Intel CPU prices going up?

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven.

Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been
changing for billions of years. Human induced climate change is very
much open to debate.

I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen
but you will find information about it at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite
inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent
accuracy.

What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.

Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png
Which model would you like to rely upon?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Chris wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.

Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons)
from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far
greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global
warming failed due to the current cooling).

Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange

Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't
tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving
grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change
also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They
deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do.

Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short
time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans. We
should be going into another ice age but gamma radiation hence cloud
cover has increased to delay it. Gee, yeah, when we do get into the
next ice age, we'll get taxed for not outputting enough emissions to
keep the planet in our comfort zone and prevent reduction in crop volume
(if we're still here in the very short 100,000 years from now).

Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which
Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements

Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around
atop of it.

On 10/16/2018 01:55 AM, Chris wrote:

[snip]

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.

That reminds me of a movie I saw once, where there was a worldwide
shortage of oxygen and the government's solution was to burn down the
forests (with the idea that trees were competitors).

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven.

Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been
changing for billions of years.

Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest
that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is
frankly frightening.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are
approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum

Human induced climate change is very
much open to debate.

Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the
evidence for it.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html

This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community
is unprecedented.

194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the
man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too
late.

I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen
but you will find information about it at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite
inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent
accuracy.

Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better.
Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I
stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about
flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures.

Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very
credible, I'm afraid.

What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.

Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png
Which model would you like to rely upon?

It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial
assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations
from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures
significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being
no warming.

VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.

Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons)
from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far
greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global
warming failed due to the current cooling).

Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!

Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange

Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't
tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving
grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change
also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They
deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do.

Renewable energy sources are taxed, including solar.

Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short
time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans.

Er, no. Those are exactly the type of timescales that climate scientists
look at. E.g
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which
Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements

Just like the solar sun spot theory, it doesn't explain what we're
observing as earth as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of change
is far too rapid.

Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around
atop of it.

Don't be daft, this isn't about tax.

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
[]
deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do.
[]
Do they need to - isn't it skewed enough on its own?

"One cannot hope to bribe or twist
thank god! the British journalist.

But when you see what he will do
UNbribed, there's no occasion to!"

I forget who coined that little ditty, but it was I think in the earlier
part of the 20th century. (And of course it applies to a lot more than
just the British media!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public [UK citizens
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.) only]
https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...BYobumelL9J54c

.... she has never contracted A-listeria or developed airs and graces. Kathy
Lette on Kylie, RT 2014/1/11-17

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven.

Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been
changing for billions of years.

Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest
that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is
frankly frightening.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from
adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the
quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The
British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix
them at the next major review.

You will find more info at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/


CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are
approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum

There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the
argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means
settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in
CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as
popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are
rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static
for the last twenty years or so. To compound the matter the heat
content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is
no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for
possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth.
Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun.

Human induced climate change is very
much open to debate.

Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the
evidence for it.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html

This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community
is unprecedented.

There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this
situation.

194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the
man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their
promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the
money is expected to flow from.

The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too
late.

I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen
but you will find information about it at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite
inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent
accuracy.

Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better.

What are you? Are you even a scientist? In fact, if you knew more
about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would
know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown
light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data.
There are few better.

Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I
stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about
flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures.

Pity. You might have learned something.

Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very
credible, I'm afraid.

Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to
direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing
directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't
understand what you are getting at.

What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.

Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png
Which model would you like to rely upon?

It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial
assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations
from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures
significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being
no warming.

Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.

Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf

Then read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge
"The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it
was that they were directed to find.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
[...]

... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
conclusions.

I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)

Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.

Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons)
from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far
greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global
warming failed due to the current cooling).

Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!

You need to read more widely.

Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange

Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't
tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving
grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change
also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They
deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do.

Renewable energy sources are taxed, including solar.

Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short
time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans.

Er, no. Those are exactly the type of timescales that climate scientists
look at. E.g
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which
Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements

Just like the solar sun spot theory, it doesn't explain what we're
observing as earth as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of change
is far too rapid.

Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around
atop of it.

Don't be daft, this isn't about tax.

Isn't it? See what happens when some of these study grants are
removed.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens