What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
188 Comments
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -38/+75I think that we have a classic example of "crying wolf" by the environmental activists.
Let's dispense with the accuracy of the theory of global warming for a second and consider the following:
1) It is ridiculous to declare that every little weird event in nature is or might be caused by global warming. We have all heard examples of how even unexpected blizzards with unusually cold weather was actually caused by...wait for it...global warming.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950 ...
Most people call bullcrap and rightfully so. This makes skeptics of us all...or should.
2) The theory of global warming is promoted by even those that haven't a clue about climates and weather. They simply repeat and regurgitate what they have heard and now believe. While this is not an indictment of the accuracy of the theory of global warming, it makes those who like to think for themselves very skeptical as well. This is cult-like and would bring immediate skepticism from many of the same people who propose global warming as a reality if it were a religious or political ideology.
3) The mere use of computer modeling should not, in any way, be evidence for or against the theory of global warming. Computer models are nothing but computations done via a computer and not on a blackboard or paper. But, some people seem to think that because computer models predict something that something is somehow more likely to happen...because a computer said so.
4) Many scientists are constantly trying to sell their product and get funding. This includes many of the proponents of the theory of global warming. They will then use #3 (computer models) to sell their ideas. Don't tell me that the need for funding never has ANY effect on the objectivity and legitimacy of the scientific conclusions reached by these scientists. - minoss, on 12/04/2008, -8/+26Models for predicting weather and the environment have always been relatively poor. We can't even accurately forecast whether it will rain or not a week from now. There's simply way too many variables for us to accurately model with current technology. Also, predictions from the past rarely get scrutinized. We use ex-post data to try to predict events ex-ante. When you are unable to know all of the data, it makes predicting somewhat difficult.
We can't predict earthquakes. We can't predict hurricanes. We can't predict tornados. We can tell you why they happened after the fact, but prediction is much, much harder. - chriskzoo, on 12/04/2008, -8/+25Throwing the argument out of what causes global warming (if it's going on at all), nobody really seems to be able answer the question of if it really matters. Earth is not and never will be static with respect to it's flora and fauna, so why would warming necessarily have a negative impact? For one thing it would open up longer growing seasons in northern latitudes - is that a bad thing?
For anyone to think that we can actually control the long-term climate is hubris of the highest degree. - Rhodamine, on 12/04/2008, -2/+18 The media generally possess a pathetic understanding of complex scientific issues as well as an increasingly poor ability to effectively communicate these issues to the public. Emphasis is on 'getting the story' and attention grabbing headlines. This is compounded by the fact that there exists a relatively huge potential for dramatic changes in how every society and culture will function.
This is proving to be a very difficult and disastrous set of circumstances for those of us working in research areas, the policy makers, and eventually the general public. It's frustrating. - mparker21311, on 12/04/2008, -5/+19Dig me down please
- blqysmg, on 12/04/2008, -7/+19Oh, come on chriskzoo! Don't you know that Global Warming means death to all mankind and the END of LIFE as WE KNOW IT? Mass extinctions! Blizzards, Hurricanes, Flooding! Massive Famines! Why it will be as if it's the 1930s again. Remember the Dust bowl.
Okay, so the Ice Cores show that we've been this warm 4 times in the last 500,000 years. THIS time is different. THIS time the Polar Bears are all going to die out. That is IT. Once the Polar Bears have all died, the domino effect will end all life. Don't ask me how, because that means questioning the Scientific Method itself. Sacrilege; death to the non-believer. - psdabfm, on 12/04/2008, -7/+18I don't doubt that human activity has added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. But how we go from burning fossil fuels to world-wide flooding and catastrophe I'm still not sure. I believe that climate scientists (of which Al Gore is not among) are overestimating the effect of human activity. If you were to write a linear equation, I believe humans would be the fourth or fifth term. Some of these earlier posts make good points about scientists not being able to predict rainfall with any accuracy. How can we believe the claims by these scientists about global temperatures when there are so many variables involved (many of which are probably unknown as a climate is not something you can do isolated laboratory testing on.)
- kingmanic, on 12/04/2008, -4/+15"What i find hugely retarded is that there is such a vast conspiracy about something that isn't a conspiracy. The fact is global warming has its merits, while not 100% true it is TRUE that if we don't control OUR emission of green house gases we *COULD* end up like venus."
