"Another issue with handing problems to consultants or third-parties, even if those companies have an interest in taking care of your problems, the employees of those companies may not."
Another problem is that you're greatly increasing your chance of failure.
Let's say your local system has 95% uptime. And your "cloud service" has a 95% uptime. Your resulting uptime is 0.95 X 0.95, or about 90%.
If your dependencies are chained together, so are your probabilities. This can quickly lead to severe unreliability.
" The universe is, of course, completely deterministic, but entropy (and hence "time" as an arrow) enters the system from the incomplete information available on the system "bath", everything else."
Saying that the universe is "completely deterministic" is rather disingenuous, considering the fairly huge amount of evidence to the contrary.
"The proper treatment of this completely eliminates the common quantum "paradoxes" such as Schrodinger's Cat because one can clearly see where one makes an incorrect assumption about the possibility of quantum entanglement of the cat and the microscopic decay process independent of "everything else". The entire "system" consisting of cat and box is coupled to the rest of the Universe and the apparently "purely random" decay that creates the supposedly tangled state that is resolved by opening the box is continuously resolved because the box and all of its contents is already tangled, so to speak, with everything else."
You take the Schrodinger's Cat "paradox" far to literally. Old Ernst intended it as a thought experiment, not a real one. And in that experiment, the contents of the box were presumed to be "disconnected" from the rest of the universe... any form of entanglement whatsoever. Your argument relies on re-defining the whole problem to fit your explanation. (Readers should also note that Schrodinger originally intended the "paradox" to be a bit of satire, poling fun at the whole "collapse of the wave function" idea of quantum entanglement.)
"Even if it would impede law enforcement's ability to investigate crimes, we must recognize that freedom is simply more important."
Convenience of law enforcement is NEVER justification for diminishing citizen's rights.
The government has often tried to use this argument in the past. "If we cannot do this, it is just too hard to catch criminals." Note that this excuse can ALWAYS be argued, no matter how many powers you give the police. That makes it one of those constant pressures that must be resisted at all costs.
---
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.
Okay, I stand corrected. But this is WHY I made the mistake in the first place: gag orders are a hallmark of the FISA court. And they ALWAYS use the excuse of "keeping the subject from knowing about the investigation" as a justification, so that isn't an argument against it.
By the judges own logic, he, as a certified legal expert (one hopes that to get to be a judge one is a legal expert but in this case I have my doubts), has the capability of knowing how to circumvent the law and evade prosecution for any illegal acts he is commits and since he has that capability he must be suspected of breaking laws...
Lavabit received a FISA court order, accompanied by a gag order. This is not a "typical" court order at all. One of the things he bemoaned in his public statement about the shutdown was that he was prevented from even speaking about the details. That is anything but "normal". It's the illegal FISA court.
Second, "pen registers" are for telephones, not emails.
"It'll probably turn out that, with no evidence the government has stolen *your* data specifically, you have no legal standing."
No, you misunderstand. Thousands of people are now provably harmed, and prevented from speaking freely in the manner of their choice, by the NSA surveillance. That is all that is necessary. It's a proven fact. A done deal.
A government agency (per many, many prior SCOTUS decisions) may not take actions that chill free speech.
Not ignoring (I've read some of Dr Lindzen's papers, and others); just giving more weight to the far greater numbers of practicing climate scientists who support the IPCC's conclusions.
I do not understand why you fail to see the long-accepted truth that consensus does not equal science. Individual scientists have overturned long-standing consensus for the entire history of science. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, and many, many more all fought the overwhelming scientific consensus of the day. And they were right. There are uncountable examples of lesser advancements that also did so. In fact EVERY major step forward for science in all of history was a refutation of the existing consensus. Often the work of individuals or small groups, versus the global majority.
"This is a crucial part of the scientific process, as much as peer review."
Consensus is not a "crucial part of the scientific process". As I pointed out above, it has very often turned out that the minority was right. EVERY time there was a breakthrough, as a matter of fact.
