Is global warming the same as the Y2K thing?

[tomywishbone]

A lot of smart people were predicting chaos (for Y2K) and of course nothing happened. These same smart people aren't big fans of global warming... are they?

Oh, TGIF:beer:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
A lot of smart people were predicting chaos (for Y2K) and of course nothing happened. These same smart people aren't big fans of global warming... are they?

Oh, TGIF:beer:

It ain't the same thing.

 

[tersome]

Of course it's not the same thing.

With y2k, we were all going to die and it's all our fault.
With global warming, we're all going to die and it's all our fault.

Oh wait...

 

[Isla]

It's not the same thing. It's not a good name for what is happening, but in any case, the glaciers are melting at an alarming rate.

If you ever studied oceanography in college, you would know that the temperature of the water has a HUGE effect on all of our weather systems. The glaciers and polar caps have been part of what has made our weather reasonably predictable for centuries. The changes that are occuring essentially mean that what we expect (and more importantly, what PLANTS and animals that we eat expect and need) isn't going to be what we get. The coral reefs are already just about gone because of the change in temperature.

One way or another, we are in for a white knuckle ride.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
A lot of smart people were predicting chaos (for Y2K) and of course nothing happened. These same smart people aren't big fans of global warming... are they?

Oh, TGIF:beer:

Are you practicing for the Stupidity Olympics or just trolling?

And for the record, there's no software patch for global warming.

 

[tomywishbone]

"Are you practicing for the Stupidity Olympics or just trolling?"

How dare you! I'm a professional Stupid. I'm not allowed to compete in the Olympics. Oh wait, there's plenty of professionals in the Olympics these days... maybe I'll enter.

 

[f95toli]

Hopefully, yes.
Nothing happened year 2000 because a lot of time and money was spent to fix the Y2K problem. Therefore nothing serious happened (in most countries).

However, I don't think we will we as lucky with global warming, even if we ever do eventually get round to spending time and money.

 

[randomint]

it's only gonna take another Katrina to shut the doubters up.

 

[1EZduzit]

I'm just a dumb farmer, but I do pay attetnion to the weather patterns all my life and I believe they have changed drmatically in the last 40+ years that I've been paying attention to them.

 

[Isla]

1EZduzit

You are not just a dumb farmer. I have been paying attention for almost as long as you have, and there are many changes I have seen. Not good ones. Are bees dying off where you live?

<---been an avid gardener since childhood

 

[DaveSimmons]

Even if climate change doesn't get us, the same waste and overconsumption will have us choking on the pollution from manufacturing and energy production.

Perhaps we don't need to increase fuel efficiency to stop the oceans rising, but we'd literally breathe easier from it regardless.

I'm not a tree-hugger, but if we manage to kill them all off they'll take us with them.

 

[Rainsford]

Actually, I think there ARE some parallels between global warming and Y2K..but the uneducated morons are on the other side. With Y2K you had all sorts of people who couldn't program their VCR running around saying that the sky was falling, while the people who DID know what they were talking about weren't worried and fixed any small problems that were going to crop up. With global warming, the uneducated masses are now all lining up behind the idea that there ISN'T a problem, while the folks who do understand the issue are suggesting that maybe we should start thinking about trying to solve the problem. The parallel is that on any issue you're going to have a large, extremely loud group that refuses to listen to the people who understand the topic.

 

[ericlp]

If Y2K was as easy to fix as Global Warming then....Well, that would be nice....

The only thing the two have in common is they both man made...

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Actually, I think there ARE some parallels between global warming and Y2K..but the uneducated morons are on the other side.

That is why you must silence and banish scientists who disagree? Predetermined conclusions and stifling debate do not make you educated. It?s being pompous, arrogant, and egotistical.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Isla
1EZduzit

You are not just a dumb farmer. I have been paying attention for almost as long as you have, and there are many changes I have seen. Not good ones. Are bees dying off where you live?

<---been an avid gardener since childhood

Yes they are, and last year was particularly bad.

 

[WHAMPOM]

There is a parallel between Y2K and the new date of the daylight savings time change. Predictions of dire computer disaster! Deju-vu all over again!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Actually, I think there ARE some parallels between global warming and Y2K..but the uneducated morons are on the other side.

That is why you must silence and banish scientists who disagree? Predetermined conclusions and stifling debate do not make you educated. It?s being pompous, arrogant, and egotistical.

Nobody is doing that, what they ARE doing is what scientists always do...respect every view as long as it's backed up by reason and facts. Science does not have a lot of respect or patience for people with a low signal to noise ratio, which seems to come as a surprise to people who think every issue should be democratically argued by people like Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore. But this is science, where your opinion is not special and does not have value simply because you opened your big yapper and chose to express it. If this seems mean, it's only because it's hard to have a lot of patience with a debate that's been ongoing for years, yet the folks who don't know what they are talking about have made NO effort to remedy their ignorance or come up with a more scientific argument. This isn't a science conspiracy, the only people being "banished" from the debate are the people who don't belong there in the first place...not because of their views, but because of how they arrived at them.

