The Next Leader Of The Opposition Speaks...
Politics0 min ago
Could Ai Threaten Humanity?
Stephen Hawking has said that AI in the future "could develop a will of its own - a will that is in conflict with ours" and that it could “end mankind if it is misused”.
Are we becoming too smart for our own good, and is this a potential reality - or just the stuff of science fiction?
http://
Are we becoming too smart for our own good, and is this a potential reality - or just the stuff of science fiction?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Good grief!
I've just been experimenting with the filters on the UN link above and wondered whether the people in the Maldives consider themselves to be at risk from climate change. This is a country that – we are told – will effectively cease to exist should sea levels rise a couple of metres and yet this particular 'threat' is third from bottom of their list of concerns!
Education, heath care, jobs, sanitation, etc. all rank above “action taken on climate change”.
Just goes to show that the people on the ground having to deal with “climate change” (either man-made or otherwise) don't considerate to be an issue.
Because it isn't.
Sea level rise is not accelerating from its post Ice Age levels.
Temperatures are barely changing.
But the Prophets of Doom – Beso and the like – will have us all self-flagellating and panicking that the sky is about to fall... all without a shred of evidence.
Now that's religion!
I've just been experimenting with the filters on the UN link above and wondered whether the people in the Maldives consider themselves to be at risk from climate change. This is a country that – we are told – will effectively cease to exist should sea levels rise a couple of metres and yet this particular 'threat' is third from bottom of their list of concerns!
Education, heath care, jobs, sanitation, etc. all rank above “action taken on climate change”.
Just goes to show that the people on the ground having to deal with “climate change” (either man-made or otherwise) don't considerate to be an issue.
Because it isn't.
Sea level rise is not accelerating from its post Ice Age levels.
Temperatures are barely changing.
But the Prophets of Doom – Beso and the like – will have us all self-flagellating and panicking that the sky is about to fall... all without a shred of evidence.
Now that's religion!
birdie, you whack on about falsifiability being the undoing of climate change science. Meanwhile your hypothesis that releasing vast quantities of fossil carbon into the atmosphere will have no effect on climate fails on the same criteria. It is a straw man argument.
Only time will ultimately prove either case beyond doubt. Meanwhile all we have is modelling based on the known properties of the parameters involved. That modelling tells us we will drive the temperature of the planet seriously upwards by continuing to emit greenhouse gasses. That is the conclusion of the empirical science, not, as you insist, that nothing will happen, despite your lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of climate science.
We also know that these gasses will persist in the atmosphere for millennia and it would be extremely difficult to recover.
Only time will ultimately prove either case beyond doubt. Meanwhile all we have is modelling based on the known properties of the parameters involved. That modelling tells us we will drive the temperature of the planet seriously upwards by continuing to emit greenhouse gasses. That is the conclusion of the empirical science, not, as you insist, that nothing will happen, despite your lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of climate science.
We also know that these gasses will persist in the atmosphere for millennia and it would be extremely difficult to recover.
I take the "just in case" attitude with the above and try to keep my carbon footprint minimal, though a friend of mine (who works for NASA) swears that climate change is not man-made and is the result of natural solar activity that fluctuates from one ice age to another. He also reckons that there are big bucks to be made in the area of 'green' products etc. Maybe yes, maybe no is my answer to that.
Beso “... you whack on about falsifiability being the undoing of climate change science...”
Yes I do. There is a very good reason for that as well you know. It is the foundation of all science. For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, it's not science. I have asked you to come up with a scenario that would disprove the “man-made CO2 forced temperature” theory. You have failed to do so and now attempt to ridicule me for asking for proof of the hypothesis! Have you no shame?
Beso - “... Only time will ultimately prove either case beyond doubt. Meanwhile all we have is modelling based on the known properties of the parameters involved...”
Quite right. Time will tell and all we have are computer models.
Time, we don't have enough of, so let's look at the computer models. All they are are vastly simplistic meteorological models that are attempting to recreate an impossibly massive chaotic system. They cannot begin to mimic reality because the number of initial parameters are largely unknown and even if the multitude of them were known, could not be measured to any degree of accuracy. Read up on Chaos Theory if you doubt this. So what we're left with are hyper-low resolution models that simply cannot be relied upon as their predictive abilities have been shown to be essentially zero. They can't even hind-cast with any degree of accuracy. None of them has ever been verified. Therefore, it is fair and rational to say that their predictive ability is zero – they simply cannot be relied upon to predict – or if we're using IPPC speak – "project" future climatic realities.
