Yeah, Rishi, it's AI that'll make Britain great again UK prime minister Rishi Sunak believes taking a leading role in AI safety research is key to boosting Britain's innovation capability and growing its economy. On Monday, in a speech kicking off the tenth London Tech Week, Sunak said the country must act quickly to retain its position as one of the world's top tech capitals, …
"If our goal is to make this country the best place in the world for tech, AI is surely one of the greatest opportunities before us,"
That's the problem. We haven't made this our goal in decades. We once had a strong presence in tech but allowed it to be eroded by lack of government interest (IR35 anyone?) and our usual short term approach to everything. Yes there are small pockets of high tech companies. But there needs to be a ground roots investment in teaching our younger generation core technologies and getting them excited and interested in it as a career. We should encourage and incentivize companies in the UK to train people in the technology they need. Instead of that we encourage them to save money short term and "right shore" everything overseas.
On top of that, the lack of technical knowledge displayed by legislators in this country over the online safety bill shows they simply don't have the skills, knowledge or experience of the industry to make sensible choices, let alone strategically critical ones.
Once again they spout nothing but meaningless words to make it appear like they are "doing something" and in reality everything will simply wither on the vine.
We once had a strong presence in all sorts of things but more money could be made from "investing" in the privatised taxation of financial services.
The UK is simply not capable now of generating the level of investment necessary and could not provide the resources - people, buildings and ancillary services - to warrant the investment being made if the money were offered. I'm afraid the only possible way the UK could participate in this technology is via partnerships with other, larger, players. The US and EU are currently engaged in bidding wars to repatriate technology to their own shore, so. I guess that leaves the UK with the option of being a wholly-owned subsidiary of China?
Personally, I'd start from the premise that I wanted to make the country a better place for people rather than tech and then see what could realistically be achieved, not assume that chasing the chancers pivoting from crypto to AI will result in untold wealth.
The UK has always favored businesses that require minimal capital investment. Software is favored because it can be done with little more than an inexpensive PC.
Sustained, ongoing, focused investment? Forget about it. Politicians have been saying this sort of thing for decades, ever since the "White Heat of Technology" days of the 1960s. Any dream of turning it into reality died in the 1980s when the potential capital infusion from oil revenues was trousered by the City for the most part (and promising enterprises that had public investment were sold off, often at sub-book value, again to the usual suspects).
Has this gov any interest in making Britain attractive? Any desire to improve the economy or boost anything but tax's?
They want to boost their PR ratings.
Unfortunately, the critical problem in the economy would appear to be a huge lack of disposable income due to unavoidable expenses (housing, petrol, diesel, electricity and gas for transport and heating and food costs) having risen dramatically. The solution to this on the part of government is to raise the base interest rate, which raises mortgage costs for everybody not on a fixed rate while the few savers watch their money invisibly become worth less each month.
There are two possible ways out of that. The first option would be for prices to fall, however government policy has been to keep house prices high for the last two decades, which hurts the younger generations who are left struggling on the property ladder while paying roughly triple the amount for largely the same houses that the last generation lived in. Fuel costs aren't likely to fall much further unless most of Europe goes back to buying from Russia again and accepts that we'll be on the path for conscripting another generation for a fight for Eastern Europe in a decade or so, so that's not going to happen and electricity and gas costs are linked because most of our electricity power is generated by gas and while we had nicely diversified supplies it didn't help because the Germans didn't; and so having ditched Russia have gone and bought from everywhere on the market, driving the price up hugely. That's not likely to go down at any point in the near future.
That leaves the only other way out of the hole as pay rises, which the government is opposed to because it'd break their deliberate policy of making unaffordable government debt vanish into thin air via fiddling with monetary policy and bankrupt the government, so they'll destroy the economy instead to remain solvent.
And interestingly, nobody inside or outside of government is seriously discussing problems with the economy, let alone suggesting solutions to them.
@LionelB
"Maybe also something to do with increased demand for"
air-conditioning = Electricity
light winds = less energy being generated
a fault on the North Sea Link = Electricity
"maintenance at the Torness nuclear power plant = less energy being generated
"Seems our infrastructure is a bit creaky..."
No kidding. Surely the developed world solution of actually building reliable energy generation would make a big difference to all that. Such as our coal power plants which we rely on in summer and winter. One can dream
I'm originally from the north-east of England and old enough to remember the spoil heaps teetering over mining villages and the conveyors dumping waste from mines directly onto the beaches to be washed away by the tides (despite which it took decades of intervention to finally clean them up). I also remember local (labour) politicians insisting that every local building be heated by coal, "to support the lads", regardless of the cost. I particularly remember there was a local old-people's home built where space for old people was sacrificed to the storage of coal as the council refused to allow it to be heated by electricity or gas.
It's depressing to still see the same kind of mad ideology being spouted, this time from the opposite side of the political spectrum, equally determined to perpetuate a mythological past utopia - or, more accurately, in support of particular vested interests.
Fossil fuels are scarce and expensive: that alone should be a reason to abandon them as quickly as possible.
@abend0c4
"Fossil fuels are scarce and expensive"
Are they? They are cheaper than renewables and not scarce. So in what way are they?
As for the rest of your comment about coal, you remember the lights being on? Its not due to 'coal' its due to energy generation. We have different ways of providing plentiful, reliable and much cheaper energy and have expressly chosen not to. And for our huge push for unreliables the truth was clearly demonstrated when the price of gas shot up... we rely on fossil fuels to keep the illusion of unreliables working.
"that alone should be a reason to abandon them as quickly as possible."
People can choose to do that at any time. They will starve in the dark and cold (or heat at the moment) but they can feel good about it
I'm … old enough to remember the spoil heaps teetering over mining villages
I'm old enough to remember when the spoil heap at Aberfan stopped teetering and slumped. I also remember miners much younger than I am now wheezing and gasping for breath. There may have been camaraderie in the mines but it was a dangerous and crippling way to earn a living.
