Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Climate change


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#41 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 02:20 PM

Y2K had no effect on me whatsoever so essentially predictions of armageddon were unfounded. If we all had a collective sigh of relief then I wouldn't have made the comparison.

 

On the other point, no-one has made it clear what the goal of tackling climate change is. Does anyone know? Is it to reduce temperature? Is it to reduce sea levels? Is it to have more ice?

 

Or as I suspect, is the argument for tackling climate change the same as tackling masturbation to avoid loss of eyesight?

 

Y2K had little effect on anyone, but that is only because billions of pounds and years of effort were spent identifying and rectifying the affected software. Many of us involved did experience a sigh of relief once it was obvious that the fixes had worked. As it turned out, the only problem experienced by the organisation I worked for happened because a few lines of software in a sub-routine, in an obscure piece of application software, for an even more obscure product, were not identified and corrected. Fortunately, only a handful of people were offered a renewal quote for 99 years of car insurance for one year's premium.

And the point I made was about informed opinion. If you believed the hysteria about planes dropping out of the sky then you would have been confused about the issue.

 

As for your points on climate change, I'm sure someone with more scientific knowledge could explain it better than me (or you could read through the previous thread someone has provided a link to). The point is that the scientific community has discovered a link between the amount of carbon mankind has been pumping into the atmosphere and the rate of climate change. As I understand it, steps are being taken to reduce present and future carbon emissions in attempt to help stop a process that could be disastrous for human civilisation. 


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#42 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 02:22 PM

Maybe most of the disasters of Y2K were avoided because we actually... you know... prepared for it!

 

My point is more about the hype and the catastrophic predictions of not dealing with "something unknown" that might create an "unknown outcome".

 

No-one knew what Y2K would do, however the earth has a good track record of not imploding.



#43 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 02:28 PM

My point is more about the hype and the catastrophic predictions of not dealing with "something unknown" that might create an "unknown outcome".
 
No-one knew what Y2K would do, however the earth has a good track record of not imploding.


Again, I would make my point about informed opinion. By time we had investigated the extent of the Y2K problem we pretty much knew what the effects of inaction would be.

The hype and hysteria come from uninformed opinion, and from ****-stirring tabloids like the Mail and Express. You've got to develop some sort of method of distinguishing knowledge from bulls***.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#44 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 02:33 PM

Y2K had little effect on anyone, but that is only because billions of pounds and years of effort were spent identifying and rectifying the affected software. Many of us involved did experience a sigh of relief once it was obvious that the fixes had worked. As it turned out, the only problem experienced by the organisation I worked for happened because a few lines of software in a sub-routine, in an obscure piece of application software, for an even more obscure product, were not identified and corrected. Fortunately, only a handful of people were offered a renewal quote for 99 years of car insurance for one year's premium.

And the point I made was about informed opinion. If you believed the hysteria about planes dropping out of the sky then you would have been confused about the issue.

 

As for your points on climate change, I'm sure someone with more scientific knowledge could explain it better than me (or you could read through the previous thread someone has provided a link to). The point is that the scientific community has discovered a link between the amount of carbon mankind has been pumping into the atmosphere and the rate of climate change. As I understand it, steps are being taken to reduce present and future carbon emissions in attempt to help stop a process that could be disastrous for human civilisation. 

 

I am a scientist and I believe there's an agenda for scientists to continually justify their research funding. Without evidence science can only postulate and if a man with a beard postulates then somehow it's believable.

 

My point on Y2K is about the hype. I've just re-read some articles which were hysterical and to be honest, getting an incorrect insurance quote doesn't quite deserve the worry and hand wringing. My car, washing machine, TV, clock, etc etc etc all worked fine. This was a commercial problem that a bit of overtime would have sorted. Something wears out, big deal. Fix it but there was a vested interest in ramping up the whole problem to line pockets.



#45 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,208 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 02:35 PM

My point is more about the hype and the catastrophic predictions of not dealing with "something unknown" that might create an "unknown outcome".
 
No-one knew what Y2K would do, however the earth has a good track record of not imploding.


So had many of the programs that were modified (though admitted not quite as much as the earth).

My point still stands regardless.

#46 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,498 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 02:38 PM

I am a scientist and I believe there's an agenda for scientists to continually justify their research funding. Without evidence science can only postulate and if a man with a beard postulates then somehow it's believable.

 

My point on Y2K is about the hype. I've just re-read some articles which were hysterical and to be honest, getting an incorrect insurance quote doesn't quite deserve the worry and hand wringing. My car, washing machine, TV, clock, etc etc etc all worked fine. This was a commercial problem that a bit of overtime would have sorted. Something wears out, big deal. Fix it but there was a vested interest in ramping up the whole problem to line pockets.

 

I bet you're not really a scientist.  I bet you made that up.


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#47 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,208 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 02:38 PM

I am a scientist and I believe there's an agenda for scientists to continually justify their research funding. Without evidence science can only postulate and if a man with a beard postulates then somehow it's believable.


