The Y2K problem was quite real. There were a LOT of problems in older code. Action was taken in time and the problems were mostly resolved. No doubt some people made excess profits in the process. So what? To not take corrective action because somebody may make excess profits is idiotic.
freddy_ljberg
Newbie
- Messages
- 1
- Likes
- 0
To peruse and discuss at your leisure
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://camirror.wordpress.com/
Mirror site for climateaudit.org
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/search/label/CRU%20emails
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://camirror.wordpress.com/
Mirror site for climateaudit.org
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/search/label/CRU%20emails
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
bobneedham
Newbie
- Messages
- 3
- Likes
- 0
I recently saw a National Geographic special talking about this.
IMHO, it's probably man-made. All the other planets are populated by green house gases, which on earth, is being produced at toxic levels. If the green house gas production is not curtailed, reduced, then we will probably become another Mars - a dead planet.
IMHO, it's probably man-made. All the other planets are populated by green house gases, which on earth, is being produced at toxic levels. If the green house gas production is not curtailed, reduced, then we will probably become another Mars - a dead planet.
£10kLoser
Established member
- Messages
- 648
- Likes
- 64
The problem is, we can't believe what we're being told. Somebody contradicted what I said earlier by providing links to a website. Well, some sources say one thing and others say the opposite, so that 'proves' nothing. They also stated that I was 'wrong' as if they could possibly know the truth!
There is also plenty of evidence that the planet is cooling down because the sun has become less active. There are currently no sun spots and this has been one of the longest periods of inactivity recorded - despite the sunspot maximum due in a couple of years.
We can find many scientists saying that it is more likely an ice age is coming. However, this view doesn't suit the purposes of the Powers That Be, so doesn't get much press!
The bottom line is that you can find evidence to support any view, so all this arguement will not come to a certain conclusion...
There is also plenty of evidence that the planet is cooling down because the sun has become less active. There are currently no sun spots and this has been one of the longest periods of inactivity recorded - despite the sunspot maximum due in a couple of years.
We can find many scientists saying that it is more likely an ice age is coming. However, this view doesn't suit the purposes of the Powers That Be, so doesn't get much press!
The bottom line is that you can find evidence to support any view, so all this arguement will not come to a certain conclusion...
No, the science is NOT mired in confusion as the so called "skeptics" would have us believe.
Results of a poll showing responses to the question:
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Results of a poll showing responses to the question:
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Attachments
£10kLoser
Established member
- Messages
- 648
- Likes
- 64
How do you know? People here are just using the skepticalscience website to 'prove' what version they want.
It's very naive to believe think that the media is unbiased. Not so long ago all the most respected brains told us that the earth was flat - no doubt you would have believed them too...
To think that problems on such a scale and beyond the understanding of our current science have black and white answers is not to understand that future generations will laugh at our stupidity.
It's very naive to believe think that the media is unbiased. Not so long ago all the most respected brains told us that the earth was flat - no doubt you would have believed them too...
To think that problems on such a scale and beyond the understanding of our current science have black and white answers is not to understand that future generations will laugh at our stupidity.
The source of that chart is properly attributed. The original paper is open to review by anybody who cares to take the trouble. The data sources and methodology are documented. In short, it is open to challenge by anybody who want to do so. It is a research paper not a propaganda publication.
If you want to contest it's findings you have a couple of choices:
1. Claim the data or methodology is wrong.
2. Claim the author is dishonestly falsifying the data.
So go right ahead, Which is it?
But the study is not about the media - it is about scientific opinion which is a very different thing all together. In particular science is peer reviewed and the media is not.
Why do you think you have some special gift to judge what is or is not "beyond the understanding of our current science" ?
£10kLoser
Established member
- Messages
- 648
- Likes
- 64
You present all the arguments consistent with being brainwashed into believing that science must be right just because it's 2009. People were talking like you 100 years ago and look how science has changed its ‘facts’ since then. 'Science' is just as much a money and status business like any other - it reverses its 'truths' according to who is pulling the strings and paying them.
Research papers have consistently been proved wrong in the past and almost always have opposing views published in other research papers. For climate study, this is certainly the case.
Often, science is very little different from the media because it is funded by people who want specific results and if the truth turns out to be different, money and careers disappear. To think that science is free from the corruption of politics is a very naive view.
Nobody needs a special gift to understand that almost everything on a very large scale or very small scale is beyond the understanding of current science. Do you honestly believe that the scientific view of the world is final and there is no improvement to be made?
Research papers have consistently been proved wrong in the past and almost always have opposing views published in other research papers. For climate study, this is certainly the case.
Often, science is very little different from the media because it is funded by people who want specific results and if the truth turns out to be different, money and careers disappear. To think that science is free from the corruption of politics is a very naive view.
Nobody needs a special gift to understand that almost everything on a very large scale or very small scale is beyond the understanding of current science. Do you honestly believe that the scientific view of the world is final and there is no improvement to be made?