"Of course, if you still believe that Scientist A's pet theory is right when Scientists B through Z have all produced peer-reviewed results that disagree, you either have to believe your own judgement is superior to theirs "
When I can easily identify errors in a scientific paper, then yes, my judgment is better than theirs. When scientist B points out an error in scientist A's paper, which I can verify for myself is true, then yes, my judgement is better than that of scientists A. Climate scientists have been making this argument for years, even though they are generalists, and sometimes their own claims defy the opinions of the expert scientists in a given field. When that happens, who do you think is the one suffering from Dunning-Kruger?
In reference, again, to your first sentence: you claim to be not ignoring, but you dismiss recognized scientists on general principle rather than evaluating the actual science in each case. (And the principle you're claiming to use is "consensus", which isn't even a scientific principle, at all.) Then you try to chastise me for what you perceive to be the same thing: failure to evaluate the science.
Well, tell you what, man. I'd rather be a Dunning-Kruger sufferer than a hypocrite. Thank goodness I'm actually neither.
"When a scientist publishes a paper, especially one that contradicts current thinking, we don't immediately throw out all our textbooks; first, other scientists try to confirm their results. "
Funny, but that's the whole crux of the matter. A theory is only as good as its predictive value. (That *IS* a scientific principle.) And the predictive value of AGW models has been abysmally bad. According to a peer-reviewed paper, published recently in Nature, Climate Change (see the link I provided further up in this thread), of 117 prominent climate models studies, 114 of them overstated warming in recent years. (That's about 97.4%.) Of those 114, the mean difference between projected temperature increase, and actual observed temperature increase since, has been 100%. Now, I don't know about you, but I would say that having an average error of 100% in 97.4% of the "mainstream" models would appear to be rather poor science, indeed. There's your consensus, if you still insist on believing in one.
That's science for you. Actual figures, peer-reviewed paper. If you have a problem with it, refute the science, not my comment about the science.
"Unlike other stories (specifically, John O'Sullivan's) that improperly cite this study as evidence for global warming deniers, the real story behind this study is that climate scientists are getting closer and closer to being able to accurately measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere using satellite data."
This does not even remotely refute anything claimed in the article. In fact, it's one of the points made BY the article.
"It twists the interpretation of the data to claim something that the data does not support."
In what way? If you are trying to refute something, blanket statements like "it twists" do not fly. What is "twisted", and how is it twisted? What is claimed that is not supported by the data? Specifics, please, or it's all just hot air.
"Spends all its words on a pretty facade, and skimps on making sure the foundation is solid. Even gets rather emotional. Reads like one of those bad sales pitches in midnight TV commercials."
You may disagree with the style of writing, but that's still not a refutation. YOUR comment is the hallmark of the kind of person who can't refute the science, and so resorts to name-calling and picking apart their style of prose.
"Why can't you see that this O'Sullivan guy is a snake oil peddler? A demagogue? There may be grounds for skepticism, but this guy isn't providing them."
I can't see that because regardless of the style of his writing, or whether he tends to use florid verbiage, nobody so far has been able to refute his science. And because, despite all your objections, that is the important part.
Exactly. Imagine: "By identifying themselves as CPAs, the suspects expressed an intent to launder the money and hide the evidence by manipulating the books."
"It is important to note that satisifying the criteria for ass igning oneself free will does not imply that one possesses consciousness. Having the capacity for self-reference is a far cry from full self-consciousness."
Except that this is a bald statement, without anything to back it up, and which is very likely false.
There are other statements in the paper that I would consider grievous errors. For example, on p. 13, the author states:
"Installed in the computer or smart phone, the operating system is computationally universal and capable of fully recursive reasoning. (There is a subtlety here in that computational universality requires that you be able to add new memory to the computer or smart phone when it needs more â" for the moment letâ(TM)s assume that additional memory is at hand.) Consequently, the operating system can simulate other computers, smart phones, and Turing machines. It certainly possesses the capacity for self reference, as it has to allocate memory space and machine cycles for its own operation as well as for apps and calls."
Which I consider to be patently false. For one thing, he is crossing a rather serious boundary between computation and reasoning. He apparently considers them equal, which is a false premise to start with, and which makes shaky ground indeed on which to build the rest of his comment.
As Douglas Hofstadter demonstrates with thorough precision in his "Godel, Escher, Bach" book, it takes a minimum amount of complexity (far beyond anything we have built) in order to show any meaningful degree of self-reference. Your typical Turing machine has not, in fact, shown itself capable.
