A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Intel CPU prices going up?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old October 16th 18, 05:15 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

Chris wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.


I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)


Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.


Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons)
from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far
greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global
warming failed due to the current cooling).

Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange

Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't
tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving
grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change
also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They
deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do.

Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short
time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans. We
should be going into another ice age but gamma radiation hence cloud
cover has increased to delay it. Gee, yeah, when we do get into the
next ice age, we'll get taxed for not outputting enough emissions to
keep the planet in our comfort zone and prevent reduction in crop volume
(if we're still here in the very short 100,000 years from now).

Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which
Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements

Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around
atop of it.
Ads
  #17  
Old October 16th 18, 06:21 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Sam E[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 10/16/2018 01:55 AM, Chris wrote:

[snip]

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.


That reminds me of a movie I saw once, where there was a worldwide
shortage of oxygen and the government's solution was to burn down the
forests (with the idea that trees were competitors).

  #18  
Old October 16th 18, 08:52 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)


Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven.


Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been
changing for billions of years.


Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest
that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is
frankly frightening.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are
approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum

Human induced climate change is very
much open to debate.


Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the
evidence for it.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html

This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community
is unprecedented.

194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the
man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too
late.

I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen
but you will find information about it at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite
inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent
accuracy.


Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better.
Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I
stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about
flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures.

Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very
credible, I'm afraid.

What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.


Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png
Which model would you like to rely upon?


It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial
assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations
from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures
significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being
no warming.

  #19  
Old October 16th 18, 09:37 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 16/10/2018 17:15, VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)


Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.


In what follows, there was no smiley, so it's not clear whether you were
being sarcastic or not, so I have to assume that you weren't ...

Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons)
from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far
greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global
warming failed due to the current cooling).


There is no current cooling, the last three years have been the three
hottest on record:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short
time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans. We
should be going into another ice age but gamma radiation hence cloud
cover has increased to delay it.


If we are really being stopped from going back into an ice age, it's
most probably AGW that's doing it. In the first link above, there is a
very good correlation between levels of CO2 and increases in
temperature, and we know this correlation is causation because of work
by Eunice Foot & John Tyndall as long ago as the 1850s:

http://www.climatechangenews.com/201...efore-tyndall/

Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which
Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements


There's a very good correlation between Milankovitch's predictions and
the record of sea levels, and therefore ice ages, from sources such as
raised coral reefs in Barbados. It's not reproduced in this report, but
episode 6 'The Ice Age' of the BBC series 'Earth Story' overlaid a graph
of data from Barbados onto a graph of Milankovitch predictions, and the
fit is breathtakingly good, to all intents and purposes, exact:

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/0...vels-barbados/
  #20  
Old October 16th 18, 09:52 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)


Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.


Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons)
from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far
greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global
warming failed due to the current cooling).


Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!

Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange

Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't
tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving
grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change
also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They
deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do.


Renewable energy sources are taxed, including solar.

Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short
time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans.


Er, no. Those are exactly the type of timescales that climate scientists
look at. E.g
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which
Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements


Just like the solar sun spot theory, it doesn't explain what we're
observing as earth as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of change
is far too rapid.

Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around
atop of it.


Don't be daft, this isn't about tax.



  #21  
Old October 16th 18, 11:14 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
[]
deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do.

[]
Do they need to - isn't it skewed enough on its own?

"One cannot hope to bribe or twist
thank god! the British journalist.

But when you see what he will do
UNbribed, there's no occasion to!"

I forget who coined that little ditty, but it was I think in the earlier
part of the 20th century. (And of course it applies to a lot more than
just the British media!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public [UK citizens
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.) only]
https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...BYobumelL9J54c

.... she has never contracted A-listeria or developed airs and graces. Kathy
Lette on Kylie, RT 2014/1/11-17
  #22  
Old October 17th 18, 05:14 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven.


Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been
changing for billions of years.


Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest
that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is
frankly frightening.
https://xkcd.com/1732/


That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from
adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the
quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The
British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix
them at the next major review.

You will find more info at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/


CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are
approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum


There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the
argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means
settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in
CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as
popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are
rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static
for the last twenty years or so. To compound the matter the heat
content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is
no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for
possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth.
Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun.

Human induced climate change is very
much open to debate.


Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the
evidence for it.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html

This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community
is unprecedented.


There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this
situation.

194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the
man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement


I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their
promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the
money is expected to flow from.

The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too
late.

I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen
but you will find information about it at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite
inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent
accuracy.


Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better.


What are you? Are you even a scientist? In fact, if you knew more
about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would
know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown
light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data.
There are few better.

Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I
stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about
flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures.


Pity. You might have learned something.

Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very
credible, I'm afraid.


Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to
direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing
directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't
understand what you are getting at.

What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.


Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png
Which model would you like to rely upon?


