint is a big one, does that mean….well never mind
Its cold in the winter
and warm in the summer
when will this global warming nonsense
be over
These campaigns must run in cycles. 20 years ago, we had the same hysteria about AIDS. It was the Black Death and 3 million Americans would die of it by 1991. We were doomed to sexless lives unless we knew how to put condoms on cucumbers. So now we know that the dreaded disease has been almost entirely confined to the high-risk groups identified at the outset, yet we get no apology from the fearmongers. It’s the same thing with global warming. As with AIDS, the hysteria will subside into a squabble between a minority of brave scientists who have the gall to question popular theories and an establishment with too much financially at stake to concede error.
I think that we are still in the “my scientist is better than your scientist” stage.
I know Mr. Gore invented the internet but does he have some kind of a degree in this stuff?
The children could start by reading this before writing their poems. Over at “American Thinker”
Nothing Better to Worry About?
By Jerome J. Schmitt
Yep … Gore has a degree … he has a BS in Crapification …
Ah! Crapification! That has to do with Methane gases I presume?
If someone tries to tell me that dog squeeze is peanut butter what part of that argument am I supposed to treat with respect?
In grade school I had to do projects on how everyone was going to starve to death and die because of global cooling. The left had “evidence” that it was true. My little brother had to do projects on how acid rain was going to ruin all the crops and kill mankind and all life as we know it. The left had “evidence” that it was true. Microwave ovens were going to make you sterile you stood in front of them, cell phones were going to cause brain tumors, salt is bad, it’s good, it’s bad, it’s good, America is running out of food, the gov’t is buying corn and wheat with tax money because of HUGE surpluses, we are running out of oil, the US finds 500 years worth of current supply in domestic reserves, the earth is warming, the climate is changing, the ice sheet is smaller, it is larger, it is the same size, mountain snow caps are melting, there are bronze-age mines beneath the snow caps and on and on and on. And the left had “evidence” that all of it was true before it was proved to be scare mongering and bad science.
I have tried to discuss topics respectfully with libs for 20 years. It is 99% of the time that the wild eyed, irrational spittle flying name calling is on the lib’s side. Conservatives protest and it is usually peaceful and to the point. Libs protest and they destroy public and private property time and again and march through public areas spewing profanity and nastiness. Compare the level of discourse on most conservative blogs to DKos, DU or Huffington. The typical language used is far and apart. Typical posts on the lib blogs would be deleted by moderators on most conservative forums due to language and personal attacks. Watch news programs and it is the libs who are most often screaming and drooling and interrupting. Arguing with a lib is often akin to explaining to a 3 year old why they can’t wear their spider man pajamas to the mall. There is not only no respect on their side, there are rarely anything resembling facts. It is most often an emotional plea to support stealing/taking something from one person and giving it to someone else so a third party can feel good about it. They are just various forms of the “it’s for the children” argument.
The NASA data used to create the “hockey stick” temperature change model has been shown to be wrong and has been corrected. The original computer model used for Al Gore’s documentary has been proved to have intentional, shall we say, discrepancies, to make the results match the hypothesis. I have yet to read of a single climate model used to predict global warming being able to correctly predict current weather patterns when input with data from 30 years ago. They consistently over predict current temperatures. Greenland was green 1200 years ago when the Norse settled and they left because it got cold. We had ice ages, little ice ages, middle ages warming period and continuous climate change throughout history. The CO2 levels consistently TRAIL temperature increases, not lead them as Gore argued. These are just some of the evidence flying in the face of the global warming religion. All that the global warming adherents are left with is an emotional argument which is all they usually have when that crowd touts a crisis. I don’t think that a scientific theory that is so tenuous at best, should be taught to our children in government schools as fact.
Was global warming to blame for hanging chads?
Vince …
Bingo!!!
The pseudo phenom they call warming,
is a natural cycle historical.
But the chickens will cry,
at the crumbling sky,
And the money will flow to the Goracle.
LMAO
Oh enlightned one, Snatch the BS from your hand grasshopper.
Deepdiver, #39, I appreciate your “mean spirited ignorance”.
Perfectly stated.
