Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.intel > #587
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.os.windows-10, comp.sys.intel, alt.windows7.general |
| Subject | Re: Intel CPU prices going up? |
| Date | 2018-10-20 12:22 +0100 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <pqf35t$12mg$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <2infsdplj9c2mvivqluv7558cjf3lljr01@4ax.com> <pqa00c$v8t$1@gioia.aioe.org> <p1bisd1up2l6u5acnpv3b8cphulk9oe1il@4ax.com> <pqcsm3$1mg5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <id5lsd5tff5d6ulcq47egmc0ithvfjrauj@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 20/10/2018 04:06, Eric Stevens wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:30 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> > wrote: >> >> On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote: >>> >>> 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 >> >> I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have >> already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it. >> There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ... > > Its very much open to interpretation as I wrote below. No, like anything else, it's open to misinterpretation, but there was *nothing* in it that helps you. >>> Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or >>> stonethrowing articles. >> >> How hypocritical! Above you condemn the BBC for, thankfully in most >> people's opinion, not wasting its audiences' time by feeding them a load >> of unscientific bull, but you refuse to read similar bull yourself if >> you think it goes against a belief that you appear to have adopted on a >> quasi-religious rather than a scientific basis. > > You are confused. The so-called 'bull' that I read is at a technical > level which I would not expect to be presented by a popular > broadcaster. The so-call 'bull' that I read contains all kinds of > technical information which I variously reject, accept or put in > abeyance for further judgement. I pay little attention to opinion > pieces with no checkable theory or data. Yet you link to them as evidence >> >>>>> but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source >>>>> as any to track down >>>> >>>> mis- >>>> >>>>> information >>> >>> Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical >>> faculties. >> >> Time you started to acquire them. >> >>>> Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here. >>> >>> I'm not just writing for your benefit. >> >> You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're >> in a hole, stop digging. >> >>>>> Even CERN has to be careful how they >>>>> present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a >>>>> case in point. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark >>>> >>>> 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 >> >> Which one? Every single publication listed there could have some >> relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade >> through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small >> compared to that of CO2. > > There you are then. Who is it who has the closed mind now? I haven't got a closed mind, it's you who can't seem to grasp the differing orders of magnitude of the effect of CO2 and cosmic ray cloud formation. Even supposing Svensmark's ideas become widely accepted, they're never going to account for more than a small fraction of the observed warming, thus, to pursue this point any further is just wasting everybody's time. >>>> Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that >>>> I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is >>>> confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is >>>> noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations >>>> such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but >>>> since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less >>>> pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been >>>> replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case >>>> which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie' >>>> which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as >>>> inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation >>>> with CO2 levels. >> >> I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead >> try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to >> be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as >> in ... >> >>> Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods? >> >> ... the implication being that there might have been something wrong >> about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note >> that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists >> that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're >> just trying to sling mud. > > I was merely checking on your willingness to accept unverified data. > I've been following this field for long enough to have learned tat you > should accept no data without learning more about it. But you still haven't responded to the obvious upward trend in the Berkeley graphs, and it's good correlation with CO2. >> But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't >> remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the >> available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first >> findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason >> since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science. > > I'm glad you have done that. But I don't know that Berkely ever got > access to raw undigested data. My recollection is that it's freely available on the web. >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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/ >> >> It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA >> & NOAA for an explanation ... > > What makes you think it hasn't been done? Because they didn't print the reply received, or else say that they had asked for an explanation, but hadn't received one, which a fair appraisal would have done as a matter of course. >> ... and/or gave them a chance to comment before >> publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only >> interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than >> getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic >> fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it >> possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked, >> because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams >> from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again, >> this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane >> Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr >> Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a >> living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted >> the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which >> completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers >> it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only >> offer guesses. > > I agree. > >> Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements >> both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it. > > You don't alter data as a result of modelling it! Surely not! I said 'auditing' the data, not 'altering' it, see below ... > That's making the data fit the theory instead of vice versa. Mind you, > they have been accused of that. No, they aren't working back from the result to give the readings, in this particular case that would be an extraordinarily complicated thing to do, and of course would be completely unprofessional - faking has happened sometimes in some areas of science, I can recall two examples in paleontology that were uncomfortably long-standing, but such faking usually comes to light sooner rather than later. You should recall that all work published in any reputable science journal has to be peer-reviewed, which, while always an imperfect process, nevertheless does a pretty good job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. >> You >> yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they >> not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of >> inconsistency and fraud! > > The basic data is what you have got and it is abhorrent that it should > be tinkered with. If the data is bad in one way or another you build > that into the error margins and uncertainty. But you leave the data > alone. Surely you were taught that in Stage 1 physics? I certainly > was. You yourself linked to a critique of the data, should it not be audited to try and improve it? All data needs to be audited. You mention Physics experiments. When doing Physics experiments at uni, sometimes I'd get an outlier, and wherever possible going back and remeasuring was the best thing to do (and btw always showed that I'd made a mistake in the first measurement!), but if my mistake was discovered after I'd taken down the experiment and left the lab, then I'd have to leave it in with a note concerning my doubts for that reading. But historical data cannot be remeasured, so we have to make the most accurate use of it we can, and further it must be in such a state that it can be used for mathematical modelling, and that may mean correcting data (for example replacing an obviously Fahrenheit reading by its Celsius equivalent), deciding what should be done if an individual data point is missing (preferably, interpolate it from neighbouring points), even discarding an entire data series that is in so bad a state that it cannot be relied upon, etc. >>>> 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 >> >> Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory >> stands, according the figures already published it can only account for >> a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to >> explain it all. And there's still the possibility that increased cloud >> cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's >> radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on >> its way out from Earth's surface! > > You may be interested in: > https://mailchi.mp/071cef970071/invitation-climate-and-the-solar-magnetic-field-172833?e=99957e2afe > or http://tinyurl.com/ydx6ozhd No I won't, it's just another denialist front organisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation "The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4] While their position is that the science of global warming or climate change is "not yet settled," the GWPF claims that its membership comes from a broad spectrum ranging from "the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism."