The End of the World (or, "nice knowing you." )
The End of the World (or, "nice knowing you." )
There are some disturbing stories on Yahoo and The Guardian. Apparently the Pentagon is preparing for the end.
Last edited by neil on Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
ChadTHX1138
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:28 pm
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
Oh, please.
Does no one in the government understand statistical error? Let's put it this way: if you're attempting to predict the outcome of an open system (in this case, let's use weather forecasts as the example), you might have a small margin of error when making a short-term prediction (for example, looking at our weather satellite data and predicting whether it will rain or be sunny tomorrow -- let's say there's an error of about +/- 2%), but as you make more predictions farther out, your error will become compounded (ie, trying to predict the weather a week from now may have an error of 5%) -- We all know that the weekly weather forecast is not always as precise as the daily forecast.
So now, if you're going to attempt to predict the weather with compounded error, odds are that you wouldn't be able to predict weather patterns or the correct temperature in the span of a year without incurring 100% error into your prediction, let alone 10 or 50 years down the road. These people are trending their predictions based on very short term data (1970-the present is the typical data set that most people use, mostly due to the noted increase in CO2 emissions), and are completely ignoring the error that they're introducing into their predictions.
In an open system, any unforseeable factor can have massive impacts on your predictions (global mean temperature dropped during 1940-1970 due to an unforseeable decrease in solar radiation), so who is to say that we won't reach some sort of saturation point where the increase in temperature will peak, and then begin to fall again (as it has done in a cyclical nature for thousands of years now)? To immediately spell doom and gloom for the entire human race is not only bad science, but a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
And let's not ignore the political issues of all this. If you're a scientist and you tell the government everything's hunky dory, odds are you'll be passed up for this year's round of funding. Tell them the world is about to end in a catastrophic armageddon, and you'll be more likely to get additional funding for the next couple of years.
This Pentagon report takes these already suspect findings and just ratchets up the fear and paranoia by a healthy 11 notches. It's a load of crap to me. Fear sells. It's also fairly obvious that their stance is quite political (more funding, anyone?).
Does no one in the government understand statistical error? Let's put it this way: if you're attempting to predict the outcome of an open system (in this case, let's use weather forecasts as the example), you might have a small margin of error when making a short-term prediction (for example, looking at our weather satellite data and predicting whether it will rain or be sunny tomorrow -- let's say there's an error of about +/- 2%), but as you make more predictions farther out, your error will become compounded (ie, trying to predict the weather a week from now may have an error of 5%) -- We all know that the weekly weather forecast is not always as precise as the daily forecast.
So now, if you're going to attempt to predict the weather with compounded error, odds are that you wouldn't be able to predict weather patterns or the correct temperature in the span of a year without incurring 100% error into your prediction, let alone 10 or 50 years down the road. These people are trending their predictions based on very short term data (1970-the present is the typical data set that most people use, mostly due to the noted increase in CO2 emissions), and are completely ignoring the error that they're introducing into their predictions.
In an open system, any unforseeable factor can have massive impacts on your predictions (global mean temperature dropped during 1940-1970 due to an unforseeable decrease in solar radiation), so who is to say that we won't reach some sort of saturation point where the increase in temperature will peak, and then begin to fall again (as it has done in a cyclical nature for thousands of years now)? To immediately spell doom and gloom for the entire human race is not only bad science, but a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
And let's not ignore the political issues of all this. If you're a scientist and you tell the government everything's hunky dory, odds are you'll be passed up for this year's round of funding. Tell them the world is about to end in a catastrophic armageddon, and you'll be more likely to get additional funding for the next couple of years.
This Pentagon report takes these already suspect findings and just ratchets up the fear and paranoia by a healthy 11 notches. It's a load of crap to me. Fear sells. It's also fairly obvious that their stance is quite political (more funding, anyone?).
Here's an article offering a counterpoint to the sensationalist Guardian one.
Hey Kazu, is there room in the rocket for me too? You know, just in case.
Hey Kazu, is there room in the rocket for me too? You know, just in case.
Last edited by Kean on Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I guess I thought the most interesting thing about the story, whatever the credibility of the report, is that the president and the Pentagon can be so completely in disagreement here... I mean after that whole weapons of mass destruction crap, it's nice to know that even the threat of global catastrophe is meaningless if it threatens political imperatives. (I think that whole oil thing is a much stronger political force than some scientists whining for funding, what with all those wars and killing and stuff.)
And remember it's not the media or The Guardian (or The Observer, which broke the story) that you're accusing of sensationalism, it's the Pentagon. I mean I think this is definitely a newsworthy story, I wouldn't blame them for publishing it.
I'd better get to stocking up my own rocket...
Woah, the pentagon (pretty much against its own interests) and hundreds of nobel laureates acknowledge the threat of global warming and "A voice for business in the global warming debate" is supposed to offer the apolitical response? Oh, please. (They do get credit for a good title: "The Cold Facts on Global Warming"!)Kean wrote:And let's not ignore the political issues of all this... Here's an article offering a counterpoint to the sensationalist Guardian one.
And remember it's not the media or The Guardian (or The Observer, which broke the story) that you're accusing of sensationalism, it's the Pentagon. I mean I think this is definitely a newsworthy story, I wouldn't blame them for publishing it.
I'd better get to stocking up my own rocket...
I think that in the coming years, we are going to see problems, it's just the extent and area of effect that's iffy.
Personally I'm more worried about nukes, and Korea, and Bush.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/moscow/moscnuc.asp
Personally I'm more worried about nukes, and Korea, and Bush.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/moscow/moscnuc.asp
"I am at two with nature." --Woody Allen
http://irresponsible.patachu.com/
Bloggery!
Bloggery!
-
douglas a. bot
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 3:42 am
- Location: melbourne
- Contact:
You know, i was watching National Geo today and they were doing a deep ocean excavation. One of the people on the boat said that "if the ocean were a bucket of water, up until this point, human beings have only seen a raindrop of what the ocean has inside of it".
That statement made me feel very small because it dawned on me, mother nature has a LOT at her disposal to kick our asses with.
Dan
That statement made me feel very small because it dawned on me, mother nature has a LOT at her disposal to kick our asses with.
Dan
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests