Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial 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 It is no longer maintained.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 or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll

Votes: 0

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

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Aug 31, 2001
 Comments:
As a devout Libertarian, I know that idiots come in two major varieties: Conservatives and Liberals. Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to imply that just because I'm a Libertarian, I'm smarter than other people or that all Liberals and Conservatives are lacking in intelligence. Many Liberals are college educated, and many Conservatives enjoy successful lives as medical professionals and widely-read authors. But one issue on which both Liberals and Conservatives are blinded by their own prejudices is one of today's most hot-button topics: Global Warming.
liberal_myths

More stories about Liberal Myths
Hump Day News Wrap-Up #1: Where is Chandra Levy?
The Malaise of the Middle Classes.
Beating Children Saves Lives
Understanding Ayn Rand through the music of Rush
The Myth of "Facts"
Ken Kesey will go no furthur
The sky: a revisionist examination
The Mythical Man-Meat
Pornography: How the Liberals won America
Full Frontal Rudity
The Dark Side of Cancer
I Believe in Negroes

More stories by
Craig McPherson

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

While the debate over global warming has been raging ever since Environmentalism was first founded in early 1982, the vitriol has been especially thick in the wake of US President George W Bush's executive order forbidding the United States to sign on to the Kyoto climate control treaty. Conservatives, who believe global warming to be a ridiculous Liberal myth, hailed the move, citing reputable scientists who have issued numerous scientific studies [aol.com] refuting global warming. The Liberal reaction, conversely, was mildly critical of the President. Liberals cited their own scientists, who believe that global warming would be fatal to all life on the planet. Peaceful environmental activists advocated calm, polite methods of encouraging President Bush to reconsider his policies. Liberals have been known to take peaceful, progressive stands on environmental issues, and this one was no exception.

However, the Conservatives are wrong and the Liberals are dumb, which is usually the case on every issue, except when the Liberals are wrong and the Conservatives are dumb. Global Warming will happen if current greenhouse gas emission trends continue, despite the warnings of Conservative pseudo-scientists. Global Warming will not lead to ecological disaster, human extinction, or the violation of "Mother Earth", as inane Liberal-Communist nutjob fearmongers would have you believe. Rather, sound scientific principles, human ingenuity, and old-fashioned elbow grease can result in the forces of Global Warming being harnessed for both human advantage and economic opportunity. I'm here to present a plan that will tell you not only the truth about Global Warming, and not only why the Liberals and Conservatives are both "educated stupid" about the issue, but also about why Global Warming is not a crisis, but an opportunity. Although I am a Libertarian, this is not a Libertarian plan, this is a human plan, and you won't hear me babble endlessly about the liberating power of the Free Market. Global Warming is an issue that exists outside political boundaries, and I will treat it as such.

2: SCIENCE REVIEW
(Scientists can skip this -- please go to section 3!)

The first thing we must do in order to understand and confront the issue is to define Global Warming and understand the ecological factors involved. I don't want to insult your intelligence by making this explanation too basic, so I'll assume you already understand basic climatology, and also, because this issue involves thermal radiation and heat dissipation, I'll assume you understand Isaac Newton's three Laws Of Thermodynamics. If you need to brush up on Newton's Laws, you can read a summary here, and if you need a refresher on the science of climate, you can find up-to-date information here.

The issue of Global Warming is an issue centered around the Earth's atmosphere. According to The Encyclopaedia Britannica (Free Registration Required), the atmosphere of our planet is made up of a mixture of several gasses, the most common of which is (obviously, or else we'd have trouble breathing!) Oxygen. Oxygen is a colourless, odourless, non-metallic gas that's absolutely essential to the biological life process of all animals, including humans. Organisms that require Oxygen to live, including all members of the animal kingdom, are called "ANAEROBIC ORGANISMS," which literally translates to "of air." The atmosphere also contains large amounts of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), an alloy of Carbon and Oxygen that's used by plants. Plants take in Carbon Dioxide and, through a process known as "photosynthesis", break it back apart into Molecular Carbon (C2) and Molecular Oxygen (O2). The plants release the Oxygen into the air, while they use the Carbon to grow and reproduce -- plants are basically living Carbon, and this fact is the basis of science known as Organic Chemistry, but that's far outside the scope of this document. When animals eat the plants, they are eating Carbon. Animals breathe in Oxygen, and combine this Oxygen with the Carbon from the plants to create Carbon Dioxide which they exhale. Hence, the balance of the atmosphere is maintained by the combined efforts of plants and animals -- animals change oxygen into carbon dioxide, while plants change carbon dioxide into oxygen. The carbon, meanwhile, makes up the planet's "bio-mass", the sum total of all organic life on the planet. The atmosphere also contains trace amounts of Nitrogen, but this is used mainly by fungus so it's of no concern to us.

Unbonded Oxygen atoms are never found in nature. Atoms are compelled to bond with other atoms by the Strong Force (one of at least four fundamental forces in the universe, the others being Gravity, the Weak Force, and Electromagnetism) to form molecules. The Oxygen in our air is Molecular Oxygen (O2), meaning that the molecules consist of two Oxygen atoms in a so-called "co-valent" bond, meaning that the two atoms have completed their outer electron orbits, or "valences" by one of the atoms stealing four electrons from the other. This may sound confusing, but it's not important to the current issue. Two other forms of Oxygen are important to this topic: the first is Dihydrogen Monoxide, aka Hydroxyl Acid, more commonly known as Water (H2O). The second is Ozone (O3), short for "Oxygen Zone", a triatomic allotrope of Oxygen that's poisonous to life and is found in the outermost layer of the atmosphere, the stratosphere, which is also known as the "Oxygen Zone".

The Earth is heated by "electromagnetic radiation" (aka "light") from the sun striking the surface of the Earth. When sunlight strikes the Earth, heat is transferred into the ground which begins to radiate up into the air through the heat transfer method called "conduction." However, not all sunlight reaches the Earth. Some of the radiation is reflected by the Oxygen Zone back into space. O-Zone has reflective properties, in fact, the reason that mirrors are reflective is that they are coated with a compound containing liquified Ozone. This keeps much of the sun's heat from ever reaching the Earth. The most advanced statistical models predict that if there were no Ozone layer, the Earth's average temperature could increase by as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F, 8 degrees K). The theory behind Global Warming concerns so-called "greenhouse gasses." A "greenhouse gas" is any gas with density less than that of Ozone. In any fluid medium (including liquids and gasses), less dense substances will be pushed above heavier substances, because gravity pull down harder on the heavier substances. Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, and Nitrogen are the heaviest gasses in the atmosphere, so they exist near the surface of the earth. Ozone is lighter, so it exists higher up, in the outer reaches of the atmosphere. The "greenhouse gasses", including many gasses used in industrial work, gasses released by burning of fossil fuels, and the gasses released by burning oil-based products such as gasoline, will rise up above the Ozone in the atmosphere. Instead of being reflected back into space by the Ozone, all of the sun's rays will now be absorbed by the greenhouse gasses and converted into heat, which will be sent down to the earth by the heat transfer process known as "convection." This is what causes Global Warming.