And you want to talk about being egotistical? How about thinking that you have a right to enter into any debate you damn well please without bothering to educate yourself to the facts of the issue first?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Y2K did have the potential to cause cause near chaos if not fixed. Large amounts of time and money were spent to repair the problem in time.

I am sure the reason why is because there was an immediate threat to the fortunes of the rich and powerful. It was "act now, spend whatever is needed" or pay a huge price in short order.

Climate change does not have quite so near a deadline for devastating effects. Even a term of 20 years is long enough for the rich and powerful (who are generally old) to assume that they will be dead before it's time to pay the piper. Why sacrifice anything now, knowing that if you delay it long enough, you will never have to sacrifice anything to fix the problem. Doesn't matter that the problem will cost more to fix the longer it is delayed because you won't be around to foot the bill.

 

[Bitek]

No, not the same. Y2K goes bad and you can't get $ from an ATM. GW goes bad and we drown Florida.

OTOH, those fvckers voted for Bush over Gore. Payback is a bitch.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
A lot of smart people were predicting chaos (for Y2K) and of course nothing happened. These same smart people aren't big fans of global warming... are they?

Oh, TGIF:beer:

A lot of smart people did a lot work to make sure nothing happened for Y2K and it was a success. So hopefully global warming will become what y2k was.

 

[myocardia]

Save your planet, dumbass.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Save your planet, dumbass.

You DO know there has, at different points in history, not been ANY ice on the poles? So if ice melting is the logic behind this, we had to save the planet millions of years ago too.

Not to mention the ice and glaciers have been melting away for thousands of years, since the previous ice age. We didn?t warm the planet up then.

As one final note, I?m waiting to understand how ICE samples are a measurement to measure the last time it melted. I find it would be difficult to measure something that did not exist.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And you want to talk about being egotistical? How about thinking that you have a right to enter into any debate you damn well please without bothering to educate yourself to the facts of the issue first?

So you want to mandate that we cannot have an opinion if it is not handed to us by a liberal activist? I?ll give you credit for knowing how to form a consensus through the process of elimination. That?s exactly what Oregon practices with its scientists, among a couple others newsworthy states this past year.

Here's some education for you.

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

 

[ericlp]

Here is some more education for you....

http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=827

I normally don't post things that Hard Core right wing freaks. But, here ya go! I love it that he has to put in Faith based into his little speech. I guess the only way to get any credit in the sick f'ed up nation is if you got the backing of christ o' mighty himself... Sad...Sad....Sad....

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Here is some more education for you....

http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=827

I normally don't post things that Hard Core right wing freaks. But, here ya go! I love it that he has to put in Faith based into his little speech. I guess the only way to get any credit in the sick f'ed up nation is if you got the backing of christ o' mighty himself... Sad...Sad....Sad....

If McCain is a "hard core right wing freak" then by all means how does Rush or Michael Savage fit in?

As for the link, it?s to dispute to so called consensus and that the science is in. Because neither are true.

Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France?s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled ?The Snows of Kilimanjaro? (For English Translation, click here: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the ?cause of climate change remains unknown? and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called ?consensus? that the Earth faces a ?climate emergency.? On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

?Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future?Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,? the 60 scientists wrote.See:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/fina...d=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

?It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,? the 60 scientists concluded.

Another bombshell to hit the global warming alarmists and their speculative climate modeling came in a September article in the Geophysical Research Letters which found that over 20% of the heat gained in the oceans since the mid-1950s was lost in just two years. The former climatologist for the state of Colorado, Roger Pielke, Sr., noted that the sudden cooling of the oceans ?certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings.? See: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/09/

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: myocardia
Save your planet, dumbass.

You DO know there has, at different points in history, not been ANY ice on the poles? So if ice melting is the logic behind this, we had to save the planet millions of years ago too.

Not to mention the ice and glaciers have been melting away for thousands of years, since the previous ice age. We didn?t warm the planet up then.

As one final note, I?m waiting to understand how ICE samples are a measurement to measure the last time it melted. I find it would be difficult to measure something that did not exist.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And you want to talk about being egotistical? How about thinking that you have a right to enter into any debate you damn well please without bothering to educate yourself to the facts of the issue first?

So you want to mandate that we cannot have an opinion if it is not handed to us by a liberal activist? I?ll give you credit for knowing how to form a consensus through the process of elimination. That?s exactly what Oregon practices with its scientists, among a couple others newsworthy states this past year.

Here's some education for you.

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Hell, you're welcome to have any opinion you want. But there is nothing that says that serious scientists have to take you jokers seriously. Creationists and flat-earth folks are welcome to their beliefs, but they don't have a right to be in the mainstream if they aren't willing to play by the same rules...like the scientific method.

And you can spread the vast scientific conspiracy bullshit all you want, but the fact is that as long as most of the anti-global warming people are flat-earth folks like you, there is no reason for the scientific debate to include you.