It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial
assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations
from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures
significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being
no warming.


Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.

Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf

Then read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge
"The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it
was that they were directed to find.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #23  
Old October 17th 18, 05:17 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.


Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons)
from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far
greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global
warming failed due to the current cooling).


Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!


You need to read more widely.

Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange

Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't
tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving
grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change
also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They
deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do.


Renewable energy sources are taxed, including solar.

Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short
time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans.


Er, no. Those are exactly the type of timescales that climate scientists
look at. E.g
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which
Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements


Just like the solar sun spot theory, it doesn't explain what we're
observing as earth as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of change
is far too rapid.

Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around
atop of it.


Don't be daft, this isn't about tax.

Isn't it? See what happens when some of these study grants are
removed.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #24  
Old October 17th 18, 08:51 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven.

Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been
changing for billions of years.


Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest
that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is
frankly frightening.
https://xkcd.com/1732/


That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from
adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the
quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The
British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix
them at the next major review.


No data are perfect. Especially when dealing with chaotic systems such as
the weather and climate. Acknowledging that is not a weakness rather a
strength as it shows willingness to improve.

You will find more info at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/


Do you have any sources that aren't partisan? Plus, blogs aren't science.
Anyone can spin whatever they want in a blog.

Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.


CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are
approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum


There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the
argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means
settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in
CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as
popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are
rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static
for the last twenty years or so.


Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it
ever existed.

To compound the matter the heat
content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is
no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for
possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth.


Evidence?

Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun.


The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our
current climate change phenomenon.

Human induced climate change is very
much open to debate.


Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the
evidence for it.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html

This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community
is unprecedented.


There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this
situation


The incredible denials of controversy theorists is staggering! How can this
be political? Politicians can't agree on anything and would sell their
grandmother if it win them votes. Scientists will not and do not accept
being by politicians what science is!

194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the
man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement


I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their
promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the
money is expected to flow from.


Many are. And that's the point. We have to try and do something. Burying
our heads in the sand, didn't change facts. Especially challenging ones.

The cost of doing nothing is far higher.

The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too
late.

I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen
but you will find information about it at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite
inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent
accuracy.


Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better.


What are you? Are you even a scientist?


I am. Are you?

In fact, if you knew more
about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would
know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown
light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data.


Nope. He is a denialist in cahoots with others from Global Warming Policy
Foundation - a shady "charity" which refuses to disclose its sources of
funding.

There are few better.


At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I
agree.

Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I
stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about
flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures.


Pity. You might have learned something.

Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very
credible, I'm afraid.


Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to
direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing
directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't
understand what you are getting at.


He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the
Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his
ramblings.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html

What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.

Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png
Which model would you like to rely upon?


It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial
assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations
from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures
significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being
no warming.


Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.

Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf


Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate
change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is
already a given.

Then read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge
"The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it
was that they were directed to find.


It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method.
I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot
better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how
the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results
where there might not be any.

However, climate science isn't one of them. The controversy over the
Climate Research Unit at UEA highlighted that there isn't a cover-up of
inconvenient data going on. Transparency is key in science.

Those questioning the science are far less transparent to be believed.

The IPCC were tasked to do their job primarily because the evidence is so
overwhelming in supporting anthropomorphic climate change. You'd have to be
blind not to see it.



  #25  
Old October 17th 18, 11:43 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven.

Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been
changing for billions of years.

Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest
that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is
frankly frightening.
https://xkcd.com/1732/


That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from
adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the
quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The
British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix
them at the next major review.


No data are perfect. Especially when dealing with chaotic systems such as
the weather and climate. Acknowledging that is not a weakness rather a
strength as it shows willingness to improve.


I quote:
-------------------------------
The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases
for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of
dollars.
McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment
errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors,
Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.
Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are
obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent
three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80
degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953
straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly
“average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a
Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for
the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia
and some random ships.
Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but
some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km
inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the
open ocean.
When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment
assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete
and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in
slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880,
old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site
changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.

Details of the worst outliers

For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890)
had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C
respectively.
The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis,
Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average
was about 11.5°C).
At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the
Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are
reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other
years was 26.0°C.
---------------------
This kind of stuff is garbage.


You will find more info at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/


Do you have any sources that aren't partisan? Plus, blogs aren't science.
Anyone can spin whatever they want in a blog.


I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends
not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a
link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the
media.

Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.


_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research
is properly peer reviewed.


CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are
approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum


There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the
argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means
settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in
CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as
popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are
rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static
for the last twenty years or so.


Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it
ever existed.


Numeracy is not your strong point.

To compound the matter the heat
content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is
no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for
possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth.


Evidence?


Published scientific literature.

Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun.


The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our
current climate change phenomenon.


How has it been distorted?