I realize that this Science Review was pretty long and maybe a bit boring, and was probably this site's second most in-depth technical article after Building Your Dream PC, but in order to provide the readership with the respect they deserve, I've tried to aspire to the exact same level of accuracy, reliability, and scholastic integrity that the author of "Dream PC" achieved.

3: WHY THE CONSERVATIVES ARE WRONG

Let's not mince words: Conservatives are as dumb as posts. Especially when it comes to science. Oh, Conservatives have produced a ton of science: the only problem with it is that none of it follows the scientific method, none of it fits with real-world data, and most of it was created by deciding on the "facts" beforehand and then creating "science" to fit the "facts". If you're willing to overlook those three minor flaws, Conservative science is a wonderful, wonderful thing.

However, if you're interested in science that accurately reflects reality, Conservative science is generally a sub-optimal choice. Liberal science isn't very good in that regard either, but we'll save that point for section 4.

Conservatives have produced reams of "evidence" claiming to disprove the theory of Global Warming. However, this Conservative "science" has proven to be about as accurate as the "science" of Spontanious Generation, Ether, Protoplasm, General Relativity, Flat-Earth Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Heliocentricism (the theory that everything revolves around the earth), Craniometry, and Phrenology. Fortunately, formalized Logic allows us to quickly disprove the assertions of the Conservative scientists. There exist a number of "Logical Facilities" that we can quickly use to settle most debates. You can find a list of common Logical Facilities here. Two Logical Facilities in particular allow us to easily prove that Global Warming is fact. The first Logical Facility, Ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority), states that if an expert in a subject agrees with a premise regarding that subject, then the premise is true. Climatologists and other expert scientists believe that Global Warming is true, therefore by the Ad Verecundiam Facility, Global Warming is true. The second useful Facility is Ad Populum (appeal to the masses), which states that if a majority support a premise, the premise is true. A majority of people believe in Global Warming, so by Ad Populum, Global Warming is true. The fact that Conservatives still deny Global Warming just proves they don't understand Logic, which by the Ad Hominem Logical Facility makes them even more wrong! Moses on a stick!
I think I've said just about enough about Conservatives.

4: WHY THE LIBERALS ARE WRONG

Let's not mince words: Liberals as dumb as bricks.

Let's look at some quick facts about the Liberal/Environmentalist class of people that seriously throws their credibility into question:

  • Liberals believe in a "spirit" named "Mother Earth," "Mother Nature," or "Gaia." They believe that ecological damage "rapes Gaia." They often hold prayer ceremonies to this "Gaia" and believe that she is the source of life and guides their actions. No evidence of this "Mother Earth Gaia Spirit" has EVER been found.

  • Many Environmentalists, especially females, also believe in a "moon goddess" named "Luna." They note that their monthly blood cycles are 28 days, and that the moon cycle is 28 days, and condlude (wrongly) that their vaginas are "mystical conduits for chanelling the power of the moon goddess." This is why I don't date women, they're just too weird.

  • The "Animals Rights" group "PETA" has its official position that ownership of pets (cats, dogs, etc) should be banned by law, because the domestic cat and dog are "Abominations to Mother Nature" who "should be driven into extinction."

  • "Animal Rights" groups have confessed to numerous acts of terrorism, vandalism, and murder in the name of "protecting Mother Earth."

  • "Animal Rights" groups have attempted to ban hunting, fishing, and in some rarer cases, all animal husbandry.

  • "Animal Rights" groups in many places have tried to outlaw the ownership or consumption of meat.

  • The Eco-Terrorism group "Earth Liberation Front", which has been responsible for hundreds of acts of arson, vandalism, and murder in the name of protecting "Mother Earth", offers the following advice on how to "save the planet", quoted word for word from their website:
  • powerlines: cut supporting cables, unbolt towers, and base supports, saw wooden poles.
  • transformers: shoot out, bonfires, throw metal chains on top, or blow them up.
  • computers: smash, burn or flood buildings.
  • Please copy and improve for local use.
  • The "Earth Liberation Front" has often done far more environmental damage than the so called "Enemies of Gaia" it tries to destroy. ELF terrorists once kidnapped several baby seals and painted them bright orange so that the seals' pelts could never be made into fur coats. The paint destroyed the insulation of the seals' skin and they froze to death upon returning to the ocean.

  • The "Earth Liberation Front", in the name of "Protecting Gaia", has accidently started massive forest fires that have wiped out entire endanged species, destroyed hectares of old-growth timber, and destroyed human homes and lives.

  • In my town, when a woman was told by the power company that they'd have to cut down one of her trees because it was about to fall over onto an electrical line, she responded by chaining an innocent puppy to the tree in the hopes that this would dissuade the power company from cutting the tree down.

  • Did I mention that Environmentalists use metal chains to chain helpless puppy dogs to trees that are on the verge of falling over onto live power lines???

  • Recently, environmental lobbies prevented firefighters from pumping water from a like to fight a forest fire that was probably started by the Earth Liberation Front to begin with. Several firefighters were killed because the environmentalists wouldn't allow the "natural sanctity" of the lake to be disturbed.

  • Liberals believe that Earth is a "space ship", and are often associated with UFO cults such as Heaven's Gate and Scientology.

  • Liberals support government control over people's private lives, they oppose Free Enterprise, Free Trade, and Free Thought, and they support government regulation of private industry including draconian environmental regulations that would effectively return people to the days of living in caves and dying at 20 years old. Please read Ayn Rand's Environmentalism: The Anti-Industrial Revolution to learn why Environmentalism is bad for everybody, not just "Gaia."

  • George Orwell's 1984 describes what the world would be like if it were run by Liberals.


  • I could go on and on with this same tack for hours, but I won't -- I think you get the picture by now.

    Now, why are Liberals in such a hissy-fit over Global Warming? Are they worried about their precious "Mother Earth" getting a sunburn? Yes, but that's not the only reason. Their real complaint involves the polar ice caps.

    According to The Encyclopaedia Britannica (Free Registration Required), the Arctic and Antarctic icecaps are giant blocks of freshwater ice suspended in the ocean at the poles. Geologists estimate that the icecaps contain as much as 5% of the Earth's fresh water, and that melting of the icecaps would cause a devastating rise in ocean levels that could severely affect coastal cities. It's estimated that full melting of the icecaps could cause oceans in some areas to rise to as high as twenty feet above sea level, which in some flatter areas could result in water sweeping several miles inland.

