Thread: Global Warming oops itself again

  1. #61
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,108
    There was a prominent climate skeptic who commissioned a study of his own recently because he wanted to look at all the real data himself (like several of you he didn't trust the information being released). After the study was finished (confirming AGW) he changed his tune.
    O_o

    Strangely enough, there was a prominent proponent of anthropogenic global warming who was denied access to the real data. After the request was made public, he went out of his way to distance himself from models derived from that data in favor of other sources.

    The "lost" data represents a serious problem if that's all you are going by regardless of your conclusions.

    Seriously, that data is now polluted by bad science; you should stop trying to discuss the validity of climate change and causes thereof by means of that data.

    Look more carefully at this thread; a good portion of commentators, agree or disagree with various conclusions, are complaining precisely because that bad science is being pushed as good science.

    Soma
    “Salem Was Wrong!” -- Pedant Necromancer
    “Four isn't random!” -- Gibbering Mouther

  2. #62
    Registered User Alpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    877
    Quote Originally Posted by phantomotap View Post
    O_o

    Strangely enough, there was a prominent proponent of anthropogenic global warming who was denied access to the real data. After the request was made public, he went out of his way to distance himself from models derived from that data in favor of other sources.

    The "lost" data represents a serious problem if that's all you are going by regardless of your conclusions.

    Soma
    I had to go back and read the CRU story, up until now I was a bit confused with the term "lost data". I agree it's untrustworthy, which sucks. Science has a pretty strong epistemological underpinning that generally catches such things. Most scientific hoaxes, or just limitations on measuring, were discovered by science itself.

    As a lay person, I don't really have a base of knowledge on the methodology being used, I just have to use what I know of epistemology to determine if a thing is trustworthy. So it's good to know about this.
    WndProc = (2[b] || !(2[b])) ? SufferNobly : TakeArms;

  3. #63
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,108
    As a lay person, I don't really have a base of knowledge on the methodology being used, I just have to use what I know of epistemology to determine if a thing is trustworthy. So it's good to know about this.
    O_o

    What you are referencing is ultimately why I came off the fence on the "human is best explanation" side of the debate.

    The scientists in that particular video managed to explain their methods of processing the data and problems with data, before and after processing, extremely well.

    *shrug*

    Sad really that a sufficiently clear explanation without "Oh. My. God. GLOBAL WARMING." was something motivating a change of opinion...

    [Edit]
    As in, that should really be the norm.
    [/Edit]

    [Edit]
    >_<

    I hope no one has interpreted my comments here as implying that I have enough of a background to rebuild temperature models from, say, the tree data.

    I don't Earth science or Atmospheric science nearly well enough for that sort of thing.
    [/Edit]

    Soma
    “Salem Was Wrong!” -- Pedant Necromancer
    “Four isn't random!” -- Gibbering Mouther

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,364
    >> Seriously, that data is now polluted by bad science; you should stop trying to discuss the validity of climate change and causes thereof by means of that data.

    O_o

    I don't recall doing that, so it will be difficult for me to stop.

  5. #65
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Angola
    Posts
    8,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpo View Post
    The media tends to distort science even when it's not a political at all.
    The media is not the only one discrediting science. Other sectors of the society have been doing a good job at it. The political sectors for various reasons, but also the academia itself with their grant motivated so-called scientific studies of penises labs or that expensive wedding rings result in an higher divorce rate.

    The media real problem is not so much that they exacerbate a declining scientific community. It is that by refusing to put research in proper context for editorial reasons (often to do with the fact they consider their readers ignorant idiots), the media ends up training their readers/viewers to look at science as a homogeneous community of "Them". And then these readers/viewers question why "They" make contradictory claims. Science is portrayed as a chaotic and unstable medium, which serves just nice in the hands of the "merchants of doubt"; usually, the political sector, certain economic interests, and various faiths.

    The scientific community itself is responsible for this state of affairs. Not only it is being infected from within with so little work being done in the ways of discrediting bad science (because of good manners and so forth), but it is also losing and not renewing some of their best communicators. The academia is failing more so because it is training many of their future scientists in a culture of public figure and in irresponsible and inconsequential research. In fact, one of the most distressing elements of modern university research is how little it has to do with actual scientific research and how much it has to do with statistics. University labs must be the emptiest places in modern universities if we were to look at how many so-called scientific studies are about phoning, sampling and surveying.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 10-12-2014 at 09:42 AM.
    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.

  6. #66
    Ticked and off
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    La-la land
    Posts
    1,728
    History keeps repeating itself.

    Instead of discussing what would be the best course of action to prepare or safeguard for unlikely/possible/likely scenarios dangerous enough to threaten large swathes of humanity, everyone is busy discussing only whether there is a reason to do anything at all.

    Ignaz Semmelweis discovered in mid-1800s that doctors and nurses washing their hands reduces patient death rates significantly. Since there was no scientific proof of why that would be so, and his suggestions were offensive to the then scientific community, he was shut into an asylum and beaten to death by the orderlies there.

    It's the same thing again and again, whether it is environmental changes, nuclear power, or GMOs. Instead of discussing how we would best work with these issues/technologies, proponents talk about vaporware and theoretically possible scenarios, opponents about the worst case scenarios, and the majority parrot idiocies originating from click-baiting/controversy-hoping journalists who neither care nor understand the issues at hand. Nobody talks about the reality. (I love the idea of Golden Rice, but hate terminator genes, built-in pesticide generation, and increased pesticide tolerance. I love the idea of nuclear power, but seeing the atrociously low quality of the implementations, I'm ashamed. It seems a no-brainer to me that extracting unrenewable resources or emitting potentially harmful gases or particulate matter into the atmosphere, should be taxed at a rate that makes either recycling or filtering cheaper. I love the idea of continued commercial growth [improvement, specialization, competition], but find the requirement for commerce to endlessly expand to be sustainable, utterly and totally insane. The water-covered rock ball we live on is very large, but still finite.)