Human induced climate change is very
much open to debate.

Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the
evidence for it.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html

This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community
is unprecedented.


There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this
situation


The incredible denials of controversy theorists is staggering! How can this
be political? Politicians can't agree on anything and would sell their
grandmother if it win them votes. Scientists will not and do not accept
being by politicians what science is!


Follow the money.

194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the
man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement


I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their
promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the
money is expected to flow from.


Many are.


Who?

And that's the point. We have to try and do something. Burying
our heads in the sand, didn't change facts. Especially challenging ones.

The cost of doing nothing is far higher.

The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too
late.

I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen
but you will find information about it at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite
inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent
accuracy.

Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better.


What are you? Are you even a scientist?


I am. Are you?


I am a mechanical engineer. What are you?

In fact, if you knew more
about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would
know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown
light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data.


Nope. He is a denialist in cahoots with others from Global Warming Policy
Foundation - a shady "charity" which refuses to disclose its sources of
funding.


And you complain about Watts being biased!

There are few better.


At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I
agree.


You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper
statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one
conclusion. It cannot be fudged.

Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I
stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about
flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures.


Pity. You might have learned something.

Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very
credible, I'm afraid.


Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to
direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing
directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't
understand what you are getting at.


He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the
Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his
ramblings.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html


It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in
contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says.

What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.

Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png
Which model would you like to rely upon?

It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial
assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations
from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures
significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being
no warming.


Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.

Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf


Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate
change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is
already a given.


It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That
was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given
since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians
established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm
this.

Then read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge
"The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it
was that they were directed to find.


It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method.
I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot
better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how
the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results
where there might not be any.


If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't
it been accepted as falsified?

However, climate science isn't one of them. The controversy over the
Climate Research Unit at UEA highlighted that there isn't a cover-up of
inconvenient data going on. Transparency is key in science.


I have a bridge ...

Those questioning the science are far less transparent to be believed.

The IPCC were tasked to do their job primarily because the evidence is so
overwhelming in supporting anthropomorphic climate change. You'd have to be
blind not to see it.

I don't know what kind of science you practice but I suspect
experimentation does not play a large part in it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #26  
Old October 17th 18, 11:45 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.


Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons)
from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far
greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global
warming failed due to the current cooling).


Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others.

Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange

Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't
tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving
grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change
also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They
deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do.


Renewable energy sources are taxed, including solar.

Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short
time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans.


Er, no. Those are exactly the type of timescales that climate scientists
look at. E.g
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which
Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements


Just like the solar sun spot theory, it doesn't explain what we're
observing as earth as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of change
is far too rapid.

Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around
atop of it.


Don't be daft, this isn't about tax.


--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #27  
Old October 17th 18, 12:20 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 17/10/2018 05:14, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest
that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is
frankly frightening.
https://xkcd.com/1732/


That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from
adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the
quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The
British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix
them at the next major review.


I note that like most denialists preaching their religion, you state
opinions as though they are facts, giving no links of *provenance*.

You will find more info at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/


You'll find f*k all that is of any scientific credibility or has any
valid scientific use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"The Heartland Institute helped fund some of Watts' projects, including
publishing a report on the Surface Stations project, and has invited him
to be a paid speaker at its International Conference on Climate Change
from 2008 to 2014.[12][13]"

[The Heartland Institute is well known as a funder of dodgy denialist
pseudo-science.]

"Watts ... later attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes
at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"

"Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent
warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone
depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different
levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a
significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]"

CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are
approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum


There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the
argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means
settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in
CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as
popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are
rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static
for the last twenty years or so. To compound the matter the heat
content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is
no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for
possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth.
Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun.


Again, opinion stated as though it was fact and given no provenance.
The truth is that we have known that CO2 absorbs heat radiaton since the
1850s.

There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this
situation.


Because denialism, having lost the scientific argument, is all about
politicising what has degenerated into a religious belief unfounded on
any science. Your adherence to this rubbish in the face of the known
science is a religious/political belief, and completely unscientific.

194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the
man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement


I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their
promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the
money is expected to flow from.


It's probably best we don't take the thread even further OT by
discussing the many shortcomings of Trump. Apart from anything else,
like all American presidents, once he's pleased his partisan electorate
by doing his four or eight years' worth of damage to scientific
credibility, he'll be gone for good and the world will still have to
carry on dealing with climate change regardless.

Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better.


What are you? Are you even a scientist?


I cannot speak for Chris, but I do have a scientific background. I was
brought up partly by a stepfather who was a leading post-war UK
scientist (but probably one that you've never heard of), held for many
years a prestigious chair in Chemical Engineering, wrote a textbook on
the subject that I believe is still in use today, held government
advisory positions, as well as being invited to lecture all over the
world, including behind the then Iron Curtain. By comparison, I merely
have a first in Mathematics and Computer Science.