    5: WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS A GOOD THING

    Liberals fear drowning under the rising ocean waters as long-haired hippie freaks shout out dire portents about how mankind is finally being punished by a vengeful Gaia for driving SUVs. I hate Liberals so much. So very, very much. I've worked out a plan for what we can DO with the water, how we can use it productively and proactively, and how we can make Global Warming the greatest event in human history and the turning point that'll mark our journey to the stars.

    Unfortunately, this article has gotten quite long already, and with all the extensive research it required, I've been working on it for over six hours. I'm going to have to end this installment here, and turn this article into a two-parter. Consider this just the intro text; tomorrow night's conclusion will detail in full the ways we'll cope with global warming. Because I believe strongly in the concept of peer review, anyone raising objections to this article will be told why and how they are wrong in part 2. Don't miss it!

    TO BE CONTINUED...

    "Due to pollution, cars pose a mortal threat to the security of every nation."
    Al Gore, 1992, Earth in the Balance

    "Cars have freed the American spirit and given us the chance to chase our dreams."
    Al Gore, 1999, speech to the Economic Club of Detroit


    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 08:17:02 AM PST
    I had no idea that Nitrogen was a trace element in the atmostphere instead of 74% of it. Perhaps you could enlighten me further as to how you show this with those logical "facilities".

    The facilities show that because an expert in a subject agrees with a premise of that subject, the premise must be true. Therefore, no experts will ever disagree on a premise of a subject. Nor is there a need for further study of a premise once an expert has vindicated it.

    Which is fine because we don't need to study the vinicated General Relativity, which is as silly as Phrenology. Good job on the article, it was quite funny. I'm sure your suggestion as to how to use the extra heat from Global warming will be just as entertaining.

    -Ben


    Nitrogen, Nitrates, and the Nitrogen Cycle (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Craig McPherson on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 10:39:40 AM PST
    Anybody who's ever owned a fish tank (see My Neighbor Is Allowed To Own A Pot-Head Neo-Nazi Juvenile-Delinquent Street Punk With Purple Hair, But I'm Not Allowed To Own A Goldfish for more details), or, if you're in Europe, an "aquarium" or "aquaritank" can tell you a LOT about Nitrogen and the Nitrogen Cycle.

    The waste that fish excretes contains large quantities of Ammonia (NH4), a toxic Nitrogenous substance. Bacteria in the water break down the Ammonia, combining the Nitrogen with Oxygen to form Nitrite (NO2), a less toxic substance. Different bacteria then turn the Nitrite into Nitrate (NO3), which is relatively nontoxic, and is absorbed by algae and other fungii as part of their reproductive cycle, thus removing the Nitrogen from the water. Those fungii often eventually wind up as food for the fish, which starts the Nitrogen cycle all over again.

    It's a beautiful thing. But Nitrogen in the air?! Answer ONE question for me: do you want to inhale fish crap?


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

    Nitrogen is not Nitrate (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:17:56 PM PST
    You didn't pass chem class the first time around, did you?


     
    I wouldn't say... (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 08:17:24 AM PST
    ...that global warming is necessarily a good thing, but the planet has been heating and cooling naturally since its existence. Compare our current temperature with that of the last thousand years, and it has increased. Compare out current temperature with that of the last ten thousand years and it has decreased.

    we can make Global Warming the greatest event in human history and the turning point that'll mark our journey to the stars.

    Oh boy. You're going to turn this into some son-of-Jonathan-Swift story and tell us to ruin the planet so we have to accelerate our space programs so we can evacuate Earth.


    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:50:51 PM PST
    Oh boy. You're going to turn this into some son-of-Jonathan-Swift story and tell us to ruin the planet so we have to accelerate our space programs so we can evacuate Earth.

    Sounds like a great idea ... provided those damned Liberals and Conservatives stay behind.


     
    I hate to bore you with details... (1.00 / 2) (#6)
    by greyrat on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 09:38:12 AM PST
    ...while you are on such a hilarious roll, but since others are too:
    Organisms that require Oxygen to live, including all members of the animal kingdom, are called "ANAEROBIC ORGANISMS," which literally translates to "of air."
    Wrong.

    anaerobic, a. (Biol.) Not requiring air or oxygen for life; -- applied especially to those microbes to which free oxygen is unnecessary; anarobiotic; -- opposed to arobic.

    Note also that there are many members of the animal kingdom do not require oxygen.


    Throw out the dictionary you got from a cereal box (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Craig McPherson on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 09:54:45 AM PST
    Enyclopaedia Britannica (which I think I'd trust as a reliable source on these matters) has the correct definitions:

    an�aer�o�bic - living, active, or occurring only in the presence of oxygen <anaerobic respiration>, from Latin "an" meaning "of", "aero" meaning air, vis, oxygen.

    "Aerobic" means "no oxygen." The entomology of the word seems odd at first, but it's easy to remember if you think of aerobic exercise -- after performing aerobic exercises, you have trouble breathing -- hence how "aerobic" came to be known to science as meaning "no oxygen."

    You know, it's not a crime to check your facts before you post. I know you may be just trolling, in which case the editors will take care of you pretty quickly, but if you're not, I'd advise you to do a bit of RESEARCH to avoid making yourself look foolish.

    (And yes, ALL animals are anaerobic and need Oxygen to survive. That's part of the toxicony of the animal kingdom -- or "animalia" as it's called in Latin.)


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

    Reliable sources... (1.00 / 2) (#25)
    by KillboyPHD on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:37:05 PM PST
    The Merriam-Webster dictionary (also, you must agree, a reliable source of information) disagrees with your definitions of "heliocentric" and "anaerobic", and indeed even the identity of the Greek god Helios (whom it defines as the "Greek god of the Sun : compare Sol")

    In fact, in numerous places, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica defines "anaerobic" similarly to the M-W definition, most notably in an article on the evolution of atmospheric oxygen, and in an artlice dicussing life metabolisms which you probably should have read before writing this piece.

    But, as an earlier poster pointed out, the precise definitions of scientific-sounding words thrown into your argument so pedantically is not the point. We (more or less) knew what you meant to say. On the other hand, using all these seemingly-scientific terms in exactly the wrong way does nothing to enhance your credibility on the matter.

    On to your argument.

    I hope you present it in part 2.

    So far, this piece has consisted of ill-founded suppositions, including the classification ofentire political spectrums (that being conservative and liberal) by the most extreme representatives of those spectrums. Whereas the political makeup of the United States, for example, would look on a Liberal-Conservative scale like a bell-curve (with the extreme majority of people falling immediately to one side or another of the dividing line between liberal and conservative), you seem to posit that the average person is either at one extreme end of the spectrum or the other. I'm sure your argument won't depend on this posit, though, so it doesn't really matter. It, again, does not add anything to your credibility though.

