Roy W. Spencer, who was mentioned as a co-author with Mr. Christy, also was a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and was Rush Limbaugh’s go to expert to refute climate change hysteria on the EIB Radio Network.
Yes, I believe that someone on SubStack calling it a “souped up browser” was right. Bottom line is that we Need data centers to maintain information. It is the infrastructure of future research.
Yes. I use AI extensively, and I'd say "I don't know how I got by before," but that's not true. Before, I did about 1/5 as much, and there were whole hosts of things I filed under "someday" or "never". Now I'm getting those lists done.
The AI can imitate creativity, but it isn't actually creative. It cannot replace judgment or taste. Everything that makes you special remains unique to you, and that's what people value more than ever.
But grunt work? Shoot, I can do $30,000/year tasks all day long for $200/month. It's mind-blowing.
Even there, though, that doesn't mean I need fewer people. It means I need MORE people, similarly up-powered, also doing 5X as much, and using their judgment and taste to herd their armies of AI agents.
It's a new world. But we've done this with lower-level tech many times before over the last 300 years.
Amazing! I love how new tools change the way we think. It is truly an exciting experience, much like watching our first landing on the moon 1969, the Apollo 11 mission and Buzz Aldrin.
👏👏👏 An excellent article by Kevin Stocklin! God bless Dr. John Christy and Roy W. Spencer for their invaluable work! The scientists have long gotten Climate Change completely wrong! It’s real, but it’s going to be nowhere near as bad as they claim!
I don’t know enough to judge whether looking at averages is better or worse than looking at extremes. My lived experience/memory tells me that the climate has changed significantly. Certainly the dust bowl time may have been more extreme but it’s definitely warmer than it was only 25 years ago.
It certainly isn't here, unless the comparison is to the winters of 1977 and 1978 when we lost 40 school days to snow, and all the "settled science" was in the direction of a looming Ice Age. But they quit talking about that by the time I was in middle school, and shortly after invented Global Warming (at that time "the Greenhouse Effect").
Thing is, I have a photo of three U.S. nuclear submarines surfaced in open water at the North Pole from the late 1950s. I also live just down the beach from Orange Beach, Alabama, which was named that for its orange groves. This entire area is far too cold now for oranges, which means the world is a lot cooler than it was not that long ago.
In any case, the satellite data shows no warming. It has never shown warming. Russian scientists believe in Global Cooling again. The whole thing is a scam.
Interesting. I’m seeing orange groves on the central coast of California, years ago Santa Barbara was the line. Used to reliably get snow once a year in Western Washington. No more. Different realities for different geographies I guess. Snowpacks shrinking pretty much everywhere. Glacier, the Alps, Rockies, Andes etc. Lysenko was a Russian scientist, no? But seriously, if it is a scam and we treat it as real the worst case scenario is somewhat slower GDP growth. On the other hand if it isn’t a scam the worst case scenario is brutal. Climate refugees, immigration pressure, geopolitical conflict, etc. I’d always assumed that I’d die before the chickens came home to roost but now I’m not so sure.
Reason did a study on the cost of mitigation. They found the cost of incremental mitigation over time was actually less than any of the usual short-term proposals.
I am in fundamental agreement with the 2021 policy study you provided (thanks!). The status quo is the challenge, for example "reduce subsidies and tax expenditures for energy and energy related technologies". Fossil fuels receive direct subsidies of $20-30 billion annually. Many were justifiable at first but even in the most obvious cases our system has proven to be unable to sunset them. The result is market distortion - they are more competitive than they should be. The very innovation that Reason supports is thus being undercut.
The 2021 study notes that batteries are not competitive with natural gas generation for renewable backup power. Thanks to innovation that is no longer true globally (in the US interconnect charges, permitting cost etc. still make batteries the LCOE higher). And we keep shooting ourselves in the foot - literally paying companies to NOT build cost effective wind power.
We've been the most technologically and economically dynamic country in the world and that has kept us great. Clean energy - including nuclear and geothermal - is the future. If not because of climate change then because of the externalities of fossil fuels and if not for that plain old economic efficiency.
We've turned energy policy into an ideological war that seeks to suppress better sources of energy. Its as if we'd clung to whale oil for lamps after oil was discovered in Pennsylvania. Makes me crazy.
Roy W. Spencer, who was mentioned as a co-author with Mr. Christy, also was a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and was Rush Limbaugh’s go to expert to refute climate change hysteria on the EIB Radio Network.