In fact, if you knew more
about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would
know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown
light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data.
There are few better.


How strange then that you couldn't find a link to his work, or perhaps
it's not so strange, because as I've already noted, you are in the habit
of declaiming your religion without any regard to its (lack of)
provenance ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick

"Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global
Warming, published in 2002"

2002, yet the world has continued warming since then, more or less
perfectly in step with the rise in CO2, as per the links I have already
given elsewhere in this thread.

Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I
stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about
flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures.


Pity. You might have learned something.


Merely that the article, like nearly all on that site, has little to no
scientific credibility.

It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial
assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations
from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures
significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being
no warming.


Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.

Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf


I did. You seem to have missed the word 'objective', as in "... assess
on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis ...". Also ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg...Climate_Change

"established in 1988"

Then read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge
"The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it
was that they were directed to find.


"an international environmental treaty adopted on 9 May 1992"

So, if this came later, how can 'it' possibly have caused the modelling
of the earlier scientific panel to have achieved the results that 'it'
wanted? The truth, of course, is entirely different, in that the later
treaty was adopted because of the frightening findings of the earlier panel.

And so the irrational clown show goes endlessly on ...
  #28  
Old October 17th 18, 02:08 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

No data are perfect. Especially when dealing with chaotic systems such as
the weather and climate. Acknowledging that is not a weakness rather a
strength as it shows willingness to improve.


I quote:
-------------------------------
The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases
for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of
dollars.
McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment
errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors,
Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.
Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are
obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent
three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80
degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953
straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly
“average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a
Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for
the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia
and some random ships.
Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but
some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km
inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the
open ocean.
When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment
assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete
and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in
slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880,
old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site
changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.

Details of the worst outliers

For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890)
had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C
respectively.
The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis,
Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average
was about 11.5°C).
At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the
Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are
reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other
years was 26.0°C.
---------------------
This kind of stuff is garbage.


I don't think anyone involved thinks that either the data set or the
modelling from it is perfect, yet, this 'garbage' predicts global
temperatures more closely than anything else we have achieved so far. I
refer you again to:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

Anyone can spin whatever they want in a blog.


I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends
not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a
link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the
media.


That depends on the media. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself
with more mainstream media. I listen regularly to BBC World Service
radio shows such as BBC Inside Science and Science in Action, as well as
local radio shows such as 'Naked Scientists', and I couldn't begin to
count the number of times I've heard at the end of an article "... and
if you want links to that paper/research/publication, they are on our
webpage!"


Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.


_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research
is properly peer reviewed.


AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and
peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources.

Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it
ever existed.


Numeracy is not your strong point.


But it is mine, I have a first in Mathematics and Computing, and he's
right, and you're wrong. The so-called 'pause' that denialists latched
onto was merely known short to mid-term decadal oscillations such as El
Nino superimposed on the long term trend. Since then warming as
recommenced apace, as shown by the link above.

Evidence?


Published scientific literature.


An assertion instead of a link to provenance is not evidence.

The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our
current climate change phenomenon.


How has it been distorted?


It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on
the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem
poorly familiar with).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent
warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone
depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different
levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a
significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]"

Follow the money.


That is *exactly* what you are doing - most denialism is funded by big
oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change

"Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed
to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that
the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism
by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial
support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of
those studies."

Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?!

Many are.


Who?


All the signatories to the Paris Agreement.

In fact, if you knew more
about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would
know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown
light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data.


Nope. He is a denialist in cahoots with others from Global Warming Policy
Foundation - a shady "charity" which refuses to disclose its sources of
funding.


And you complain about Watts being biased!


He has absolutely no credentials whatsoever, even less than you.

There are few better.


At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I
agree.


You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper
statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one
conclusion. It cannot be fudged.


If statistics cannot be fudged, why elsewhere are you linking to
purported proof that the HadCRU data was fudged? In fact, of course,
statistics can be fudged very easily. For example, when, back in the
80s, the UK police were trying to motivate public opinion against
drunken driving, they made much of a statistic which stated something
like: "x% of road accidents involve alcohol!" (I can't remember now what
x was, but it was surprisingly high). The implication was that x% of
accidents involved drunken driving, but if you examine the wording
carefully, it means that if a drunk walked out into the road and was hit
by a stone cold sober driver, that incident would be included in x -
no drunken driving involved at all. A drunken passenger with a stone
cold sober driver might also have been included. We were never told
what percentage of accidents actually involved drunken driving!

He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the
Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his
ramblings.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html


It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in
contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says.


No it doesn't, read it again, or just look at the succession of diagrams.

Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.

Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf


Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate
change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is
already a given.


It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That
was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given
since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians
established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm
this.