    -Jer, awaiting anxiously the better half...


     
    And how about a link to the word (1.00 / 2) (#32)
    by greyrat on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:55:53 PM PST
    "toxicony" you use above? That'd be interesting too.


     
    I just can't find 'em fast enough (1.00 / 2) (#37)
    by greyrat on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 01:30:07 PM PST
    The entomology of the word seems odd at first...
    en�to�mol�o�gy n. The scientific study of insects.

    et�y�mol�o�gy n. The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible.


     
    Flawed definition of anaerobic (3.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 07:17:59 PM PST
    I'm sorry, but you are quite wrong about that definition of anaerobic, and your analogy of being short of breath is dead wrong. I highly recommend you read a little bit about excercise science, specifically the ATP system by which muscles operate.

    In a nutshell, your muscles can operate aerobically (with oxygen) at a very efficient level. This is how your muscles work in long distance running or other endurance events. The anaerobic system involves very sudden and intense actions from the muscles, like sprinting. Although the heart rate and breathing also increase, this makes use of a secondary energy system that has about 10 seconds of stored energy at a time. Lactic acid is produced as a byproduct and this is the principle cause of "burning" muscles in exercise.

    I don't wish to make any personal attacks here, but I believe most credible scientific thinkers would take pause before unveiling part 2 of any article which is so full of holes in the first part. I had fun reading your anectdoctes about how extreme liberals are, well, extreme. Beyond this, I think it isn't fair to call this a scientific article.

    (Posting anonymous, real name is Duane Gran <ragnar@spinweb.net>)


     
    I thought this article was going to be... (1.00 / 2) (#7)
    by greyrat on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 09:51:23 AM PST
    ...a good laugh, but you're too much of a fuck-up to write comedy. Here's another one:
    Heliocentricism (the theory that everything revolves around the earth)
    Wrong.

    he�li�o�cen�tric, also he�li�o�cen�tri�cal adj.
    Of or relating to a reference system based at the center of the sun.
    Having the sun as a center.

    Stay in school, study hard, and maybe someday you will be smart enought to write good satire.


    Once again -- check your facts. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Craig McPherson on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 10:05:40 AM PST
    First of all, I don't know why you keep bringing up "satire". This is a serious news site, and I'm writing serious news. If I happen to take a few potshots at deserving members of society in the process, all the better, but I'm a journalist and a thinker, NOT a bloody comedian. I'm not here for chuckles, I'm here to get the REAL news about the REAL issues, and if you can't handle that, go wank off somewhere else.

    Once again, I'm inclined to think you're trolling, because you posted the direct opposite of what every dictionary and encyclopedia on the face of the planet says.

    he�lio�cen�tric
    from the Greek god "Helios", called "king of the earth"
    1 a : relating to, measured from, or as if observed from the earth's center
    2 : taking or based on the earth as the center of perspective and valuation


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

    troll patrol .... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by jsm on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 10:17:52 AM PST
    ... beat is the father of your rock'n'roll, etc.

    I must say that my dictionary has "heliocentric" meaning centred on the sun, but these things do differ, and whoever edited this article presumably agrees with its author. In any event, we don't call each other "fuck-ups" on this site, and we don't throw around accusations of insincerity (which, if you can prove it, would have Craig not only deleted, but subject to a two week ban not entirely unlike the one that I have just returned from). No deletions for the time being, but let's cut it out, mmkay?

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

     
    OK, OK! (1.00 / 2) (#15)
    by greyrat on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 11:02:07 AM PST
    The two extra laughs I got on your replies (plus the bonus chuckle courtesy of jsm) bring you back up on target to average hilarity for this site.

    Better abandon your copy of Brittanica though.


    I fail to see humour anywhere on this site. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Craig McPherson on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 11:32:10 AM PST
    On one side, I see gentlemen and scholars trying to hold intelligent discussion about genuine issues. On the other side, I see thinly-disguised trolls trying to ruin everyone else's mentally stimulating experiences. Let's just say that I've pretty well decided which side you're on. Anybody who would look up a definition in the dictionary, and then deliberatly type in the OPPOSITE of the correct definition, TWICE, while claiming that the dictionary really DOES contain that misinformation, obviously has some serious mental issues going on. That's pretty pathetic; anybody who would knowingly provide tonnes of incorrect information in an effort to fool gullible people has to be dealing with serious issues in his life.

    Don't be a troll.


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

    Yes. I agree with what you are saying. (1.00 / 2) (#18)
    by greyrat on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 11:41:06 AM PST
    Absolutely.

    One hundred percent.

    Without a doubt.

    My point exactly.


    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Craig McPherson on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 11:45:17 AM PST
    I'm glad we're in agreement here. Let's not have a repeat of this little "incident."


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

    Umm, so you're not submitting any more stories? (1.00 / 2) (#20)
    by greyrat on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:06:50 PM PST



    We can only hope... (1.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:20:32 PM PST



     
    Could someone PLEASE do some troll control? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Craig McPherson on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:35:03 PM PST
    This fellow questioned my integrity, questioned the integrity of this entire site, posted two fake dictionary definitions, and made several defamatory statements. I'm not sure HOW he managed to accidently type "adequacy" while trying to type "geekizoid," but he obviously wound up at the wrong site.


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

    Be careful what you ask for (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:57:12 PM PST
    If you're looking for "troll control", you may find your own stories, comments, and account deleted from the site :)


    Brave words... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Craig McPherson on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 01:19:00 PM PST
    ... for a person who's afraid to reveal his identity, Mr. Anonymous Reader.

    I'll no longer be answer further complaints here in the comments, rather, I'll address any and all objections when I post Part 2 tomorrow. It's sad that serveral troublemakers are rejecting basic science, but I'll deal with them all in due course.

    When I post a story to Adequacy.org, I become a representative of the INTEGRITY of Adequacy.org, and I will not allow anyone to go unchallenged who questions the accuracy or integrity of any story on this site, mine or anyone else's. I hold myself to the rigorous academic standards demanded of every article on this fine website.

    If I ever did make a factual error, I'd instantly admit to it and set it right, but so far all I see is the normal crowd of "this is wrong, this sucks, is this for real" trolls that have plauged all the more controversial stories on this site; immature individuals threatened by the messages that are presented.


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

    Oh, I see (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 01:35:18 PM PST
    I will not allow anyone to go unchallenged who questions the accuracy or integrity of any story on this site

    Translation: I'm right. All the time. Why? Just because...


    Now (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 01:38:10 PM PST
    you understand.


