Arguing with me in your mind, widdle cawardette? There are many different levels, and don't for a New York minute think that if you stand with Trump, means you are a conservative. All you are is a widdle caward, who was a prime example of the need for your daddy to pull out before he came, and done the world a favor by spilling his splooge on the floor, where at least it could be recycled without producing a waste of oxygen.

Or are you a fifth grader, thinking that he can effectively ytroll a person who can grind him down, and feed him to Facebook as an example of the need for a license to have cildrfen.

If you are that fifth grader, make certain you give mommy and daddy their laptop back, ans make certain to delete those special pictures you enjoy so much. Don't want mommy and daddy to think you need chemically castrates, yaknow, Oh yeah, and mommy wanted to know why some on the keys on her laptop got stuck, and why your socks are all stuck together. Jezuz H Kryste , coward, at least use paper towels and toss them in your future prospects folder AKA the trash.

Haven't done a Saturday night Curb Stomping in a while - I think you so very much!

And yet, it extends beyond the stupid. My wife, who is very smart, (VP at a construction associated corporation) but very non-technical, is scared AF about AI. And me trying to explain my "insiders outlook" just doesn't sway her.

She looks at me askance sometimes when I tell her I use AI, but think the concepts at the moment are wrong...."How can you be both, honey?" And trying to explain localized AI to a person who thinks it's all about humongous Data Centers using up groundwater, destroying farmland, and requiring as much power as the rest of the country uses for themselves...... damn, I wish I could get her off of Facebook!

Otherwise, yes, there are plenty of stupid people around.

Keep in mind, I have no issues with people being against Data Centers. When the paradigm changes, and it won't be too long, those centers will be pretty useless - maybe repurposed as a fulfillment center?

Doctor Olsoc notes that one does not have to be conservative to be batshit crazy. Our friend needs some thorazine,

I was waiting for a simple eloquent post to hit, among all of the conjecture posted, like we're all gonna die!, or this is the birth of skynet!

Yes, the AI bubble paradigm is likely to collapse before too long. In its present form, it is unsustainable, in my estimation will create a positive feedback loop that ends up requiring infinite power demands to store a huge amount of self referential data.

It isn't that there is no use for AI, there definitely is. But not like the tech bros are trying to create, which is more like a grift bubble. There's going to be a hella lot of money vaporizing overnight one of these days.

Is avoiding futbol head injuries un- European? https://www.sciencealert.com/s...

Check your narrative

Using a Sarah Palin quote from almost 20 years ago? And no serious scientist is looking at injecting sulfuric or hydrochloric aerosol atmospheric injection for the thousands of years it would take for the residual greenhouse gases to drop to 1750 levels. The results would be worse than the present AGW issues.

Hmm, maybe if I use a couple red laser pointers stuck up my nose, I'll achieve at least some beneficial effect. I'll look like a walrus, but considering what I see walking around these days, that might be considered kewel.

I've seen ads for women's panties with red-light features. So it's here now, and people are using this kind of stuff.

Now after it is proven that it does nothing, the true believers will start moving the goalposts. This test didn't work, they'll claim it was the wrong shade of red, and on and on.

And we do live in an age where we've moved beyond tinfoil hats, and there are ads online of faraday cage caps. Actual metal mesh under what looks like a normal cap.

People are doing it for him. Never knew Slashdot had so many stupid people, and paid shills. Regardless, I hope they enjoy what he has given them.

Chew on this a while - So should the Country you hate abandon the incredible amounts of freight we move so you can go to the places the track goes? Not a hyperbolic question.

The thing is years ago, the US went hard to freight train delivery. Europe is by law to have a maximum freight train length of around a half kilometer. Here a 5 kilometer train is pretty usual. And despite the fixation some have on HSR, our trains move on teh straightaway. I've regularly clocked 65 mile an hour many miles long stacked freight trains a I travel beside them along the Juniata River. Many carry long lines of trailers, ready to be unloaded and travel the last miles on trucks Note that your system requires last miles for the passengers to get to or away from. There are places it makes sense, and there are places it does not.

So it is a different world, mon ami. Europeans and you appear to believe that the USA abandoned railroads. we just went in a different direction. One you think is completely wrong. It isn't wrong at all. It functions as designed, and in a manner that serves the country, not just urbanites. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Who is shouting? Seems you are doubling down on tribal. I loathe tribes. What tribe am I in?

FWIW, the tribalism of many people might just end humanity much better than any AGW could.