You are so way of the mark here that it's almost Never Never Land.
Firstly, the IPCC was founded in 1988, well before the UNFCCC.
Secondly, politicians hated the evidence when first it was presented to
them, and even now, like Trump (how appropriate that his name is a
euphemism for fart), have to be dragged kicking and screaming to
acceptance of what the science is telling us ...

Climate scientist ousted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1940117.stm

"Dr Watson's removal will spark a huge political row - environmentalists
accuse the US Government of orchestrating a campaign to have the
scientist sidelined.

They say Washington disliked Dr Watson's willingness to tell governments
what he believes to be the unvarnished truth - that human activities are
now contributing dangerously to climate change."

George W Bush ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ws.georgewbush

"Central to the revelations of double dealing is the discovery of an
email sent to Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on
Environmental Quality, by Myron Ebell, a director of the Competitive
Enterprise Institute (CEI). The CEI is an ultra-conservative lobby group
that has received more than $1 million in donations since 1998 from the
oil giant Exxon, which sells Esso petrol in Britain.

The email, dated 3 June 2002, reveals how White House officials wanted
the CEI's help to play down the impact of a report last summer by the
government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the US
admitted for the first time that humans are contributing to global
warming. 'Thanks for calling and asking for our help,' Ebell tells Cooney.

The email discusses possible tactics for playing down the report and
getting rid of EPA officials, including its then head, Christine
Whitman. 'It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall
guys and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high
up as possible,' Ebell wrote in the email. 'Perhaps tomorrow we will
call for Whitman to be fired,' he added.

The CEI is suing another government climate research body that produced
evidence for global warming. The revelation of the email's contents has
prompted demands for an investigation to see if the White House and CEI
are co-ordinating the legal attack."

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/cente...l#.WjRXF83veDU

"The George W. Bush administration consistently sought to undermine the
public’s understanding of the view held by the vast majority of climate
scientists that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other
heat-trapping gases are making a discernible contribution to global
warming.1

After coming to office, the administration asked the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to review the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and provide further assessment of what climate
science could say about this issue.2 The NAS panel rendered a strong
opinion, which, in essence, confirmed that of the IPCC. The American
Geophysical Union, the world’s largest organization of earth scientists,
has also released a strong statement describing human-caused disruptions
of Earth’s climate.3 Yet even in the face of this overwhelming
scientific concensus, Bush administration spokespersons continued to
contend that the uncertainties in climate projections and fossil fuel
emissions are too great to warrant mandatory action to slow emissions.4

In May 2002, President Bush expressed disdain for a State Department
report5 to the United Nations that pointed to a clear human role in the
accumulation of heat-trapping gases and detailed the likely negative
consequences of climate change; the president called it “a report put
out by the bureaucracy.”6 In September 2002, the administration removed
a section on climate change from the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) annual air pollution report,7 even though the climate issue had
been discussed in the report in each of the preceding five years.

Then, in one well-documented case, the Bush administration blatantly
tampered with the integrity of scientific analysis at a federal agency
when, in June 2003, the White House tried to make a series of changes to
the EPA’s draft Report on the Environment.8 A front-page article in the
New York Times broke the news that White House officials tried to force
the EPA to substantially alter the report’s section on climate change.
The EPA report, which referenced the NAS review and other studies,
stated that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change.9

Interviews with current and former EPA staff, as well as an internal EPA
memo reviewed for this report, revealed that the White House Council on
Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget demanded
major amendments including:

The deletion of a temperature record covering 1,000 years in order
to, according to the EPA memo, emphasize “a recent, limited analysis
[that] supports the administration’s favored message.”
The removal of any reference to the NAS review—requested by the
White House itself—that confirmed human activity is contributing to
climate change.11
The insertion of a reference to a discredited study of temperature
records funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.
The elimination of the summary statement—noncontroversial within
the science community that studies climate change—that “climate change
has global consequences for human health and the environment.”

According to the internal EPA memo, White House officials demanded so
many qualifying words such as “potentially” and “may” that the result
would have been to insert “uncertainty...where there is essentially none.”"

Trump ...

He (how ironic that his name should be a euphemism for 'fart') is just
getting into his stride ...

https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...ging-explained

"At the Environmental Protection Agency

Just this week: The Trump administration froze new scientific grants at
the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA gives out billions of
dollars every year to fund research and projects throughout the country.
“These grants help states pay to track air pollution, say, or restore
watersheds, or support researchers studying various environmental
problems,” Vox’s Brad Plumer explains.

It’s unclear how long the freeze will last, and if it pertains only to
new grants or to existing grants as well. As ProPublica reports:

One EPA employee aware of the freeze said he had never seen
anything like it in nearly a decade with the agency. Hiring freezes
happened, he said, but freezes on grants and contracts seemed
extraordinary. The employee said the freeze appeared to be nationwide,
and as of Monday night it was not clear for how long it would be in place.

