No, there isn't a lack of other energy sources. Even the lack of technology to access those other sources is being bridged. What there is is higher initial costs to accessing tidal, solar, hydro-electric, geothermal and so on.
Considering the most severe effects of AGW, which will have drastic effects on rain belts (read: large scale agriculture), this idea that we'll just keep barfing CO2 into the atmosphere, and that's just so much cheaper is beyond idiotic.
1. That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly. 2. There are no lack of other sources of energy. Hydrocarbons are hardly the only solution. 3. There are other ways to produce plastics and similar materials.
So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.
Not even AIs are going to be able to overcome the nature of false positives. Even if you get them to the same discriminatory level a human filter can have, and presuming they're operating at millions of times the speed of any human filter, you still have to deal with the fact that the intrinsic nature of the data itself makes false positives inevitable.
The problem isn't merely the volume of data. After all, LHC produces terabytes of data with each run. The problem is one of volume and variety. Imagine tracking every phone call made in the US, out of the US and into the US. We're talking about everything from calls to working spouses to pick up bread on the way home to ordering of products to sex chat calls and thousands of other topics. Filtering and searching those calls and the metadata surrounding them would be a monumental job of incredible complexity, with a high risk of false positives. Those false positives are what are going to kill filtering.
Having some experience with spam filters, I can see, at least in some limited way, how incredible difficult it would be trying to determine if any given call should be flagged for investigation. Those false positives are just going to swamp any filter unless the filter is made less discriminatory, and when you do that, you will then risk suspicious calls escaping the net.
When we looked at upgrading our hardware last autumn (most of our systems are Dell Vostros with 2 or 3gb of RAM bought in 2009 and had Windows Vista Pro), we decided that there was nothing new hardware could offer most of the staff. All but a few staff are basically running a browser and Office 2010, which these older systems run quite well. While I'm no fan of Windows 10, at the end of the day, it just seemed a better investment to buy Windows 10 licenses, upgrade the forty or so workstations we have, and factor attrition through hardware failure into the equipment budget. Yes, there's a bit of a gamble, in that we could have twenty of these seven year old computers crap out in one year, but we have a few spares and don't view it as a significant risk.
Save for certain applications (mainly graphics intensive or calculation intensive applications), PCs really peaked in the last decade, and the gains to be had to updating to the newest hardware isn't likely even be noticed by most users. The chief reason to even upgrade the operating system is because Vista's EOL is approaching, and it is getting rather long in the tooth (Chrome support will be pulled soon).
Fine, we'll just use the pseudo zombie bath salts semi-apocalypse (starring Johnny Depp as James Madison's clone and Ben Affleck as John McAfee); a futuristic world in which Trump wins the presidency and his supporters, lacking any brains of their own, go on a shambolic search for the neural matter they lack.
No, it's not possible to be thoughtful and a Creationist. It's at best a sign of extreme compartmentalization, and at worst, a sign of extraordinary ignorance and stupidity.
Science means discussing things with people who disagree who actually have the vaguest fucking idea what it is that is being discussed. Science isn't about scientists debating with morons on the Internet, and pretending that their pseudo-skepticism is even in the tiniest way a real critique of the theory.
Or perhaps you imagine that advocates of the Electric Universe or Young Earth Creationism somehow just automatically deserve a pedestal because they have enough neural wiring to make any old claim against established science.
This is why AGW pseudo-skeptics are like Creationists. No matter how many times you demonstrate some meme they brainlessly repeat was never true, they just turn around and make the same claim again. You simply cannot debate someone who is so divorced from reality that they think some slogan they picked up off a Heartland-funded website somehow falsifies an entire scientific discipline.
So it's your view that there are no consequences predicted in climate models, that the millions of tons of CO2 aren't going to alter precipitation patterns and other aspects of regional and global climate?
That seems rather odd, because a big part of climatology at this point is nailing down just what will happen and the timing of when it will happen.
I take that pessimistic view, to a point. I think at some point the effects will become so pronounced that political forces will push governments to severe solutions.
And who do you want to bet will be selling those very expensive solutions to nations whose rainbelts just shifted several degrees out of their national boundaries. Believe me, we'll have Exxon tidal turbines and Royal Duct Mr. Fusion reactors.
Oh fuck off, you halfwit. The post-Ice Age climate has been relatively stable, and it is during that period that H. sapiens first started developing agriculture, animal husbandry, urban living, writing, metallurgy, you know, the fucking things that we call "civilization". That higher temperatures were just fucking keen for T. rex means very fucking little in a world where the agricultural and aquicultural "belts" keep the overwhelming majority of H. sapiens alive.
But hey, I get it. You're a fucking coward and a retard, and think the universe modifies physics so we can just vomit hundreds of millions of years of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in a few centuries, without any effect whatsoever.