[1] The GWPF as well as some of its prominent members have been characterized as promoting climate change denial.[5][6] In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" or "GWPF" was created as a wholly owned subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website carries an array of articles "sceptical" of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts. ... Funding sources Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[15] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[16] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four different occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organization.[17] Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, commented: "These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by ... the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves ... The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders." [15] According to a press release on the organization's website, GWPF "is funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."[4] Annual membership contributions are "a minimum of £100".[18] In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[19] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward commented that "Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."[19] Similarly, based on membership fees reported for the year ending 31 July 2012, it appears that GWPF had no more than 120 members at that time.[20] In March 2012, The Guardian revealed that it had uncovered emails in which Michael Hintze, founder of the hedge fund CQS and a major donor to the UK Conservative Party, disclosed having donated to GWPF; the previous October, Hintze had been at the center of a funding scandal that led to the resignation of then-Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox and the dismissal of Hintze's then-charity adviser, Oliver Hylton.[21] Chris Huhne, former UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change attacked Lord Lawson's influential climate sceptic think-tank.[15]" > But they are not investigating global warming. They are investigating > anthropogenic global warming almost to the exclusion of all else. It > is the exponents of the all else who are being described as deniers. Again, see the relative effects of CO2 and cosmic rays. CO2 has an order of magnitude greater effect on global temperatures than can cosmic rays. We can do something about CO2 levels, it will a long and difficult road, economically, politically, and perhaps socially, but we can do something about them. We can't do anything about cosmic rays. So where should we spend the bulk of our resources? Certainly not on cosmic rays. >> I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known >> denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute. > > Answer: Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project They have obviously realised at last that they need to clean up at least their image, if not yet their act.
Back to comp.sys.intel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-10-15 09:13 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 10:58 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-15 12:19 -0500
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 18:43 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-15 12:36 -0500
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-15 13:54 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-15 16:33 -0500
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-15 20:11 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-16 16:00 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 06:55 +0000
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-16 21:54 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 19:52 +0000
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-17 17:14 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 07:51 +0000
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-17 23:43 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-17 14:08 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-18 15:45 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-18 13:57 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-19 14:42 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 09:59 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-19 16:19 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-10-19 23:49 +0000
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 09:45 +0000
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 14:48 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-21 12:33 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-22 12:17 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-22 13:06 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-20 16:06 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-20 12:22 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 15:38 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-21 23:49 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 09:14 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 15:41 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 23:37 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 21:55 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-21 12:13 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-22 12:25 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-21 21:21 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-27 13:55 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 10:17 +0000
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-18 09:29 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-17 11:05 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-17 10:58 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-18 15:47 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-18 09:11 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-16 11:15 -0500
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 20:52 +0000
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-17 17:17 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-17 23:45 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-17 14:37 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-18 15:59 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-18 18:44 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-19 15:42 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-19 16:29 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-20 16:27 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-20 13:19 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 15:54 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-22 00:17 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 09:15 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 15:55 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 23:53 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 22:06 +1300
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-21 12:55 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-16 23:14 +0100
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Sam E <same@isnt.mail.invalid> - 2018-10-16 12:21 -0500
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-10-23 02:45 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-23 12:45 -0500
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-10-24 00:29 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-24 04:39 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-11-13 16:28 -0500
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-11-13 18:16 -0500
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-11-15 03:33 -0500
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-11-15 04:53 -0500
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 13:54 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-15 17:19 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-15 16:01 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 16:20 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 11:29 +0800
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-18 01:51 -0400
Re: Intel CPU prices going up? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 11:25 +0800
csiph-web