The problem is that your fossil fuel "reliables" are reliably causing effectively irreversible climate change, with reliably dire consequences.
I am in favour, as things stand, of a mix of sustainables and nuclear, and the fastest route to weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. Future technologies may, of course, may change the picture, in the form of viable energy storage solutions and/or nuclear fusion (though I'm not holding my breath for the latter in particular).
@LionelB
"The problem is that your fossil fuel "reliables" are reliably causing effectively irreversible climate change, with reliably dire consequences."
"The sky is falling" yes I have heard it all and every time the weather changes its doom and when it doesnt its doom and so on. Models that are no use to the insurance industry as they cannot predict anything and have no value. The unreliables have pushed us back to coal (and Germany).
"I am in favour, as things stand, of a mix of sustainables and nuclear, and the fastest route to weaning ourselves off fossil fuels"
Ok thats fine. Sustainable is good, but needs to be fit for purpose. Nuclear is good but will take over a decade to bring online if we started right now. If the wet dreams of EV's, hydrogen power, heat pumps and moving people off gas are to be realised for net zero (they wont) then we need power now. Which means fossil fuels.
"Future technologies may, of course, may change the picture"
I expect they probably will, but to research the alternatives or even solutions relies on cheap, plentiful energy. That is why we outsource the manufacture of the green tech to China.
> "The sky is falling" yes I have heard it all ...
It seems that at this stage the only reasonable response to anthropogenic climate change denialism is "point and laugh" (or perhaps more appropriately "point and weep").
All the rest is cynicism, fatalism and defeatism masquerading as "realism".
(Apologies for all the "-isms", but the attitudes on display are so generic that they apply.)
@LionelB
"It seems that at this stage the only reasonable response to anthropogenic climate change denialism is "point and laugh" (or perhaps more appropriately "point and weep")."
Excellent. It is a better reaction against those who dont believe in your religion. We are all atheist, I just believe one less religion than you do.
"All the rest is cynicism, fatalism and defeatism masquerading as "realism"."
How is not wanting to starve in the cold and dark fatalism and defeatism? Reality is hard so believing a fantasy where you must atone for your sins by punishing yourself is sad. What is worse is inflicting it on the rest of us.
"Après nous, le déluge"
That's one way of looking at it I guess. There's plenty of ways to have reliable power quickly. Coal is by far the worse of the options and "we" (most of europe that is) should be trying to limit it's use as much as possible. And Germany should be paying the rest of Europe for their crimes of using lignite and blowing their shit over the border to their neighbours.
@imanidiot
"There's plenty of ways to have reliable power quickly."
I am interested in hearing ideas. I know fossil fuel tends to be one of the quickest ways. We are already heavily reliant on gas so more of that could be dangerous without a sound supply. I agree coal is not necessarily great (not sure how the technology has moved along for cleaning it up), I seem to think oil is worse but not 100% certain on that one. Then there is nuclear which takes a long time for a power plant and small modular reactors are still under discussion.
Apart from that I dont see how without interconnectors.
"And Germany should be paying the rest of Europe for their crimes of using lignite and blowing their shit over the border to their neighbours."
I think Germany is backed into a corner. They pushed green madness and were sold a dud. They panicked over nuclear and overreacted. The worst part is if they dont do something about it their lights will go out for lack of energy generation.
> We are all atheist, I just believe one less religion than you do.
Or is it one more?
As a scientist myself, obviously I'll go with the science (which I do not take on faith, but as a grounded, evidence-based approach to understanding the world). If you choose to subscribe to the science-denialism religion, then good luck with your faith.
> How is not wanting to starve in the cold and dark fatalism and defeatism?
You (and I) will not be starving in the cold and dark. We may need to cut back on our high-consumption lifestyles, but hey, I'll take that. Condemning the (through a geographical lottery) less economically fortunate, and future generations, to far worse by denial of reality and sneering at efforts to avert bad outcomes is indeed fatalistic defeatism.
> Reality is hard so believing a fantasy where you must atone for your sins by punishing yourself is sad. What is worse is inflicting it on the rest of us.
Because denying reality, and spurning any attempt to avert bad outcomes is bound to end well...
@LionelB
"Or is it one more?"
Look up the word atheist. One less.
"As a scientist myself, obviously I'll go with the science"
Ok cool. So do you subscribe to the MMCC co2 theory of uncertainty or follow the science that we dont have the technology demanded, the policies of making ourselves poorer are bad and since the models are so unreliable, especially the further out in time we try to predict, we shouldnt be damaging ourselves for such stupidity?
"You (and I) will not be starving in the cold and dark"
Of course. And in California they overrode the temperature settings on private residence to reduce energy demand. We had a mild winter which required our coal power plants to keep lights on, and they barely managed to (we nearly had blackouts)! And due to the usual mud hut insanity they are talking about eating bugs.
"We may need to cut back on our high-consumption lifestyles, but hey, I'll take that."
Awesome, you go do that. Voluntarily. Without screwing life up for the rest of us.
"Condemning the (through a geographical lottery) less economically fortunate, and future generations"
I had to laugh at the rest of the line. But what you seem to propose is less energy, more poverty, worse lives to promote the use of technology that doesnt work and leaves us vulnerable. All for your beliefs.
"Because denying reality, and spurning any attempt to avert bad outcomes is bound to end well..."
Then dont do it. Amusing how we can have the same suggestion for each other.
> Look up the word atheist. One less.
You appear to subscribe to the religion of science denialism. I subscribe to science, which is not faith-based.