A Turing machine is a "complete" computational machine in that any calculation that can be done on one can be done on another. But nobody has ever discovered how to make them do the kind of things the author asserts.
The whole thing, to me, looks like yet another physicist / mathematician attempting to make the giant leap from physics to metaphysics, and falling face down in the gap between. Given the statements I have read in this paper, I simply cannot take it seriously.
"Why? A worm is certainly not self-aware, but it is free to dig in whatever direction it chooses."
Related to the above reply: How do you know the worm is "choosing"? It is generally accepted that free choice and instinct are fundamentally different.
I didn't ask you. I asked a specific person, for a specific reason.
"Why would you link to WUWT, when you can download it directly from the IPCC."
Because in the Google search I was doing, it was the first one to come up. Why does it matter? Are you implying that the WUWT version of the final draft is different from the IPCC version of the final draft? If so, why not just say so, and do us all a favor and point out where the differences are?
"Nah... you're probably right. I mean if a confidence interval was lowered just a tiny bit, then there is nothing to worry about at all!!! "
Did you even bother to read the thread you are commenting in? My original point was: while the science in the AR reports is showing ever weaker arguments, the summaries have been using ever stronger language. Your admission that "confidence interval was lowered just a tiny bit" is an admission that I was correct.
Thanks for that. And by the way: the only people who have brought up "conspiracy" or "agenda" here have been people who were arguing with me. Why do you insist that there must be some kind of conspiracy? Why do you insist that *I* must believe in some kind of conspiracy, when it has only been people like YOU who have even been mentioning it? Methinks thou dost protest too much.
"Further, choosing to believe a single scientist's opinion while dismissing nearly all other climate scientists' opinions is a prime example of selection bias."
You accuse me of cherry-picking, yet YOU are ignoring the great many scientists who do disagree with IPCC. I have linked to quite a few in the last few days... why don't you go check them out? Lindzen was only one example.
Be careful about accusing others of cherry-picking their data, when your own behavior suggests you're doing exactly that.
Further, your reliance on consensus as an argument suggests that you actually don't know much about how science really works.
"You don't want to feel guilty for living a western lifestyle that generates lots of CO2, something like that?"
I don't feel guilty, in the slightest. Because THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters.
Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. So even if I subscribed to AGW theory, why should I feel guilty?
"What's it to you whether climate disruption is real or not?"
I have a great deal of interest, as a human being, in whether science is being performed properly, or is just a politically-driven ploy.
"Why are you so hot to deny it?"
I am not "hot to deny it". What I am "hot" to do, is point out bad science. Because that hurts everybody. Especially when it is being strongly pushed by big governments and there is so much of the global economy riding on it.
So, to answer your questions, even if they were worded in a slanted way: I do what I do as a public service.
"As to the accusations that scientists are making this all up to secure more funding"
Who made that accusation? Certainly not me. If that's how you read what I wrote, you are mistaken about my words. I simply wrote that they are doing demonstrably bad science, and are getting paid for it. No great conspiracy was implied.
"Isn't Dr Lindzen lead author of Chapter 7 of the recent IPCC report. I thought that document sounds like it only includes one point of view. If you choose your "expert" based on what you want to hear... then sure... the IPCC reports _are_ progressively weaker."
I chose Lindzen as one example. I offered others... did you bother to look at them? Here... I'll repost this one for you.
There are many more. If YOU claim to be "objective", then why haven't YOU seen them before?
"... except that you almost certainly have no clue what you're talking about."
And why would you make that claim? Have YOU seen the report? I have. If you'd like to, you can download the final draft chapter-by-chapter HERE.
I would like to make it clear that I am not trying to weasel-word anything. But I meant "weather extremes" in the sense of greater storm energy, as I mentioned up above in this thread. Section 2.6.3 of the report, Tropical Storms:
"In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long- term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence however is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region."
But please note that even though there are periods of higher cyclonic energy in the North Atlantic, it was lower elsewhere, with the net being LOWER than before, not higher. Even for the periods of high cyclonic energy in the North Atlantic, We have been in a 30-year-long slump in total global cyclonic energy.