“Science” is hard to come by. Bill Nye “The Science Guy” shouting down an MIT Professor on Larry King was as embarassing as it was disruptive for those of us interested in facts. The Beauty Queen Weather Girl repeating “It’s real Larry, it’s real” falls into the grade school poetry contest category of intelligent scientific discussion. When they get tomorrow’s weather right…
“What can we do?” Well, Illinois, actually…nothing. Yellowstone is supposed to erupt anytime now and wipe you out anyway, if that elusive meteor doesn’t hit you first, before bird flu eliminates you all…the ones left after MRSA does its work.
Wow, Bush and Cheney have sure been busy…
blind_mule said:
Priceless!
and now I have to clean the coffee out of the keyboard again..!! <ROFL>
Who was it that said “I don’t need you, I already have your children” ?
Wish I could remember….
The Jesuits are credited (at least using Google) with “Give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man.”
Each entrant will also receive a pair of black shorts, white knee socks, black patent leather shoes with hob-nails attached to the heels, a leather strap which attaches most handsomely over the right shoulder diagonally to the belt on the opposite side, and a stunning red arm-band with a eco-logo on a white background to be worn on the left upper arm.
Following the cerremony, we will all parade the children in formation up and down the ground, chanting and singing about the environment. We encourage all the children to turn in their friends, neighbors, and families who pollute and are not friends of Algore and the environment.
There are all sorts of games and songs we will be learning about the one true leader of our movement, Algore. he has brought us out of the dark-age of wanton lust and commercialism and shown us that unless we follow him, the filthy Neo-Cons will destroy us all. We have prepared special places in town for the Neo-Cons to be transproted and any other “Undesireables” who refuse to recycle, change to the CFL’s and other eco-friendly ways of life. While the upper echelon of the movement is obviously going to be excused from such measures and allowed to keep their private jets, their SUV’s and allowed to burn any types of bulbs as much and as often as they like, because they are working for The Cause. However, we, the members of The Movement will continue to work towards the Final Solution of the Ecological and Neo-Con Problem tirelessly until such time as it can be eradicated and this planet can heal.
RetFireman… Psssst, brown shirt, you forgot the brown shirt.
I know, I caught it after and HOPED no one would notice (thank you very much)
I followed the link and looked at the curriculum the teachers will be using. I didn’t see anything about global warming being a theory. I also didn’t see this theory being presented alongside opposing theories. Anyone else see it? Am I missing something? I’d really like to know if I’ll teachers are, in fact, teaching this as accepted fact. Can anyone attest to that?
This leads me to wonder what other states are requiring their teachers to teach. What happens when the subjected is broached in science class and a kid’s entire belief system is upheaved? Can the parents sue for emotional distress? Discrimination? What if his beliefs about the world and man’s role in them are religiously based? Are the teacher and school then guilty of religious intolerance?
eternal vigilance…
I’ll = IL
Subjected = subject
Them = it
Sorry, can’t type. Can’t edit from my BlackBerry either!
Awwww, I miss my old school days when we were all preparing for the impending ice age…
Me too. We were taught that as fact as well. I thought the 70s were really messed up until we hit the 2000s.
Dismiss science????
What are you talking about? I was the one that initiated the science discussion. How can I both initiate and “dismiss” science at the same time?
Yes, I’d LOVE to discuss the science. I understand atmospheric radiation well enough to discuss the issue with anyone.
Are you game, lgm?
lol my high school prepared time capsules to be opened after the glaciers receded!
We put them in the fallout shelters!
Awwww, lgm ain’t coming back… we are tooo mean spirited.
Good question. I remember when I was about 10 (early 1980’s) and it was freakin’ cold in the winters in WI (one day it was 100 below wind chill!) we were hearing about the next Ice Age. Never happened. Now it’s warming.
I’m no scientist. I have no degree, but I would like to ask this:
Could it be possible that the weather has cycles?
I should emphasize that I have no degree in SCIENCE so I don’t feel qualified to say I know anything more than the average person regarding that.
However, I do have a degree in Elementary Education and if I was teaching full-time (I’m not right now~I’m a SAHM that is substitute teaching now that the kids are both in school) I would have a hard time teaching this if I was told to. As a THEORY sure, but not as fact.
Nawww, that would be like political cycles
Sorry, I have a way of scaring the trolls back under their bridges.
Dang it RetFireman! keep them on the line till we trace.
I guess if they’re wasting time on this crap, the kids in Illinois can already read and write and cipher proficiently.
