Tag: science

A beautiful, information-packed graph highly worth understanding. If you are new to TES’s work or have avoided really getting it, this graph is an excellent place to dive in

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment
click image for larger

I am highlighting this graph because it is both readily accessible and highly informative. It requires some effort to understand this graph, but not that much and the data could not be displayed more clearly any other way. This image beautifully diagrams a moving event–covid infections and deaths–allowing us to grasp it as a complex whole over time. Once you understand this graph, the rest of TES’s work will be much easier to understand. I highly recommend spending the time to understand this and then following his work on Twitter and his blog. He has been doing work our health officials and academics should have been doing but were either incapable, afraid, or worst of all had bad motives which some of them surely did. ABN

Whitney Webb Interview – The Google AI Sentience Psyop

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment
direct link

I finally had time to watch all of this and am disappointed in it. Webb brings up many good points and it is worth viewing but she is also missing the deep framework of what is truly going on. I will touch on that by describing what Eris Schmidt says and how she responds.

Schmidt is talking about a geopolitical conflict that presents questions such as: How do we deal with China? On Chinese AI and technological advancements, Schmidt says: “China is not a near-peer. It is a peer competitor. They are also now demonstrating quantum capabilities that we did not expect…” He goes on to list several other major Chinese tech advancements. What Schmidt is referring to here is our inevitable ineluctable competition with China across virtually all domains. This is the fundamental “game theory” of great powers. “Game theory” does not mean it is merely a “game,” or that it is something we can choose to participate in or not. This fundamental game theory is inescapably basic to top world power competition. This game/competition is extremely dangerous. Whoever wins will control the world. Schmidt asks, “How do we manage this?” meaning how do we manage competition with China. He answers by saying, “We don’t have a good answer but… we need groups to get together to agree on what the ethics in these areas should look like…. If we don’t do this, those decisions will be made by computer scientists like me… We need to make these decisions with the best minds that include non-computer scientists.” Webb misquotes and misconstrues what Schmidt is saying and then digs deep into the past to smear his ethics when Schmidt himself clearly said he wants to avoid having people “like me” making these decisions. Webb does not understand that increasingly advanced AI is inevitable and that someone will control it. That someone will be some sort of configuration of people (and gangs) in the West, in China, in Russia or India or some other place. No one has a choice in whether this happens or not. Each player must strive for total control because there is no other option. Right now, in Schmidt’s implied view if the West loses, China wins. Beyond this fundamental frame, which is all-important in this discussion, I share many of Webb’s fears about governmental totalitarian control. ABN

Satellite Temperature Data Show Almost All Climate Model Forecasts Over the Last 40 Years Were Wrong

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

A major survey into the accuracy of climate models has found that almost all the past temperature forecasts between 1980-2021 were excessive compared with accurate satellite measurements. The findings were recently published by Professor Nicola Scafetta, a physicist from the University of Naples. He attributes the inaccuracies to a limited understanding of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), the number of degrees centigrade the Earth’s temperature will rise with a doubling of carbon dioxide.

Scientists have spent decades trying to find an accurate ECS number, to no avail. Current estimates range from 0.5°C to around 6-7°C. Without knowing this vital figure, the so-called ‘settled’ science narrative around human-caused climate change remains a largely political invention, not a credible scientific proposition. Professor Scafetta has conducted extensive work into climate models and is a long-time critic of their results and forecasts. In a previous work, he said many of the climate models should be “dismissed and not used by policymakers”. Along with around 250 professors, he is a signatory to the World Climate Declaration which states there is no climate emergency and also notes climate models are “not remotely plausible as global tools”.

link

Computer modeling is not scientific evidence. We saw the enormous mistakes made in computer modeling of covid and the buildings that collapsed on 9/11. To base global energy policies on computer models that have already been shown to be almost entirely wrong is folly. I have been agnostic on Anthropogenic Global Warming for many years, but after watching covid pseudoscience happen in real-time and also watch it take the lives of millions of people needlessly, I cannot remain neutral any longer. Big Science is run by Big Money and Big Government and is fueled by payola and egomania, and not by selfless quest for the truth. ABN

Climate Bombshell: Greenland Ice Sheet Recovers as Scientists Say Earlier Loss was Due to Natural Warming Not CO2 Emissions

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

A popular scare story running in the media is that the Greenland ice sheet is about to slip its moorings under ferocious and unprecedented Arctic heat and arrive in the reader’s front room any day now (I exaggerate, but not much). Meanwhile back in the scientific world, scientists are scrambling to understand what natural causes lie behind the sudden slow-down in Greenland’s summer warming and ice loss dating back to 2010. The recovery of Arctic summer sea ice has been spectacular of late, with the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Center reporting that this year’s September minimum was 1.28 million square kilometres  higher than the 2012 low point of 3.39 million square kilometres.