I'm curious which field of science you work in?

In the instance of climate change there is a LOT of supporting evidence. So it really doesn't matter whether they have beards or not.

#48 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 02:57 PM

I am a scientist and I believe there's an agenda for scientists to continually justify their research funding. Without evidence science can only postulate and if a man with a beard postulates then somehow it's believable.
 
My point on Y2K is about the hype. I've just re-read some articles which were hysterical and to be honest, getting an incorrect insurance quote doesn't quite deserve the worry and hand wringing. My car, washing machine, TV, clock, etc etc etc all worked fine. This was a commercial problem that a bit of overtime would have sorted. Something wears out, big deal. Fix it but there was a vested interest in ramping up the whole problem to line pockets.


Which makes my main point perfectly. You link to an unattributed, hysterical, web article and hold that up as a piece of informed opinion.

Getting an insurance renewal quote from an aging system is trivial, although it cost the company a few thousand in goodwill payments, but if nothing had been done about the Y2K then all computer systems, whether scientific, technical or commercial, that relied on date calculations on data fields of just 2 digits would have failed. It would have taken a little bit more than a 'bit of overtime' to fix and many organisations wouldn't, couldn't, have survived.

Again, the people who knew about the problem, who had investigated it and designed solutions, knew that washing machines and cars were not going to stop working. Those ideas were left to those with fertile imaginations or mischievous intent. The parallels with the climate change situation are clear. With Y2K some easily-confused people bought into the concept of planes falling out of the sky. With climate change, similar people take the most extreme speculation about what the effects might be, and then hold these up as being the definite predictions of all those who warn about man-made climate change.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#49 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 02:59 PM

I bet you're not really a scientist.  I bet you made that up.


I tend not to believe men with beards (unless they're Frankie Boyle). What are they trying to hide.
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#50 hoff

hoff
  • Coach
  • 160 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:47 AM

Imo man made "climate change" is just a big purple hippopotamus, there simply isnt enough data to prove that humans are the driving force. Even if co2 levels were to rise as predicted the atmospheric levels would still be well below those that existed during the cambrian era (7000 parts per million against approx 400 ppm today) and life flourished.

#51 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,208 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:05 AM

Imo man made "climate change" is just a big purple hippopotamus, there simply isnt enough data to prove that humans are the driving force. Even if co2 levels were to rise as predicted the atmospheric levels would still be well below those that existed during the cambrian era (7000 parts per million against approx 400 ppm today) and life flourished.


For the second time in the thread (though to a different person) I'll ask... what data would you accept?

There is a heck of a lot of supportive data.

#52 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:24 AM

I bet you're not really a scientist.  I bet you made that up.

I don't have to prove anything to you, however data has to be measured over a significant period in order to demonstrate fact over artifact, that I learnt during my degree and still stands today. 100 years measuring the temperature of the earth is insignificant. measuring 17 years within the 100 years is statistically no less significant over the period the earth has supported life.



#53 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,498 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:45 AM

I don't have to prove anything to you, however data has to be measured over a significant period in order to demonstrate fact over artifact, that I learnt during my degree and still stands today. 100 years measuring the temperature of the earth is insignificant. measuring 17 years within the 100 years is statistically no less significant over the period the earth has supported life.

So, your claim to be a scientist was just that you did a BSc some time ago.  Pretty much meaning, you made it up.

 

Do you think that you are better qualified on the subject than people who research it for a living, or just far more intelligent?


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#54 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:48 AM

Which makes my main point perfectly. You link to an unattributed, hysterical, web article and hold that up as a piece of informed opinion.

Getting an insurance renewal quote from an aging system is trivial, although it cost the company a few thousand in goodwill payments, but if nothing had been done about the Y2K then all computer systems, whether scientific, technical or commercial, that relied on date calculations on data fields of just 2 digits would have failed. It would have taken a little bit more than a 'bit of overtime' to fix and many organisations wouldn't, couldn't, have survived.

Again, the people who knew about the problem, who had investigated it and designed solutions, knew that washing machines and cars were not going to stop working. Those ideas were left to those with fertile imaginations or mischievous intent. The parallels with the climate change situation are clear. With Y2K some easily-confused people bought into the concept of planes falling out of the sky. With climate change, similar people take the most extreme speculation about what the effects might be, and then hold these up as being the definite predictions of all those who warn about man-made climate change.

 

1. No I didn't, I linked it to demonstrate the level of hype.

 

2. And therefore I think the comparison is valid. The significance of the Y2K "problem" was over hyped based on a complete lack of clarity over the impact. However, in order to avoid this unknown impact we spent ££billions. The fact that the experts understood what "might" cause the problem and applied the fix does not demonstrate it was a significant problem. Over the whole globe the number of computer chips to which the bug fix was not applied that still worked, IMO would be a significant statistical number. 



