Too Delicious to Check: Global Warming Scaremongers Sign Petition Banning Dihydrogen Monoxide
Which is used in the manufacture of all kinds of nasty things, from styrofoam to nuclear power. And as the poorly miked host notes, it is in fact a major component of acid rain. All true. People are dying, Senator! So ban it!
It’s also a major component of just plain old rain. Dihydrogen monoxide’s chemical symbol is H20. But you probably already knew that. It’s a pity that people who want to impose their junk science on the rest of us don’t.
This particular video is from the Cancun climate conference, which hopefully will be the last of these travesties against sanity. ClimateGate seems to have done absolutely nothing to deter these fine transnational progressives from their mission of rendering us all less free and more poor.
Wanna really get these eggheads? Ask them what they were eating under there. And then tell them that their epidermis is showing. Asking them if they have Prince Albert in a can might be fun too. They fell for global warming, and they fell for the old ban all the water trick, so they’re bound to fall for anything.
Someone with three cards and two play-along shills could make a fortune at the conferences.
(hat tip to Hot Air)
What a bunch of F’ing Morons – Oh, and to the hypersensitive left, a Moron is a person with a mental age between 8 and 12 – these people above, have clearly displayed that they fit that description…
CO2HOG™
Right! It’s a circus side show for ‘intellectuals’. Actually it’s a convention to glorify ignorance, incompetence, and insanity. Seems to be the latest fad, now.
I admit until recently I didn’t know that “dihydrogen monoxide” is water. I know though if I had been asked about it before I would what is that before saying yeah yeah ban it ban it! People need to question everything they don’t understand!
Dear Sir,
On behalf of morons everywhere, I take great offense to your slanderous comparison of morons to left-wing progressives.
Regards,
A. Dumas
All of my high school chemistry students will end the first semester knowing what “DHMO” is. No one can graduate from our (private) K-12 school without taking introductory chemistry. Too many in the public schools have escaped empirical science courses with who knows what, psychology, ecology survey courses, underwater basket weaving, etc.
We need our own long march through the institutions to take back education in this country.
Hey, no fair! I liked underwater basket weaving! I even passed, once I got some remedial help.
Yup start by removing all “progressive” garbage from the curriculum and adding in science and trades as mandatory.
Though there was reason to guffaw back then, too, it was possible to be a wee bit forgiving about Alan Sokal’s brilliant “hermeneutic theory of quantum gravity” hoax. But this! This is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Left: If you’re going to cling to an unfalsifiable conviction, try to make sure it’s truly unfalsifiable. It will make it easier to look in the mirror in the morning.
I’ve seen this same thing pulled over and over again at eco-fanatic “moronic convergences”. And as sure as the sun rises in the east, they fall for it every time.
This is one of the reasons I take any claim about any chemical, or anything else, made by the “deep-ecos” with a deer-lick’s worth of sodium chloride. (“Salt”, in other words.) Anybody with even minimal qualifications in chemistry (think; high school level) should be able to figure out that “dihydrogen monoxide” equals two Hs to one O- and only one compound in the Universe qualifies.
Anyone who can’t figure it out is too stupid to render an opinion on what chemicals we should or shouldn’t be using. Or anything else RE the “environment”, for that matter.
(Note I said “stupid”, not “ignorant”. My experience of “deep-ecos” is that they are people who can spout statistics, scare stories, etc., at the drop of a protest sign, but simply do not possess the necessary intelligence to accurately process all the “data” they claim proves that They Are Always Right.)
If they want me to even bother listening to them, they’d better be able to at least define “deuterium oxide” correctly. (Hint; it’s in the natural environment in very small quantities, and may be found remarkably close to large masses of “dihydrogen monoxide”.)
clear ether
eon
As much as I can appreciate the humor inherent in exposing the chemical illiteracy of this bunch,I feel compelled to interject a correction…the actual chemical name for water is ‘hydrogen hydroxide’ since it contains 1 negatively charged hydrogen ion and 1 positively charged hydroxide ion,yielding neutral water….there is no chemical compound containing 2 hydrogen ions or atoms that is called ‘dihyrogen’ anything to my knowledge.
So…they’re signing a petition to ban something nonexistent? Some might see this as appropriate and symbolic.
ahhhhhhhhgggggg – please, if you don’t have a chemistry degree or some experience that is the equivalent, be very cautious about making chemistry based statements. It is inaccurate to state water is composed of two ions – that’s the simple definition of a “salt”. Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule. It has a slight dipole. Theoretically, this dipole is a result of the electrons being slightly more attracted to the oxygen nucleus than the hydrogen nucleus and is shown by the wave equations for the molecule using quantum mechanics. (I’ll leave it to the physics majors to take it from here.)
and you (as in me) should proofread your own posts – “atoms” not “molecules”.