2.6.4, Extratropical Storms
"In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data."
NOTE: ALL of these summaries report a lower incidence or lower confidence of increased incidence, than prior IPCC ARs. And there are more.
FAQ 2.2:
"There is strong evidence that warming has lead to changes in temperature extremesâ"including heat wavesâ" since the mid-20th century. Increases in heavy precipitation have probably also occurred over this time, but vary by region. However, for other extremes, such as tropical cyclone frequency, we are less certain, except in some limited regions, that there have been discernable changes over the observed record."
(The "observed record" in this context means since 1850.)
I know what climate is, and you know from our past conversations that I know that. If you intend to engage in adult conversation, kindly cease your condescension. Nobody ELSE in this thread has so far seen fit to engage in that kind of behavior.
"And no, despite what the opinion pages of the Washington post says"
I didn't pull any of my information here from the opinion pages of the Washington post. The ultimate sources have all been from peer-reviewed and/or science-oriented journals, except for THIS exchange with Dr. Richard Lindzen, which was quoted online elsewhere and in some newspapers.
"the IPCC are even more pessimistic about the outlook than they were in 2007 and much more certain that the warming trend seen over the last century is entirely due to man"
Repeat: those are the conclusions in their summaries. The question is (and this was the entire point of this thread): does the science contained in the reports actually support those conclusions? Many scientists are saying no.
"You have willing put your mind in a political cage and it has blind sided you to common-sense and introspection."
This is pretty hilarious. I have cited peer-reviewed papers, and statements by scientists who support the position I have described. Do you feel like rebutting what they had to say? Links are above. Feel free. Until then, I have no reason to take you seriously.
"You were clearly implying that a bias in favour of what you call alarmism would somehow be related to these scientists' compensation. Many of whom are publicly funded (and therefore typically subject to various kinds of oversight, budgets included). So I just meant to ask you, how do you believe that would even work?"
Well, perhaps that was clear to you, but it wasn't clear to me. I see: [A] Evidence that they have tended to be alarmist (as opposed to unbiased scientific opinion), [B] Evidence that more has been spent in that field, apparently in reaction to (if not in proportion to) that alarmism. Those are just observations on my part. Make what you want of them.
"So I guess I see why you would accuse me of conspiracy theorizing."
I wasn't accusing, I just mentioned that it kind of sounded like that. The only reason I mentioned it at all is that AGW advocates (I'm not referring to you), have tried to call other people's observations about bias "conspiracy theory". I figure what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. Nothing personal.
"There is a big difference, it seems to me, between doing climate research and noticing patterns we now call, for better or worse, AGW"
I agree with you as far as that goes, but again: there is very real evidence that is not what many of them did, or are doing. I'm not drawing conclusions; I'm simply saying there is evidence.
"Then maybe you should be looking more closely at the actual science, as the IPCC AR5 review upgraded their assessment of the majority of climate change being human-caused to "extremely likely" (95%+ probability). And while a few specific effects of climate change are now considered less likely, others such as polar ice melt have been outstripping projections."
If you want to pay attention to the "actual science", then you should not be paying attention to the summary, because as Dr. Richard Lindzen rather gleefully points out, as the actual science in the IPCC reports has been progressively offering weaker and weaker evidence of AGW, those summaries have become ever more alarmist.
Your comment is really just more evidence of what I was saying.
2) Weather is an inherently chaotic system, and adding more energy (c.f. global warming) increases the chaos, i.e. makes for more unexpected/extreme weather.
Which seems like a reasonable conclusion. But even the IPCC is backing off that claim, apparently because they underestimated the ability of natural systems to "deal with" that extra chaos.
The IPCC is no longer claiming that AGW will drive increasingly energetic weather events. Unlike all the past reports, they don't even mention it in the latest.
Slashdot Mirror
"Another issue with handing problems to consultants or third-parties, even if those companies have an interest in taking care of your problems, the employees of those companies may not."
Another problem is that you're greatly increasing your chance of failure.
Let's say your local system has 95% uptime. And your "cloud service" has a 95% uptime. Your resulting uptime is 0.95 X 0.95, or about 90%.
If your dependencies are chained together, so are your probabilities. This can quickly lead to severe unreliability.