    Sure I understand (3.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 08:18:57 PM PST
    A combination of dyslexia, zero knowledge of chmeistry, and an ego the size of Cleveland makes one perfect for posting stories here.


     
    regardless of the facts (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by alprazolam on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 10:39:17 AM PST
    either global warming is for real and the environment gets fucked up, or not, but either way, who cares? we have enough machines to be able to live without a proper environment. so you can't take long walks on the beach anymore, who cares? that stuff doesn't contribute to the economy so it doesn't matter. the quicker we pave everything anyway, the more painless it is for everybody.


    New homepage (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 06:16:40 PM PST
    Here is your new homepage


     
    The earth has suffered floods before (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Adam Rightmann on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 11:13:49 AM PST
    cataclysmic ones, that drowned all the sinners and non believers.

    I'm not saying such a thing could or should happen today, but if you look at a population map showing belief in God, it does appear that the midwest of America has the highest proportion of believers, while the liberal infested east and west coast are full of atheist, pagans and heretics.

    It makes you think, doesn't it.


    A. Rightmann

    makes me think all right (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by alprazolam on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:47:46 PM PST
    "thank god i'm out of there"


    It is easier to rent a Ryder truck (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Adam Rightmann on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 01:22:26 PM PST
    and flee the Sodom and Gomorrah of the east coast, than it is to build an ark.

    Of course, if you live in a flat place like England, you don't have as much of a choice.


    A. Rightmann

    well (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by alprazolam on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 02:46:34 PM PST
    if god existed it might matter.


     
    Nice try (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:27:35 PM PST
    From: http://www.webster.com/ One entry found for anaerobic. Main Entry: an�aer�o�bic Pronunciation: "a-n&-'rO-bik; "an-"a(-&)-, -"e(-&)- Function: adjective Date: circa 1881 1 a : living, active, occurring, or existing in the absence of free oxygen <anaerobic respiration> b : of, relating to, or being activity in which the body incurs an oxygen debt <anaerobic exercise> 2 : relating to or induced by anaerobes - an�aer�o�bi�cal�ly /-bi-k(&-)lE/ adverb One entry found for aerobic. Main Entry: aer�o�bic Pronunciation: "a(-&)r-'O-bik, "e(-&)r- Function: adjective Date: 1884 1 : living, active, or occurring only in the presence of oxygen <aerobic respiration> 2 : of, relating to, or induced by aerobes 3 : involving, utilizing, or used in aerobics <an aerobic workout> <aerobic fitness> - aer�o�bi�cal�ly /-bi-k(&-)lE/ adverb from: http://www.dictionary.com anaerobic adj 1: living or active in the absence of free oxygen; "anaerobic bacteria" [syn: anaerobiotic] [ant: aerobic] 2: not aerobic; "isometric exercises are anaerobic" [ant: aerobic]


    So you can copy/paste/edit fake definitions. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Craig McPherson on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:41:32 PM PST
    The REAL definition from Webster.com (and formatted correctly, too):

    ***
    One entry found for anaerobic.
    Main Entry: an�aer�o�bic
    Pronunciation: "a-n&-'rO-bik; "an-"a(-&)-, -"e(-&)-
    Function: adjective
    Date: circa 1881

    1 : living, active, or occurring only in the presence of oxygen <anaerobic respiration>

    2 : of, relating to, or induced by anaerobes

    3 : involving, utilizing, or used in anaerobics
    ***

    Nice try, kid. Geekizoid is down the hall on your right. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


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

    Haha funny (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:45:18 PM PST
    Anaerobic

    An organism, such as a bacterium, that can live in the absence of atmospheric oxygen.

    It is good that you knew the way to Geekizoid. That way you can get there yourself without mommy's supervision.


     
    His definition was correct... (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by KillboyPHD on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:52:51 PM PST
    Perhaps a little formatting would clear things up...

    Quote:
    ---------------------------------
    One entry found for anaerobic.
    Main Entry: an�aer�o�bic
    Pronunciation: "a-n&-'rO-bik; "an-"a(-&)-, -"e(-&)-
    Function: adjective
    Date: circa 1881
    1 a : living, active, occurring, or existing in the absence of free oxygen <anaerobic respiration> b : of, relating to, or being activity in which the body incurs an oxygen debt <anaerobic exercise>
    2 : relating to or induced by anaerobes

    One entry found for aerobic.
    Main Entry: aer�o�bic
    Pronunciation: "a(-&)r-'O-bik, "e(-&)r-
    Function: adjective
    Date: 1884
    1 : living, active, or occurring only in the presence of oxygen <aerobic respiration>
    2 : of, relating to, or induced by aerobes
    3 : involving, utilizing, or used in aerobics <an aerobic workout> <aerobic fitness>

    -----------------------------

    But you don't have to believe either him or I. You can look it up yourself. http://www.m-w.com - Merriam-Webster Online


    He'll just claim... (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:55:11 PM PST
    that you edited the entry. After all, look at all that bold text. That wasn't in the dictionary. You must've changed it. Bad Killboy.


    Check the source... (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by KillboyPHD on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 01:06:57 PM PST
    ...if any of you readers don't believe:

    http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=anaerobic

    But somehow I think that the reader has managed to figure out who is correct and who is incorrect in this debate already.

    -Jer


     
    What a joke (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 02:03:05 PM PST
    After presenting several pages of badly-transcribed notes cribbed from an encyclopedia, and noting that conservatives often resort to logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks, you then proceed to make a bunch of ad hominem attacks against liberals, and state that 'real soon now' you'll post your sci-fi solution that will turn global warming into a good thing for humanity?
    Good luck. The American Academy of Sciences and several other objective scientific organizations have pointed out that global warming is not going to make everyone happy by turning every part of the earth into a beach resort. It is going to fuck up agriculture, cause billions of dollars of damage to anyone unfortunate enough to live near a coastline, increase the incidence of infectious disease such as malaria, and so on, and so on.
    The only thing sillier than a conservative who doesn't want to admit global warming is occurring, is a libertarian whose first-year-philosophy-class ideals blind him to the fact that global warming will have huge impacts on the global environment and economy, impacts which an adolescent gee-whiz solution will not be able to reverse.


     
    Newton's laws (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 02:18:37 PM PST
    Just a small nitpick. Newton's laws are of motion. The three laws of thermodynamics came far, far, far after Newton.

    Furthermore, Heliocentrism is the belief that everything revolves around the sun. You mistakenly state that heliocentrism is the belief that everything revolves around the Earth.

    While I respect your opinions, I seriously doubt that you have had a climatology class or any thermodynamics or chemisty class.

    Your thoughts are well organized and thoughtful, but mis-statements of comman fact like this rob your essay of credibility.

    Peace,
    Derek


    Yeah, we've been bombing him all afternoon (1.00 / 2) (#42)
    by greyrat on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 02:26:34 PM PST
    He's just not getting it (or pretending not to). He may actually be a better humorist that I originally gave him credit for.