That’s right. Water exists as molecules and is held together by covalent bonds (shared electrons), so it is not an ionic substance, even though it does self-ionize. Again, this should be covered in the first semester of high school chemistry.
My physical chemistry prof remarked that water is the most complex substance known to man, considering its unusual chemical properties. Who’d a thunk it?
Ah, but perhaps Robbins Mitchell was thinking in terms of the amphoteric nature of water at STP?
Seriously, you all are correct because the names indicated are all systematic names used for water by IUPAC, the international organization that defines and systematizes the nomenclature for the chemical disciplines. If we all want to be hypertechnical and precise, the currently accepted IUPAC name for water is oxidane. Now doesn’t that compound sound like one that is dangerous and that needs to be banned globally?
Oxidane?! Anything with a name like that must either be explosive, or an ingredient in a laundry detergent. Bad stuff either way. Ban it for sure!
I thought it was good for pimples!
Here’s more:
What is the IUPAC name for H2O?
H2O, dihydrogen oxide; water
H2O ¼ [OH2], oxidane (parent hydride name), dihydridooxygen
1H2O, diprotium oxide;
(1H2)water
D2O ¼ 2H2O, dideuterium oxide;
(2H2)water
T2O ¼ 3H2O, ditritium oxide;
(3H2)water
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_IUPAC_name_for_H2O#ixzz18sAuHZeg
Hi, I think you will find that H202 is sea water? Or Hydrogen Peroxide?
I saw something about water contained on comets and how the oceans were
formed on Earth. Maybe they were talking about water contained in comets, not resulting in the water in oceans. Forgive my confusion. Anyway I’m no chemist. But mono seems to me to suggest one atom. Some years ago Penn
and Teller pulled off something similar and people signed to ban water.
During the CFACT press conference, one woman was so upset by the concept that cold weather is worse for poor people than hot weather that she was on the verge of tears – and not from sympathy. She just knew – with an iron certainty – that global warming was killing thousands of people per year, because the group she was affiliated with said so.
The old “who pays for you to come here?” question came up, too. By someone who had (surprise!) paid their own way to Cancun…
At http://www.dhmo.org you will find a complete list of the damages caused by this dangerous substance who kills thousands of people each year (mainly by inhalation), corrodes metals and has contaminated both the bottom of the Marianna Trench and the Antartic ice cap.
They walk among us. Some of them vote. Be very afraid!
Environmentalism=COMMUNISM!!!
How have sane and rational people come to accept this assault on freedom and common sense… Isn’t it just amazing: the EARTH goes through one of her warming cycles (That have been going on for the past 4.5 billion years– evaluate the evidence to support this premise!!!) and some unscrupulous group with NO ethical or moral foundation whatsoever claims that it’s a crisis that will destroy us all! My only hope is that common sense and reason will prevail…
God save us from these parasites!!!
There is a news report this morning that Cancun is experiencing 100 year low temperatures. Someone keeps trying to send them a message, but they are not getting it.
You might also ask them if they have any updog.
…or matterdaddy’s
The first thing you learn in chemistry is the nomenclature. If you don’t know what butan-2-ol is you don’t know much.
Now that we established you know no chemistry at all. Explain why going from 280ppm CO2 at the start of the industrial revolution to 400ppm by 2100 is going to destroy the planet. As a fallow up question how does making Al Gore rich elevate this problem?
PS Dihydrogen Monoxide is a inorganic salt name that should not be used because water is a covalent compound. Using the hydrocarbon system you get Oxidane. The official IUPAC name for H2O is water.
Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are both covalent compounds, yet we refer to them as oxides. There’s no reason to consider water as being any different.
The whole point of this went sailing right over your head, didn’t it?
And…once again, attendees are nearly sinking the place (this time Cancun, colder than it has been in decades) wot with the emissions from private jets, traveling about in gaz guzzling automobiles*, and just eating, oh, the eating.
*at Copenhagen a year ago this month, they had to fly in limousines to carry all the people around.
The main idea at these serial UN exercises in indulgence is to extort huge payments from so called “rich” countries, most specifically the United States. Some kind of promise for that to happen was exactly all that came out of that two week long bloated confab a year ago in Copenhagen.
It shouldn’t be hard to see this “climate conference” agenda in the context of Obama’s own agenda to bring the United States down to size.
This prank has been done numerous times. I can think of Penn and Tellers “Bullsh*t” which I believe did a whole episode on the environmental movement in 2003. Watch the episode that features Normal Borlaug and his work with GMO. That man was dogged till his death by environmental nutbags for basically doing the impossible again and again. He saved a countless number of people (estimates in the billion) yet according to most of hardcore environmentalist, he’s akin to Pol Pot. He managed to turn both India and Pakistan into net food producers…during a war the two were fighting.
