Y2K - used as proof that scientists are unreliable

[wacki]

LsDPulsar,

He is an absolute EXPERT at researching his particular fiction subject and picking references from perfectly acceptable scientific journals ....

As such he was the PERFECT person to give commentary on what has been going on in the scientific community.

Well I know a lot of leading scientists from around the world that think you are dead wrong on this one.


But seriously: as a scientist, and perhaps from my European perspective, I have trouble taking certain discussions and arguments seriously, and Crichton's argument that the planet isn't really warming, and that climatologists have basically made this up in a global conspiracy to get more research funding, is clearly one of those. I find it hard to imagine that even Crichton himself seriously believes this; I would not be surprised if next year he goes public saying: Hey, this was all just a novel, just testing the borders between reality and fiction - I had great fun seeing how many people were fooled and took this seriously. Ian McEwan also added a scientific paper to his excellent novel Enduring Love, claiming the novel was based on it - only a year later did he admit that he had also written the "scientific paper" himself, even going as far as submitting it to a journal (where one of the reviewers smelt a rat). - stefan]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar...out-the-advent-of-spring/#comment-1759

That was a year ago and Crichton is still making the similar claims. (outside the novel) They look at him like he's a joke. And it's not just w/ regard to the climate. If I had a choice of trusting world class scientists or you when it comes to Crichtons credibility, I'll trust the world class scientists any day. I would write more but I'm getting off subject. I should have stuck to only Y2K and never brought up Crichton. This thread has gone to waste.

 

[Pulsar]

Wacki, you just completely proved my point.

Never once did I say that I believe Crichton is a scientist.

I stated that he is very good at researching and picking bits and pieces to make his fiction sound more REAL.

Which is exactly what many scientists are doing, and exactly why they had him speaking.

He takes partial truths and then uses quotes from respected journals to back them up.

You seriously need to work on reading what people actually type.

Again, what you typed here:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the guy above said, Y2K hype was pushed by lawyers and greedy IT reps who all wanted to cash in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the quotes from the two articles I linked to, you are dead wrong on this one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/585013.stm
http://www.everything2000.com/news/computer/y2kmoneywellspent.asp

However, those people have a conflict of interest so who knows.

As you said - every person quoted was a Y2K "analyst", "consultant", or "manager". Gee, I wonder where their jobs would have gone had they said 'Y2k is really no big deal...'

 

[glugglug]

Y2K was never serious. It's just a user interface issue, which makes it obvious, and relatively easy to find/fix. The obviousness and simplicity of it also makes it so even the idiotic media can understand it, so they latch onto it and hype it out of proportion.

There is a far more serious issue, similar to Y2K, but rather than being because of user interface, it's because of how time is typically stored in the computer. (Nobody really stores it in decimal, that's just for a human interface). The media is too stupid to get that one, so we'll spend far less time & money on it (Well it'll be a higher dollar #, but the value will be lower), even though its has more implications and is more difficult to fix.

A lot of things will blow up from the REAL issue on Jan. 19, 2038. You'll see.

 

[Future Shock]

People are quick to forget who the REAL beneficiaries of Y2K were: enterprise software vendors, such as SAP, Peoplesoft, and Oracle, who sold thousands of enterprise licenses to replace non-Y2K compliant General Ledger systems, finance systems, etc. They were aided and abetted by the Big Six (now Big Four) consulting firms, who billed millions of dollars per month installing those packages at enterpise clients - and who told those clients that new software was EXACTLY what they needed to avoid Y2K liability.

But none of these are "scientists" - just consultants and software vendors and engineers. Saying that Y2K bugs had anything to do with "science" is like saying buffer overflows are "science" - they are not, they are just flawed coding techniques.

 

[Eeezee]

What scientists said that we couldn't stop Y2K? We prevented a potential disaster through awareness and upgrading pretty much everything.

 

[wacki]

Wacki, you just completely proved my point.

No I didn't. As for your crichton comment, you said:

Calling him a loon does nothing to prove your point. ....Calling a very intelligent man a loon simply hurts your credibility.

Hurts my credibility? Maybe you should look at the facts and read TRAVELS. He talks about seeing auras, spoon bending, etc. The book is sold as an non-fiction autobiography. I'm sorry but you are 100% wrong on this one. It's not close.

his fiction writing shows a dedication bordering on insanity when it comes to researching his topic. Take a look at the number of articles, journals, and other publicatinos he quoted in "Prey".

lol. Goto realclimate and see how many jarringly stupid mistakes he's made in front of congress. I quoted scientists mocking him. There is a reason for that. Maybe you should read up why. His mistakes are pretty bad. Just because it's sourced to a paper doesn't mean it's true. Heck, it doesn't even mean he's representing the paper properly. Misrepresenting a paper is something he's done many a time.


You then said:

As such he was the PERFECT person to give commentary on what has been going on in the scientific community.

And I provided a link to scientists mocking him. Yes you are right if you said he is the perfect made to tell a story loosely based on science. however, you did not say that in this particular post. (you did say make a correction in the next post though) Here you said he is perfect to commentary on what has been going on in the scientific community. His public statements regarding DDT and climatology are nowhere near an accurate portrayal of what has been going on in the scientific community. All you need to do is look at this list:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

and compare it to his public statements. His comments regarding DDT are even worse. Regardless of whether or not the scientists are right or wrong, they certainly are not engaged in the behavior he claims they are.



Here are some more quotes on Y2k:
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/y2k/a2.html

If I proved your point it I would have done it like this: Widely recognized impartial experts disagreeing with those that have a conflict of interest. That has not happened yet. Right now even the former State Department's chief information officer is saying we did a good thing. Saying he has a incentive to con the country out of money is an argument that is walking on troubled waters. It does little to defend the scientific community.

Future Shock's argument would go miles if I could somehow link all these people to all of these organizations. However, every expert in the links I've posted seems to be patting themselves on the back. So apparently there *may have* been a legit problem and the billions *may have* actually been required. It's hard to tell and I don't know. You on the other hand have provided no real data supporting either side of the argument.