But either way, the agency seems to be a target of a Trump
administration hammer. Axios found there may be $815 million in budget
cuts coming for the EPA, for various “environment programs and
management.” The Huffington Post also reported the EPA is banned from
communicating via press releases or social media communications during
this time, in another blow.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that the Trump Administration has ordered
the EPA take down its climate change webpage. The EPA climate change
page contains links to emissions data and explainers on the current
consensus in the field. (And note: the EPA scientific integrity policy
states “To operate an effective science and regulatory agency like the
EPA, it is also essential that political or other officials not suppress
or alter scientific findings.”

It’s currently unclear if the climate change page removal will happen.
On Wednesday, Inside EPA reported that Trump’s EPA team have agreed to
“stand down” on the order to remove the webpage."

Surprisingly, scientific repression has even been true in Canada ...

http://www.nature.com/news/nine-year...orship-1.19842

It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method.
I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot
better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how
the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results
where there might not be any.


If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't
it been accepted as falsified?


Because it hasn't been. The modelling is not perfect and needs to be
improved, but it agrees with the evidence sufficiently well to be worth
continuing and refining.
  #29  
Old October 17th 18, 02:37 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 17/10/2018 11:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others.


Not so fast, if you please ...

"Dunne et al. (2016) have presented the main outcomes of 10 years of
results obtained at the CLOUD experiment performed at CERN [...]
Although they observe that a fraction of cloud nuclei is effectively
produced by ionisation due to the interaction of cosmic rays with the
constituents of Earth atmosphere, this process is insufficient to
attribute the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the
cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and
Earth magnetosphere."

"Mike Lockwood of the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus
Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland published a paper
in 2007 which concluded that the increase in mean global temperature
observed since 1985 correlates so poorly with solar variability that no
type of causal mechanism may be ascribed to it, although they accept
that there is "considerable evidence" for solar influence on Earth's
pre-industrial climate and to some degree also for climate changes in
the first half of the 20th century.[27]"

And so on and so forth. The full article quotes evidence *both* for and
against the theory. It seems that if cosmic rays do influence cloud
cover, the effect is small, as evidenced by the low levels of
correlation quoted and the fact that the controversy has raged for over
a decade without any clear cut findings declaring a victor. By
contrast, we do have a definite and much more significant correlation
between levels of atmospheric CO2 and temperature, as already linked.

Don't be daft, this isn't about tax.


No, but he may, or may not, have been taking the ****.
  #30  
Old October 18th 18, 03:45 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

No data are perfect. Especially when dealing with chaotic systems such as
the weather and climate. Acknowledging that is not a weakness rather a
strength as it shows willingness to improve.


I quote:
-------------------------------
The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases
for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of
dollars.
McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment
errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors,
Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.
Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are
obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent
three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80
degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953
straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly
“average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a
Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for
the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia
and some random ships.
Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but
some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km
inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the
open ocean.
When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment
assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete
and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in
slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880,
old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site
changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.

Details of the worst outliers

For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890)
had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C
respectively.
The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis,
Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average
was about 11.5°C).
At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the
Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are
reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other
years was 26.0°C.
---------------------
This kind of stuff is garbage.


I don't think anyone involved thinks that either the data set or the
modelling from it is perfect, yet, this 'garbage' predicts global
temperatures more closely than anything else we have achieved so far. I
refer you again to:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/


The Berkely project was set up because of the general distrust of
publically available data. I think they have leaned most heavily on
the NOAA data but they have been throug whatever they use most
carefully. Many people regard them as having the best generally
available data.

Anyone can spin whatever they want in a blog.


I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends
not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a
link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the
media.


That depends on the media. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself
with more mainstream media. I listen regularly to BBC World Service
radio shows such as BBC Inside Science and Science in Action, as well as
local radio shows such as 'Naked Scientists', and I couldn't begin to
count the number of times I've heard at the end of an article "... and
if you want links to that paper/research/publication, they are on our
webpage!"


That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument. I referred to Watts. He
doesn't write much of this stuff himself but has many contributors. It
is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used. The discussions
tend to be biased but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down information and other sources to balance the BBCs
of this world.


Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.


_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research
is properly peer reviewed.


AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and
peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources.


Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against
so-called denialists or sceptics. Even CERN has to be careful how they
present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
case in point.

Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it
ever existed.


Numeracy is not your strong point.


But it is mine, I have a first in Mathematics and Computing, and he's
right, and you're wrong. The so-called 'pause' that denialists latched
onto was merely known short to mid-term decadal oscillations such as El
Nino superimposed on the long term trend. Since then warming as
recommenced apace, as shown by the link above.


How are your statistics? Mine are my mathematical weak point. Apart
from that I have seven years of university mathematics behind me.
Apart from that, I don't agree with you about the pause. The whole
situation has been confused by two El Ninos with a possible third
coming up.