Beso “... as you insist, that nothing will happen, despite your lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of climate science...”
That is not my position and never has been. What I am saying is that the tiny increase in temperature that is claimed to be “forced” by an increase in man-made CO2 is irrelevant to the well-being of humans and to the 99% of all other species on this planet. If – and it's a big “if” - man-made CO2 is gradually raising the overall global temperature (which seems unlikely given that at around 400ppm, CO2 effectively ceases to be a forcing factor due to the logarithmic nature of its saturation band) then its impact will be (and in fact is) completely indistinguishable from naturally occuring CO2.
Beso “.... We also know that these gasses will persist in the atmosphere for millennia and it would be extremely difficult to recover...”
This is also not the case. It is a shameless and gross exaggeration. Millennia? Get real.
The IPCC originally stated that man-made CO2 would take approximately 100 years to dissipate down to background levels (not millennia). That is to say, if all man-made CO2 emissions were to cease tomorrow, their effects would only be felt around 100 years into the future. However, recent studies have reduced this hundred year figure by an order of magnitude. And you accuse me of a "rudimentary knowledge of climate science". Sheesh!
Finally, are you aware that your statement, “... Only time will ultimately prove either case beyond doubt. Meanwhile all we have is modelling...” reads like a religious mantra? Replace a few words and the similarities are striking - “Only time will tell if the afterlife is true. Meanwhile all we have is this holy book..."
No proof, no evidence, just blind faith and an ideology.
Yes I do. There is a very good reason for that as well you know. It is the foundation of all science. For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, it's not science. I have asked you to come up with a scenario that would disprove the “man-made CO2 forced temperature” theory. You have failed to do so and now attempt to ridicule me for asking for proof of the hypothesis! Have you no shame?
Beso - “... Only time will ultimately prove either case beyond doubt. Meanwhile all we have is modelling based on the known properties of the parameters involved...”
Quite right. Time will tell and all we have are computer models.
Time, we don't have enough of, so let's look at the computer models. All they are are vastly simplistic meteorological models that are attempting to recreate an impossibly massive chaotic system. They cannot begin to mimic reality because the number of initial parameters are largely unknown and even if the multitude of them were known, could not be measured to any degree of accuracy. Read up on Chaos Theory if you doubt this. So what we're left with are hyper-low resolution models that simply cannot be relied upon as their predictive abilities have been shown to be essentially zero. They can't even hind-cast with any degree of accuracy. None of them has ever been verified. Therefore, it is fair and rational to say that their predictive ability is zero – they simply cannot be relied upon to predict – or if we're using IPPC speak – "project" future climatic realities.
Beso “... as you insist, that nothing will happen, despite your lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of climate science...”
That is not my position and never has been. What I am saying is that the tiny increase in temperature that is claimed to be “forced” by an increase in man-made CO2 is irrelevant to the well-being of humans and to the 99% of all other species on this planet. If – and it's a big “if” - man-made CO2 is gradually raising the overall global temperature (which seems unlikely given that at around 400ppm, CO2 effectively ceases to be a forcing factor due to the logarithmic nature of its saturation band) then its impact will be (and in fact is) completely indistinguishable from naturally occuring CO2.
Beso “.... We also know that these gasses will persist in the atmosphere for millennia and it would be extremely difficult to recover...”
This is also not the case. It is a shameless and gross exaggeration. Millennia? Get real.
The IPCC originally stated that man-made CO2 would take approximately 100 years to dissipate down to background levels (not millennia). That is to say, if all man-made CO2 emissions were to cease tomorrow, their effects would only be felt around 100 years into the future. However, recent studies have reduced this hundred year figure by an order of magnitude. And you accuse me of a "rudimentary knowledge of climate science". Sheesh!
Finally, are you aware that your statement, “... Only time will ultimately prove either case beyond doubt. Meanwhile all we have is modelling...” reads like a religious mantra? Replace a few words and the similarities are striking - “Only time will tell if the afterlife is true. Meanwhile all we have is this holy book..."
