CommentsDisplaying UMN2419's 10 most recent comments.

• Study Finds Conservatives’ Trust in Science at Record Low: Do You Agree With Its Reasoning?

  April 2, 2012 at 4:54pm

  In reply to UMN2419.

  Now convince me that the 0.00387% of the Earth‘s atmosphere that is CO2 doesn’t contribute to climate change

• Study Finds Conservatives’ Trust in Science at Record Low: Do You Agree With Its Reasoning?

  April 2, 2012 at 4:53pm

  In reply to UMN2419.

  So if the annual average amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases by 0.0001% (it has increased by ten times that in the last decade) That’s an increase of 6.84*10^39 molecules. Now if 1% of those molecules absorb a single photon of the smallest energy possible for CO2 in one year, that adds 9.10*10^21 J of energy to the Earth’s atmosphere. That is equivalent to over 577 years of energy consumption of the United States at 2003 levels.

• Study Finds Conservatives’ Trust in Science at Record Low: Do You Agree With Its Reasoning?

  April 2, 2012 at 4:42pm

  For those saying evolution and global warming are just a theories and not a laws, that is because they cannot ever be laws. A law is an analytical statement of WHAT happens. For example Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation states that “Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses.” So it states that when I drop my pencil, it is attracted to the earth and falls to it, and also that the earth is attracted to my pencil and moves towards it, but it says nothing about WHY it happened. To explain WHY this force of gravity exists, we must use Einstein’s THEORY of General Relativity. This started out as a HYPOTHESIS then, after repeated testing and thorough confirmation it was elevated to a theory, which is the highest confidence a scientist can place on an explanation of WHY. So is global warming fact? No. But think about this:

  CO2 makes up 0.0387% of Earth’s atmosphere a very small portion
  CO2 is a polar molecule, therefore it absorbs infrared (or heat) energy
  The smallest absorption of energy a single CO2 atom can make is 667 cm-1 (wavenumbers) or 1.33*10^-16 J (an extremely small number)
  The Earth’s atmosphere is approximately 5*10^21g
  That translates to 1.94*10^18 g or 2.65*10^40 molecules of CO2

• ‘Holy War’: Thousands Gather to Support TX Nativity Scene Against Atheists’ Attacks

  December 19, 2011 at 7:43pm

  In reply to sissykatz.

  I am a liberal and I fully support the nativity scene as I understand it is not in violation of the constitution. However, I hope all of you who also support the nativity scene also realize that by doing so, you must also accept the right of a Jewish group to display a Star of David, an Islamic group to display their own symbol, an Atheist group to display a symbol or scene, and a Satanist group to do the same.

• Liberal Bias? University Allegedly Cans Former GOP Politician Over Conservative Views

  December 19, 2011 at 7:14pm

  In reply to Time Rebel.

  Okay, I’m not here to get in a political debate about anything, I just want to say something about global warming. What is happening is that CO2 levels are rising. NO ONE REFUTES THIS. CO2 is a molecule capable of infrared absorption and excitation to higher vibrational energy states (a.k.a. it absorbs heat energy). With more CO2 in the atmosphere, more heat energy from the sun is absorbed and kept on Earth. What effect this will have on our planet is not known, though it would seem logical that an increase in heat energy will result in an increase in average temperature, resulting in melting of ice and the changing of ecosystems. I’m not saying anything catastrophic will happen, I am simply saying things will change and we cannot know if it will be a small effect, or if it will be a devastating effect and I would rather not take the risk.

• Liberal Bias? University Allegedly Cans Former GOP Politician Over Conservative Views

  December 19, 2011 at 7:00pm

  In reply to Cottoneyed77.

  Well everyone knows that you can’t be patriotic a be a socialist. And everybody knows the democrat party is full of socialists. Ergo, democrats cannot be patriotic. They hate liberty and freedom and long for, no love, tyranny. Come on, everybody knows that……..

  I enjoyed the use of “ergo” in your comment to make it sound like it was a logical train of thought. However, if you had remembered how proofs work, you would understand that your argument is a fallacy. I’ll break it down:
  Claim 1: You can’t be patriotic and be a socialist
  Claim 2: The democratic party is full of socialists
  Conclusion: democrats cannot be patriotic.

  Although I disagree with claim 1, it is a valid claim. Claim 2 is also valid, and, as a side note, I would have to agree with this one. However, The conclusion drawn is preposterous even if we accept both claims as it goes against the foundations of logical argument. Claim 2 does not say that if you are a democrat, you MUST be socialist. It only states that the democratic party is full of socialists, meaning there may be some, few, but some democrats who are not socialist and, if they are not socialist, they therefore, may be able to be patriotic. Ergo, you’re argument is not a valid one.