Could but it's highly unlikely unless we can increase the atmospheric density by 10, make all of the added atmosphere sulfuric acid, and drastically slow the spin of the earth. - cantaclaro, on 12/04/2008, -6/+17Well of course they are, good news does not bring grants. These guys use computer models and "simulations" for one of the most complex subjects around. Climate studies which tell us that the earth will rise in temperature 2 degrees in the next 1000 years mean absolutely *****. They contain so few variables and yet attempt to make a picture of something 10 centuries away.
1000 years? The Weather Channel can't even tell me if its gonna ***** rain tomorrow let alone 1000 years for now. Its all ***** so these guys can continue getting their checks.
Predicting something 1000 years in the future would be like trying to figure out what Fry, Leela, Farnsworth and the whole Planet Express Gang were gonna eat for lunch on December 4th 3008.
They aren't real and neither are these computer models.
http://www.urbanarson.com - ozydingo, on 12/04/2008, -4/+14I...actually agree with you...wow. You have some rather well thought-out points.
I think you're a little harsh on compute models; they can tell you a great deal more than you can practically accomplish on a blackboard and paper; but they are still only as accurate as the model used to make the program. But models and the results of simulations can tell you something, to be taken with a grain of salt, about the validity of the theory behind it after comparing results to observed data. Of course it's generally either "this *could* account for the data" or "obviously this model is wrong," or something in between.
I also suspect that there is a lot more depth to attributing weather oddities to climate change; but I do agree that I've certainly noticed people (friends, on tv, etc; can't say the same in the scientific literature) being a bit trigger happy with the blame game.
Nevertheless I think you have some good points there. - chriskzoo, on 12/04/2008, -0/+9Not just complex scientific issues, the media has a pathetic understanding of pretty much everything. If you even have a casual interest in something (e.g. video games) and then see a report on the news about it, chances are they will make some egregious error in the story.
- pauldy, on 12/04/2008, -7/+16This is not something new but it is good to see some light shed on it more studies need to be conducted by people whose livelihoods aren't on the line if the outcome is counter to the expected results. People like Al Gore should be ashamed for what they are peddling because there is so much to be learned on the subject claiming to have all the answers and pointing at your fellow man as the problem isn't going to solve anything. I still can't believe our so called educated elite gave him a Nobel Prize makes it hard for me to look at anyone else winning that award the same way again.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -2/+10I believe you are misinterpreting my point...?
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” - Carl Sagan
This applies both ways and thus why I am so skeptical about AGW and every scientific theory in general. Skepticism is healthy in science.
One last thing, skeptic != denier. - inactive, on 12/04/2008, -0/+8It helps to read and actually comprehend a comment before replying to it...
"For anyone to think that we can actually control the long-term climate is hubris of the highest degree."
He did not say that humanity has no impact on mother nature, he said we cannot control long-term climate, BIG difference. - curunir, on 12/04/2008, -1/+9And genetic mutation != evolution. But the *are* related, and you can't make accurate predictions about one without understanding the other. Same deal with climate & weather.
I hear this BS all the time. "Oh, but weather is *different* !! It's localized and affected by many different variables!" Okay, granted. But predicting global climate is vastly *more* complicated, not less. The fact is, the comparison is valid, because the techniques are similar (input known variables to a computer model and derive probabilities of outcomes). But the variables to climate change are less well-understood, more complex, and have much longer feedback loops to correct the models. There is no way it could be *more* accurate!! - inactive, on 12/04/2008, -5/+13When somebody is skeptical about something you believe to be true, it is up to YOU to prove to the skeptic why you are right, not the other way around. It is truly stiffling the number of times I have been challenged to prove that it IS NOT humans causing the current warming trend.
Anybody with an ounce of logical understanding should understand it is impossible to truly disprove anything; hence why we cannot disprove god's existence, I can only say that it's highly improbable because there is a lack of sound evidence.
I have criticized the theory of AGW many times because of the lack of sound data and thus sound conclusions. I have also criticized the theory of AGW because it fails to take into account cloud formation caused by the Sun along with other cosmic sources.