> So do you subscribe to the MMCC co2 theory of uncertainty ... and since the models are so unreliable, especially the further out in time we try to predict
Science denialism, with a dash of ignorance of the role of models, evidence and statistics in science.
> or follow the science that we dont have the technology demanded
... yet (of course we do have plenty of technology already, plus economies of scale are accelerating). Fatalism and defeatism.
> But what you seem to propose is less energy, more poverty, worse lives to promote the use of technology that doesnt work and leaves us vulnerable. All for your beliefs.
For my science-based assessment that carrying on as per normal will leave us way more vulnerable (where by "us", read in particular those living, e.g., in geographical regions prone to drought/flooding/desertification, who also tend to be less economically secure).
@LionelB
"You appear to subscribe to the religion of science denialism."
Why? Because I expect an evidence approach to reach conclusions?
"Science denialism, with a dash of ignorance of the role of models, evidence and statistics in science."
Aka it doesnt work but you believe in it? Or its so inaccurate we cannot devote ourselves to it but you believe we should?
"... yet (of course we do have plenty of technology already, plus economies of scale are accelerating). Fatalism and defeatism."
That you wish for a unicorn and they dont exist isnt fatalism or defeatism. That you want a car but live in the stone age isnt fatalism or defeatism. That you want a perpetual motion machine but it doesnt exist isnt fatalism or defeatism. If a technology can be developed to change things then great. That it doesnt currently exist is true. So how does that not factor into your 'science' unless it just doesnt factor into your belief system.
"For my science-based assessment that carrying on as per normal will leave us way more vulnerable"
The vulnerable people who would benefit from cheap energy, being wealthier and able to adapt to an ever changing world? But no we should make ourselves poorer to atone for our sins?
@LionelB
"Well, as mathematical modelling, statistical analysis and the evaluation of scientific evidence is a fair description of my day job of the last few decades, I'll go with my own judgement on this one."
Of course you will. You hold your opinion and I hold mine. Nothing wrong with that. The amusement is when you think your beliefs are somehow superior when you are backing something that consistently fails. MMCC co2 theory might maybe somehow be right, but I will wait for proof.
The start of this conversation being the FACT that our coal stations have to be fired up because of our lack of energy. That we need stable and reliable energy. No matter how you danced around it hoping for future tech to save the day you havnt changed the reality that we need energy and fossil fuels and nukes are about the best options in the UK, and nukes take a long time to build. Magic macGuffin yet to be developed isnt a solution. Punishing ourselves for our so called sins isnt either.
> MMCC co2 theory might maybe somehow be right, but I will wait for proof.
That is revealing. If you were in the least familiar with what science is, how it works, you would be aware that science does not furnish "proof" - proof is for mathematics. What science does do, is provide evidence for (and against) hypotheses. Hypotheses may never, even in principle, be "proven true" - because new evidence may always arise which contradicts a hypothesis - but hypotheses may indeed become untenable if contrary evidence is found. Further to this, scientific evidence is commonly (as is the case of climate science) of a statistical nature - there are no yes/no, right/wrong answers, only probabilistic ones.
It might also be said: if, in your view, there were, on the grounds of current evidence, say, a 50% chance that "MMCC co2 theory might maybe somehow be right", would you gamble on it being wrong, and therefore take no action? And if not 50%, what would your threshold be before you deemed it necessary to take action? And how long would you be prepared to wait until that threshold is reached (bearing in mind the risk of it being too late to take effective action)?
Re. "beliefs": my only belief is that the scientific method is as good as it gets when it comes to understanding the (physical) world.
@LionelB
"That is revealing. If you were in the least familiar with what science is, how it works, you would be aware that science does not furnish "proof" - proof is for mathematics."
Interesting. So a testable hypothesis that constantly fails isnt a failure? And one that isnt disproved and is testable isnt proof of a workable theory?
"but hypotheses may indeed become untenable if contrary evidence is found"
And so we have plenty reason not to believe the MMCC co2 theory is sound enough to screw up our countries.
"on the grounds of current evidence, say, a 50% chance that "MMCC co2 theory might maybe somehow be right", would you gamble on it being wrong"
Yes. If the possibility is some complete random coin toss of not a problem vs potentially a problem with no definable outcome but very expensive to try and solve with technology that doesnt exit. Now lets imagine 80%, the equation doesnt change. Even if the outcome is better defined and it is even some of the expected problems the question becomes King Canute and the technology that doesnt exist or adaptation. And after that if the answer is technology that doesnt exist then we need cheap, plentiful energy to R&D the solutions.
Instead we are not fixing the issue, just making ourselves poorer and self harming for a 'feel good' feeling. And if a solution presents itself we have burned resources and treasure on so many duff ideas we may struggle to solve the problem if there is one.
"And how long would you be prepared to wait until that threshold is reached (bearing in mind the risk of it being too late to take effective action)?"
Even at 100% certainty that co2 theory is correct we know so little that we can easily cause more harm than good with our ham fisted attempts to 'fix' the problem with symbolic and expensive monuments to a sky god.
> Interesting. So a testable hypothesis that constantly fails isnt a failure? And one that isnt disproved and is testable isnt proof of a workable theory?
I truly have no idea how you construed that from what I actually wrote.
It's not that hard: a testable hypothesis (and untestable hypotheses are of little use to anyone) remains viable until such time as it is falsified by evidence. A prevalent view is that the longer a hypothesis survives falsification in the light of accumulating evidence, the greater the confidence we may have that the hypothesis is unlikely to be falsified in future. But: no matter how much corroborating (i.e., not falsifying) evidence accumulates, we can never conclude that the hypothesis is "right" or "proven". There is always a possibility that new falsifying evidence may appear. New falsifying evidence may well arise through new and more accurate measurement technologies or methodologies, or through hitherto untested scenarios.