*blink*
What?
Disappointed in this item, Michelle.
Is it a bad thing to reduce global warming activities by humankind, given that there is -any- chance they are a significant portion of what is causing the warming we are experiencing now, and we are not reducing our quality of life by doing so? Hard to believe anyone with common sense would oppose it. Then again, as Voltaire said, common sense is not so common.
There is no definitive proof that any activity done by humans is in any way an appreciable global warming activity.
There is a huge question as whether or not we are actually experiencing any appreciable global warming.
The very fact that we are not drilling any of that 500 years worth of oil and natural gas we have in the ground domestically and haven’t built a new refinery in over 35 years is all because of previously environmental nonsense and now because of global warming — those things have all lead to the high energy prices which are already impacting quality of life for some people. On top of that we are squandering money and food product to produce inefficient energy in the name of combating global warming instead of drilling that oil, refining it economically and letting private industry find alternative clean energy sources as it should be in a capitalist economy.
Hard to believe that the paragraph started with such a glaring assumption as to the existence of man-made global warming.
Define “global warming activities”!!! Breathing? It produces CO2! Cutting the grass? Rotting vegetation produces a lot of CO2! Holy crap. First we have the GW hoax, in the middle of our ice age, and now we have to live by a list of GW activities? Soon, Salem, Mass will be going to the senior center to make sure they are not doing the polka cause that might get their respiration rates up and you know what that means? MELTING POLAR ICE CAPS!!!
Do you really want to be taxed on “average carbon usage”? It is part of the plan already. You really want big brother in your life busting down your door because they traced the purchase of incandescent light bulbs on your credit card? Sounds silly but they raided the senior center before baked goods even showed up in Salem. I think someone left the bridge up. Total Folly.
P.S. lgm, you have a lot of nerve coming here and talking your crap without even saying thanks to Rick and Michelle on the Christmas thread. So you don’t believe and it violates your rights to even see the words. It never hurts to give thanks for allowing you to repeatedly trash them.
And watch his film where he shows the chart. Mr. GW shows the lines overlaid on the same graph increasing as time increases. The problem? Watch at the beginning, the time line goes backwards. Now THAT my friends is science!
Just for you buddy, I took a few “BEANO” tabs just to make sure I offset and made this thread Carbon Neutral. Now you can leave our charming hostess alone. Your hot air, though, is not helping the Arctic at all.
I ate some beef. The cow will not pass greenhouse gasses evah again!
Just doing my part!
I just want to drop a little 6th grade biology on all you Liberal scientists, Global Warming experts, ecologists and other assorted annoying know-it-alls and jerks.
You morons are always out there carping about the evils of CO2, which is a naturally occurring byproduct of such things as, oh I don’t know, BREATHING. NOW, it is also reqjuired by the very thing you guys love more than babies and other humans…that’s right…trees, plants, grass, soil and the like. These flora then take said CO2 and turn it into what we humans need to live. It is called…are you ready for this? It’s a killer….OXYGEN!!! This is what is known as a SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP. We, plants and humans, need eavh other to survive. The more CO2 there is, there more lush and green and numerous the foliage and the greater quantity of oxygen as well as the cleaner the air becomes.
I recommend you go back and study you biology. You might learn more than you have from these idiots with their GED’s.
I dunno. I’ve lived in cold weather and I’ve lived in warm weather, and warm is better.
Also, all these “Global Warming” and “Climate Shifting” or whatever the catch-phrase if the day is people believe in evolution. The basic tenet of evolution is “survival of the fittest” While they claim that it takes upwards of “millions of years” for creatures to evolve to suit their environments, the fact that humans have been around for such a short time, that mammoths were around only a short time ago etc., shows that it takes nowhere near that long, and that other animals have been known to “spontaneously evolve” when needed to. Thus, the fact that the world is changing, and they are attempting to mess with the “natural order of things”, meaning that since it has been proven that man-made global warming is only a miniscule fraction of the entire global warming, and that would mean that Global Warming is a natural thing, thus it is supposed to happen, these freaks are actually moving AGAINST NATURE and SHOULD BE STOPPED BASED ON THEIR OWN RULES! If we are to follow what they say and what they stand for, then we are to STOP WHAT THEY ARE DOING and allow the earth to do what it is going to do NATURALLY. If it wants to warm up, then it needs to be allowed to do so, even at the peril of the human race. The same goes for if it wants to freeze back over into an ice cube. Otherwise, all they are doing is exactly the opposite of what they are claiming to be doing. Period. they are selfish and hypocritical. They are only out for and in it for themselves. Leave the earth alone, it will do what it wants, when it wants, period. If they think they can control the earth, then they have the biggest Messiah complaex the world has ever seen.
