You seem to be arguing more-so about Accelerating change than Moore's law.

Back to Moore's law: I am not arguing against limits of Moore's law. I take issue with Michio Kaku's interpretation what it means when the limits of Moore's law begin to realise itself. In his rhetoric, a collapse in Moore's law will precipitate a collapse in society.

Maybe I've been watching a different Michio Kaku than you. Your's sounds like an optimistic futurist. The one I've watched peddles end-of-times by clinging to an narrow-mindedness that your Michio Kaku presumably rails against.

Anyway what is there for the average citizen to be beware of? We are already essentially dealing with our appetite for expanding compute power beyond Moore's law already; i.e. steady increase in parallel computing, on die and across networks, and steady efficiency improvements, i.e. joules per flop.

Not just limited to SA. Seems like most science journalism and popularization is focused on Malthusian pessimism.

Something more relevant to slashdot that makes my blood boil is every time Michio Kaku opens his mouth bangs on about how the end of Moore's law is imminent and this is going to have destructive repercussions for civilization. Give. It. A. Rest.

These folk are utterly unimaginative. Completely underestimate our combined ingenuity and overestimate the hurdles infront of us. Fortunately there are some popularisers out there who buck this trend, inspire both wonder and optimism just like the figures of my childhood did (e.g. Carl Sagan). i.e. Brian Cox

Moberg graph has 2 features Mann's lacks. A distinct MWP period which is as warm as it is now, and a LIA period. All described in the abstract. Mann's creative master stroke was to disappear the MWP and LIA making the current warming look unprecedented. If you don't allow your eye to be fooled by the overlaying of instrumental data, then you'll see that Moberg plot is undulating, and there is nothing particularly unusual or out of place with the modern uptrend of the proxy component of the plot. And this is validated in the abstract which you continue to willfully ignore even though I have explicitly drawn your attention to it.

But I sympathise with your sub-conscious desire to see hockey sticks in graphs. I used to do alot of timebase measurement, DB performance etc. Everyone sees what they want to see in the data. Even, admittedly myself though I try hard to lift myself above my prejudices. As for CAGW, I am not a denialist, as you put it, I am a luke warmer. I believe we are manipulating the global climate, I just reject the idea there is any real risk that this manipulation it is catastrophic, hockey sticks are tipping points are all junk science, contradicted by evidence. I consider adaptation a better strategy than mitigation, particularly since a) the climate to some degree at least naturally variable anyway inspite of Mann's best efforts to suggest otherwise, and b) we are going to move off fossil fuels in a generation or two anyway; CAGW or not.

None of this necessarily falsifies CAGW of course, civilization as we know it may still end because of warmageddon so cling tight to your pillow at night. The salient point is that Mann's work is mainly advocacy, based on dubious methods, and that as easy as it is to tease out hockey sticks, non hockey stick graphs can be teased out too. Our understanding of the reality of how the climate system behaves over long time scales, or geological time scales are frustratingly limited, and inspite of what the vain-glorious Mann and his ardent supporters believe, remains frustratingly limited.

Finally your attitude you've displayed here is appalling. You are like a fundamentalist, hurling stupefying rage and invective abuse at an abortion clinic. I admit I used a bit of snark in our 'conversation', but I treated you with respect and tried to argue your points not you personally, but you are unable to emotionally manage yourself and reciprocate a similar courtesy. You are pathetic and people like you are also part of the reason why I speak out against this idoicy.

Ah yes, grafting proxy data and instrumental data together, without regard for their frequency response behaviors.

Gee and you guys wonder why nobody takes you warmists serious any more.

Hint: try reading the abstract

Piss weak opinions such as yours are what compel me to do what is frowned upon by the less than polite society of intelligentsia, to openly critique the holy screed of the Church of Climatology.