At Least they are trying to prevent the seven foot rise in ocean levels that Al Gore predicted would happen.
Aw, heck, that level of ocean rise happens every time Fat Al goes for a swim!
Modern Liberals utter the phrase “climate justice” in the same way that they utter the phrase “social justice”.
Rather than seeing justice as an Absolute (the blind lady holding the scales) all kinds of varieties of justice are dreamed up between the ears of the Modern Liberal, each of which is highly subjective and tainted by a Utopian view of how the world should look and be.
(this is how Eric Holder picks and chooses which legal cases to pursue as AG)
One of the more mind blowing forms of “justice” is “food justice”. Michelle Obama recently spoke of “food refugees” in America which she defines as people who don’t have a supermarket in their neighborhood and thus, per MO, don’t have access to fresh and decent food.
Reaching pretty deep there to define yet another persecuted group in America, Michelle.
Get between the ears of the language the modern socialist uses to cloak his agenda. The word “justice” (blithely attached to anything under the sun, from weather to food) is the tell.
The justice movement is a cover for authoritarianism.
When personal liberty is utterly destroyed and everything subject to the will of the small minded bureaucrats in Washington DC, Michelle Obama will be proud of her country for a second time.
I am reminded of the videos done at Women’s college’s where they ask the ladies to sign petitions to end Woman’s Suffrage. Same basic principle applies in that if you make things SOUND bad for you than lots of folks will say “Oh yeah that’s bad lets stop it.” :\
People need to question more and seek answers.
Compounding the irony of this is the headlines:
‘Mass suicide now the only option left’ say Cancun scientists …
Cancun: Scientists warn of escalating climate change threats – 03 ..
Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in …
Etc, etc.
Scientists, my tuchas.
This is an old one:
Dihydrogen Monoxide – DHMO Homepag
http://www.dhmo.org/
Oxygen dihydride is pretty bad too!
Well at least it gets some of the scum out of the country for a while. We pay for everything these parasites do, including this, and it gives them a chance to try and impress one another with their importance,
Actually it may be worthwhile to freight more of them down there, then revoke their passports.
Where’s Crazy Al, Ape man of 2000, hero to millions of the Water Brained?
The guy by the water-cooler appears to say “it’s water”. If that’s so, then he knows they’re talking about water. I very much doubt that somebody would seriously sign a petition to ban water. So … what happens in the cut before he signs the petition, what is he signing and why?
And it appears that they got three signatures for that one. At least that we’re shown. One of them is (to my mind) already questionable. I’d say the film-makers didn’t get much good material for that segment.
The first petition is a bit more interesting. It’s extremely hard to make out what the people are actually signing. The best frame I can find says “petition to set a global ????” and I can’t make out the last word. You’ve got one guy who laughs about reducing the US GDP by 6% over 10 years … yeah, he’s a bit silly, but we don’t know what else was said or what he read. We don’t know the entirety of what was said to the first woman, and we have absolutely no idea what was said to any of the others or even what they were signing – in most instances you can’t see the page at all. For all we know they were signing up to a climate change mailing list.
These are pretty obvious when you’ve seen a few. Nobody here knows what most of those people were signing – or thought they were signing. This looks to me like a homework exercise from the O’keefe/Giles school of journalism.
Or the people who made the video can publish scanned images of the information page and subsequent signatures. If you’ve got some actual evidence to back up what appears (to me) to be a very edited set-up, then you win.
When I saw this story I just groaned. I must have seen this old scam pulled a dozen times in the last forty years. This happens almost as often as somebody circulates the Bill of Rights in the form of a petition.
Alternatively, you spend a couple of days with camera asking targeted people on the street general knowledge questions and select the responses that prove whatever prejudice you’re pandering to. It’s guaranteed to work, you just need to spend enough time collecting responses. I could turn up to any event and find enough people who don’t know the meaning of relevant, but obscure words to “prove” that the supporters are idiots. It’s just a process.
It’s why real surveys aren’t done that way, and why people with a clue don’t buy it.
If they served magnesium hydroxide cocktails at these events, this hypothesis would go down the tubes.
Leftist Liberals empathize more than they think critically. Conversely Right leaning Conservatives use more critical thought than empathy. There is even an experiment to prove this.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-reaction-eye-movements-politics.html
Having pointed this out, it should come as no surprise that someone could drag a person who doesn’t think critically much to sign a petition banning some benign, everyday substance with a discordant sounding name.