It’s all a game of power using mass hysteria over global warming. But if history is a guide, I think we should start a “countdown” clock, of some sort, for the 1st article entitled, “OMG, we’re all gonna die. Global Cooling is coming!” You’ll probably see it in the Wash. Post or some U.N. report. SUV prices will soar because of a seller’s market, and Gore will be touring the world demonstrating the proper use of a chain saw for downing trees.
Here is an interesting article from National Geographic.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
lgm…so you are proposing that is we take care of the environment better nobody will die?
News for you - you’ll die anyway.
Note - lest you worry that my recognition of this fact gives me license to abuse the earth, no it doesn’t give me such license. It just puts conservation/”eco-friendly” efforts into perspective.
I think the warming alarmists are having trouble “proving” that the warming on Mars is Bush’s fault. (I’m sure it is though, just I haven’t been able to establish the link.)
No way a liberal can wrap their had around a fact like that. No way they can understand sun spots as well. That would take REAL science and not soft science.
ICE AGE
Jingle Bells
Algore Smells
Enviros made a farce.
Oh what to do, stop breathing, you!
And quit being an arse.
Jingle Bells
Algore Smells
Oh look there is his jet!
Now he’s gonna fly away
while you do all the sweat.
Algore weren’t rich enough
he had to make some dough
cause times were gettin tough
his heated pool was cold.
So he thought up a scheme
and now you’re gonna pay.
He’ll live as a jet-setter
while the morlocks toil away.
(refrain)
Hilarious BKennedy! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Some good stuff posted here. Love the poems though I couldn’t even begin to top them. Milwaukee Mike, I think your’s was the best. And DeepDiver, thanks for your thoughtful prose as well. I’ll dare to say that most of these posts have not been:
But here is something I read last week. So all you alarmists, maybe you can answer some of these questions.
Here’s the first one:
Hope that’s not too mean of me to ask lgm.
One source of experts is not impressed with the global warming bandwagon:
From an interview with meteorologist Dr. William Gray, who is widely considered the world’s most famous hurricane expert (September 12, 2005):
My students are always shocked when I debunk AGW (I teach high school science). They’ve never heard it before.
Of course, they think the Iraq war is all about oil, too…
/hell would freeze over before I’d encourage my students to enter that sort of contest, unless, of course, I had my chance to fill them in on the facts first. Then their essays could be interesting…
You’re mixing up “theory” with what you actually mean, “hypothesis.” A hypothesis is a prediction based on what you already know or can find out–but hasn’t been fully tested. A theory is what a hypothesis becomes once it has been fully tested, many times over again by many different researchers. If no facts disprove it, it is considered robust enough to be a “theory.”
This is not to say that at some time further knowledge might bring a theory into question, this is how science works and how knowledge is advanced. But if there are enough data to put an idea into the realm of “theory,” it’s as close to fact as science gets.
With that, catastrophic AGW is by no means a “theory,” as there are many data which decisively contradict its so-called “facts.” One important feature of a theory is that it must be able to account for all data: observed, measured, quantified, etc. AGW cannot even come close to doing that.
OK corkie, before we get started let’s establish each other’s level of knowledge. Can you tell me the name of the principle, formulated by Einstein, behind the following surprising fact (learned in an overheated college dorm room). If you have a hot steam pipe in your room and wrap it with aluminum foil to keep it from heating the room, it is better to put the shiny side out rather than the dull side.
There is one way to tell who’s a scientist and who isn’t. That’s how sure of things you are. Those of you who are 100% sure global warming is wrong are not scientists. A scientist could not be more than 95% sure of such a thing, either for or against.
O/T Dimsdale: No fair getting Cosmo and Wanda to help you with your posts
Leave Global Warming alone. Stop trying to change natuure and the planet.. You are harming the environment by changing the enviroonment. If it wants to warm it will, if it wants to cool it will. You arrogant humans are hurting my Mother Earth while she tries to warm herself from the vast cold reaches of outerspace you big meanies.
