Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Global warming controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Discussion cut from main
[Opinion vs. scientific literature]
The last time such a one sided argument between the experts and various people happened was with the Y2K bug. Unfortunately the experts won that one and made over $300,000,000,000 ($300 Billion) in doing so. -- Rameses 17:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for keeping this off-topic discussion alive, but...
- We reduced sulphate emissions and there is less acid rain!
- We strictly reduced CFCs, and the Ozone layer is recovering!
- We invested a lot of money into the Y2K problem and computers didn't all break down!
- Certainly all those predictions of doom were just invented! --Stephan Schulz 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- And, following the consensus-equals-scientific fact approach, the Earth is still the center of the universe, and it is flat. There are only 4 elements of which everything is composed of.
- Ummm...staying on focus does not seem to be your stronges side. Anyways, I suggest you learn some history in adition to the rethorics that maybe work on talk radio.
- Oh, and, add another success story thanks to scientific dogma--we reversed global cooling and the ice age that was supposed to be in full effect within the next 5 - 10 years. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I know you have trouble recognizing reliable sources, but holywood movies generally do not count.
- And, following the consensus-equals-scientific fact approach, the Earth is still the center of the universe, and it is flat. There are only 4 elements of which everything is composed of.
-
- Stephan, now that was one of the best series of correlation implies causation sophisms I've seen in a while ! --Childhood's End 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I did not mention causation. I have my doubts about the third one myself (although if you doubt the causality of the first two, you are really far out from the scientific opinion). What I'm pointing out is the fallacy of reasoning "we did something about it, it got better, so doing something was a waste of time/money/effort". --Stephan Schulz 20:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think you missed Rameses'point. Obviously, the Y2K bug was not a problem as big as we were urged to believe. We nonetheless spent much for it on the gound of all the alarmist pleas, and it mostly ended as a big waste. --Childhood's End 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- What is "obvious" about this? That's the point: We don't know how bad it would have been if we hadn't spent the money. And I'm not talking about nuclear reactors going BOOM, but simple things like stock transactions not going through, pensions being paid with a delay, and so on. And of course, the money didn't go primarily to computer scientists, but rather to consultants and service companies. --Stephan Schulz 22:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well it has been widely reported that the computers which were not "ready" for Y2K did not explode and neither caused the apocalypse... --Childhood's End 14:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- What is "obvious" about this? That's the point: We don't know how bad it would have been if we hadn't spent the money. And I'm not talking about nuclear reactors going BOOM, but simple things like stock transactions not going through, pensions being paid with a delay, and so on. And of course, the money didn't go primarily to computer scientists, but rather to consultants and service companies. --Stephan Schulz 22:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think you missed Rameses'point. Obviously, the Y2K bug was not a problem as big as we were urged to believe. We nonetheless spent much for it on the gound of all the alarmist pleas, and it mostly ended as a big waste. --Childhood's End 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I did not mention causation. I have my doubts about the third one myself (although if you doubt the causality of the first two, you are really far out from the scientific opinion). What I'm pointing out is the fallacy of reasoning "we did something about it, it got better, so doing something was a waste of time/money/effort". --Stephan Schulz 20:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Stephan, now that was one of the best series of correlation implies causation sophisms I've seen in a while ! --Childhood's End 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Untold sums were spent out of hype and fear surrounding the most celebrated bug in high-tech history. [1]
And:
- However, the Y2K problem chiefly affects programs that operate in decimal arithmetic. Most computers and computer languages support only binary arithmetic.
I wonder how much of the hundreds of billions of dollars was really necessary. As a computer programmer, I can tell you that Windows and Unix systems would largely be unaffected. All the money was in COBOL, etc. About a dozen disaster-speculation books were written and hyped at Barnes and Noble: what if you couldn't get money out of your bank? Buy a cabin in the woods. People eat that sort of stuff up. I even had to take a grand in cash out of the bank and put 6 gallons of water in the trunk of my car, to satisfy my family's fears. They just couldn't understand the technical stuff.
Anyway, what GW controversy needs is not deletion but an even-handed treatment of all the points. Rejected a list of the points is not the right direction on this. When the company I worked for faced the Y2K bug, the first thing they did was make a list of every device and system that could possibly be affected by the date changeover. Then they assigned people to study and test each one. Hint, hint. :-) --Uncle Ed 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