Three Japanese climatologists have recently published a paper noting that “frequent occurrence of central Pacific El Niño events has played a key role in the [abrupt] slow-down of Greenland warming and possibly Arctic sea ice loss”. Of course such findings play havoc with the simplistic ‘settled’ science notion that carbon dioxide produced by humans burning fossil fuel is the main, if not only, driver of global temperature warming or cooling – a notion that leads many green activists to claim that the climate will stop changing if society signs on to a ‘Net Zero’ CO2 emissions agenda.

link

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

We must reject the term “Climate Change” (CC) and use the term first posited–Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Switching terms and playing with definitions is the hallmark of liars. AGW fear-mongers changed the term to climate change to hide from real data and to fool the public (where all the money ultimately comes from). ABN

Climate Scientist Slams “Goebellian” Climate Alarm and “Ridiculous” Attempts to Demonize “Fertilizer” Carbon Dioxide

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Warming by carbon dioxide is logarithmic due to ‘saturation’ within the infrared spectrum, and any future doubling of the gas in the atmosphere will be associated with the same warming of around 1°C. This result is not considered controversial, argues atmospheric scientist and Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT – although it might be noted that it is, since it fatally undermines the political ‘settled’ science concept of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Professor Lindzen notes that the present “absurd ‘scientific’ narrative” leaves us with a quasi-religious movement – atop of all this has been the ”constant Goebellian repetition by the media of climate alarm”.

In a paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Lindzen warns that unless we wake up to the absurdity of the motivating narrative, “this is only likely to be the beginning of the disasters that will follow from the current irrational demonisation of CO2”. These disasters, of course, include the “hobbling” of Western energy systems.

link

Greenland’s Ice Mass Balance 27% above the 1981-2010 mean

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Autumn has begun. Time for the Greenland mass balance.

We have digitized the Polar Portal’s graph of the accumulated surface mass balance and have come up with a value of 467 Gt. That’s 100 Gt or 27% above the 1981…2010 mean! Together with the melting of icebergs (assuming the value of the previous year, which was already 10% more than that of 2020 ) this results in approximately the representation below, which was included in the publication until the report 2020.

link

What is FIML? Part 1

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML is different from anything you’ve done before. Our society, as well as probably every other society that has ever existed, offers no real encouragement or training in this type of communication. Consequently, when you first read about FIML you may struggle to fit it into some familiar category. Well, here are some:

Science – FIML can be conceived as a sort of interpersonal scientific method.

Like science, the process is rational and can be explained to, and practiced by, anyone. It is not the exclusive property of some esoteric priestly class.

FIML is based on data. In this case, the data is the contents of your mind and that of your partner. You and your partner will attempt to be objective about these data and check your interpretations against each other.

FIML does not ask the practitioner to banish his/her emotions, just as “science” makes no such request of the scientist. Rather, the point is to “hold your emotions in abeyance” while data is gathered, i.e., while you ask your partner what they meant.

It is considered good science to test a hypothesis and find out that it’s wrong. Likewise in FIML, you will find that your interpretations about what the other person said/meant will many times be proved wrong, or at least partially wrong, when you “test” them, i.e. query your partner.

FIML inquiries are not scientific experiments that can be replicated by others. We are dealing with the unique dynamics between unique individuals. However, the general results of increased interpersonal understanding and decreased neuroticism should be replicable by anyone, if FIML is practiced correctly.

Romance – This may be hard to see at first, but FIML is indeed deeply romantic. By querying your partner, you will gain insights that are simply impossible under the constraints of ordinary communication. You will come to know him/her better.

But at the same time, you will become more aware of how little you know.

You will find over and over again that your neurotic interpretations – about what the other person meant when they said this or what they were thinking when they did that – are wrong. The self-centered tales you’ve woven will unravel as neurotic “certainty” is replaced by doubt. You will be filled with a most pleasant sense of disorientation.

You will begin to see your partner as a continually unfolding, tantalizing mystery. And that’s exactly what they are. What could be more romantic?

Entertainment – Humans spend lots of time and money to be entertained. Movies, TV shows, concerts, art galleries, sporting events, strip clubs, restaurant meals, vacations… Friends, couples and family members commonly engage in these kinds of activities together, activities that almost seem designed to supplant real communication between people.

I would love to better understand why we’re like this but that’s a topic for another post.

What I want to say here is that FIML is not just to be thought of as some serious endeavor. It is also a lot of fun. The little dramas you uncover/create with your partner will be much more interesting than anything on TV or in the movies. Don’t be surprised if those dramas start to appear cartoonishly simplistic by comparison.

You will gradually acquire a more appropriate sense of your own ridiculousness.

Perhaps most significantly: Insofar as FIML is a form of entertainment, it is one that you and your partner actively engage in. You will not just be sitting there, passively absorbing someone else’s ideas.

first posted  ~ KHIPU