(Totally OT) Re: DMD 0.175 release
John Reimer
terminal.node at gmail.com
Mon Nov 27 12:09:51 PST 2006
What are the chances that a large meteorite will hit the earth and
eliminate all further arguments on the matter of global warning? :)
What are the chances that we are all deteriorating from "pollution" of
food-sources and over-dependecy on industrialization and manufacturing in
which companies inject hydrogenated fats and trans-fats into most packaged
foods (uninhibited), while many worry about our future of global warming
in a whole system that has been known to be slowly running out of "steam"
(entropy).
Folks, it's not just about junk science, it's about propaganda, politics,
and media and the pet issue of the times. The fear of global warming,
there is no doubt about it, has been pushed at the public by media and
politicians in tandem with a crowd of easily manipulated "scientists".
Billions of dollars have been contributed to the cause (and the Kyoto
protocol)...
And, no, the "majority" of scientists do not necessarily support all the
conclusions made -- perhaps the "majority" of outspoken and public
scientists have supported it. Unfortunately, those that disagree haven't
been near as vocal: the peer pressure has been huge to comply with the
conclusions made in what I'd call "popular" science; those that don't
comply, even respected scientists, have been ostrasized -- they lose their
jobs for questioning the conclusions. This is becoming a more common
situation with the science of our times as research grants are frequently
sourced from powerful and biased parties.
What consititutes "junk science" seems to depend more on whim and
subjectivity than on rigid scrutiny of the techniques implemented in
analysis. Howevery, even "good" science can go completely awry when
research is based upon wrong fundamental assumptions (every scientist
assumes some pre-conditions to the universe). Science is not perfection,
and I'm pretty sure most scientists admit that it's more like groping in
the dark and making hypothesis after hypothesis until some model is
devined that maps closely to observed patterns.
Further, popular global-warming theory seems to point its finger at
pollution as the focus of the "problem". Pollution should be corrected for
much more obvious and direct reasons than the ambiguous conclusions of
global warming (I fear that's is used as political turbo system for the
cause). Pollution of most sorts are bad for society directly (through
direct contact, indirect contact (vegetables, animals), ingestion, or
inhalation), let alone for debatable future cataclismic climate changes.
The money that goes into solving this "problem", one in essense that is
really a fuzzy picture of the future and based on even fuzzier data
collection and interpretation, seems to have been outrageously ill-spent
(especially the kyoto protocol) and based on more public herding of
opinion than a sincere desire to find solutions to a "problem" (that's an
opinion). :)
-JJR
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce
mailing list