LOL
A BEANO a day to keep the methane away.
Just so I don’t have to buy carbon credits. I’m cheap like that.
So that’s where you learned to make tin foil hat’s.
Aluminium foils thicker 0.001 in. are impermeable to light, gases including oxygen and water vapor. Foils thinner than this become slightly permeable due to minute pinholes caused by the production process.
Aluminium foil has a highly reflective side and a more matte side. This difference in the finish has led to the perception that a paticular side has an effect when cooking. While many believe that the shiny side’s reflective properties keep heat in on the interior and keep heat out facing the exterior, the actual difference is insignificant without measurement. The reflectivity of bright aluminium foil is 88% while dull embossed foil is 80%.
Global warming hysteria-just another failing of the left-leaning (non)educational system in America.Take the most idiotic concept ,wrap it in rhetoric,and sell it as science.Libidiots(non)educating our young to be libidiots.Don’t look at facts,believe what the libtards say.
The whole global warming hypothesis has become too absurd to contemplate.It has been proven wrong so many times that it would be laughable,except for the fact that so many people in the world either can’t or won’t do a little research to find the truth,but instead blindly accept a concept that any fifth-grader can prove wrong in about five minutes.
Blind_Mule (#93) points out that the difference between the shiny and dull sides is small. Point taken. But still, there’s that principle, which is related to the science of global warming, for all you who feel qualified to debate the science. The name is . . . d******d b*****e. Anyone fill in the blanks?
lgm,
1. You still haven’t answered my previous question. How can I both initiate and “dismiss” science at the same time? Please answer.
2. I’m not sure what your exact question(s) is/are. Despite the fact that you didn’t use a single question mark, you seem to be asking me to name an Einstein formulated principle which is “behind” the answer to a second question regarding the proper use of aluminum foil as an insulator. By “surprising” I assume you mean “counterintuitive.” I fail to understand why this/these question(s) would establish any hierarchy of scientific prowess. This doesn’t sound very scientific to me. A real scientist doesn’t value memorized knowledge. A real scientist cares about the ability to understand, test, and model concepts. Are you merely hoping that I don’t answer? (You haven’t claimed to be a scientist, but I will still discuss the AGW issue with you if you care.)
3. I won’t quiz you at all. Simply explain the mechanism of action which causes carbon dioxide to warm the planet. This is all I ask. It isn’t a test. I really don’t understand the AGW mechanism given the radiation data for the earth and sun that I’ve studied. I’ve seen this question asked on other forums on the web, but it’s never answered without some sort of convoluted reference to irregular convection theories in the upper (or maybe it was lower) atmosphere. Does a CO2 AGW mechanism rely on irregular atmospheric convection patterns?
4. How sure are you that AGW hypotheses are “right?”
5. If my assumptions regarding your first question are correct, I would guess that it’s marginally (although possibly immeasurably) better to put the dull side of aluminum foil (with disparate surfaces) facing the room. My reasons for this guess are;
a. I would assume that the thermal conduction and convective properties of the foil is bidirectionally equal, however, I have no knowledge that this is correct. Additionally, I didn’t do any research to confirm these particular assumptions. It’s quite possible that the dull side would convectively warm the air faster than the shiny side given the fact that it has a slightly higher surface area (which would contribute to a “dull side out” guess). However, it’s also possible that the shiny side would conductively absorb heat from a pipe more quickly given that it would have greater contact area (which would contribute to a “shiny side out” guess).
b. I looked up the emissivity of aluminum foil (disclosure: I didn’t posses this “knowledge” prior to your question). Measurements assign higher values for the shiny side. The lower the emissivity, the lower the radiation, the higher the insulating property so this would contribute to a “dull side out” guess.
c. Despite Blind_Mule’s input, the reflectivity of aluminum foil in the infrared band (the only band that matters here) appears to be above 95% (in the range of temperatures we are dealing with here). Disclosure: I also didn’t posses this “knowledge” prior to your question. Much like the visible light band, the reflectivity is higher for the shiny side than the dull side. Since we would want to reflect infrared energy back into the pipe, we want the shiny side facing the pipe. This consideration also contributes to a “dull side out” guess.
d. Please note that these answers are based on the short term use of aluminum foil as an insulator. I did not consider any possible effects that any possible oxidation could have on the properties of the foil. However, even when heated by the pipe, I think there would be negligible oxidation (although even negligible oxidation could affect my guess given that we are talking about all negligible differences in the properties between the two sides of the foil).
e. My “dull side out” guess is my hypothesis. While this guess is not pre-analysis counterintuitive for me (I don’t have any pre-analysis intuition with respect to this question), the answer could certainly be post-analysis counterintuitive for me. Therefore, I wouldn’t want to make any policy decisions until my hypothesis was tested especially since we are dealing with such negligible differences.