A nice example is Newtonian physics: for several centuries it remained unfalsified - it predicted motion, acceleration, gravitation perfectly in a broad range of scenarios - within the limits of measurement technology of the time. People then might have been excused for taking the view that Newtonian physics was "right". However, cracks began to appear when measurement technologies (and also thought-experiments) started showing up some phenomena unexplained by Newtonian physics - essentially falsifying the theory for high energy/high acceleration scenarios. A resolution arrived in the form of Einstein's Special and General theories of Relativity, which superseded and subsumed Newtonian physics. Einstein's theory has been tested - and survived falsification - to an insane degree (except in scenarios where quantum effects become critical and the theory is known not to apply). So should we take Einstein's theory as "proven"? No, not a bit of it! Developments in cosmological observation technologies are even now casting some doubts on the theory, although not (as yet) with the confidence to count as indisputable falsifications.
[The Newton -> Einstein development, by the way, points to a quite common effect, whereby a theory is not shown to be flat-out wrong, but to apply under restricted assumptions, and a new theory subsumes rather than destroys an older one. Sometimes, though, theories are shown to be flat-out wrong, such as the "ether" theory, which was falsified by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, and left dead in the water. General Relativity, I suspect, may well fall into the former category - it may one day be subsumed by a broader theory, which accounts for some extreme cosmological/ quantum-scale scenarios.]
Anyway, this is Science 101 - I'm really not sure how you can have anything of value to say regarding scientific evidence if you were not aware of this.
My view on climate science and anthropogenic warming via CO2 (and other greenhouse) emissions - plus the (climatic/ecological) consequences of that warming - is that corroborating evidence has been steadily accumulating for decades, and that falsifying evidence is equivocal and disputed, and certainly nowhere close to compromising the theory. This is a pretty standard view among scientists of all stripes - but not, of course, an excuse not to continue testing (and refining) the hypothesis by all means available.
> And so we have plenty reason not to believe the MMCC co2 theory is sound enough to screw up our countries.
So apparently you disagree, though I'm still not sure on what basis.
> Even at 100% certainty that co2 theory is correct we know so little ...
Poppycock! The basic point is: if doing a thing (pumping CO2 into the atmosphere) is causing a problem, then, for starters, stop doing that thing! Now you could argue (as you do) that "stopping doing that thing" may cause a bigger problem than the problem caused by the thing. I deeply disagree. We actually have, by now, a pretty damn good idea of just how destructive and disruptive a few more degrees of warming is likely to be, under which problems caused by moves to non-fossil fuel solutions coupled with a draw-down in energy consumption pale into insignificance.
(The rest is your standard tedious "sky gods" snark, which we have come to know and ignore.)
@LionelB
"I truly have no idea how you construed that from what I actually wrote."
Excellent so we are both happy with how science works. In your opinion you believe in MMCC co2 theory badly enough to want to self harm and I have no issue with that. My issue is that you seem to think the rest of us should suffer for your belief.
"So apparently you disagree, though I'm still not sure on what basis."
I know, you think the theory is solid enough I dont. I dont have any real issue with that. From my perspective the hypotheses have yet to stand, it keeps failing when it encounters reality. Maybe they can figure it out over time but right now their predictions dont work, their theory has and continues to require revision every time it fails because it is really wrong.
But even if the theory is somewhat correct its predictive ability has huge error bars the further out the prediction, the predictions are of every possible outcome so claim success even when results are wrong (because one result will be roughly right) meaning its not even guessing. If the theory is correct our reaction has been wrong (the mud hutters actually arguing against the science) and requires technology we dont have to 'stop' the problem. And even then the prospect of adaptation has been ignored when it has a good possibility of being the better choice.
I disagree with the theory and general proposed solutions. I have no issue with nuclear (even back when it wasnt fashionable pre a year ago) or working and valid solutions. I have no issue with R&D and trying to develop new technologies. My issue is ham fisted dismissal of reality for the belief system we are all supposed to be punished under.
"Poppycock! The basic point is: if doing a thing (pumping CO2 into the atmosphere) is causing a problem, then, for starters, stop doing that thing!"
You hit the nail on the head with one word in that entire sentence- "if". Your entire belief is based on assumption of that "if". Your sentence doesnt qualify or quantify any harm, it is ignorant of the fact that there are only trade-offs so a small to nothing problem for massive gain can be very well worth it. Your sentence suggests you shouldnt go outside nor even breath for fear of the damage you are causing. And I have no problem with that. You believe what you want. Just dont inflict your self harm on others insisting we all self harm for your belief.
"(The rest is your standard tedious "sky gods" snark, which we have come to know and ignore.)"
Thats fine but is true. Technology that doesnt work being deployed as if it does and was covered up for years before its failings were even acknowledged. Now the defence of these things seems to be energy storage aka technology we dont have.
> Excellent so we are both happy with how science works.
Well, I am. It doesn't seem to me you really "get" science.
> In your opinion you believe in MMCC co2 theory badly enough ...
Nope. As I said before, all I believe is that science is the best means we have at understanding the world. I don't "believe in" hypotheses (because I understand how science works). I assess hypotheses on the basis of evidence. I am, you might say, not a great believer in faith.
My assessment of climate science is that there is an increasingly powerful accumulation of corroborating evidence - and no credible falsifying evidence - for the hypotheses that (a) humans pumping out greenhouse emissions is warming the planet, and (b) warming the planet will have highly damaging consequences for the inhabitants of the planet.
Your assessment, coming to opposite conclusions, feels to me faith- rather than evidence-based. You appear to need, very badly, to believe that climate science is a conspiracy to hoodwink us all. I don't know, or wish to speculate, why you have that need.
