Polar bears resort to cannibalism as Arctic ice shrinks

Post Reply New Topic

Does anyone remember the Y2K? People seriously believed that all computers would crash, nuclear bombs would be launched, power plants would collapse etc. Still, the Y2K turned out to be just BS. Man-made global warming is an even bigger hoax than the Y2K.

I think ShawnWilliam and Monty are both right on this Y2K stuff. It did not start out as a hoax. There were definitely some systems and software that needed to be updated, but once the media and some politicians got going, it all snowballed.

Yes companies did spend money but much of the money were Modifications to Govt. contracts for "Additional" money from the Govt. I think tax breaks were also given for the money spent to modify systems and software. Private companies were ahead of the game or had the wait and see attitude. Any time the Govt. is giving away something, some people tend to take advantage of it. For legacy systems and outdated compiled software, it meant it was time for "extra funding" to finally get rid of or convert these systems.

I was tasked to write a Y2K assessment for a software project I was working on and since we were using up to date development tools as well as a good database system we had to make no changes.

So, in essence, that is what I think has happened with this "global warming", "climate change" stuff. Yes, there is something called global warming. There is also something called global cooling. Yes, the climate changes. But, when someone says they don't believe in all of this global warming crap, what they are really saying is that they do not believe that man is increasing temperatures enough to impact Mother Nature's own natural periods of warming and cooling. I can not tell you how many times I have been jumped on because of this very reason.

I could get into the Math of this stuff but the main thing is that these models use approximations. You go through the math and then have to have a computer iterate an equation(s) and approximate a solution. Since we are approximating, any error in the data (temperature readings for example) can throw off your approximations by a very small amount all the way to a very large amount. If we want to simplify the process we can disregard a bunch of stuff and maybe just concentrate on CO2, temperature and time and the math is much easier but we are missing the big picture, like what happens when we include air pressure, water vapor, sea water pressure, sunlight intensity and on and on. The computer models we have are the best we have ever had but that does not mean they are always right.

People are trying to influence your thinking, including myself, by trying to explain my point of view, but what I suggest is, go out and figure it out for yourself. Don't just look at one side of any argument. This may be an Aspie thing but look at all sides and then apply some logic after the emotion subsides.

And, if you made it this far in the post then you earned 1 Activity point redeemable nowhere.

Peace

^^ believe me, the government knows EXACTLY what's going on.. it is no error. It is instilling fear in people to push the new environmental religion... the elite government gain a lot of control from this religion.. and scaring people over it is most important.

Have you seen the NASA climate change chart?.. LMAO.. it's laughable..

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/ClimateTime ... achine.cfm

note how on the tempurature one, if you move the slider all the way right, the world is *gasp* RED!.. Oh my god! we're all gonna die!

Dude, that's just a color key to visualize the temperature change data. It's a bit melodramatic but srlsly...

I know what it is.. and the fact that people freak out when they SEE it proves my point!..

Not only does it prove people can't think for themselves, by not just giving them the data but also a color code, but also that simple images can strike emotion in people which instills not only fear and panic, but sometimes activity..

Look what I found:

http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

Not exactly a scholarly source.

Real climate gives the impression of being a decent source of information that does things like, y'know, provide citations.

Now, if you could provide a substantial criticism this could go somewhere...

Oh, shit I must have forgot.. I'm not capable of providing substantial thoughts..