    I don't think he's that good (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 02:46:40 PM PST
    He responds to definitions of words by misreading them. He needs to be more subtle.


    Just dumb. (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 02:54:00 PM PST
    i'm going to mailbomb him and then try to get his ip off icq and get some friends of mine with t1's to dos his box. i'm going to make sure he never posts a story here again. he sounds like one of those linix lamers but if he's running win i have a new virus from cdc that'll keep him away for good


    new virus from cdc? (1.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 03:03:43 PM PST
    what's the name of it? I haen't heard about it yet but i'd like to check it out.

    n-e-way, if he's running Linux (not linix), it's easy to hack, I have a Redhat Linux box at home and I know from my box that you can get full access a Linux system by telnetting and logging in "root" no password. Pretty lame security


    cdc virus (1.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 03:39:20 PM PST
    it's called sircam, it steals porn from the fuqed box's hard drive and mails it to u, it is SO leet.


     
    That's brilliant! (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by zikzak on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 03:57:56 PM PST
    You have just demonstrated a premeditated intent to commit a crime. It's a shame that you are posting anonymously and we can't figure out who you are.

    Oh, wait! That's right, we can!

    It is a sad reflection on society that the only recourse practiced by ignorant people who are losing a battle of wits is to resort to threats of sabotage.


     
    No way, man. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 02:48:40 PM PST
    I think he's just dumb.

    You should mail bomb him or something. That'd shut him up. He has his e-mail address AND icq number AND aim number listed in his profile; we could really screw around with him.

    I'm going to send him some weird messages, then do mail bomb for a while. Time to die.

    This site sucks to let garbage like this story get posted. What's the deal, anyway?


     
    Umm, are you BLIND??? McPherson is a DUMBASS! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 02:38:08 PM PST
    Can we have some REALITY here?

    1. Mirrors do NOT reflect light because they're coated with liquid Ozone. Mirrors DO reflect light, but they are NOT coated with liquid Ozone. That's just a total fabrication.

    2. A change of one degree Celsius is equal to a change of one degree Kelvin! He says 10C = 8K!

    3. (In the comments) - Algae is NOT a fungus!

    4. Ozone does NOT stand for "Oxygen Zone," it is NOT located in the stratosphere, which is NOT the outermost layer of the atmosphere, and Ozone does NOT reflect electromagnetic radiation like some kind of mirror and the moron implies.

    5. The polar ice caps are HUGE.

    6. That's not what greenhouse gasses are, that's NOT what they do, and that's NOT how they work.

    I could go on. This is so stupid. Usually, stupid people don't act like this. Most stupid people just don't know anything at all, rather than knowing a ton of stuff that's WRONG like in this story. As a clinical psychiatrist who's dabbled in many other brances of science, my diagnosis is severe influence of illegal drugs or undiagnosed partial autism.

    Not trying to be rude, but speaking as a mental health professional, the author of this article should seek help!


     
    A partial listing of wrong-headed science (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 02:55:07 PM PST
    Your science is incredibly wrong. Here's a listing of incorrect statements you made, which demonstrates that in fact, people who are neither
    liberal nor conservatives can also be stupid.
    <P>
    1. Newton's laws are not the laws of thermodynamics. Newton lived in the 1600s. The concept of entropy had not yet been discovered at that
    time. Newton's laws are things like "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction" and "Force = mass * acceleration." The laws of
    thermodynamics are things like "Energy is conserved" and "The entropy of a closed system always increases."
    <P>
    2. Nitrogen is the inert buffer gas in our atmosphere. Oxygen is about 20%, and CO2 is less than 1%.
    <P>
    3. Anaerobic means without oxygen. It really really does. Other people have mentioned this.
    <P>
    4. There is no molecular carbon (C2). Carbon's natural states are graphite (crystalline structure), diamond (also crystalline, but different
    lattice), and buckminster fullerine (bucky balls), which is C60. There are some higher order fullerines, but no C2.
    <P>
    5. Plants do not use carbon to grow. Their cells are composed of carbon which has been "fixed". This means incorporated into organic
    molecules, such as cellulose and oxygen. In fact, plants are NOT living carbon. They contain many other vital elements, such as oxygen and
    hydrogen. Furthermore, we don't eat carbon. We eat the organic molecule which the plants have fixed--into their handy forms of sugar,
    starch, et cetera--and through the process of combustion break it up into carbon dioxide and water. In general, the human metabolism is not
    capable of deriving any benefit from carbon in any of its natural states.
    <P>
    6. Nitrogen is used by every plant and animal on this planet. This should be obvious since it's a fertilizer. The "amino" in amino acid refers to
    the presence of nitrogen. Nitrogen is neither a trace element in the atmosphere, nor of no interest from an ecological point of view, since it's
    "only used by fungus".
    <P>
    7. Unbonded oxygen atoms are occasionally found in nature, although rarely.
    <P>
    8. 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.
    <P>
    9. Ionic bonding can be described as "stealing" electrons. Covalent bonding is "sharing", not stealing.
    <P>
    10. Water is not a form of oxygen. It contains oxygen. That is not the same thing as BEING oxygen.
    <P>
    11. A greenhouse gas is not something lighter than ozone. A greenhouse gas is one which has certain absorbance/emission properties when
    exposed to infrared radiation. Some greenhouse gases exist which are not lighter than ozone and some gases which are lighter than ozone
    don't absorb radiation in the sun's wavelengths, and therefore don't cause emissions.
    <P>
    12. Greenhouse gases don't cause additional warming by absorbing the sun's rays. They absorb infrared radiation emitted from the earth,
    which would otherwise have escaped. By re-emitting it, they cause warming of the atmosphere and the earth.
    <P>
    13. Ozone does not absorb in the visible range. That means: it doesn't act as a mirror, silly peahen.

    <P>
    The fact is, science should determine policy; politics should not determine science. Incorrect science leads to idiotic policy. Instead of labeling
    an argument as "conservative" or "liberal", try and discover its merits on your own. I will also point out that your "logical facilities" are NOT
    proofs. "Because most people believe it" doesn't make things true; neither does an appeal to the masses.
    <P>
    Why should we listen to your ridiculous plan to "use" the hypothetical future excess water for good when you can't even get the facts straight
    about NOW? Approximately 1% of your scientific facts are correct.


    boring... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by error27 on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 02:22:44 AM PST
    >>"Because most people believe it" doesn't make things true; neither does an appeal to the masses.

    I'm tempted to moderate you down for being redundant. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true ok?

    Personally, I skipped over the science aspects of the story because I consider myself well versed on the subject already. What I can say is that as a regular, middle class American living in Minnesota I'm really looking forward to global warming.