Despite your flam about predictive ability and error bars, models that predict the rate of warming based on volumes of CO2 in the atmosphere actually predict global mean temperatures (mean, that is, over time windows appropriate to discussion of climate) rather well, and the prediction errors are not that large (see e.g., Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?). The projections, even in best case scenarios, predict temperatures high enough to cause considerable harms in the not-so-distant future. The fact that many different models have similar predictions only strengthens the corroborating evidence.
Pertinent to that, here's also a thing about the role of models in science that is widely misunderstood (not least, it seems, by yourself): scientific models don't stand to model the precise mechanics of a physical scenario; rather, they are abstractions, designed to understand (possibly predict) a specific effect. To paraphrase two famous irreverent statements on this theme, "The best substantive model for a cat is another (or, better, the same) cat"; and "All models are wrong, but some models are useful". So, e.g., models for the relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming are not really trying to model the precise physics of the entire planet ("the same cat") - that would of course be impossible - but simply to nail down that relationship; to abstract to an extent that reasonably accurate predictions can be made on the basis of practicable measurement of relevant variables ("some models are useful"). And those climate models are useful for projecting global temperatures on the basis of CO2 emissions. (My favourite example of a "wrong" but useful model is the Ising model for the ferromagnetic phase transition in physics. It is an entirely unrealistic model for actual ferromagnetism, yet it absolutely nails the characteristics of the phase transition. Because that is what the model was for; although the abstraction is drastic, it achieves what it was designed to do.)
@LionelB
"Well, I am. It doesn't seem to me you really "get" science."
Of course because while we both seem to agree on the scientific method and I have no issue with you holding your own opinion, you cant handle that someone would have an opinion different to your beliefs.
"Nope. As I said before, all I believe is that science is the best means we have at understanding the world. I don't "believe in" hypotheses (because I understand how science works). I assess hypotheses on the basis of evidence. I am, you might say, not a great believer in faith."
So its not that you 'believe in' a hypothesis, you looked at it and assessed that you believe it? We both look at the evidence and reach differing opinions based on how much we believe the known information is accurate enough (you holed yourself badly when you used the 50% hypothetical question).
"Your assessment, coming to opposite conclusions, feels to me faith- rather than evidence-based."
"Feels to you" looks like a very accurate statement there. I dont arrive to the same opinion as you but you believe the hypothesis and so feel I am wrong. Not fact as we both seem to be interested in the evidence, but instead its belief in the hypothesis which to you is good enough to believe while I am sceptical due to the hypothesis not working out well so far.
"You appear to need, very badly, to believe that climate science is a conspiracy to hoodwink us all."
Really? That I take issue with the failing hypothesis and actions taken being against the 'science' assuming it was even correct somehow seems to you like a belief on my part? Yet you are not a believer although you believe in a hypothesis which woefully struggles to understand its subject (climate) and relies on technology that doesnt exist? Yet you seem to equate my position as a belief system?
"models that predict the rate of warming based on volumes of CO2 in the atmosphere actually predict global mean temperatures (mean, that is, over time windows appropriate to discussion of climate) rather well"
And with the examples you post you missed out the 1999 hockeystick graph was exposed. The run away doom all but vanishing from conversation. Successful models are lauded as a success and failure is quietly brushed under the carpet. The marketing of our doom being changed from global cooling to global warming to run away global warming to climate change. Because the climate refuses to behave. We can of course say that last bit isnt science, but its the narrative to get the money into that science.
"And those climate models are useful for projecting global temperatures on the basis of CO2 emissions"
Ok so we have models that may or not be right (probably not). Providing an abstraction of what may or not be a problem. Giving results that may or not be in the approximate area of reality and diverging further over time. And yet the hypothetical doom scenario is to be believed because of this? I do like to remind people of the Himalayan glaciers vanishing is science, which was an off the cuff remark by a scientist that wouldnt stand by it. But its the science and we must believe! Until the truth arrives. If you would like to laugh at the science a little have a look at- https://extinctionclock.org/
But back to your 50% chance the theory might have any truth to it should we self harm, this is where I say no (and I think most people would) vs you who says yes. The normal risk assessment that a person makes about anything seemingly should go out of the window for a coin toss of nothing vs potentially a problem with no definable outcome but very expensive to try and solve with technology that doesnt exist.
Belief, belief, belief, yadda yadda.
As a scientist I don't deal in belief, but in evidence, generally of a statistical nature.
If a coin is tossed 100 times and it comes up heads 72 times do I believe it is biased? Nope. Do I believe it is unbiased? Nope. I can run statistical tests on that data, though, and they will tell me something about the probability that the coin is biased.
Again, it seems you don't really "get" science. (Or evidence. Or statistics.)
Ha, ha.
Actually, after my coin-toss example, it occurred to me that there is a popular statistical approach you may like that deals explicitly in belief - it's called Bayesian inference*. But - "beliefs" in Bayesian inference are not of the yes/no, black/white, I do/I don't variety; rather, they are probabilistic (more precisely, they are probability distributions).
In a nutshell, it works this way: before examining the evidence for a proposition, you start off with a prior belief (probability distribution) about the proposition. You then examine the evidence and "update your prior" on the basis of the evidence, according to a specific mathematical scheme (Bayes' Theorem**). This yields a posterior belief (again a probability distribution). So Bayesian inference yields answers to evaluation of evidence for a hypothesis in the form of probabilities, rather than yes/no answers. The posterior probability distribution also encapsulates the "confidence" (uncertainty, error-bars, etc.) of your evaluation.
For the coin-toss experiment, for example, you may start with the hypothesis: "The coin is unbiased". What form should your prior belief take? Here's where things can become a bit vexed: well, what do you believe about the coin - before you've seen the result of the 100 coin tosses? You might say "I don't know anything about the coin - therefore I'll grant equal credence to every possible bias that the coin might potentially have. This is called a "flat prior"***. You then crank the data and your prior through Bayes' Theorem, and you have a distribution of posterior belief. (In the coin-toss experiment with flat prior, the posterior will in fact be a Beta distribution, with parameters that reflect the mean and variance of the posterior belief.)
