Global Warming

This is a discussion on Global Warming within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; > The base, however, from which I would explain such a principle, you fundamentally discard as "too ludicrous". Again, I'll ...

  1. #31
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,383
    > The base, however, from which I would explain such a principle, you fundamentally discard as "too ludicrous". Again, I'll not be caught blowing against the wind.

    right.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  2. #32
    Just Lurking Dave_Sinkula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,006
    First, sorry -- I'm about 30 responses behind. So this mostly addresses some earlier stuff (partly prepared earlier, but distractions arose).
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    RE: my mention of a 'God' thread

    Sorry, I was speaking in an old tongue:
    'God' thread, n.
    a lengthy series of posts on a topic in which opposing sides cannot prove that either side is correct or incorrect
    see God
    So the intent was to provoke people opnions on the matter of global warming.

    @anonytmouse
    Yes, my apolgies. I didn't search the board first.
    But in the article I posted, there are a number of claims that would dispute your bulleted items.

    @Sly
    I thought the Q&A at the end was the better part. I believe that's where some of the things like issues with Science magazine's article picking 932 of 12,000 papers.

    I did finally read the whole thing, but of course I haven't had the time to go through all the references yet. (Any help if you find things mentioned, such as Climate Change Science Program report 1.1, would be appreciated.)
    I just brought it up because at times the "facts" seem to be presented so one-sided as to portray any counter-argument, however scientific, as automatically crackpot. I found it somewhat refreshing to hear something that could provoke debate (or just call me rabble-rousing).

    I'm not terribly studied in this, but it seems to me that global warming alarmists sound too much like the ruling establishment in Copernican times trying very hard to fight off attacks on their model.
    7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
    40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*

  3. #33
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,525
    I once wrote that, in relative terms, if someone didn't believe in global warming by tomorrow I would personally punch them in the face. But I wasn't a member at that board, so the message was never written until now.

    Ranking end of days theories:
    + global warming
    + the asteroid
    + dark matter
    + Sol changing (going supernova or becoming some sort of Giant)
    + black holes
    + The Biblical Apocalypse
    + Volcanoes
    + Cows

    Throughout history people have enjoyed dooming themselves to keep a reason for staying alive.

    For those that don't get it, I'm not serious. I can't believe I even have to write this, but both sides are being equally stubborn, wouldn't you agree? I think the bigger problem is that we need to stop using non-renewable resources, like oil. Fortunately we're on top of that, so that's cool.
    Last edited by whiteflags; 12-05-2006 at 11:47 PM.

  4. #34
    Just Lurking Dave_Sinkula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,006
    I'm being stubborn, and a bit of a prick...
    Quote Originally Posted by citizen
    I think the bigger problem is that we need to stop using non-renewable resources, like oil.
    ...but who says it's not renewable?

    [edit]http://www.washingtontimes.com/funct...8-092733-4642r
    7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
    40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*

  5. #35
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,525
    Mass media, smart people, and crazies alike would have you believe that oil works on a bell curve. I'm not the first person to post about it but with such a vast array of people behind one theory I thought that they were going to be right, due to the sheer amount of brainpower behind them. But the Russians are smart too, and may be the only ones alive after the asteroid because they have the bombs, man.

  6. #36
    Insane Game Developer Nodtveidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Isabela, PR
    Posts
    105
    Much of the world seems to be moving towards solar power these days, likely due to the "European energy crisis". Solar cell manufacturers (who are typically very small and build them by hand) have been flooded with work over the past couple of years. It's become so bad that you have to wait at least a year with most places now. I was looking into powering our (my wife and I) new house with solar but since we can't get set up for at least a year, I kinda put such an idea to the sidelines...

  7. #37
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,584
    I tend to believe that in most situations cooler heads prevail.

    Alarmists on both sides need to chill, compromise, get more scientific evidence, and then layout their claims.

    Too often today in the mass media, books, and now sadly scientific journals the practice is to write first and research later. Several theories now abound that just don't have as much proof as the sources would have you believe.

    In modern times like we live in today I'd say our responsibility to stay informed now rests more on our ability to cipher through the vast amounts of information out there than believe our once trusted news and science sources. It used to be that you could believe this report or that but this is not so anymore and probably in part due to the internet and how fast and readily available different sources of information are available. It used to take a book or a published source to refute a claim or a theory and now it just takes a bit of money and a website.

    I welcome debate on these issues and also welcome taking to task some of the 'accepted' theories. If anything it will make both sides of any issue dig that much deeper when they know they are going to be held accountable for their findings.

  8. #38
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Too often today in the mass media, books, and now sadly scientific journals the practice is to write first and research later. Several theories now abound that just don't have as much proof as the sources would have you believe.
    In modern times like we live in today I'd say our responsibility to stay informed now rests more on our ability to cipher through the vast amounts of information out there than believe our once trusted news and science sources.
    I don't think scientific journals have changed, some anti-global warming types appear to claim conspiracy, but then the anti-evolution types claim conspiracy, the anti-quantum mechanics types claim conspiracy. Anyone who is anti any orthodox view point invariably claims the system is out to get them.

    Science is a very conservative buisness, people don't accept stuff easily at all, to convince the scientific community you need strong evidence, i find it compelling that there is majority backing of the human-mediated global warming view point. Further i note that the credability of some of the major skeptics are seriously undermined by either A) lack of exposure to environmental science or B) links with oil industry.

    That does not mean there are not credible experienced people out there who disagree with the impact of human activites on the climate, there are, but they are in a small minority. If one feels unable to analyse the science then all one can do is go with the majority expert opinion. At the very least it should surely carry some weight.

    From my perspective I think the basic pro-human climate change case that we know the climate is warming we know there is a correlation of this warming with CO2 output, that we know CO2 traps heat, that we know 50 different models examining the question of whether this CO2 increase would have an effect all predicted warming between 1-5 degrees is enough to justify cutting back on emissions. That's not because i think it gives us certainity but because given the risk of significant environmental and economic cost if we do nothing and are wrong, i can't help feel that it's the only reasonable cause of action to take.
    Last edited by Clyde; 12-06-2006 at 05:18 AM.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  9. #39
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,383
    What I find most ironic is our immediate willingness to accept all the talks about global warming are bullocks and the ramblings of a bunch of doomsday preachers. Doomsday preachers, I may add, that are among the top scientists in the world.

    And then we immediately take for granted a presentation made by an unknown scientist and an economist trying to overthrow the global warming theory. That is just too funny... or too sad. I don't know anymore.

    In fact, we haven't changed at all since the days of Socrates.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  10. #40
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    Ah, yes, our glorious loving god, who'll burn is all to sinder...I love him so much, as he does me...crispy me.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
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. Kyoto - global warming hype
    By VirtualAce in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-12-2005, 03:43 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. defining and using a global class
    By cjschw in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-05-2004, 08:51 PM

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