    A couple years from now I'll be living by the ocean in balmy Bemidji MN and all the wienies from LA will be out in the ocean a thousand miles from the shore. They won't be laughing then, will they?




     
    BRAVO (1.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 10th, 2001 at 12:13:57 PM PST
    At least someone learned something in HS science class. Thanks for taking the time to respond to this ridiculous article.

    Another note for the author: It's fallacies, not "facilities." Facilities are where you visit when you have to piss. Logical fallacies are *errors* in logic. Maybe some of your "6 hours of research" should have been spent with a dictionary. MORON.


     
    adequacy editors PLEASE READ (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 03:34:14 PM PST
    I've been reading Adq for a while now and I've seen a lot of lame articles, racist/sexist stuff, grossly offensive stuff, wrong stuff. But at least those were expressing a (wrong) opinion, this is just a bunch of offensive links followed by a bunch of made-up non-science. Therefore I am requesting that the Adq admins either DELETE THIS STORY or provide a reason why they won't delete this story. A retraction and apology from whoever approved the story would be nice. Adq if you do not improve the way you select you're stories, your readers will boycot you your traffic will dwindle down to nothing and you'rer site will die.

    Please respond to this instead of deleting it; i know it'll probably get dleted as a "troll" but please respond and let us know what's going on with this site!!!

    thx


    Excuse me? (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by zikzak on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 03:49:21 PM PST
    Adequacy.org utilizes the stirctest editorial control over content. I believe the problem is with you, not the author or the article.

    Our policies are quite simple. We post controversial material, but our controversial material is researched in depth, and our methods are beyond reproach. If you take issue with any of the facts or conclusions drawn in any article, then you are very welcome to offer a rebuttal. That is why we offer reader comment posting.

    I should state, however, that useless commentary such as yours are far too common around here. Rather than meet our authors in a fair battle of informed rhetoric, many of our readers simply resort to ad hominem attacks and blanket condemnation.

    Your refusal to meet the author in an intellectual arena reveals far more about your own ignorance of the subject than it does about the quality of our research. I think you are the one who should be apologizing.


    A well researched article? (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 05:08:19 PM PST
    Unfortunately in the case of this article, the quality of research is so poor that it makes Adequacy.org looks bad.


     
    rebuttle (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 10th, 2001 at 12:08:35 PM PST
    If you take issue with any of the facts or conclusions drawn in any article, then you are very welcome to offer a rebuttal.

    Unfortunately, not everyone has time to rebut every single ridiculous claim in this article. I'll choose one that I found particularly stupid:

    "The atmosphere contains only trace amounts of nitrogen."

    Are you kidding me? The atmosphere is over 50% nitrogen, and less than 20% O2. If it was mainly O2, the Earth would be a big fireball. Morons.


     
    I'm amazed (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by otak on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 05:11:12 PM PST
    you'rer site will die.
    Frankly I'm astonished that you've stooped to the level of threats. Do you think this is in some way acceptable on the internet? If you had lost an argument with someone in real life, would you tell them that they were going to die?

    Please take your obnoxious and threatening behaviour somewhere else. Adequacy is a serious news site and there is no place for this kind of behavior here.

    thanks,
    mike.


     
    fine, whatever, but there's one more problem (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 04:02:56 PM PST
    fine, whatever, if you want to be that way. but there's one more problem. YOU'RE SITE SUCKS IN LYNX! Not everybody has access to IE/Netscape/Opera/Mozilla/Opera/Konqerer/W3M, so could you please make your site look decent in Lynx? Use some alt tags on your iomages, maybe? It looks kinda bad now thx


    No. (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by zikzak on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 04:07:46 PM PST
    As you can see from the poll on the front page, we do not support users of dodgy software written by unkempt social misfits.


    Huh? (1.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 08:29:35 PM PST
    <p><i>we do not support users of dodgy software written by unkempt social misfits</i>

    <p>Then why do you support writers of dodgy stories written by unkempt social misfits?


    Unkempt Social Misfits (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 02:31:59 PM PST
    The same reason they support people who use HTML in plain-text posts.


     
    wtf??? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 04:57:02 PM PST
    You include OS/2 and PC/DOS. Why are you supporting those IBM long-hairs who tried to interfere with Microsoft's plan of World Innovation back in the mid-80s? I'm a bit offended to see Communism represented on your poll; I think IBM's OS's should be removed, or at the very least, the poll script should be modified to track the e-mail of everyone who selects an IBM OS. Then post the list on the site for purposes of ridicule. That'd be leet.


     
    use links (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by crayz on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 07:03:10 AM PST
    it's way better than shitty lynx


    Possible illegal material on Adequacy? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Craig McPherson on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 03:53:23 PM PST
    "Links" appears to be one of the so-called "alternative web browsers" which have NOT licensed the right to use Microsoft's patented web browser concept. At current time, Microsoft's web browser (Internet Explorer), and those web browsers that have licensed the Microsoft technology (namely Netscape, whose 10-year license will expire in 2003) are the only web browsers that can be legally used without infringing on the patents and trademarks of Microsoft corporation. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, advocating the use of infringing software or software designed specifically to circumvent copyright or trademark protections can result in both the poster of the above comments AND the adequacy.org website being held liable in United States federal court for both criminal and civil penalties.

    The legal aspect aside, I must say that as a Libertarian, I'm offended by the disregard for Microsoft's intellectual property displayed by the type of people who think it's their right to steal music and use illegal software. Without Microsoft, we wouldn't HAVE the World Wide Web, so maybe you could be a little more tactful about biting the hand that feeds you?


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

    Confused facts (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 09:52:49 AM PST
    You seem to have a loose grasp on the the facts.
    MOsaic was the first browser. THis grwe up into netscape.
    The micro$soft product was the "jonney come lately" on the browser scene.
    If anything, lynx come from following the published specs for the internet, known as RFQs if my memory serve correctly.
    I use and like many micro$oft products but there is very little that has be "invented" by mirco$oft.
    Mark Browne



    RFQs? (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Craig McPherson on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 06:11:35 PM PST
    So you believe that Request For Comments stands for RFQ and not RFC?

    If you don't even know about the basic documents that form the basic set of standards and practices for the Internet, why should we believe what you say about Microsoft, who WROTE those documents?


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

    Microsoft invented http? (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 8th, 2001 at 08:00:43 PM PST
    If Microsoft invented http it's certainly news to me. I searched through the RFC's, and it seems that all the RFC's (especially in the early 90's) relating to HTTP have many authors, most of whose email addresses end in .edu. I think I saw one or two out of 50 authors whose email address ended in microsoft.com. Maybe Microsoft had all of there employees masquerade as students and professors, or maybe you're just wrong.