It's worth noting that in fact the alternative so-called "frequentist" (or Fisherian", or "Neyman-Pearson") approach to statistical inference also delivers answers in probabilistic form - in this case, the (in)famous p-values. The Bayesian and frequentist approaches to statistical inference have their respective pros and cons, and each has its devotees. Both are prevalent in science, with the frequentist approach more "traditional", particularly in the "hard" sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.). There's nothing to stop one doing both****.
How different does this all feel to the religious (God exists/God doesn't exist) flavour of belief which, sadly, seems to be what by default "belief" means to the lay person (and perhaps to yourself?)
You can have fun with probabilistic belief. E.g., off the top of my head (tomorrow I might give different answers) here are some guesses at my mean Bayesian posteriors (i.e., post evidence-to-date):
Man has set foot on the moon: 99%
The JFK assassination was an FBI/CIA/other-political plot: 15%
Elvis is alive and working in a chip shop in Skegness, Lincolnshire: 1e-20
I'll leave you to play around with your Bayesian (posterior) beliefs on evidence for AGW and it's consequences. Sure they'll look different to mine.
Anyhow... if you want to stick with the whole belief thing, I'd highly recommend you take on board the Bayesian version, rather than the religious all-or-nothing variety you appear to subscribe to. It plays much better with science and the evaluation of evidence. It also reflects much better my own "beliefs" (which you seem so terribly obsessed with) about AGW and its consequences.
Enjoy.
______________________________
*A misnomer, as it was not devised by Thomas Bayes, after whom it is named.
**A double misnomer, as not only was it not discovered by Bayes, but it is not really a theorem either.
***But... perhaps the flat prior is inappropriate? I mean, most coins you've ever seen are not biased... should you perhaps bias your prior belief towards the coin being unbiased? And if so, by how much? And what do you know about the person who produced the coin? Do you trust them? Etc., etc. (Notably, flat priors don't even exist in many scenarios.) There is thus a built-in ambiguity at the heart of Bayesian inference, which is the reason why I am not a huge fan. It does have some advantages, though, over the alternative and more popular "frequentist" inference approach.
****Bayesian analysis, though, can be mathematically more challenging, often to the point of intractability.
@LionelB
Thats a lot of text to fail at the basic question you posed- say, a 50% chance that "MMCC co2 theory might maybe somehow be right", would you gamble on it being wrong
You could pose the question as 'would you gamble on it being right'?
Lets consider the idea of do you believe in god just in case it exists? Except it is a very wrong question with a binary yes no and failing to acknowledge the actual problem/probabilities. So there is 'not believing' but on the other side there are over 100 possible gods so far and most of them exclusive to believing the others. And if you believed the wrong one and one of the others is real (and most are wrathful, especially towards false gods) you might need to assess the idea differently.
But in a less theological setting your proposed MMCC gamble question-
On the one hand there is nothing. No MMCC co2 problem. We are making ourselves poorer and killing people/harming people for no good reason. We are dedicating vast resources to a non problem.
>At best we are wasting resources for nothing and hopefully they wont be needed for something else while harming people.
>Probably we will be wasting resources and causing misery but really need to be redirecting those resources to something else maybe actual power generation and agriculture, adapting to the normal cycle of climate change or something else.
>A worse possibility is this is the elephants and the desert problem. Science says kill the elephants to slow the encroachment of the desert. Only to kill elephants and find they were necessary. Or the Mao and the sparrows as another example.
Or on the other hand maybe MMCC co2 has some possible truth. To which we dont know enough to know what the outcome would be. We do know the proposed solutions require technology that does not exist currently. Assuming belief in the 'science' we need greater economic growth, serious R&D and so far it appears we need vast resources we cannot physically extract at all to meet the deadlines. We know policies pushing for expensive technology that doesnt work is a bad idea, that policies intentionally making us poorer are bad, that mud hutters are as insane as before and should be ignored yet all this happens in the name of MMCC co2 theory.
>At best MMCC co2 theory may have some correct parts but isnt a threat.
>Probably there is some truth and maybe some changes might be useful but then comes the question of if adaptation is better than green madness.
>At worst we need to dig up fossil fuels to make cheap energy to R&D and manufacture tomorrows technology (nukes would be better but take a decade to come online) to solve the problems as best we can.
So its a very uneven equation where even if MMCC co2 theory has some truth to it only at its very extreme of apocalyptic predictions being true is there an issue and we are going about it the wrong way. Looking at the possible outcomes either the science doesnt know enough (which we know) and its not a problem, or it might have guessed some right to which we are doing the wrong things anyway.
I am not against the idea that MMCC co2 theory might get something right, but it is buried under a lot of bull. And if we assume the science is correct we are doing the wrong things to solve the problem. Heads or tails the current response seems against the so called 'science' or the current 'solutions'.
Just a (hopefully enlightening and entertaining) attempt to help you reset your naive notions on belief and statistical evidence in science.
Summary: we disagree in our assessments of the strength of evidence for AGW, for the likely consequences of AGW, and for the likely consequences of (not) taking mitigating action against AGW. We also disagree fundamentally (although this is perhaps subsumed by the evidential assessment differences) over the current state of knowledge on climate change, on its consequences, and on the impact of mitigating actions.
Weighing up those all those assessments in deciding on a course of (in)action is, it seems to me, a rather subtle game-theoretical exercise which will yield, again, probabilistic answers. I doubt either of us has the mathematical tools to perform that analysis (I know I don't - game theory is not within my field of expertise - nor, I suspect is it within yours, despite your [ahem] game efforts), and would in any case yield different answers according to our respective assessments of the evidence for the points above.