" The universe is, of course, completely deterministic, but entropy (and hence "time" as an arrow) enters the system from the incomplete information available on the system "bath", everything else."
Saying that the universe is "completely deterministic" is rather disingenuous, considering the fairly huge amount of evidence to the contrary.
"The proper treatment of this completely eliminates the common quantum "paradoxes" such as Schrodinger's Cat because one can clearly see where one makes an incorrect assumption about the possibility of quantum entanglement of the cat and the microscopic decay process independent of "everything else". The entire "system" consisting of cat and box is coupled to the rest of the Universe and the apparently "purely random" decay that creates the supposedly tangled state that is resolved by opening the box is continuously resolved because the box and all of its contents is already tangled, so to speak, with everything else."
You take the Schrodinger's Cat "paradox" far to literally. Old Ernst intended it as a thought experiment, not a real one. And in that experiment, the contents of the box were presumed to be "disconnected" from the rest of the universe... any form of entanglement whatsoever. Your argument relies on re-defining the whole problem to fit your explanation. (Readers should also note that Schrodinger originally intended the "paradox" to be a bit of satire, poling fun at the whole "collapse of the wave function" idea of quantum entanglement.)
"Even if it would impede law enforcement's ability to investigate crimes, we must recognize that freedom is simply more important."
Convenience of law enforcement is NEVER justification for diminishing citizen's rights.
The government has often tried to use this argument in the past. "If we cannot do this, it is just too hard to catch criminals." Note that this excuse can ALWAYS be argued, no matter how many powers you give the police. That makes it one of those constant pressures that must be resisted at all costs.
---
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.
"Read the documents."
Okay, I stand corrected. But this is WHY I made the mistake in the first place: gag orders are a hallmark of the FISA court. And they ALWAYS use the excuse of "keeping the subject from knowing about the investigation" as a justification, so that isn't an argument against it.
But I do see that you were correct.
By the judges own logic, he, as a certified legal expert (one hopes that to get to be a judge one is a legal expert but in this case I have my doubts), has the capability of knowing how to circumvent the law and evade prosecution for any illegal acts he is commits and since he has that capability he must be suspected of breaking laws...
Hahaha. Yes. Pretty much.
"no No NO!"
No, no, no yourself.
Lavabit received a FISA court order, accompanied by a gag order. This is not a "typical" court order at all. One of the things he bemoaned in his public statement about the shutdown was that he was prevented from even speaking about the details. That is anything but "normal". It's the illegal FISA court.
Second, "pen registers" are for telephones, not emails.
"It'll probably turn out that, with no evidence the government has stolen *your* data specifically, you have no legal standing."
No, you misunderstand. Thousands of people are now provably harmed, and prevented from speaking freely in the manner of their choice, by the NSA surveillance. That is all that is necessary. It's a proven fact. A done deal.
A government agency (per many, many prior SCOTUS decisions) may not take actions that chill free speech.
"One has intelligent adult conversations with intelligent adults."
My point, exactly. Have a nice day.
Not ignoring (I've read some of Dr Lindzen's papers, and others); just giving more weight to the far greater numbers of practicing climate scientists who support the IPCC's conclusions.
I do not understand why you fail to see the long-accepted truth that consensus does not equal science. Individual scientists have overturned long-standing consensus for the entire history of science. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, and many, many more all fought the overwhelming scientific consensus of the day. And they were right. There are uncountable examples of lesser advancements that also did so. In fact EVERY major step forward for science in all of history was a refutation of the existing consensus. Often the work of individuals or small groups, versus the global majority.
"This is a crucial part of the scientific process, as much as peer review."
Consensus is not a "crucial part of the scientific process". As I pointed out above, it has very often turned out that the minority was right. EVERY time there was a breakthrough, as a matter of fact.
"Of course, if you still believe that Scientist A's pet theory is right when Scientists B through Z have all produced peer-reviewed results that disagree, you either have to believe your own judgement is superior to theirs "
When I can easily identify errors in a scientific paper, then yes, my judgment is better than theirs. When scientist B points out an error in scientist A's paper, which I can verify for myself is true, then yes, my judgement is better than that of scientists A. Climate scientists have been making this argument for years, even though they are generalists, and sometimes their own claims defy the opinions of the expert scientists in a given field. When that happens, who do you think is the one suffering from Dunning-Kruger?