• Steve McIntyre has never published an alternative proxy reconstruction as you imply. All he has done is demonstrate that Mann's work is balls; on multiple counts.
• There are plenty of papers that claim to reveal hockey sticks. There are plenty of papers that reveal MWP/LWP ups and downs not unlike current temps. McIntyre has never authored any such paper
• Whether or not McIntyre has a professional history in heavy industry is utterly irrelevant. Just a adhom/appeal to authority irreverent fallacy. Are you trying to imply McIntyre is somehow involved in a fossil fuel conspiracy? haha. You realise mining and fossil fuel are not even the same thing right? Arguably fossil fuel is mined, and some mining processes are energy intensive, but I suspect you are probably doing something alot of lightweights do, interchanging them as though they are equivalent.
• McIntyre, unlike Mann is skilled in statistical methods. This is relevant
• McIntyre, unlike Mann understands his intellectual limits and routinely defers to and seeks expertise of actual experts in statistical methods. Again unlike Mann. i.e. his regular co-authors, e.g. Mckitrick (economics professor) and many others.

The original hockey stick relies on broken PCA.

Of course other hockey sticks have subsequently been teased out of the data, therefore Mann's hockey sticks were right all along. Quant Suff.

The high latitude argument is frivolous.

The data fails to track what they hope it tracks, so they go on a fishing expedition seeking for some sort of discriminator so they can further throw out 'inconvenient' data.

Firstly, the discriminator has little explanatory power.

Secondly, the _retained_ southern tree ring data is polluted with a species that is _sensitive_ to fertilization. They retained data that has other signal influences, instead of removing it.

Instead of eliminating the unwanted signal as all the hand waving implies, they explicitly rely on it to get the shape they need.

But at least it creates the shape they wanted.

Fact is tree are dubious thermometers, and that the 'climate team' continue try to polish this turd speaks volumes about the quality of their professional output.

A long term project implies that a viable plan is in play. Mars colonisation is a bride to far at this point in time.

When Elon Musk said 'I'm planning to retire to Mars', that is a personal vision and goal. It is inspiring, I wish him well.

But when Branson says ""In my lifetime, I'm determined to being a part of starting a population on Mars,"; he is ego tripping. What's the first city on Mars going to be called? Bransonville? Join the back of the queue of all the othe snake oil salesmen and ego trippers promising to deliver Mars; who all somehow manage to get a story on slashdot every month or so. Impressed? Not one bit.

"Alarmist" is an "alarmist". Whether or not it is a neo Malthusian predicting ruin of civilization via environmental cataclysm or a neo conservative predicting national ruin because of progressive/left wing policymaking.

An "alarmist" is anyone who irrationally clings to a conviction of ruin and fails to acknowledge the presense evidence that contradicts their position.

Nice try, trying to characterize your ideological opponents as rabble rousers.

What an artful strawman.

Of course whenever or not climate change is anthropogenic is important. The faithful assume it is, and ergo it logically follows that decarbonisation is a meaningful and effective mitigation strategy. But if it isn't anthropogenic then decarbonization may be ineffective. So a disupute over whether or the 'A' in CAGW is reality is an important dispute to resolve.

I find a number of tacit assumptions in your post while 'deniers' such as myself wish to explore more carefully a) relevant metrics of the global climate system (i.e. temp) are predictable, b) it is in our power to steer and influence those metrics and c) we are unwittingly steering it towards a configuration that will significantly harm ourselves.

Your 'denier' strawman fails to capture the true concerns of most 'deniers', that for myself at least essentially want I want is a rigourous and thorough cost/benefit analysis that doesn't read like unhinged doomsday environmental activist advocacy.

The only plausable explanation I can think of is that Sweden wish to save face. They wish to demonstrate that they are not USA lapdogs which is why they are pursuing the interview on their own soil, with every intent of letting Assange on his way if they feel there is no crime worth pursuing; maybe they've probably already decided this is no crime to pursue but they want to go through the theatre of it. They do not wish to make guarantees because this means they are permitting themselves to be treated in bad faith and saving face means forcing your antagonists to treat you in good faith. Imagine if a guarantee is given, Assange supporters would say something along lines of that without the guarantees Assange was good as gitmo'd; an insult to Sweden. Is my explanation plausable? I don't know. The dynamics of mere observation of this drama have in all probability modified both the goals and strategies of all the agents involved.