Trader333
Moderator
- Messages
- 8,746
- Likes
- 1,025
Here is a link that maybe of interest:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...BC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html
Paul
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...BC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html
Paul
Your gift is to talk absolute nonsense. The two great triumphs of modern physics are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Which deal with the very large scale and the very small scale respectively. These are not theoretical curiosities, but underpin so much of everyday life. Without Quantum Mechanics there would be no modern electronics, no semi conductors, no modern communication systems, no internet, no medical NMR imaging. The list could go on for pages. Go and ask a physicist if Quantum Mechanics deals in the very small and see what the answer is.
Furthermore nobody believes in the end of science. You are talking complete and total nonsense again. As just one example, It has long been recognized that there is a problem in reconciling quantum physics with relativity. The LHC has been built for just that reason. It may (or may not) shake up some views of the fundamental nature of things.
montmorencyt2w
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,619
- Likes
- 294
Just for the record, I voted no.
We don't know for sure that man-made CO2 is responsible for such warming as there has been so far, and if we did, we do not know whether we could really do much to alter it materially.
So instead of worrying about things that may be nothing to do with us and which we may not be able to change anyway, why don't we concentrate more on the things that definitely are to do with us and that we should be able to do something about.
Such as:
-Why did those six bridges collapse? This may have been an extreme event, but it was not so unpredictable that it should not have been planned for and we actually know how to build bridges to stand up to this kind of event.
-What other flood management or flood eventuality plans were made?
At the risk of saying "black swans", we should be working out what the "worst" that can happen is and plan for it, rather than trying to turn back the tide like Canute.
And as far as I know, global temperatures have been about stable for the last nine or ten years, so why should this year be worse than any other in the last 10 years, if this flood was due to global warming? If it wasn't due to global warming, why are we even discussing the two things together?
Last edited:
montmorencyt2w
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,619
- Likes
- 294
It is of interest, but just to be clear: from what I have read here and other places on the web, he was only sent mails following his article in October of this year, and pertinent to that article I believe, i.e. a very small subset of the emails involved in the major leak.
It does however tend to support the theory that the whole thing was a leak from inside rather than a hack from outside. For one thing, as well as being put up on that russian server, among other places, they were put up briefly on realclimate.org, a site that is run by people close to the CRU as I understand it, apparently using admin access. Other places as well.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,773
- Likes
- 3,973
Well I'm surprised nobodies views have changed since the 1 in 1000 year event but mine. I was of the opinion that man is contributing to climate change and was aware that the Earth's weather changes every 000s of years or so but a 1 in 1000 is significant if our scientists say so.
Also it's the rate of change that is very significant. I understood that our Earth wasn't due for climate change for at least another 10,000 years so the fact that it is happening now is very magnificant. I get to see mummy recession and daddy climate change in my life time. I just hope I don't get to witness their offspring in Damien's WWIII.
Either way as you point out bridges and buildings are built to with-stand freak weather that may occur once every 50 to 150 years or so. Not sure if stats available for 1000 years ago. Our engineers must be well and trully flummexed... I doubt anyones saying told you so? That was never in the plans...
I'm one of those people other than some basic cosmetics nothing we can do can prevent damage caused by natural disasters. We'll just have to deal with it when it happens. 1. Best thing we can do is stop using our cars.
2. Adopt our lifestyles around cycling or renewable energy what ever
It is ridiculous that humans travel 00s of miles to work and back everyday just because they can.
We need to roll back the industrial revolution and take the work back out to the countrysides where people can live in space again rather than concrete jungles.
Trader333
Moderator
- Messages
- 8,746
- Likes
- 1,025
I would approach things differently as there will never be consensus on not using cars on a global basis. I would quite simply make it law that cars had to be carbon neutral within 5 years. If that was done then they would meet the challenge because in my view the answer to much of this can be solved by technology.
Paul
£10kLoser
Established member
- Messages
- 648
- Likes
- 64
Mr. Charts
Legendary member
- Messages
- 7,370
- Likes
- 1,200
An intelligent debate here on t2w !
Without doubt science and technology are absolute prerequisites, but above all this is going to be political fight and a very bitter and dirty one. It's not going to be resolved quickly either. Ya ain't seen nothing yet!
One of the defining characteristics of science is that it makes predictions and the validity of the science can be judged according to those predictions. A group of 26 leading climate scientists have released a report via the University of NSW outlining the state of play in the leadup to Copenhagen. The report places a heavy emphasis on what has been observed (not just future forecasts). As some time has now passed since the IPCC predictions were made those predictions can be compared with reality. The reality in general is right at the top end of the predictions and in some cases worse
Summary: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Physical-realities-of-global-warming.html
Report: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/
Summary: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Physical-realities-of-global-warming.html
Report: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/
Attachments
Similar threads