I'm dubious of this claim that Hinduism is 11,000 years old. While there may be "native" (as in pre-Indo-Iranian) elements in Hinduism, much of it seems to be based on the Indo-Iranian, and ultimately Indo-European religion, neither of which could be said to be more than about 4,000 to 5,000 years old.
The Kochs wouldn't fund the experiment because they know what the answer would be. Heartland Institute cash is much better spent funding Frank Spencer's WSJ articles and speaking tours, or the even more delightful Judith Curry, who denies both evolution and AGW. The one time they did fund an actual study, Richard Muller's study, the result was a confirmation that climatological research was going in the right direction. They won't make that mistake twice.
The problem here is that the big players, the oil companies and major investors, have no interest in actually falsifying AGW. They scarcely need to. They just need to spread enough FUD to create a political environment in which any government looking to curb CO2 emissions is going to have an uphill fight.
I feel the same way about AGW pseudo-skeptics as I do about Creationists, that while the large majority of pseudo-skeptics are just morons who are gravitating towards anything that gives them a nice soothing message in their echo chamber, the people at the top of the chain, the creators and purveyors of the anti-science nonsense actually know the truth. The Koch Brothers almost certainly know that burning fossil fuels increases CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and most certainly know that CO2 has significant effects on lower atmospheric and surface temperatures, as well as altering oceanic temperatures and pH levels. They even commissioned a study a couple of years that admitted the evidence was in favor of AGW. But for them, and the other big players, it's about profits. In twenty or thirty years, when it cannot be denied, they'll have their vast cash reserves to insulate them from the worst of it, and it wouldn't surprise if its Exxon or Royal Dutch Shell that's building vast geothermal electricity plants, fusion reactors or whatever else, but the calculus is currently in favor of fighting tooth and nail against any mitigation strategy.
That it was better for dinosaurs doesn't mean it was better in the context of human civilization. Christ, the lengths morons like yourself go to to try to defend vomiting CO2 in the megatons per year is astonishing. It's like claiming that it's okay to dump your shit on the street, because Shakespeare was doing it when he wrote Hamlet.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there isn't a lack of other energy sources. Even the lack of technology to access those other sources is being bridged. What there is is higher initial costs to accessing tidal, solar, hydro-electric, geothermal and so on.
Considering the most severe effects of AGW, which will have drastic effects on rain belts (read: large scale agriculture), this idea that we'll just keep barfing CO2 into the atmosphere, and that's just so much cheaper is beyond idiotic.
1. That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly.
2. There are no lack of other sources of energy. Hydrocarbons are hardly the only solution.
3. There are other ways to produce plastics and similar materials.
So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.
Not even AIs are going to be able to overcome the nature of false positives. Even if you get them to the same discriminatory level a human filter can have, and presuming they're operating at millions of times the speed of any human filter, you still have to deal with the fact that the intrinsic nature of the data itself makes false positives inevitable.
The problem isn't merely the volume of data. After all, LHC produces terabytes of data with each run. The problem is one of volume and variety. Imagine tracking every phone call made in the US, out of the US and into the US. We're talking about everything from calls to working spouses to pick up bread on the way home to ordering of products to sex chat calls and thousands of other topics. Filtering and searching those calls and the metadata surrounding them would be a monumental job of incredible complexity, with a high risk of false positives. Those false positives are what are going to kill filtering.
Having some experience with spam filters, I can see, at least in some limited way, how incredible difficult it would be trying to determine if any given call should be flagged for investigation. Those false positives are just going to swamp any filter unless the filter is made less discriminatory, and when you do that, you will then risk suspicious calls escaping the net.
When we looked at upgrading our hardware last autumn (most of our systems are Dell Vostros with 2 or 3gb of RAM bought in 2009 and had Windows Vista Pro), we decided that there was nothing new hardware could offer most of the staff. All but a few staff are basically running a browser and Office 2010, which these older systems run quite well. While I'm no fan of Windows 10, at the end of the day, it just seemed a better investment to buy Windows 10 licenses, upgrade the forty or so workstations we have, and factor attrition through hardware failure into the equipment budget. Yes, there's a bit of a gamble, in that we could have twenty of these seven year old computers crap out in one year, but we have a few spares and don't view it as a significant risk.
Save for certain applications (mainly graphics intensive or calculation intensive applications), PCs really peaked in the last decade, and the gains to be had to updating to the newest hardware isn't likely even be noticed by most users. The chief reason to even upgrade the operating system is because Vista's EOL is approaching, and it is getting rather long in the tooth (Chrome support will be pulled soon).
It has little choice. The problem here is that no one wants to enforce any consequences against those who are making false copyright claims.
The real problem is too may lawyers.
Fine, we'll just use the pseudo zombie bath salts semi-apocalypse (starring Johnny Depp as James Madison's clone and Ben Affleck as John McAfee); a futuristic world in which Trump wins the presidency and his supporters, lacking any brains of their own, go on a shambolic search for the neural matter they lack.