#55 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:51 AM

So, your claim to be a scientist was just that you did a BSc some time ago.  Pretty much meaning, you made it up.

 

Do you think that you are better qualified on the subject than people who research it for a living, or just far more intelligent?

Are you deliberately starting to discredit my opinion because your only course of action is to get personal?

 

Answer my other questions about what the significance of data is and maybe you would be justified.



#56 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:00 AM

For the second time in the thread (though to a different person) I'll ask... what data would you accept?

There is a heck of a lot of supportive data.

Last 17 years the world has not increased temperature.

 

Previous 100 or so it has.

 

Mankind on earth 40,000 years or so  0.025% of the time the earth has supported man the temperature went up with no significant impact. God knows how insignificant it would be if we considered how long the earth has supported life.

 

I'm not ignorant to the effects of flood, drought, heat waves or ice ages but no-one can statistically claim that the data supporting "climate change" (whatever that means ) is the reason for it, when we know categorically that the earth has suffered far more significant changes than we are seeing now when man was not pumping carbon into the atmosphere to any great degree.


Edited by Ackroman, 02 October 2013 - 08:01 AM.


#57 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,208 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:11 AM

Last 17 years the world has not increased temperature.
 
Previous 100 or so it has.


Thats an outright lie. See it debunked here (sorry I can't create links in chrome... don't know why)
http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm

Mankind on earth 40,000 years or so  0.025% of the time the earth has supported man the temperature went up with no significant impact. God knows how insignificant it would be if we considered how long the earth has supported life.


Which oddly coincides with the amount of time we've been industrialized.

I'm not ignorant to the effects of flood, drought, heat waves or ice ages but no-one can statistically claim that the data supporting "climate change" (whatever that means ) is the reason for it, when we know categorically that the earth has suffered far more significant changes than we are seeing now when man was not pumping carbon into the atmosphere to any great degree.


ah the old "the climates changed before" lie! See this myth debunked here
http://www.skeptical...warm-period.htm

there is a lot of data supporting climate change. Maybe if you state the data you disagree with and we'll look in to it. As with everything I'll change my opinion based on the evidence.

#58 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,498 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:38 AM

Are you deliberately starting to discredit my opinion because your only course of action is to get personal?

 

Answer my other questions about what the significance of data is and maybe you would be justified.

I have no reason to answer your questions.  I am not qualified to do so.

 

There are lots of people all over the world investigating such things, of varying levels and with differing viewpoints.  There is a broad concensous, but if you want the exact reasoning, you can read the huge amount of literature on the subject.  It would be stupid of me, with no real expertise in the area to attempt to explain it all.

 

You are the one saying they have have all got it wrong, it is you who must explain why.  I would suggest that a rugby league forum is not the best place.  Have you tried addressing your concerns to one of the many research institutes around hte world investigating it?  They might be grateful that you altert them to their oversight.


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#59 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 01:35 PM

Thats an outright lie. See it debunked here (sorry I can't create links in chrome... don't know why)
http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm


Which oddly coincides with the amount of time we've been industrialized.


ah the old "the climates changed before" lie! See this myth debunked here
http://www.skeptical...warm-period.htm

there is a lot of data supporting climate change. Maybe if you state the data you disagree with and we'll look in to it. As with everything I'll change my opinion based on the evidence.

 

The data is insignificant. Full Stop.

 

Did the data take into account the distance of the earth from the sun which is not a constant? Or the angle? Or the change in rotational speed affecting wind patterns? The distance of the moon from the earth constantly changing, affecting tidal movement? Neither is the effect of volcanic action taken into consideration, tectonic energy transmission or sun burst energy which is currently at a peak. Neither is the rate of heat loss from the earth into space.

 

For example, the amount of thermal energy released in the Mount St Helens eruption of 1980 was 24 megatons, 1,600 times that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. This energy is dissipated into the atmosphere and takes many years to equilibrate and be absorbed. There are on average 60 volcanic eruptions a year, many beneath the surface of the sea. By my own basic calculations this is not a huge contributor to the earth's surface temperatures, but I can't believe any data to supporting global warming through man's intervention would ignore all the factors.



#60 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,897 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 01:44 PM

I have no reason to answer your questions.  I am not qualified to do so.

 

There are lots of people all over the world investigating such things, of varying levels and with differing viewpoints.  There is a broad concensous, but if you want the exact reasoning, you can read the huge amount of literature on the subject.  It would be stupid of me, with no real expertise in the area to attempt to explain it all.

 

You are the one saying they have have all got it wrong, it is you who must explain why.  I would suggest that a rugby league forum is not the best place.  Have you tried addressing your concerns to one of the many research institutes around hte world investigating it?  They might be grateful that you altert them to their oversight.

 

I am not saying they have got it all wrong. What I am saying is that they can't use the data to prove a theory. It is scientifically insignificant and limited in it's influencing factors. 

 

I am also pointing out the lack of reasoned outcomes. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users