Does that mean their campaigns are wrong? No. It merely indicates that its many proponents are in need of some healthy criticism.
How on earth does that experiment prove that conservatives “use more critical thought than empathy”? It’s a test of immediate reactions to facial cues – by definition it rules our critical thought, because there’s no time for it. Nowhere in that source does it claim what you’re trying to suggest it does. You made that up.
Read my post above. Consider how little evidence you’ve been given and the likelihood that this whole thing is a scam. Demonstrate some of that “critical thought” rather than simply believing a dodgy story because it says people you don’t like are stupid.
Critical thought my foot.
Hey, these imbeciles have already been conned into trying to ban plant food, so why the big surprise over them getting conned once again? It is funny though, I have to admit.
One thing that makes me chuckle about this whole thing is how do they convince their bosses to sign off on expense paid trips to fiji and cancun. Is mallorca next. I mean really, is anybody watching these guys?
It is not only the Left that falls for the old water trick. Another name water can be called is “hydrogen hydroxide”, & this was used to trick Rush Limbaugh way back in the mid 1990s. I happened to be listening to his radio broadcast back then at my desk during my lunch period when someone called in and told him that a certain company with Leftist connections was poisoning the environment by putting out large amounts of hydrogen hydroxide. Well, Rush spent the next half hour yelling about it – until someone called him away from his mike and told that it was just water. From then on he never allowed another call from anyone who was a technical person; I know, I and a bunch of my fellow chemists tried to call, and we were all turned away by his call screener.
Rush Limbaugh didn’t know something, found out what he didn’t know, and then made a course correction based on his new found information. What did the Global Warming Crowd do with their new information?
Besides, this can be no indictment of conservative stupidity, since Rush Limbaugh is one man among hundreds of millions of conservatives vs hundreds of AGW advocates out of a few thousand attendees. That would be 1/200,000,000 and 200/5000, or 1/8,000,000 by comparison. That is hardly the odds we can make an inference from. Numbers were gross estimations, of course, but the point should be seen by a razor sharp person such as yourself, Occam.
“hundreds of AGW advocates out of a few thousand attendees”
Hundreds? Where’s your evidence for that? I saw one guy who definitely bought it, one girl who might have bought it, one guy who clearly didn’t and a bunch of people signing things we couldn’t see.
Does that upset your reasoning even the tiniest little bit?
Try reading my entire post before you get any more lathered up, Matthew. By the way, does your response indicate that you were in Cancun with these useful idiots?
Yeah, Jim, I read it. But who are these “hundreds of AGW advocates”?
Do you know these people? What did they do? Did they sign that petition? What? What ARE you on about?
“Numbers were gross estimations, of course, but the point should be seen…”
Matthew, were you in Cancun with these useful idiots or not?
“Numbers were gross estimations, of course”
“Hundreds” is not a “gross estimate” of 10.
It’s just a number you pulled from thin air. Like I said – evidence.
Matthew, were you in Cancun with these useful idiots or did you just pretend you were?
I’m not pretending anything. No, I wasn’t there. And neither were you. The difference is that I’m actually asking for evidence before leaping to conclusions that let me smear people I don’t like.
I watched the video, I went through parts of it frame-by-frame. And there’s actually very little evidence in it. We can’t see what most of those people are signing, or what they were told about it. Like I said, for all we know they were signing up for a mailing list. The producers managed to produce two or three bad-guy examples in the lead-in, and we’re left to assume the rest. In all likelihood it’s a set-up. I can’t prove it was, but you can’t prove it wasn’t. But one thing that neither of us can state with any confidence from that video is that a bunch of cancun attendees tried to ban water or destroy the US economy.
How’s that? Have you got some piece of evidence that shows otherwise, or would you like to try another diversion?
Diversion? Matthew, I asked you this question more than three days ago. How was my question a diversion? When did I ever indicate my first hand knowledge of what happened in Cancun? I have made no attempt to reveal anything to you. I do think Rush Limbaugh is very intelligent and that none of us have command of all the facts that can be presented in a gotcha question. I pointed to a comparison by Occam and tried to show that collective ignorance is mathematically less excusable. And then you jumped in with your supposedly first hand knowledge of the actual numbers. Well, sheesh. You seem hell bent on proving to me that one of my made up numbers is incorrect. Sheesh, some more. I have never made any claim of accuracy about the actual numbers, and I was forced to repeat that statement to you. You seem to think that I should prove you wrong or else I am wrong, but you completely missed the point of my initial post. And now you are saying that I have accused those useful idiots of trying to ban water or destroy the US economy. Plenty more Sheesh for you, Bub. I have run out of time for this nonsense.
You’re not very good at this “fact-based debate” thing.