And before you start linking me to a million sources, please double-check that they aren't using flawed computer models or any surface temperature data collected by our, often times, flawed monitoring stations (www.climataudit.org). Half the sources I get linked to "proving" global warming are easily countered by peer-reviewed literature, common-sense, or historical fact.
Problem with most skeptics is, they are just as uninformed as those claiming AGW to be 100% fact. Great book to get anybody skeptical about AGW started:
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-E ... - inactive, on 12/04/2008, -2/+10What Al Gore stands for is making money off the carbon credits company he started right before he went on his Inconvenient Truth tirade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment ...
http://www.google.com/search?q=al+gore+carbon+cred ... - rodon, on 12/04/2008, -9/+16Are blogs overselling their headlines?
- heyitsguay, on 12/04/2008, -2/+9Ignoring the global warming issue, they spent millions and millions of dollars on a machine/program/whatever to predict weather variations in 2060? Really? I'd be interested to see if they can take climate data from the 1950's and get an accurate prediction of changes in weather patterns since today.
- ChildeRoland420, on 12/04/2008, -1/+8His point is that they both have inaccuracies.
- kingmanic, on 12/04/2008, -3/+10Scientists are human, they are prone to exaggeration as anyone. Journalists are worse as they don't know much and need a headline.
Ever read the last bit of most studies, the "future research" or "applications" in the conclusions. A study on aspects of cancer will invariably end with "our research will lead to a cure real soon". It's just the way scientists need to spin to get more funding. Most wish it wasn't that way, but the funders are often want definitive and useful things ASAP. This bit of exaggeration is needed to convince them to continue funding.
Ego's play a part too. - misfit410, on 12/04/2008, -4/+11yes there are still a majority here on Digg that think the smart people who question it are the ignorant ones.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -1/+8Perhaps they are underselling them. I heard you can ask for 250 billion dollars and the government will just give it to you. Just make a bank.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -12/+19Al Gore was caught faking climate change data a few weeks back, so the answer is YES
- TheMoniker, on 12/04/2008, -1/+7Hey AllyOfReason, being skeptical of every fact that we have come across is the best way to go, for sure. I can't demonstrate anthropogenic climate change and defend the details of every model and paper that such a demonstration would be based upon in a few comments here on Digg.
My advice to you would be to contact the nearest university with a climate studies branch and ask one of the people who works in climatology/paleoclimatology for a half hour or hour's worth of their time. If they are too busy, ask if they have a graduate student who would be willing to discuss this stuff with you. With any luck they'll be able to address your questions right there and then, and perhaps allow you to poke around on a climate model. - ftx437, on 12/04/2008, -2/+8Good points ,
there are also computer models that show a different story about climate change but you never hear about those. There is just to much to factor in a model to say that it is an accurate depiction. - mikbunn, on 12/04/2008, -6/+12Humans are causing a detriment to the environment and climate, but I think all the hype is from pissed off environmentalists who said, "***** it, if people won't care about clean air, soil, and water, let's tell them they're all going to die. That'll get their attention."
- chriskzoo, on 12/04/2008, -3/+9Here's the fallacy in your thinking - no matter what humans to, the environment will NATURALLY SUSTAIN ITSELF. Think about is - CO2 levels go up, the climater gets warmer allowing vegetation at higher latitudes and elevation which *gasp* increase CONSUMPTION of CO2.
- SteveMTyler, on 12/04/2008, -3/+9scientists don't exaggerate it, journalists looking for the sound byte do
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -2/+8Explain to me how implementing carbon credits is going to help humanity.
There is plenty of evidence that shows carbon credits destroy economic viability in third-world nations. Oh wait, it's only your little clean habitat you're worried about. - Trent1492, on 12/05/2008, -0/+5@ liquidmetalband
Evidence? - curunir, on 12/04/2008, -2/+7... and as long as he can get everybody else to change their lifestyle, he can continue his own energy-wasting, carbon-spewing lifestyle that he enjoys, right?
- TheMoniker, on 12/05/2008, -0/+5I'm no fan of people talking about things without having any grounding in them either.
P.S.