And not to put too fine a point on it, I really don't care if anyone is listening. I sometimes troll a bit for my personal entertainment, and very seldom get angry. But if humanity goes splat, they will just be another of the 99.9 percent of all life that goes extinct.

Define almost everywhere.

Interesting comparison.

I find that the underestimation is influenced heavily by greed and wishful thinking. in both cases. I recall listening to an economic "expert" being interviewed on NPR, around late 2006. He claimed that in the future, people were just going to continually refi their houses to buy things. I gave a "What the actual FSCK?" while driving. Here's an expert handing out an equation that rapidly ends up with a result of infinity. Not to mention not everyone owned real estate.

Yet people were busy refinancing and taking out mortgages that appeared to think that humans live forever, and handing out ARM mortgages to people who were never going to be able to repay them. We bought our house in the mid 90's, and it was starting. No ARM, 50 K less than what Mrs Real estate agent wanted us to pay. I asked the mortgage originator how a system where the originator had no responsibility for the repayment of the loan. He shrugged, didn't care, not his job.

I knew there was a positive feedback loop bubble forming when I saw the first ad on Yahoo telling us about financing a million dollars with a 250 dollars a month payback. Then the 50 year mortgages. Then....

I was told I was a nervous Nellie, didn't understand how things worked. Then the shit hit the fan.

Back to AGW, it is similar, greed and wishful thinking on one side, and doomers on the other.

The answer to what will happen is somewhere in the middle. The earth will warm, some high priced real estate will go underwater in the literal sense, And we mainly need to stop as much de-sequestering CO2 as we can. Some mitigation can work a little, but the roller coaster ride has begun. Note, some scientists speak of "tipping points". My thesis that we tipped in the mid 80's.

Perhaps a less emotional response is in order.

The concentration of the so called greenhouse gases in an atmosphere affecting that atmosphere's energy retention characteristics is science so settled, it would cause a lot of physics to be proven wrong if found out that all that science is wrong.

And over time, the amounts of greenhouse gases has alternated, and the average temperatures have as well.

Some times, the life during those times has influenced the amounts and therefore the energy retention. The carboniferous and Pennsylvanian ages plant life started out gobbling CO2, and then sequestering it. By the end of the Pennsylvanian age, the world had cooled to the point that it didn't support as much plant life.

I have a minor quibble with the idea some people have fixating on1750 as the "proper" amount of CO2. It is the start of wide scale de-sequestering of CO2 at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It is a starting point, not a "right amount".

I have a huge quibble with the idea that some have of acidifying the atmosphere with sulfuric or hydrochloric acidic aerosols to emplace anti-greenhouse "gases" to force the temperatures lower. Given that the process would take thousands of years of the resultant acid rain, making species extinct, and heavily acidify the oceans, no - just no. And if we stopped? Right back to rapid warming.

Purposeful acidification of the atmosphere is every bit as stupid as AGW denial. We have a situation we accidentally created. We need to understand that, ramp down our de-sequestration, and not make it worse. It's gonna be a ride for certain.

So a person who believes that the energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere are based on that atmosphere's composition that would be me. it is easily provable, and has been known for hundreds of years. It has even been put to commercial use for around 100 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You are calling me an emotional tribalist and that I am shutting off input?

I only ask that deniers explain how an easily provable fact of physics fails on a global level. I cannot see emotions or tribalism in that question.

If they can provide a thesis, and work to prove it, and I asm shown to be wrong, I'll become a AGW denier, and wave their proof around without a second thought.

This has been proven in a lot of 5th grade science fair experiments, as well as known for around 200 some years. So I've come up with a differential analysis.

They don't care. As long as they can have things in a sort of stasis, like they want cheap gasoline and fuel oil, they don't give a damn about the future. I had a friend who was so far right he stunk, sum it up like this during an argument: "Fuck the people in the future, they can find their own energy!"

Sort of ironic that some of the deniers have caused gasoline and oil to be ridiculously high, but that's a different subject. Point is that it really does take intentional stupidity to deny the facts at this point. They are known, they have been known for some time, and until we can somehow take a vote on the laws of physics, they will not change

I have found the best approach to the deniers is to ask one question: "the so called greenhouse gases can be shown to have an effect in both the laboratory and in greenhouses - what is the mechanism that causes it to fail on a global scale?"

I get crickets in response. Some try to change it to "Michael Mann is an asshole". He isn't, and that is not an answer.

Because the claim that some elementary school observable physics fails on a global level, and that is the scientific base after climate denial, is extraordinary. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.