No proof, no evidence, just blind faith and an ideology.
Answerpracer - “.... though a friend of mine (who works for NASA) swears that climate change is not man-made and is the result of natural solar activity that fluctuates from one ice age to another. He also reckons that there are big bucks to be made in the area of 'green' products etc...”
Your friend is a very astute person.
Your friend is a very astute person.
Naomi, I have to say...one of the most stimulating questions I've ever seen on here. Not sure if you're watching Humans on C4 but it explores this very theory. Samuel Butler was one of the first to explore this in his 'Book of the machines' and we would do well to heed the following:
'There is no security against the ultimate development of mechanical consciousness, in the fact of machines possessing little consciousness now. A jellyfish has not much consciousness. Reflect upon the extraordinary advance which machines have made during the last few hundred years, and note how slowly the animal and vegetable kingdoms are advancing. The more highly organized machines are creatures not so much of yesterday, as of the last five minutes, so to speak, in comparison with past time.
'There is no security against the ultimate development of mechanical consciousness, in the fact of machines possessing little consciousness now. A jellyfish has not much consciousness. Reflect upon the extraordinary advance which machines have made during the last few hundred years, and note how slowly the animal and vegetable kingdoms are advancing. The more highly organized machines are creatures not so much of yesterday, as of the last five minutes, so to speak, in comparison with past time.
AI is less a problem than increased population and H2S gas thereof. No need to inhale its toxic fumes as it will swallow you as it did in below Japan link. N.b. 'dont' name of village.
http://
http://
birdie//The IPCC originally stated that man-made CO2 would take approximately 100 years to dissipate down to background levels (not millennia). That is to say, if all man-made CO2 emissions were to cease tomorrow, their effects would only be felt around 100 years into the future. However, recent studies have reduced this hundred year figure by an order of magnitude. //
Firstly the effects of the carbon already in the atmosphere will cause the temperature to continue increasing for another forty years due to the thermal inertia of the oceans.
The time it would take to get carbon dioxide levels back to preindustrial levels has not been clearly determined. The ocean will continue to absorb it from the atmosphere but the rate of removal will decease when the ocean temperature rises.
However the carbon dioxide will continue to acidify the oceans (causing havoc for the marine ecosystems) for a very long time because the process of geological sequestration is very slow. Yes millennia.
It certainly won't clear it out "an order of magnitude faster", in a decade.
In any case, emissions won't stop tomorrow. The rate of carbon release still continue to increase every year. If we don't start working on the problem we will have huge problem. And whatever time it takes for the carbon levels to fall, it will definitely be longer, the higher the concentration we reach.
Firstly the effects of the carbon already in the atmosphere will cause the temperature to continue increasing for another forty years due to the thermal inertia of the oceans.
The time it would take to get carbon dioxide levels back to preindustrial levels has not been clearly determined. The ocean will continue to absorb it from the atmosphere but the rate of removal will decease when the ocean temperature rises.
However the carbon dioxide will continue to acidify the oceans (causing havoc for the marine ecosystems) for a very long time because the process of geological sequestration is very slow. Yes millennia.
It certainly won't clear it out "an order of magnitude faster", in a decade.
In any case, emissions won't stop tomorrow. The rate of carbon release still continue to increase every year. If we don't start working on the problem we will have huge problem. And whatever time it takes for the carbon levels to fall, it will definitely be longer, the higher the concentration we reach.
birdie // let's look at the computer models. All they are are vastly simplistic meteorological models that are attempting to recreate an impossibly massive chaotic system. They cannot begin to mimic reality because the number of initial parameters are largely unknown and even if the multitude of them were known, could not be measured to any degree of accuracy. //
Rubbish. They are not models of the weather as you claim. Yes weather is chaotic which is why we only have accurate forecasts a few days ahead. These are climate models. They model trends usually acting over geological time periods.
The inputs are well known from the geological record. The changes in the orbit and inclination of the planet are regular as clockwork and well known. The cycles of the Sun are well known.
Climate models are checked against the geological record. They do model the past quite well or we would not be using them. There are dozens of them built by independent teams and atmospheric carbon levels are important factors in all.
Rubbish. They are not models of the weather as you claim. Yes weather is chaotic which is why we only have accurate forecasts a few days ahead. These are climate models. They model trends usually acting over geological time periods.
