Kyoto - global warming hype

This is a discussion on Kyoto - global warming hype within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; EDIT: Well you know where I stand because I can't change the title of the thread, but anyways. Most of ...

  1. #1
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590

    Global warming or not?

    EDIT: Well you know where I stand because I can't change the title of the thread, but anyways.


    Most of us here operate based on facts and evidence. If the numbers don't line up then we don't go for it. That's just the nature of computer programmers.

    So I'm interested to hear opinions about 'global warming'. I'm an avid storm chaser (when I'm not fighting with o'l Bill in MFC) and I love the weather. I depend on several sites and other weather-related agencies to bring me accurate information. This global warming stuff popped up on my front page news items and I did some research on it. It amazed me what I found to be 'scientific' and what was simply 'opinion' and hype. It seems this debate is not so 'concrete' as some show it to be.

    I won't direct this any further and I'd like to hear some educated comments. BTW if it came from any mainstream news source it's probably biased one way or the other. Try to keep this scientific in nature. I don't care about your political views or if you are a little green man from Mars. So keep it factual.

    Anti (climate change is more than just one thing)
    http://www.intellicast.com/Local/Get...obal%20Warming

    Pro-global warming
    http://www.ucsusa.org/

    There are other sites as well. Here is a google for ya.
    http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...global+warming
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 12-10-2005 at 07:20 AM. Reason: Title changed so as not to influence discussion

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    847
    The earth has always experienced change in climate such as iceages. It would seam reasonable that we are going to experience warm periods as part of a natural cycle.

    I for one welcome global warming and look foreward to improved British weather

  3. #3
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    This thread is going to amusing and heartbreaking.

  4. #4
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,066
    I stand on the same sides of the scales, Bubba. I don't know if this has been clear on previous posts of mine, but whatever. I'm gonna answer this question less regarding my opinions on global warming, because I'm sure they're pretty clear, but I'm gonna answer this regarding the Kyoto Protocol.

    If anyone has had time to sit and read the proposed documentation on reduction of polution, they would have laughed. The percentages of pollution reduction and the amount of time to do it was by no means possible for a country of our size. The document was proposed and written up by and for small countries with low pollution problems.

    I would love for there to be less pollution. If not for Global Warming then for the health of the people who inhabit the planet, but what was suggested would have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the effort of trying to clean up factories and transportation smog. It just wasn't feasible.
    Sent from my iPadŽ

  5. #5
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > hundreds of thousands of jobs in the effort of trying to clean up factories and transportation smog.

    How so?

  6. #6
    Supermassive black hole cboard_member's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,709
    With any luck our planet will be dead within ~1000 years anyway - we're the disgusting race. If not we'll plague this planet and move on to colonising & destroying Mars.

    Sadly the people that try and help (recyclers etc) are a minority and besides it's too late; there's pretty much no hope to reverse the effects.

    If we have another ice age the survivors won't learn anything from it - humans never do.

    Nutshell: I hate us and it's about time a "reset button" was pushed, if you will.
    Good class architecture is not like a Swiss Army Knife; it should be more like a well balanced throwing knife.

    - Mike McShaffry

  7. #7
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Govtcheez
    How so?
    I'm speaking in that, with the goals being so unreachable, it would require drastic cuts in the dirty industry in the country. This was recognized in '97 when we voted against the protocol, and it's pretty much recognized everywhere, now, since Japan and other countries who have made an effort have been unable to meet their 2005 expectations.


    ...and ahluka, sorry to disappoint you, but this planet will be around a long, long time after humans. The planet has survived meteors and ice ages. We could have a nuclear war and kill each other and it wouldn't be a speck on the history of this planet.
    Last edited by SlyMaelstrom; 12-10-2005 at 08:28 AM.
    Sent from my iPadŽ

  8. #8
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
    I'm speaking in that, with the goals being so unreachable, it would require drastic cuts in the dirty industry in the country. This was recognized in '97 when we voted against the protocol, and it's pretty much recognized everywhere, now, since Japan and other countries who have made an effort have been unable to meet their 2005 expectations.


    ...and ahluka, sorry to disappoint you, but this planet will be around a long, long time after humans. The planet has survived meteors and ice ages. We could have a nuclear war and kill each other and it wouldn't be a speck on the history of this planet.
    I'd like to see some solid numbers on the "hundreds of thousands" claims. It may cost jobs in dirty industry, but it should make more jobs in cleaner high tech industries. I'm not saying I think we should have signed the Kyoto treaty, but to the best of my knowledge there is not much of a debate about global warming among climatologists.

    I'm reminded of proponents of Intelligent Design who say there is a huge debate in the scietific community, when it's actually just a few crackpots who refuse to let go of their beliefs in the face of more and more evidence against them.

    Do yourself a favor and just ignore ahluka.

  9. #9
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,066
    Hundreds of thousands is just a number I'm pulling out based on other statistics. There is what, let's say four million dirty industry jobs in the US (that may or may not be an overestimate)? The Kyoto Treaty wanted the US to reduce our pollution 7% by 2012. Seven percent of 4 mil is 280,000. That's where I was getting that number. Yes, there would be more clean industry jobs, but not as many as you would think.
    Sent from my iPadŽ

  10. #10
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    When you factor in retirements, people moving around, and migration to tech jobs, I'm sure that's much much smaller. It's not like they'd just let all the people go because they're reducing pollution; they still need them to build things. Extrapolating hundreds of thousands of lost jobs using that method is extremely faulty.

    Besides, I never said I thought we should sign it. I don't know enough about it to make that statement. In fact, I implied that I thought we shouldn't in my previous post. I just said we should make steps to reduce our emissions.