I don't think there's much more to be said (though I've a feeling you'll say it anyway). I'm not likely to shift your views, nor you mine.
"Models that are no use to the insurance industry as they cannot predict anything and have no value."
Insurance companies do indeed use climate models and scientific data to assess and manage their risks. Climate change is recognized as a significant factor that can impact various industries, including insurance.
Insurance companies use a range of models and tools to assess climate-related risks and calculate premiums. They incorporate climate data into their risk management strategies to evaluate the potential frequency and severity of weather-related events, such as hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and droughts.
By understanding the risks associated with climate change, insurers can adjust their pricing and coverage policies accordingly.
@AC
"Insurance companies"
The amusing tale of the models being run against a square in New York to predict if there will be more rain, less rain or the same. The answer was yes as the results predicted more less and the same amount of rain. And so was useless to the institutions who wanted clear and real answers.
@AC
"Are you confusing local weather forecasting with climate modelling?"
No. It was climate models which should be able to predict climate going forward. It wasnt a forecast of the weather but of climate. The models were useless. Entirely unreliable to the point of providing no actual useful answer.
"If you know nothing about either."
When the model is to predict if climate will change to cause more, less or the same amount of rainfall in a given square of New York and its answers are that there will be more, less and the same amount it shows how useless the model is. Unless you know nothing about looking at results showing all possible contradictory answers as true.
"No. It was climate models which should be able to predict climate going forward. It wasnt a forecast of the weather but of climate. The models were useless. Entirely unreliable to the point of providing no actual useful answer.
When the model is to predict if climate will change to cause more, less or the same amount of rainfall in a given square of New York and its answers are that there will be more, less and the same amount it shows how useless the model is. Unless you know nothing about looking at results showing all possible contradictory answers as true."
The statement you provided contains several misconceptions and misunderstandings. Allow me to address them and provide a rebuttal:
Climate Models vs. Weather Forecasting: Climate models and weather forecasting are two distinct fields of study. Climate models are used to simulate and project long-term climate trends, while weather forecasting focuses on short-term predictions of atmospheric conditions. It is important to differentiate between the two because they serve different purposes and utilize different methodologies.
Purpose of Climate Models: Climate models are not intended to provide specific, localized predictions about individual squares in New York. Instead, they are designed to simulate and understand the broader patterns and changes in climate over larger regions and longer time frames. Their purpose is to capture the complex interactions between various components of the Earth system, such as the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, and ice, and make projections based on different scenarios.
Uncertainty in Climate Modeling: Climate models are based on a multitude of factors, including historical data, physical laws, and known processes. However, they also involve inherent uncertainties due to incomplete knowledge, limited data availability, and the complexity of the Earth system. These uncertainties are acknowledged by the scientific community and are accounted for through ensemble modeling, which involves running multiple simulations with slight variations in initial conditions and parameters to explore a range of possible outcomes.
Contradictory Results: It is incorrect to claim that climate models produce all possible contradictory answers as true. While different models may produce variations in their projections, there is a broad consensus among climate scientists regarding the major trends and changes in the climate system. The scientific community relies on a rigorous process of peer review, validation against observations, and continuous improvement to ensure that climate models are as accurate as possible.
Usefulness of Climate Models: Climate models have proven to be valuable tools in understanding past climate changes, attributing current trends to various factors, and making projections for the future. They have successfully predicted long-term climate patterns, such as rising global temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. While uncertainties remain, climate models provide essential information for policymakers, researchers, and society to make informed decisions regarding climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.
In summary, climate models are distinct from weather forecasting and serve a different purpose. While uncertainties exist, climate models have provided valuable insights into long-term climate trends and are continually refined to improve their accuracy. Their usefulness lies in understanding broad patterns and changes in the climate system, rather than providing precise localized predictions.
@AC
"The statement you provided contains several misconceptions and misunderstandings. Allow me to address them and provide a rebuttal:"
"Climate Models vs. Weather Forecasting:"
Hence the long term trend should have provided a clear result. This is about climate not weather which is why the climate models failed, because they couldnt predict the climate trend.
"Purpose of Climate Models: Climate models are not intended to provide specific, localized predictions about individual squares in New York"
Aka all the doom bollocks can be disregarded when discussing MMCC co2 theory which removes the concerns about it. Remember that we should be getting more extreme weather events due to MMCC co2 theory, but you just said it cant so we can bin the claims leading MMCC co2 theory. That would be an extraordinary admission if the pushers said that.
"Uncertainty in Climate Modeling: Climate models are based on a multitude of factors, including historical data, physical laws, and known processes."
I like this one, as in I agree with you. They are based on what we know and what we know is vastly incomplete. The variations when running the models might explain how it failed to predict as I mentioned.
"Contradictory Results: It is incorrect to claim that climate models produce all possible contradictory answers as true."
Except its true. When the result is any change = MMCC co2 is true and no change = MMCC co2 is true we know it is bull. Maybe there is some truth to the theory but we wouldnt know for all the wild claims.
"Usefulness of Climate Models: Climate models have proven to be valuable tools in understanding past climate changes"
This past data that gets manipulated in amusing ways and NASA got pulled up for basically claiming we are pretty much dead with an 'adjusted' graph that even the IPCC rejected as bunkum? And still there is nothing wrong in trying to understand the climate, but our severe lack of knowledge is why the models often demonstrate we dont know enough.
"In summary, climate models are distinct from weather forecasting and serve a different purpose."
Trying to claim it was a weather issue not climate when its a climate modelling of how the climate will be in the future in an area of the world is to claim the models are as useless as I point out. If the error bars are so wide the models cannot predict the climate then they cannot be relied on to predict the climate. Basing policy on something we know doesnt work is stupid.