Hookers, blow and fried chicken, like the Founding Fathers intended!
We're going to find out a lot sooner than that.
No, it's not possible to be thoughtful and a Creationist. It's at best a sign of extreme compartmentalization, and at worst, a sign of extraordinary ignorance and stupidity.
Since methodological naturalism didn't really exist until the end of the Middle AGes, there were no scientists in 400BC.
Science means discussing things with people who disagree who actually have the vaguest fucking idea what it is that is being discussed. Science isn't about scientists debating with morons on the Internet, and pretending that their pseudo-skepticism is even in the tiniest way a real critique of the theory.
Or perhaps you imagine that advocates of the Electric Universe or Young Earth Creationism somehow just automatically deserve a pedestal because they have enough neural wiring to make any old claim against established science.
This is why AGW pseudo-skeptics are like Creationists. No matter how many times you demonstrate some meme they brainlessly repeat was never true, they just turn around and make the same claim again. You simply cannot debate someone who is so divorced from reality that they think some slogan they picked up off a Heartland-funded website somehow falsifies an entire scientific discipline.
It's fun to watch when pseudo-science with David Icke-level paranoia.
Seek professional help.
So it's your view that there are no consequences predicted in climate models, that the millions of tons of CO2 aren't going to alter precipitation patterns and other aspects of regional and global climate?
That seems rather odd, because a big part of climatology at this point is nailing down just what will happen and the timing of when it will happen.
I take that pessimistic view, to a point. I think at some point the effects will become so pronounced that political forces will push governments to severe solutions.
And who do you want to bet will be selling those very expensive solutions to nations whose rainbelts just shifted several degrees out of their national boundaries. Believe me, we'll have Exxon tidal turbines and Royal Duct Mr. Fusion reactors.
Oh fuck off, you halfwit. The post-Ice Age climate has been relatively stable, and it is during that period that H. sapiens first started developing agriculture, animal husbandry, urban living, writing, metallurgy, you know, the fucking things that we call "civilization". That higher temperatures were just fucking keen for T. rex means very fucking little in a world where the agricultural and aquicultural "belts" keep the overwhelming majority of H. sapiens alive.
But hey, I get it. You're a fucking coward and a retard, and think the universe modifies physics so we can just vomit hundreds of millions of years of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in a few centuries, without any effect whatsoever.
I'm dubious of this claim that Hinduism is 11,000 years old. While there may be "native" (as in pre-Indo-Iranian) elements in Hinduism, much of it seems to be based on the Indo-Iranian, and ultimately Indo-European religion, neither of which could be said to be more than about 4,000 to 5,000 years old.
The Kochs wouldn't fund the experiment because they know what the answer would be. Heartland Institute cash is much better spent funding Frank Spencer's WSJ articles and speaking tours, or the even more delightful Judith Curry, who denies both evolution and AGW. The one time they did fund an actual study, Richard Muller's study, the result was a confirmation that climatological research was going in the right direction. They won't make that mistake twice.
The problem here is that the big players, the oil companies and major investors, have no interest in actually falsifying AGW. They scarcely need to. They just need to spread enough FUD to create a political environment in which any government looking to curb CO2 emissions is going to have an uphill fight.
I feel the same way about AGW pseudo-skeptics as I do about Creationists, that while the large majority of pseudo-skeptics are just morons who are gravitating towards anything that gives them a nice soothing message in their echo chamber, the people at the top of the chain, the creators and purveyors of the anti-science nonsense actually know the truth. The Koch Brothers almost certainly know that burning fossil fuels increases CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and most certainly know that CO2 has significant effects on lower atmospheric and surface temperatures, as well as altering oceanic temperatures and pH levels. They even commissioned a study a couple of years that admitted the evidence was in favor of AGW. But for them, and the other big players, it's about profits. In twenty or thirty years, when it cannot be denied, they'll have their vast cash reserves to insulate them from the worst of it, and it wouldn't surprise if its Exxon or Royal Dutch Shell that's building vast geothermal electricity plants, fusion reactors or whatever else, but the calculus is currently in favor of fighting tooth and nail against any mitigation strategy.
There are small handful of scientists who question AGW, and of those, only a smaller group are even working scientists.
And if you think weather station data can't be calibrated, why don't you publish your scathing indictment of AGW?
I use it a lot to express my complete contempt for pseudo-science.
Oh, you don't like the part where there are consequences?
That it was better for dinosaurs doesn't mean it was better in the context of human civilization. Christ, the lengths morons like yourself go to to try to defend vomiting CO2 in the megatons per year is astonishing. It's like claiming that it's okay to dump your shit on the street, because Shakespeare was doing it when he wrote Hamlet.
The data speaks for itself, you fucking halfwit.