6. I’m not sure if you are referencing some obscure Einstein principle or are wrongly crediting Einstein with general radiation work. As far as I know, Einstein’s work in this field dealt with the fact that radiated energy appeared to be DISCRETELY quantified. His theories in this respect built on the work of others which quite adequately described all the principles that I used to answer your question. I’m not minimizing this work. It was a huge discovery. It’s just that Einstein’s work is more sophisticated than the science needed to answer your question. I researched Einstein’s other work (yes, I had to research his other work as I would never attempt to claim that I am familiar with everything he did) to see if I could figure out what you may be referencing but came up empty. I can’t see how quantum mechanics, relativity, or metaphysics apply to the hot dorm room question. You typed a clue to a very specific term which I could not identify (rightly or wrongly).
7. I truly look forward to your response. As you can probably tell, I do not “dismiss” science and would thoroughly enjoy engaging in such a debate. I also want to know what principle you were referencing. I truly hope that my inability to answer it doesn’t discredit me from such an engagement.
bla bla bla
The rate of absorption equals the rate of emission: de****ed ba***ce.
lgm- Are you talking about detailed balance? This theory does deal with absorption and emission but I believe it is commonly applied to atomic and sub-atomic particles. I don’t think Einstein developed this theory but it does utilize some Einstein coefficients. How does this relate to global warming?
I think Fourier is a better reference for discussions of global warming due to his extensive work in heat transfer and energy balances, not to mention he was the first to suggest the possibility of a greenhouse effect over 150 years ago.
jsr knows the word, making Vanna White proud, but not the concept.
My point was not that detailed balance is important for climate science, though it is. My point was that some people here write as thought they have a detailed technical understanding of the issues and the basic science, but they do not.
Alex, I’ll take liberal arrogance for $100
lgm –
I’m just a lowly engineer so I don’t have a detailed knowledge of advanced physics, although I did study quite a bit of heat transfer and use it fairly often in my work (thus my reference to Fourier.) It came up once in some interminable math or physics class long, long ago. After doing some more reading as far as I can tell detailed balance actually falls under the category of probability of processes with applications in various technical areas including quantum mechanics. We are talking about a rather advanced topic that only math/physics majors understand or are even aware of. This is your criteria for discussing global warming with someone?
Now I’m taking a wild guess here but I’m going to assume Al Gore, Hollywood eco-celebs, rock musicians, all leading Democrats and a host of others such as David Lindorff that lecture us on global warming have no understanding of detailed balance, quantum mechanics, Fourier and heat transfer equations or even the most basic fundamentals of physics. Using your logic these people should not be addressing the public on this issue. I’ll go with that. The non-technically trained conservatives will shut up about global warming when the non-technically trained eco-warriors end their crusade.
If this issue had been left to experts and not politicized it would never have seen the light of day and would remain an obscure theory discussed only among experts with uncertain implications, where it rightly belongs IMHO. It is because of highly emotional liberals with minimal technical training that it has become a crisis. We will not stand by and let these people make the decisions for us, most likely bad ones that we will all be suffering with for years.
I am sure there are many technically literate posters here, although it seems very few have knowledge of how detailed balance influences weather patterns or emissivity of aluminum foil. Nonetheless, all of us have a right to sound off on this issue which we feel has been hijacked by the left for political gain.
lgm,
The only point made is that YOU are the one that doesn’t appear to understand (or wish to discuss) science (I’m not cocky enough to describe this as “basic”).
This is the problem with attempting to memorize science. It doesn’t work that way. It is completely INappropriate to apply ‘detailed balance’ to the dorm room situation you described. Detailed balance only applies to closed systems. You clearly described an open system. The continuous supply of hot water is an open energy input to your system. A detailed balance equation would be IMbalanced.