In reference, again, to your first sentence: you claim to be not ignoring, but you dismiss recognized scientists on general principle rather than evaluating the actual science in each case. (And the principle you're claiming to use is "consensus", which isn't even a scientific principle, at all.) Then you try to chastise me for what you perceive to be the same thing: failure to evaluate the science.
Well, tell you what, man. I'd rather be a Dunning-Kruger sufferer than a hypocrite. Thank goodness I'm actually neither.
"When a scientist publishes a paper, especially one that contradicts current thinking, we don't immediately throw out all our textbooks; first, other scientists try to confirm their results. "
Funny, but that's the whole crux of the matter. A theory is only as good as its predictive value. (That *IS* a scientific principle.) And the predictive value of AGW models has been abysmally bad. According to a peer-reviewed paper, published recently in Nature, Climate Change (see the link I provided further up in this thread), of 117 prominent climate models studies, 114 of them overstated warming in recent years. (That's about 97.4%.) Of those 114, the mean difference between projected temperature increase, and actual observed temperature increase since, has been 100%. Now, I don't know about you, but I would say that having an average error of 100% in 97.4% of the "mainstream" models would appear to be rather poor science, indeed. There's your consensus, if you still insist on believing in one.
That's science for you. Actual figures, peer-reviewed paper. If you have a problem with it, refute the science, not my comment about the science.
"Unlike other stories (specifically, John O'Sullivan's) that improperly cite this study as evidence for global warming deniers, the real story behind this study is that climate scientists are getting closer and closer to being able to accurately measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere using satellite data."
This does not even remotely refute anything claimed in the article. In fact, it's one of the points made BY the article.
"It twists the interpretation of the data to claim something that the data does not support."
In what way? If you are trying to refute something, blanket statements like "it twists" do not fly. What is "twisted", and how is it twisted? What is claimed that is not supported by the data? Specifics, please, or it's all just hot air.
"Spends all its words on a pretty facade, and skimps on making sure the foundation is solid. Even gets rather emotional. Reads like one of those bad sales pitches in midnight TV commercials."
You may disagree with the style of writing, but that's still not a refutation. YOUR comment is the hallmark of the kind of person who can't refute the science, and so resorts to name-calling and picking apart their style of prose.
"Why can't you see that this O'Sullivan guy is a snake oil peddler? A demagogue? There may be grounds for skepticism, but this guy isn't providing them."
I can't see that because regardless of the style of his writing, or whether he tends to use florid verbiage, nobody so far has been able to refute his science. And because, despite all your objections, that is the important part.
"I wasn't aware that capability implied intent."
Exactly. Imagine: "By identifying themselves as CPAs, the suspects expressed an intent to launder the money and hide the evidence by manipulating the books."
Who elected this moron to be a judge?
"This is just cheating, pure and simple."
It is illegal, pure and simple.
Since several crypto companies have in fact closed down, affecting thousands (at least) of people, we can come to some basic conclusions.
First, we have proof that the NSA spying has had the effect of chilling otherwise legal, free speech.
Second: we now have thousands of people who have provable legal standing to sue the government over it.
"It is important to note that satisifying the criteria for ass igning oneself free will does not imply that one possesses consciousness. Having the capacity for self-reference is a far cry from full self-consciousness."
Except that this is a bald statement, without anything to back it up, and which is very likely false.
There are other statements in the paper that I would consider grievous errors. For example, on p. 13, the author states:
"Installed in the computer or smart phone, the operating system is computationally universal and capable of fully recursive reasoning. (There is a subtlety here in that computational universality requires that you be able to add new memory to the computer or smart phone when it needs more â" for the moment letâ(TM)s assume that additional memory is at hand.) Consequently, the operating system can simulate other computers, smart phones, and Turing machines. It certainly possesses the capacity for self reference, as it has to allocate memory space and machine cycles for its own operation as well as for apps and calls."
Which I consider to be patently false. For one thing, he is crossing a rather serious boundary between computation and reasoning. He apparently considers them equal, which is a false premise to start with, and which makes shaky ground indeed on which to build the rest of his comment.
