• Intel CPU prices going up?

    From Chris@21:1/5 to Eric Stevens on Fri Oct 19 09:59:32 2018
    XPost: alt.windows7.general

    On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>

    On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:

    That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
    selecting only one side of the argument.

    The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
    denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
    long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:


    p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
    unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
    change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
    man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
    intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.

    You should also read https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change?utm_content=buffer3534e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
    or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe

    The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
    that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
    be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
    they seem to be one eyed.

    If something is proved then no counterbalancing is required. Just like
    you don't need a flat-earther involved when discussing circumnavigating
    the globe. The media are responsible for false equivalence by always
    trying to show 'balance' when there isn't any.

    In the UK we have a media regulator which requires outlets which present
    and discuss the news to abide by the rules. The BBC is no different to
    any other outlet in the UK be it online, TV or on print. In the above
    case the BBC was rightly castigated for allow Nigel Lawson (a known
    climate change denier and chairman of the rather shady GWPF) an
    unchallenged voice on the Today programme.

    --- snip ---

    I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
    has many contributors.

    I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:


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

    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.

    How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific

    Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
    stonethrowing articles.

    And yet you're quite happy to throw away evidence as being 'political'
    rather than actually engaging with it.

    It is quite obvious that all the climate change denial fora are funded
    by the fossil fuel industry and although there is some research
    challenging the consensus the vast, vast majority of publicly funded
    science is behind and supports the model of human-induced climate change
    via the emission of greenhouse gases. Science requires there to be
    dissenting voices to make sure the science is sound. Evolution and the
    Big Bang were aggressively challenged for a long time before being
    accepted, this made the theories stronger and more accurate.

    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.

    If the science was bulletproof there'd be no problem in publishing it.
    Plenty of unpopular/challenging research is published in peer-reviewed
    journals all the time. It is my observation that the denialists prefer
    not to publish in scientific journals because it is hard. Books are
    easier to publish and make more money...

    Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.

    I'm not just writing for your benefit.

    Even CERN has to be careful how they
    present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
    case in point.


    That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of
    global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction
    of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted
    so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it
    either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low,
    suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and
    insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant
    compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

    Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery

    A scientists publication record in isolation gives no indication of its influence or importance.

    My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart
    from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years
    of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years
    of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial
    differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as
    an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology.

    You know that psychology is in the middle of a huge crisis down to misinterpretation of data and overuse of bad statistical practices, right? http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

    If that's your basis for statistical understanding, I recommend you
    re-visit modern statistics.

    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

    I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless
    waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others
    can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong.

    How do you explain the changes shown in https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

    Two things:
    1) the graphs are a mixture US only data or global data. Unsurprisingly
    they show different things
    2) The quality of data could quite easily be improved over time,
    especially with a better network of temperature sensors

    The use of the work 'fake' is utterly wrong. Modelled or 'imputed' data
    is perfectly valid and used across all fields of science - with one
    important caveat that hte assumed model is correct. Given the site
    doesn't challenge that implies they don't understand what they're
    talking about.

    Plus, it's 50% of 'fake' data is wrong. It's more like 80% - the idiot
    forgot the oceans. Except it's not. We now have swathes of satellites
    and temperature buoys measuring sea temperatures.

    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).


    "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, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
    *entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
    that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
    can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.

    Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
    which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
    his recent papers at the link which I have already given you http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery

    Except it's influence has been 'exaggerated' there just isn't enough
    energy in cosmic rays to influence Earth's climate so much. Even so it
    is now included in global models making them more accurate.

    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 they have an axe to grind?

    In short, no!

    You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was threatened?

    They're scientists. Their flow of funds is *always* threatened. Trust me
    we're always fighting to get research income. We are not in this for the
    money. If there was no IPCC the research would still be done, albeit
    more slowly.

    Actually, you'll find that scientists that engage with the IPCC aren't
    even paid for their contributions. They may get money to pay for
    expenses to attend meeting etc, but that's it. This is typical in science.

    Frankly, is there anything that would change your mind regarding
    human-induced climate change? What piece of evidence would convince you?

    I used to be a bit skeptical regarding the evidence for the link with
    CO2 mainly due to the challenge of unpicking such a complicated system. However, I was convinced by the fact that every model and empirical data
    from different groups around the world all showed the same thing. Plus
    all alternative theories never completely or adequately explained the phenomenon.

    All you've done is either try to pick some holes or just brushed away
    things as political without applying the same to criteria to your
    'ferreting'. You're guilty of positive selection bias - only looking at evidence that supports your preconceived ideas.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)