     
    Science aside, for a moment (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by lowapproach on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 07:53:09 PM PST
    Although it was fun to watch this article being torn to shreds for touting nonsense as science, I think that the problem of global warming could well be solved by thousands of people on the intellectual level as those who posted their criticisms here today. The party affiliations really don't matter, in spite of what Craig may think [even Libertarian politicians are telling their party what they want to hear; sorry].

    Regardless of that bullshit about liberals being entranced by the mother-spirit flowing through nature and valuing the lower animals over the rest of their species, liberals share one thing with conservatives, libertarians, Marxists and every other party: the desire to breathe air for as long as possible. Maybe I don't believe in stopping a logging crew for a spotted owl, but maybe those hundreds of thousands of acres of carbon-trapping, oxygen-producing flora around the owl have some value.

    The reason why people turn to their elected government to do something about pollution is that the safety motive and the profit motive run counter to one another too often to trust a corporation. The hillsides of southern West Virginia run orange and black after it rains, because of the respect shown the environment by corporations who haven't been there in twenty years. I have a guarded trust for someone whose job I can threaten in the next election. I have no trust whatsoever for someone who responds only to shareholders and civil litigation.


     
    OMFG (3.00 / 2) (#61)
    by jshare on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 01:43:59 AM PST
    I can't believe there is a site that supports trolling.

    This is just ridiculous.

    I mean, the trolls are bad enough when they happen in comments. Now there is a site that actually posts them as articles? Sigh. And to think I've signed up for an account.

    Jordan


    Yeah, slashdot truly sucks doesn't it ? (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by dmg on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 02:56:31 AM PST
    I can't believe there is a site that supports trolling.

    That's why we at adequacy.org have a strict 'no trolling' policy. Trolls will be deleted. Please read our FAQ.

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

    Then why hasn't this article been deleted? (1.00 / 2) (#96)
    by westgeof on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 11:58:09 AM PST
    It's nothing more than a promise to deliver a real article sometime in the future.
    I won't bother trying to refute some of this guy's scientific 'facts,' you can see that in most of the other comments. What I don't get is how this slipped through the cracks. I've seen some pretty poor research on this site, but in the last few weeks it's gotten worse than the dreaded slashdot. At least they have a verifiable story occasionally.


    As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

     
    Craig (1.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 06:22:25 PM PST
    What's the matter? Why all the moderation? Questions too tough for you to answer? Coward.


    Put down the crack pipe. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Craig McPherson on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 06:54:12 PM PST
    You'll note here, here, here, here, here, here, and here that I gave a 5 to a number of comments that were critical of my article. Even though those comments were mostly wrong, they were at least posted with the INTENT of correctly what their writters perceived as factual errors. All the comments I gave 1's to were either halfway unintelligible, trollish, or otherwise contributed nothing to the discussion or amounted to, at best, personal attacks. You're probably one of those people, posting anon because you're afraid to reveal your identity. Probably a Linux fanatic also, but that's just a guess.

    As for "questions too tough for you to answer," if you'd actually READ the comments I posted here, I said yesterday that I'd no longer be replying directly to comments for lack of time, but rather I'd be answering all serious objections in a batch during Part 2 of the article, which should be finished and posted here within a matter of hours. But I suppose literacy isn't among your strong points.


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

    To login or not login, that is the question (1.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 08:15:31 PM PST
    <p>Don't like AR's? Tough. Ask Adequacy to change posting policies. Why do you think you're so 1337 for logging in? It doesn't make you special or get you laid. Oooooh, I'm "Craig" and I have an account. Aren't I wonderful? Whatever.

    <p>My literacy is fine. I'd happily question yours however, because you seem to get all your science info from Chick tracts and the Weekly World News.


    Brilliant, brilliant. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Craig McPherson on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 08:56:06 PM PST
    You seem to have mastered the HTML/Plain Text thing also.


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

    Go for the easy stuff (1.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 04:09:54 AM PST
    Can't defend yourself against his attack. No problem. Just go for spelling, grammar, and other minor errors. It's much easier that wau and doesn't require too much brain power (a plus for you).


    I defended myself just fine, child. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Craig McPherson on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 04:52:54 AM PST
    He claimed I was engaged in biased moderation, I proved him wrong. He couldn't take it so he went to cry to mommy. In fact, I'd wager that you are he.


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

    Not biased (1.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 05:10:36 AM PST
    It's pretty lame to moderate replies to your own story instead of answering them.

    Yes I am he. No crying to mommy. Just pointing out that if you're going to be critical, post something substantive instead of hiding behind a number.


    If you'd actually read... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Craig McPherson on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 05:21:23 AM PST
    I said quite clearly that I'd address all objections in Part 2. And I did. So go there, instead of bitching. If you raised an objection that I didn't adequately answer in Part 2, then summon up some courage and e-mail me, or log in and post a comment. There's not enough time in the day to respond to every AC, and until you can find the courage to either e-mail me or attach a name to your posts, I have reason to doubt your sincerity. If there's one thing I don't like, it's insincerity. My e-mail address, AIM and ICQ ids are in my profile if you'd like to contact me as a human being rather than hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym. I do support anonymous posting, but I don't support abuse of it.

    I can't help but be reminded of this Userfriendly strip.


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

    Already read the second part (1.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 05:45:22 AM PST
    And I have a question: are you in a position of power to make any of that happen? I hope not.


    Okay, that's nice, but... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Craig McPherson on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 05:54:00 AM PST
    ... do you have any critique that's NOT a personal attack?

    Normally I wouldn't give an anonymous user as much grace as I've given you.

    You accuse me of not responding to criticism, but you seem incapable of of pointing out what criticism I haven't responded to. You accuse me of factual errors, but you don't point out what those alleged factual errors are. I'm at my wit's end. You expect someone to take you seriously, but you won't even provide a pseudonym for yourself.

    You see, I know you want to be taken seriously, but unless you identify who you are, nobody knows if you're a sincere human being or just a troller on a destructive kick.

    Until you grow a spine and e-mail me to prove who you are I will not be responding to any more of your posts or to any other AC posts. I've even simplified the spamproofing in my profile to make it a bit easier. Until then, I say GOOD DAY sir.


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

    Good day, sir (1.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 08:46:15 AM PST
    Whatever. Instead of posting, you could try Hooked on Phonics. Maybe it'll help you read the dictionary better.


     
    Crisis? (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 07:54:44 PM PST
    [...] Global Warming is not a crisis, but an opportunity.


    Did you know that in China they use the same word for crisis as they do for opportunity?

    Yes, crisitunity!


     
    HILARITY (none / 0) (#105)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 07:12:50 AM PST
    This is written so badly with so much error that I canno take it seriously. If you do learn some reality.



     
    Absolutely hilarious!! (none / 0) (#106)
    by Xenos on Wed Dec 12th, 2001 at 02:30:09 AM PST
    Great job!


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org 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 Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.