As Douglas Hofstadter demonstrates with thorough precision in his "Godel, Escher, Bach" book, it takes a minimum amount of complexity (far beyond anything we have built) in order to show any meaningful degree of self-reference. Your typical Turing machine has not, in fact, shown itself capable.
A Turing machine is a "complete" computational machine in that any calculation that can be done on one can be done on another. But nobody has ever discovered how to make them do the kind of things the author asserts.
The whole thing, to me, looks like yet another physicist / mathematician attempting to make the giant leap from physics to metaphysics, and falling face down in the gap between. Given the statements I have read in this paper, I simply cannot take it seriously.
"Why? A worm is certainly not self-aware, but it is free to dig in whatever direction it chooses."
Related to the above reply: How do you know the worm is "choosing"? It is generally accepted that free choice and instinct are fundamentally different.
"yeah, I seen the report."
I didn't ask you. I asked a specific person, for a specific reason.
"Why would you link to WUWT, when you can download it directly from the IPCC."
Because in the Google search I was doing, it was the first one to come up. Why does it matter? Are you implying that the WUWT version of the final draft is different from the IPCC version of the final draft? If so, why not just say so, and do us all a favor and point out where the differences are?
"Nah... you're probably right. I mean if a confidence interval was lowered just a tiny bit, then there is nothing to worry about at all!!! "
Did you even bother to read the thread you are commenting in? My original point was: while the science in the AR reports is showing ever weaker arguments, the summaries have been using ever stronger language. Your admission that "confidence interval was lowered just a tiny bit" is an admission that I was correct.
Thanks for that. And by the way: the only people who have brought up "conspiracy" or "agenda" here have been people who were arguing with me. Why do you insist that there must be some kind of conspiracy? Why do you insist that *I* must believe in some kind of conspiracy, when it has only been people like YOU who have even been mentioning it? Methinks thou dost protest too much.
"You descend to new levels of hypocritical fuckwaddery."
Hahahahaha. And in comparison, this is supposed to be intelligent, adult conversation???
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
"Further, choosing to believe a single scientist's opinion while dismissing nearly all other climate scientists' opinions is a prime example of selection bias."
You accuse me of cherry-picking, yet YOU are ignoring the great many scientists who do disagree with IPCC. I have linked to quite a few in the last few days... why don't you go check them out? Lindzen was only one example.
Be careful about accusing others of cherry-picking their data, when your own behavior suggests you're doing exactly that.
Further, your reliance on consensus as an argument suggests that you actually don't know much about how science really works.
"You don't want to feel guilty for living a western lifestyle that generates lots of CO2, something like that?"
I don't feel guilty, in the slightest. Because THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters.
Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. So even if I subscribed to AGW theory, why should I feel guilty?
"What's it to you whether climate disruption is real or not?"
I have a great deal of interest, as a human being, in whether science is being performed properly, or is just a politically-driven ploy.
"Why are you so hot to deny it?"
I am not "hot to deny it". What I am "hot" to do, is point out bad science. Because that hurts everybody. Especially when it is being strongly pushed by big governments and there is so much of the global economy riding on it.
So, to answer your questions, even if they were worded in a slanted way: I do what I do as a public service.
"As to the accusations that scientists are making this all up to secure more funding"
Who made that accusation? Certainly not me. If that's how you read what I wrote, you are mistaken about my words. I simply wrote that they are doing demonstrably bad science, and are getting paid for it. No great conspiracy was implied.
"Isn't Dr Lindzen lead author of Chapter 7 of the recent IPCC report. I thought that document sounds like it only includes one point of view. If you choose your "expert" based on what you want to hear... then sure... the IPCC reports _are_ progressively weaker."
I chose Lindzen as one example. I offered others... did you bother to look at them? Here... I'll repost this one for you.
There are many more. If YOU claim to be "objective", then why haven't YOU seen them before?
"... except that you almost certainly have no clue what you're talking about."
And why would you make that claim? Have YOU seen the report? I have. If you'd like to, you can download the final draft chapter-by-chapter HERE.