For the record, I stand firmly behind my answer. Do you care to go on the record and answer the question as well?
I’m sure your mistake is in good faith. Again, I think you were hoping that I wouldn’t answer at all. Either way, feel free to explain the mechanism by which carbon dioxide heats the earth. Does this mechanism rely on some obscure atmospheric convection?
BTW, I think that the readers have noted that I do the opposite of dismiss science (the geek in me). You might want to quell their suspicions that, like many AGW proponents, you avoid discussing the science at all costs. They might be sensitive to proponents that point to a scientific paper’s funding source rather than any mistakes in the paper itself. Along those same lines, you appear to be claiming that I don’t understand science enough for you to describe a simple mechanism to me. Well, I think I’ve demonstrated to them, that I am capable of understanding your explanation. So, please, humor me.
lgm,
One more thing. Don’t ever attempt to cite ‘detailed balance’ when discussing a laser diode or LED. These are example systems of great imbalance between absorption and emission. In fact, the whole point of a laser diode is to create a great imbalance of emission (that’s where the “e” in laser comes from). Again, the system is open. It relies on energy from a constant electric field (not the absorption of radiated energy).
corkie said (#101):
Basic means something from college level physics. Advanced is something from graduate school or postgraduate training. This is basic. Modern climate modeling is advanced.
I disagree. We want to know whether the shiny or dull side has a smaller emmission coefficient (the constant in Newton’s, not Fourier’s, law of cooling). We do an Einstein style gedanken experiment. In thermal equilibrium, the aluminum foil would emit as much as it absorbs (detailed balance). The shiny side has less absorption, hence less emission. But the emission coefficient is the same whether the system is in equilibrium or not, hence shiny has less emission, in or out of equilibrium. There is a flaw in this college textbook argument. What’s shiny at optical wavelengths may not be so in the infrared.
The relation between absorption and emission coefficients in an LED (or any other laser) is determined by detailed balance. That’s why lasers need to be pumped to bring the excited population out of equilibrium. Detailed balance helps you figure out exactly how much pumping is needed.
lgm,
You might disagree, but you are 100% wrong. Furthermore, I think you know that you’re wrong but are trying to save face.
1. You are conductively heating one side of your system. Therefore, you want the radiating side (the side not facing the pipe) to have higher emissivity than the side being conductively heated. Are you implying that all conduction-to-radiation insulators are bi-directionally equal? Are you implying that a pipe covering which is carbon on one side and silver on the other would be bi-directionally equal? If so, this is laughable.
2. I clearly stated laser DIODES for a reason. Laser diodes are not energized by means of radiated energy yet emit much radiated energy. Therefore, much like your dorm room system, THERE IS NO BALANCE BETWEEN ABSORPTION AND EMISSION. Detailed balance might, as you stated, “help.” Many, many principles “help,” but there is no balance!
Seriously, lgm, I think you’ve realized you’ve lost this one. You are discussing science with someone that is quite capable of understanding the supposed mechanism by which carbon dioxide heats the earth. Stop yourself and ask why nobody is willing to discuss it with me. You seem like a smart person. Why won’t you even consider skeptic evidence?
BTW, you might want to avoid calling an LED a laser.
Also, I meant to state that you want the side facing the pipe to have lower emissivity.
Further correction. The above sentence should read, “Also, I meant to state that you want the side NOT facing the pipe to have lower emissivity.”
One last thing.
The “flaw” in your argument – that because one side of the aluminum foil is “shiny” with respect to visible light that it will also be “shiny” to infrared radiation – ISN’T due to the fact that you were limiting yourself to a “college textbook answer.” EVERY college physics book I’ve ever seen (for that matter every high school physics book I’ve ever seen) thoroughly discusses absorption, emission, transmission, etc differences according to wavelength (or frequency). My first answer carefully distinguished between aluminum foil’s infrared as well as visible light properties. Besides, the right answer is the right answer. It’s independent of the level of science used to explain it.
I have a feeling that you’ve never even had a calculus based physics class. While I don’t think you need one to discuss AGW, I do think you need one before you cast dispersions on other’s knowledge of science.
You should probably go back and tell your college professor (or whoever conveyed this little example to you) and explain the flaws with their analysis.