Evidence?


Published scientific literature.


An assertion instead of a link to provenance is not evidence.


I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points
of 30 years of reading on the subject. Apart from that chris has shown
no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
ferreting.

The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our
current climate change phenomenon.


How has it been distorted?


I agree, I should have written discounted.

It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on
the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem
poorly familiar with).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent
warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone
depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different
levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a
significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]"


Hoo! That's a put down. No mention of the theory that implicates the
sun in climate change. Understandably there is no explanation of why
the unmentioned theory is wrong. That's not science. That's argument
from authority.

Follow the money.


That is *exactly* what you are doing - most denialism is funded by big
oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers:


And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there any
evidence thay have an axe to grind?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change

"Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed
to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that
the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism
by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial
support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of
those studies."

Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?!


If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all
persons and organizations who finate climate research.

Many are.


Who?


All the signatories to the Paris Agreement.


That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at
https://climateanalytics.org/briefin...ation-tracker/ Many of
these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to
reduce their standard of living.

In fact, if you knew more
about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would
know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown
light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data.

Nope. He is a denialist in cahoots with others from Global Warming Policy
Foundation - a shady "charity" which refuses to disclose its sources of
funding.


And you complain about Watts being biased!


He has absolutely no credentials whatsoever, even less than you.

There are few better.

At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I
agree.


You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper
statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one
conclusion. It cannot be fudged.


If statistics cannot be fudged, why elsewhere are you linking to
purported proof that the HadCRU data was fudged?


That's a loaded question. I have never said that HadCRUT data has been
fudged, although the Climategate emails suggest very strongly that
they have been. What I have done is provide a link to an article which
suggests that the standard of HadCRUT's data is highly suspect.

In fact, of course,
statistics can be fudged very easily. For example, when, back in the
80s, the UK police were trying to motivate public opinion against
drunken driving, they made much of a statistic which stated something
like: "x% of road accidents involve alcohol!" (I can't remember now what
x was, but it was surprisingly high). The implication was that x% of
accidents involved drunken driving, but if you examine the wording
carefully, it means that if a drunk walked out into the road and was hit
by a stone cold sober driver, that incident would be included in x -
no drunken driving involved at all. A drunken passenger with a stone
cold sober driver might also have been included. We were never told
what percentage of accidents actually involved drunken driving!


I agree, statistics can be used to bamboozle the ignorant. However
this aspect started with my mention of a paper involving Ross
McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
McKitrick is one of the last people likely to be mislead by dubious
statistics.

He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the
Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his
ramblings.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html


It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in
contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says.


No it doesn't, read it again, or just look at the succession of diagrams.


Are you referring to the upwelling at the equator? Well, that does
happen as a result of the coriolos effect. You will see a small
diagram of this in fig 3 of
http://www.marbef.org/wiki/ocean_circulation

Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.

Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf

Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate
change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is
already a given.


It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That
was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given
since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians
established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm
this.


You are so way of the mark here that it's almost Never Never Land.
Firstly, the IPCC was founded in 1988, well before the UNFCCC.
Secondly, politicians hated the evidence when first it was presented to
them, and even now, like Trump (how appropriate that his name is a
euphemism for fart), have to be dragged kicking and screaming to
acceptance of what the science is telling us ...


You are right, but even if I have got the dates wrong I am right that
the reason that they were looking for anthropogenic global warming is
that this is what they were set up to do.

Climate scientist ousted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1940117.stm

"Dr Watson's removal will spark a huge political row - environmentalists
accuse the US Government of orchestrating a campaign to have the
scientist sidelined.

They say Washington disliked Dr Watson's willingness to tell governments
what he believes to be the unvarnished truth - that human activities are
now contributing dangerously to climate change."


That's politics again. Its got nothing much to do with science. Anyway
Dr Rajendra Pachauri wasn't very different.

George W Bush ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ws.georgewbush

"Central to the revelations of double dealing is the discovery of an
email sent to Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on
Environmental Quality, by Myron Ebell, a director of the Competitive
Enterprise Institute (CEI). The CEI is an ultra-conservative lobby group
that has received more than $1 million in donations since 1998 from the
oil giant Exxon, which sells Esso petrol in Britain.

The email, dated 3 June 2002, reveals how White House officials wanted
the CEI's help to play down the impact of a report last summer by the
government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the US
admitted for the first time that humans are contributing to global
warming. 'Thanks for calling and asking for our help,' Ebell tells Cooney.

The email discusses possible tactics for playing down the report and
getting rid of EPA officials, including its then head, Christine
Whitman. 'It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall
guys and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high
up as possible,' Ebell wrote in the email. 'Perhaps tomorrow we will
call for Whitman to be fired,' he added.