The inputs are well known from the geological record. The changes in the orbit and inclination of the planet are regular as clockwork and well known. The cycles of the Sun are well known.
Climate models are checked against the geological record. They do model the past quite well or we would not be using them. There are dozens of them built by independent teams and atmospheric carbon levels are important factors in all.
Beso
Your counter arguments are simply nonsense. I could take them apart piece by piece but there's no point. You are a true believer of dangerous man-made climate change. You have personally and financially bought into the lies of the leftist green agenda. Now you are defending that position by vilifying your opponents and maligning their character. You (and others) have abandoned the scientific method. You denounce real science if it flies in the face of 'your truth'. You have essentially become anti-science as you chose to believe that “consensus” (ie. opinion polls) are what determines scientific truth.
Nice one – a fully paid up member of “progressive liberalism” eh?
Climate Chaos, nee Climate Change, nee Global Warming is a political tool. Nothing more, nothing less. How so, you splutter and cry? Because we have verifiable quotes from the very people at the centre of the climate change movement that demonstrate their goal is far from altruistic and divorced from environmental concern:
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace.
“We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment.” - Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency.
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” - Professor Daniel Botkin
“No matter if the science [of man-made global warming] is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” - Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator
“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” - Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN advisor.
“We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more.” - Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... All these dangers are caused by human intervention.... and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself.... believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or… one invented for the purpose.” - Club of Rome
Et cetera.
Your counter arguments are simply nonsense. I could take them apart piece by piece but there's no point. You are a true believer of dangerous man-made climate change. You have personally and financially bought into the lies of the leftist green agenda. Now you are defending that position by vilifying your opponents and maligning their character. You (and others) have abandoned the scientific method. You denounce real science if it flies in the face of 'your truth'. You have essentially become anti-science as you chose to believe that “consensus” (ie. opinion polls) are what determines scientific truth.
Nice one – a fully paid up member of “progressive liberalism” eh?
Climate Chaos, nee Climate Change, nee Global Warming is a political tool. Nothing more, nothing less. How so, you splutter and cry? Because we have verifiable quotes from the very people at the centre of the climate change movement that demonstrate their goal is far from altruistic and divorced from environmental concern:
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace.
“We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment.” - Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency.
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” - Professor Daniel Botkin
“No matter if the science [of man-made global warming] is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” - Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator
“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” - Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN advisor.
“We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more.” - Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... All these dangers are caused by human intervention.... and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself.... believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or… one invented for the purpose.” - Club of Rome
Et cetera.
Beso - “Quoting politicians does not change the science.”
The science you speak of isn't science. Consensus is not science. Science is reproducible, testable and verifiable. The climate “science” you speak of is none of those things. Ergo, it isn't science – it's propaganda.
I addressed this earlier when I stated, “You (and others) have abandoned the scientific method. You denounce real science if it flies in the face of 'your truth'. You have essentially become anti-science as you chose to believe that “consensus” (ie. opinion polls) are what determines scientific truth.”
Believe whatever you want Beso, but don't for a minute think that you can preach your anti-science nonsense on here without opposition from people such as myself who understand the scientific method.
Oh, and you're right, “quoting politicians does not change the science”. However, it does give everyone an insight in to how these people have and are bastardising the scientific method for their own political ends. Lysenkoism springs to mind - https:/
The science you speak of isn't science. Consensus is not science. Science is reproducible, testable and verifiable. The climate “science” you speak of is none of those things. Ergo, it isn't science – it's propaganda.
I addressed this earlier when I stated, “You (and others) have abandoned the scientific method. You denounce real science if it flies in the face of 'your truth'. You have essentially become anti-science as you chose to believe that “consensus” (ie. opinion polls) are what determines scientific truth.”
Believe whatever you want Beso, but don't for a minute think that you can preach your anti-science nonsense on here without opposition from people such as myself who understand the scientific method.
Oh, and you're right, “quoting politicians does not change the science”. However, it does give everyone an insight in to how these people have and are bastardising the scientific method for their own political ends. Lysenkoism springs to mind - https:/
Haven't followed this thread, Birdie. Seeing your name (wife and cats kicked into touch leaving me with a large drink, the Spectator crossword and CNN etc on Trump) reminded me of this:
http://
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.