Sorry that I removed the surfing comment in the middle of your response there. (It was that the climate scientists that I do know happen to mostly surf, of the three that don't surf, one skim boards and the other dives.) - ozydingo, on 12/04/2008, -1/+6for what it's worth, slvrbullet, there really any serious scientists that would say climate change is entirely a direct consequence of man's actions. Any serious encompassing model would include natural causes for climate change as well.
- Trent1492, on 12/05/2008, -0/+5Do you have evidence for this world wide conspiracy in the world of geophysics?
- TheUngod, on 12/04/2008, -2/+7Why use a model when you can just as accurately pull predictions out of your ass? Any one tiny variable can totally screw up a model like that, and looking far into the future, the probability of an accurate prediction is pretty darn close to 0.
- captainbethany, on 12/04/2008, -2/+7Dugg for Dr. Gandalf in the photo.
- HotBaconSauce, on 12/04/2008, -3/+8Bush got the terrrrr'ists before they attacked (again)
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -3/+8No. Did you see the dudes picture. He's totally pro-Obama.
See that's how you do it.
Negro. - greenfyre, on 12/04/2008, -4/+9LOL ... that is so ridiculously wrong ... and you are actually getting dugg up.
Try some facts:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ch ... - inactive, on 12/04/2008, -2/+7Skepticism is healthy. Without it, there would be no scientific process.
- angryredplanet, on 12/05/2008, -0/+4The only group of people who have no supporting science to back their opinions are climate change deniers, making climate change denial a faith based subjective belief system, propagated by nothing but lies, heresay and anacdotes.
Get back to us when you have some evidence demonstrating your contrary opinion other than unsubstantiated, paranoid, dilusional conspiracy theories. I won't hold my breath waiting. - ozydingo, on 12/04/2008, -2/+6Well, certainly in science more than in industry, much of the motivation is simply interest in the topic and not as much the money. Can I back that up? No, not really. But take academia; the pay--it's not great, generally speaking. That's not to say money isn't a factor, nor that getting that extra grant isn't a large motivation, but it's something to consider.
Another thing is that if as a scientist it's shown that you published falsified data, consider your career over. People lie, cheat, and steal all the time in industry and hide behind the protective shroud of the companies, the shareholders, the parent companies; and as long as the public isn't going nuts about it they'll get away with it and do it again. In science, your name is right there on the top of the paper, and if someone shows convincingly that you lied in your paper, you're pretty much done.
So there is a difference. It's no reason to forgo skepticism though, of course. - johndi, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4Not even the worst case scenario suggests that we will go from .38% CO2 in our atmosphere to 95% like Venus. That's 250 times as much C02 per given volume of atmosphere. Venus also has 90 times the atmosphere as Earth. Those two together give it over 22,000 times the atmospheric CO2 as Earth. That's why Venus is so blistering hot.
Mars also has an atmosphere with 95% CO2. It's quite cold there, but it would be equally inappropriate to compare Martian climate to Earth's climate. - inactive, on 12/04/2008, -2/+6The models from the IPPC fail to do what you are asking. Run them from today to today+100 years and the predict +3 degrees. However, run them from today-100 years to today and they still predict +3 degrees than actual temperatures today - the predicted results don't match observed reality.
- TheMoniker, on 12/04/2008, -1/+5You're alluding to an significant short-term increase in solar activity. This is addressed here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642 - noumuon, on 12/04/2008, -2/+6gravity and evolution are not theories. they're words used to describe observable fact. the way which they specifically work are the theoretical frameworks of each.
- acknotSW, on 12/04/2008, -6/+10Nicely put man, the only thing I would add to #4 is that the scientific community is as cutthroat and corruptible as business and politics.
Don't believe for a second that all scientists review studies and research openly and objectively without any regard to how such studies might affect their own research funding. Like 99% of the rest of the world, scientists didn’t go into science to go broke; they choose their areas of study based on what will bring in the money. Don’t believe for a second that a scientist is incapable of lying, cheating, and stealing like a politician and business exec to protect their careers and livelihood. - PatoLucas, on 12/04/2008, -2/+6Dude, he never denied global warming, he's just calling ***** in the way is handled by many of it's proponents
- Trent1492, on 12/05/2008, -1/+5Nothing like baseless accusations, huh?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 190 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is