    I don't mean any of you belong to that parrot category. I'm just sad that instead of discussing what we could do -- even if in the purely theoretical sense --, you've fallen into the trap of wondering whether there is any reason to do anything at all. That stance will only drive mankind toward eusocial insularity.

    Based on the thread thus far, sans some silly wordplay and semi-insults, you're easily intelligent enough that discussing actual actions would be interesting, at least. Not waste of time like this one is. We are humans, the metaphorical fingers of the (possibly metaphorical) ecosystem: there are very few limits on what we could do, if we wanted to.

    On the other hand, humans are definitely not a rational species. We could feed, clothe, and educate every single human if we wanted to. We could develop preventives measures for cancer, and treatments for diseases like ebola, if we wanted to; thus far it just hasn't been commercially viable. Cancer, in particular, is an absolute cash cow: huge amounts of money are sunk into cancer treatment, but suggest anything related to prevention, and no drug company will ever fund you again. Hell, several countries have had to break the patent licenses for AIDS medication -- after thousands and thousands of unnecessary deaths --, because the companies' bottom lines are more important than human lives; and the companies have had the audacity to complain about this. Why is that not considered terrorism? Because it is about money and not politics? Is money the new God, then?

    If money is not the new God, why would you even seriously consider that doing nothing is the best course of action?

  7. #67
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Inside my computer
    Posts
    24,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Nominal Animal View Post
    Is money the new God, then?

    If money is not the new God, why would you even seriously consider that doing nothing is the best course of action?
    There is no god.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  8. #68
    Registered User MutantJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    There is no god.
    Not necessarily.

    There very well could be.

    We don't actually know where existence came from. After all, why should anything exist at all? Why do things exist and they are and not others? Is there a logic? A reason? These are the kinds of things I consider to be 'God'.

  9. #69
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Inside my computer
    Posts
    24,654
    No. There is no god. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that such a being exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  10. #70
    Registered User MutantJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    No. There is no god. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that such a being exists.
    There is no scientific evidence that such a being cannot exist either. Maybe not in the literal sense of God like Christians, etc believe in but you never know what's out there.

  11. #71
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Inside my computer
    Posts
    24,654
    We don't know what's out there, but it's certainly not a god.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  12. #72
    Registered User MutantJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    We don't know what's out there, but it's certainly not a god.
    But isn't god a relative term?

    Are we not gods to ants? Are we not gods to dogs? Is god a dog? Oh wait, I think I got that backwards...

  13. #73
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Inside my computer
    Posts
    24,654
    True, "god" is a relative term. So what if your definition of "god", such that you claim that "gods" exist?
    No religion I know of claims that we are "gods" to ants. Or dogs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  14. #74
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Angola
    Posts
    8,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Nominal Animal View Post
    I'm just sad that instead of discussing what we could do -- even if in the purely theoretical sense --, you've fallen into the trap of wondering whether there is any reason to do anything at all. That stance will only drive mankind toward eusocial insularity.
    As opposed to group paranoia?

    I don't subscribe to the view that we must discuss what we could do, when we don't even know what is going on and what's the severity level. And especially not when measures must be taken in a worldwide economic context which is far from being at its best. The debate around Global Warming exists exactly to establish a scientific background that can help better understand what can and should be done and what are the costs involved.

    I find repulsive the whole notion that we must discuss what we can do to "save the planet". And your comparison to Semmelweis even more repulsive. While you link to a man that reached his conclusions through a rigorous application of the scientific method and was ignored by a non scientific establishment, you then conclude that we should ignore any scientific approach and respond on a basis of faith and "just in case". That's a profound contradiction, if I ever saw one, and history didn't repeat itself, as you claim it did. On the other hand your speech will play nicely on the hands of the doomsayers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nominal Animal View Post
    If money is not the new God, why would you even seriously consider that doing nothing is the best course of action?
    Money flows in a society through the application of economic models. Any course of action against Global Warming involves knowing the costs (direct and indirect) as well as the benefits. Without this knowledge you won't know whether the economic impact a measure can take will match its benefits. If you feel we should just throw in the cash without any regard to the consequences, or even whether that will actually do any good, I wish you luck trying to spread that doctrine in a world that depends on money to build a stable society and in a world where the impoverished nations are tired of global economic crisis created by the rich countries.
    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.

  15. #75
    Registered User Alpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    877
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    There is no god.
    I'm an atheist myself, but saying there is no god is almost meaningless. The term God means whatever a person wants it to. In fact whenever I have to talk to someone about it, I always ask them to define what they are even talking about ("energy", "Universal constants", "love", and "You know what God is you idiot" are all pretty fun ones lol).


    Quote Originally Posted by MutantJohn;
    We don't actually know where existence came from. After all, why should anything exist at all? Why do things exist and they are and not others?

    This is a reasonable thing to wonder, but answering any of the questions with a supernatural mind begs the question. You start with, "Why is there something instead of nothing?", but that question applies equally to anything you could posit to explain it.

    Besides that, it sort of assumes the default position of reality is to not exist. This requires a sort of inductive reasoning ( Everything we know has a cause, therefore everything we don't know must also ).
    WndProc = (2[b] || !(2[b])) ? SufferNobly : TakeArms;

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Oops
    By Mario F. in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-24-2010, 10:46 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, 11:06 PM
  3. Global Warming
    By Dave_Sinkula in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 12-06-2006, 11:14 AM
  4. Kyoto - global warming hype
    By VirtualAce in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-12-2005, 04:43 AM
  5. OOPs, I did it again.... lol....
    By Shamino in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-18-2005, 02:57 AM