I would like to make it clear that I am not trying to weasel-word anything. But I meant "weather extremes" in the sense of greater storm energy, as I mentioned up above in this thread. Section 2.6.3 of the report, Tropical Storms:
"In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long- term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence however is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region."
But please note that even though there are periods of higher cyclonic energy in the North Atlantic, it was lower elsewhere, with the net being LOWER than before, not higher. Even for the periods of high cyclonic energy in the North Atlantic, We have been in a 30-year-long slump in total global cyclonic energy.
2.6.4, Extratropical Storms
"In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data."
NOTE: ALL of these summaries report a lower incidence or lower confidence of increased incidence, than prior IPCC ARs. And there are more.
FAQ 2.2:
"There is strong evidence that warming has lead to changes in temperature extremesâ"including heat wavesâ" since the mid-20th century. Increases in heavy precipitation have probably also occurred over this time, but vary by region. However, for other extremes, such as tropical cyclone frequency, we are less certain, except in some limited regions, that there have been discernable changes over the observed record."
(The "observed record" in this context means since 1850.)
"Climate is defined as the statistics of weather"
I know what climate is, and you know from our past conversations that I know that. If you intend to engage in adult conversation, kindly cease your condescension. Nobody ELSE in this thread has so far seen fit to engage in that kind of behavior.
"And no, despite what the opinion pages of the Washington post says"
I didn't pull any of my information here from the opinion pages of the Washington post. The ultimate sources have all been from peer-reviewed and/or science-oriented journals, except for THIS exchange with Dr. Richard Lindzen, which was quoted online elsewhere and in some newspapers.
"the IPCC are even more pessimistic about the outlook than they were in 2007 and much more certain that the warming trend seen over the last century is entirely due to man"
Repeat: those are the conclusions in their summaries. The question is (and this was the entire point of this thread): does the science contained in the reports actually support those conclusions? Many scientists are saying no.
"You have willing put your mind in a political cage and it has blind sided you to common-sense and introspection."
This is pretty hilarious. I have cited peer-reviewed papers, and statements by scientists who support the position I have described. Do you feel like rebutting what they had to say? Links are above. Feel free. Until then, I have no reason to take you seriously.
"You were clearly implying that a bias in favour of what you call alarmism would somehow be related to these scientists' compensation. Many of whom are publicly funded (and therefore typically subject to various kinds of oversight, budgets included). So I just meant to ask you, how do you believe that would even work?"
Well, perhaps that was clear to you, but it wasn't clear to me. I see: [A] Evidence that they have tended to be alarmist (as opposed to unbiased scientific opinion), [B] Evidence that more has been spent in that field, apparently in reaction to (if not in proportion to) that alarmism. Those are just observations on my part. Make what you want of them.
"So I guess I see why you would accuse me of conspiracy theorizing."
I wasn't accusing, I just mentioned that it kind of sounded like that. The only reason I mentioned it at all is that AGW advocates (I'm not referring to you), have tried to call other people's observations about bias "conspiracy theory". I figure what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. Nothing personal.
"There is a big difference, it seems to me, between doing climate research and noticing patterns we now call, for better or worse, AGW"
I agree with you as far as that goes, but again: there is very real evidence that is not what many of them did, or are doing. I'm not drawing conclusions; I'm simply saying there is evidence.
"Then maybe you should be looking more closely at the actual science, as the IPCC AR5 review upgraded their assessment of the majority of climate change being human-caused to "extremely likely" (95%+ probability). And while a few specific effects of climate change are now considered less likely, others such as polar ice melt have been outstripping projections."
If you want to pay attention to the "actual science", then you should not be paying attention to the summary, because as Dr. Richard Lindzen rather gleefully points out, as the actual science in the IPCC reports has been progressively offering weaker and weaker evidence of AGW, those summaries have become ever more alarmist.
Your comment is really just more evidence of what I was saying.
2) Weather is an inherently chaotic system, and adding more energy (c.f. global warming) increases the chaos, i.e. makes for more unexpected/extreme weather.
Which seems like a reasonable conclusion. But even the IPCC is backing off that claim, apparently because they underestimated the ability of natural systems to "deal with" that extra chaos.
The IPCC is no longer claiming that AGW will drive increasingly energetic weather events. Unlike all the past reports, they don't even mention it in the latest.