  11. #11
    Yes, my avatar is stolen anonytmouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    2,544
    Having a quality debate on the science of climate change in a forum such as this is impossible. The science is complex and a scientific debate typically degenerates into each side trying to baffle the other side with jargon, out-of-context quotes, and so many references that the other side gives up trying to refute each of them. However, for virtually all science, we (as in the general public) do not rely on analysing the scientific details or even experimentation, we take our scientific understanding from the scientific consensus.

    In that vain, here are some undisputed facts:
    • Nearly all the peer-reviewed research published about climate change in the last couple of decades has supported the hypothesis of human induced climate change.
    • Nearly all scientists working in the area of climate and related disciplines (climatology, meteorology, atmospheric physics, etc), being familiar with the science, accept the hypothesis of human induced climate change.
    • Just about every reputable scientific body in the world, having reviewed the science, accepts the hypothesis of human induced climate change.
    • Nearly every government in the world (including the US), having reviewed the science, accepts the hypothesis of human induced climate change.
    • Most large corporations, having reviewed the science, accept the hypothesis of human induced climate change. This includes corporations that would be expected, for reasons or self interest, to be skeptical about climate change such as oil companies BP and Shell. Most concerned are large insurance companies which stand to lose from increased severe weather events expected as an effect of climate change.

    Most of the so called climate change skeptics are not scientists. They generally oppose the hypothesis of human induced climate change because of political, religous or ideological beliefs or because of economic interest.

    It is clear, that the average person, if basing their knowledge on scientific consensus rather than political, religous, ideological or economic beliefs, should accept that the hypothesis of human induced climate change is almost certainly correct.

    Of course it is science, and in science nothing is 100% certain. So should we act with less than 100% certainty? Well I ask the question: If politicians had knowledge that there was a 95%+ chance of a nuclear attack on your city, would you expect them to act, or to say that anything less than 100% certainty is not worth the cost of an evacuation?

  12. #12
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,066
    I just said we should make steps to reduce our emissions.
    I agree. So do both parties of our government, it's just all the same garbage, they can't agree on how to do it.

    Personally I think we should give subsidies to any oil, gas, dirty industry willing to spend it in efforts to create a cleaner, more efficient gas.

    ...and to Anonytmouse, today's debate on Global Warming is less of a "Does it exist or not" debate and more of a "Is it really happening at a rate to be so concerned" I'd say. This is why I argued the validity of the Kyoto Protocol and not the validity of Global Warming.
    Last edited by SlyMaelstrom; 12-10-2005 at 09:09 AM.
    Sent from my iPadŽ

  13. #13
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590
    Well I would have no problems accepting the global warming if they didn't result to scare tactics to prove their point. So far none of the predictions of global warming and/or the crazy science films of what the earth would look like in 2005 have come true. So perhaps a more balanced approach might actually get something constructive done rather than just cause more arguments. It's apparent most of us agree the Kyoto treaty/accord or whatever is nearly impossible to latch onto as of yet.

    My main problem with the global warming issue is that we really don't have a whole lot of scientific data as it relates to long-span climate changes. This is simply because our technology hasn't been to the point that we could analyze the climate correctly for a very long time. So we are attempting to base our decisions on what we've found 'now' when we really don't have much data from the 'past'. That's like opening a book in the middle of it or at the end of it and expecting to understand all of it. Not gonna happen.

    So far in the polar regions they have noticed a 1 degree drop in temperature and not a rise. The ice melting in one place and thickening in another is probably a result of a natural cycle rather than the global warming. I'm not saying that it's not happening at all, but I do think the claims are 'pushed' and exaggerated a bit for political gain one way or another. So my conclusion is that based on the publicly available information:

    • Global warming is probably happening, but not at the alarming rate they say it is.
    • To deny human's can change the environment is just as ludicrous as the exaggerated claims of warming
    • Reducing harmful emissions indeed cannot hurt anything, so it's a valid pursuit regardless of whether or not it's destroying the earth
    • We all need to begin moving towards a new energy source and a new energy system
    • The earth climate is a very complex system and even though we can forecast the weather, those forecasts are only extremely accurate in small-short time spans of 2 hours or less. Therefore, we probably don't really have enough knowledge or lifespan with our technology as of yet to determine the earth's climate cycle. We are talking about a very long time span as opposed to the recent 50 or even 100 years we have been actively analyzing the weather. Even if this goes as far back as the 1700s, that's only 300 years in the timespan of the Earth. Not much really.
    • More long-term data is needed, but we should still make efforts to reduce harmful emissions if for no other reason except that we know they are indeed harmful.



    So I'm kind of middle of the road. I don't go for hype and wacko predictions but I also don't go for completely denying the existence of harmful emissions causing problems.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 12-10-2005 at 09:58 AM.

  14. #14
    erstwhile
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,227
    [satire]
    About 25% of world oil reserves are in rocks covered in arctic or antarctic ice - global warming is simply the most cost effective way of removing that ice in a safe, controlled and timely manner to ensure those remaining reserves are available for commercial exploitation when they are most likely to yield the highest profit at the point of maximum demand.

    *strokes white persian cat*[/satire]
    Last edited by Ken Fitlike; 12-10-2005 at 02:04 PM. Reason: clarification for the unclear
    CProgramming FAQ
    Caution: this person may be a carrier of the misinformation virus.

  15. #15
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,066
    That's an interesting way of looking at it.
    Sent from my iPadŽ

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. basic question about global variables
    By radeberger in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-06-2009, 12:54 AM
  2. First oil, then warming, now ..cooling?
    By VirtualAce in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-29-2008, 10:06 PM
  3. Global objects and exceptions
    By drrngrvy in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-29-2006, 07:37 AM
  4. Global Variables, include files and classes
    By sharpstones in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-12-2005, 10:06 AM
  5. Clinton.
    By ygfperson in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 07-06-2002, 11:05 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21