THat's still politics and nothing much to with science.

The CEI is suing another government climate research body that produced
evidence for global warming. The revelation of the email's contents has
prompted demands for an investigation to see if the White House and CEI
are co-ordinating the legal attack."

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/cente...l#.WjRXF83veDU

"The George W. Bush administration consistently sought to undermine the
public’s understanding of the view held by the vast majority of climate
scientists that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other
heat-trapping gases are making a discernible contribution to global
warming.1


More politics.

After coming to office, the administration asked the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to review the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and provide further assessment of what climate
science could say about this issue.2 The NAS panel rendered a strong
opinion, which, in essence, confirmed that of the IPCC. The American
Geophysical Union, the world’s largest organization of earth scientists,
has also released a strong statement describing human-caused disruptions
of Earth’s climate.3 Yet even in the face of this overwhelming
scientific concensus, Bush administration spokespersons continued to
contend that the uncertainties in climate projections and fossil fuel
emissions are too great to warrant mandatory action to slow emissions.4


Even more politics.

In May 2002, President Bush expressed disdain for a State Department
report5 to the United Nations that pointed to a clear human role in the
accumulation of heat-trapping gases and detailed the likely negative
consequences of climate change; the president called it “a report put
out by the bureaucracy.”6 In September 2002, the administration removed
a section on climate change from the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) annual air pollution report,7 even though the climate issue had
been discussed in the report in each of the preceding five years.


Yet more politics.

Then, in one well-documented case, the Bush administration blatantly
tampered with the integrity of scientific analysis at a federal agency
when, in June 2003, the White House tried to make a series of changes to
the EPA’s draft Report on the Environment.8 A front-page article in the
New York Times broke the news that White House officials tried to force
the EPA to substantially alter the report’s section on climate change.
The EPA report, which referenced the NAS review and other studies,
stated that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change.9


That's internal politics.

Interviews with current and former EPA staff, as well as an internal EPA
memo reviewed for this report, revealed that the White House Council on
Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget demanded
major amendments including:

The deletion of a temperature record covering 1,000 years in order
to, according to the EPA memo, emphasize “a recent, limited analysis
[that] supports the administration’s favored message.”


Was that the hockey stick?

The removal of any reference to the NAS review—requested by the
White House itself—that confirmed human activity is contributing to
climate change.11
The insertion of a reference to a discredited study of temperature
records funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.
The elimination of the summary statement—noncontroversial within
the science community that studies climate change—that “climate change
has global consequences for human health and the environment.”

According to the internal EPA memo, White House officials demanded so
many qualifying words such as “potentially” and “may” that the result
would have been to insert “uncertainty...where there is essentially none.”"

Trump ...

He (how ironic that his name should be a euphemism for 'fart') is just
getting into his stride ...

https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...ging-explained

"At the Environmental Protection Agency

Just this week: The Trump administration froze new scientific grants at
the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA gives out billions of
dollars every year to fund research and projects throughout the country.
“These grants help states pay to track air pollution, say, or restore
watersheds, or support researchers studying various environmental
problems,” Vox’s Brad Plumer explains.

It’s unclear how long the freeze will last, and if it pertains only to
new grants or to existing grants as well. As ProPublica reports:

One EPA employee aware of the freeze said he had never seen
anything like it in nearly a decade with the agency. Hiring freezes
happened, he said, but freezes on grants and contracts seemed
extraordinary. The employee said the freeze appeared to be nationwide,
and as of Monday night it was not clear for how long it would be in place.

But either way, the agency seems to be a target of a Trump
administration hammer. Axios found there may be $815 million in budget
cuts coming for the EPA, for various “environment programs and
management.” The Huffington Post also reported the EPA is banned from
communicating via press releases or social media communications during
this time, in another blow.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that the Trump Administration has ordered
the EPA take down its climate change webpage. The EPA climate change
page contains links to emissions data and explainers on the current
consensus in the field. (And note: the EPA scientific integrity policy
states “To operate an effective science and regulatory agency like the
EPA, it is also essential that political or other officials not suppress
or alter scientific findings.”

It’s currently unclear if the climate change page removal will happen.
On Wednesday, Inside EPA reported that Trump’s EPA team have agreed to
“stand down” on the order to remove the webpage."


My understanding is that the EPA was getting into areas outside the
reasons for its existence. That and that it was taking actions on the
basis of scientific reports which it had not and would not make
available for public scrutiny. But its still politics.

Surprisingly, scientific repression has even been true in Canada ...

http://www.nature.com/news/nine-year...orship-1.19842

It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method.
I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot
better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how
the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results
where there might not be any.


If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't
it been accepted as falsified?


Because it hasn't been. The modelling is not perfect and needs to be
improved, but it agrees with the evidence sufficiently well to be worth
continuing and refining.


How long can that argument be continued if the results don't come in?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.