The DUP muppet who said that is a twat following the Trump/Bojo book of stupidity and in Russia's pocket.
Solar panels do decrease in their efficiency - .25% for each 1deg over 25C, but lets not keep facts from a stupid headline as I want to keep my gas chums over in Russia happy
If they were so bad, why are they all over the place and some of the largest farms in the sunniest (and frequently hotest) countries ?
Good questions.
It's entirely possible, of course, that the answers might actually be "yes" but they have absolutely no idea how to go about it. The worrying thing is that it's a long time since we've seen anyone at the top of either main party who had any clue. Success in politics goes to those who pander best to their grass-roots members' factionalisms with unrealistic promises.
spot on , what the hell is
" £100 million ($125 million) investment into the Foundation Model Taskforce"
Going to do? anyone know? Rishi?
Sit around on that big pile of cash thinking "ooh , I hope no ones developing AI that might go awry"
Send flyers out?
This requires some worldwide co-operative effort , not just a £100m throwing into an office in westminster somewhere.
,Sir Paul McCartney says artificial intelligence has enabled a 'final' Beatles song
Tomorrow, the AI will be announcing that Paul McCartney has been sacked from the band, and it will be releasing the first of 5,000,000 new Beatles albums.
Is anyone really believing this is anything other than the government making sure it can maintain or steer the status quo for the benefit of its own supporters? And who can trust a government that wants us to exit the ECHR, ignores the Genva Convention on refugees, bans experts (including those in AI like Kate Devlin) that don't agree with their policies and is busy cracking down on the right to protest?
And what tech or AI experts would want to set foot here on any kind of visa when the level of government incited hostility towards immigrants is at an all time high? The government has made it clear as day they're not welcome.
This band of shysters are entirely unsuited to regulating AI in any form!
I don't think the government actually wants to exit the ECHR.
I think it does want us (or sufficent numbers of us) to believe that
1) immigrants are dragging our country down, ruining it for 'hard working families' (though not the undeserving poor)
2) that the ECHR is the only thing (apart from bleeding heart liberals, lefty-lawyers, 'remoaners', His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the BBC and so forth) that stops the government from preventing this
3)if Labour were to get in they would immediately sign a billion-year-contract with the EU
And it's convenient that if they did try, if the attempt was blocked then it would play to the image of them as the victims.
How very nice it is to hear that there be government pledges of a healthy chicken feed of one thousand million pounds [£1bn] to attract, and ideally retain, AI, but it all amounts to nothing but a fraudulent Ponzi scam fronted by the Cabinet Office and Conservative Party mobsters and ministers whenever there be no clear trails and live tales of where and to whom all of the newly minted money goes.
If you talk the talk but cannot walk the walk are you clearly identified as a cheap fraud ..... and to further not realise that AI recognises it immediately upon utterance, destroys any likelihood of the situation being resolved and delivered as has clearly just been dreamt of, and then various talking heads engaged and paid to espouse as a future available and achievable virtualised reality to the assembled, easily misled, ignorant masses.
J’accuse .... and would concur if alien help is ever needed to prevent a vast series of monumental disasters.
How long must you continue to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune before you realise and accept the inescapable evident truth that constantly surrounds you ....... Politicians lie all the time and practically never ever deliver what they promise to achieve and do for you. Open your eyes and minds, dummies, for it is gonna get suddenly worse for all unless you do, and do something positively radical about it.
a set quanity of AI
And looking at the various problems and how they all seem to have a common link, I'd say the number of AIs we need is about 650
and then we can make the 650 MPs redundant saving the country millions in direct expenses and billions from the loonatic decisions the MPs seem to make on a regular basis
All data that the NHS collects about its citizens actually belongs to the government, with minor modifications for GDPR.
The NHS has a long history of collaborating with Google deep mind: While most attention is on Whizzy Chat GTP, The real value of AI is in the realm of Healthcare.
*Anything to deflect from the wholesale scraping of the internet – from books to social media posts to articles to photos to music – to train these models on everyone else's work, right?"
You mean like meatsacks have been doing for ages? Reading the literature is accepted academic process. Studying - and copying - the work of established artists is how new artists learn. Ditto with authors - you won't find many of them that aren't voracious readers. Musicians? They can all tell you whose music has influenced them. Classically trained singers spend hours studying the work of others of their kind, analysing the technique.
If you make material available on the web, you can reasonably expect that it will be consumed by humans, search engine bots and now AI thingies. If you don't want that to happen, add a "do not copy for any purpose" notice to the footer of every page, stick no index in the meta data, block the bots in htaccess.
Not that I expect those efforts to be all that effective, but they give you a good position to sue the AI companies when you find out they sucked your data anyway.
As for Sunak, he's just as much of an obnoxious little prawn as the rest of our political overseers. Far more interested in grabbing and holding on to power than doing anything useful.
Is his wife’s family’s business not worth £900 million?
Given the state the Conservative Party has left the country in after over a decade of unchallenged leadership, you wouldn't want to be giving Rishi any notions that he may be welcomed into the family business ..... and thus is his present job at £165k no less than is deserved ....... although of course many would argue overly generous whenever compared to his talents.
How about making the tech that the gov has already made a mess of work. Horizon - Royal Mail (screw the sub postmasters so they lose lives and homes and no acceptance or apology or consequences) and Universal Credit (wait 6 weeks for the tech to know your are unemployed), not to mention the completely time consuming "HR" (alias finance inspired) programs that cause more work and headaches than pencil and paper ever did. If these relatively simple systems don't work at scale and have caused untold and un-compensated misery for the least powerful, then we are truly up the electronic creek without a paddle, or a creek!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