Yes. Remarkable guy.
Follow the science.
Unless it's about to collide with the narrative.
Then swerve the science, so that it's traveling parallel to the narrative.
Then follow the science.
Real research requires a curious mind. Is Ai curious? Is humanity moving away from ingenuity with Ai?
I don't think so. AI is a tool. It's basically a fancy calculator.
Yes, I believe that someone on SubStack calling it a “souped up browser” was right. Bottom line is that we Need data centers to maintain information. It is the infrastructure of future research.
Yes. I use AI extensively, and I'd say "I don't know how I got by before," but that's not true. Before, I did about 1/5 as much, and there were whole hosts of things I filed under "someday" or "never". Now I'm getting those lists done.
The AI can imitate creativity, but it isn't actually creative. It cannot replace judgment or taste. Everything that makes you special remains unique to you, and that's what people value more than ever.
But grunt work? Shoot, I can do $30,000/year tasks all day long for $200/month. It's mind-blowing.
Even there, though, that doesn't mean I need fewer people. It means I need MORE people, similarly up-powered, also doing 5X as much, and using their judgment and taste to herd their armies of AI agents.
It's a new world. But we've done this with lower-level tech many times before over the last 300 years.
It's a new world.
Something So many people don't get.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgZhxp5AcYBaLkgK4v9hr0EOjmU6K4aS1XlaZzDOLi_Q&s
GPS 1979 and that was Top Secret!
Today its in the dashboard of your car. And tells you where to go.
Amazing! I love how new tools change the way we think. It is truly an exciting experience, much like watching our first landing on the moon 1969, the Apollo 11 mission and Buzz Aldrin.
👏👏👏 An excellent article by Kevin Stocklin! God bless Dr. John Christy and Roy W. Spencer for their invaluable work! The scientists have long gotten Climate Change completely wrong! It’s real, but it’s going to be nowhere near as bad as they claim!
America 250 Film Club 🇺🇸🫡❤️🤍💙🎆🎇🎥🎬📽️🎞️ This Edition: Classic Horror
• The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
• Nosferatu
• The Golem
• King Kong
• Godzilla
• Dracula
• Frankenstein
• The Wolf Man
• The Mummy
• The Invisible Man
• The Creature from the Black Lagoon
• Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
• The Old Dark House
• The Bodysnatchers
• The Island of Lost Souls
• The Hunchback of Notre Dame
• The Phantom of the Opera
• Night of the Living Dead
• Psycho
• Werewolf of London
• The Bride of Frankenstein
• Jaws
• The Thing
• The Mummy’s Hand
• The Curse of Frankenstein
• Horror of Dracula
• Abbott & Costello Meet the Monsters
• The Curse of the Werewolf
• It Came from Outer Space
• Mark of the Vampire
• The Black Cat
• Vampyr
• Freaks
I don’t know enough to judge whether looking at averages is better or worse than looking at extremes. My lived experience/memory tells me that the climate has changed significantly. Certainly the dust bowl time may have been more extreme but it’s definitely warmer than it was only 25 years ago.
It certainly isn't here, unless the comparison is to the winters of 1977 and 1978 when we lost 40 school days to snow, and all the "settled science" was in the direction of a looming Ice Age. But they quit talking about that by the time I was in middle school, and shortly after invented Global Warming (at that time "the Greenhouse Effect").
Thing is, I have a photo of three U.S. nuclear submarines surfaced in open water at the North Pole from the late 1950s. I also live just down the beach from Orange Beach, Alabama, which was named that for its orange groves. This entire area is far too cold now for oranges, which means the world is a lot cooler than it was not that long ago.
In any case, the satellite data shows no warming. It has never shown warming. Russian scientists believe in Global Cooling again. The whole thing is a scam.
Interesting. I’m seeing orange groves on the central coast of California, years ago Santa Barbara was the line. Used to reliably get snow once a year in Western Washington. No more. Different realities for different geographies I guess. Snowpacks shrinking pretty much everywhere. Glacier, the Alps, Rockies, Andes etc. Lysenko was a Russian scientist, no? But seriously, if it is a scam and we treat it as real the worst case scenario is somewhat slower GDP growth. On the other hand if it isn’t a scam the worst case scenario is brutal. Climate refugees, immigration pressure, geopolitical conflict, etc. I’d always assumed that I’d die before the chickens came home to roost but now I’m not so sure.
Reason did a study on the cost of mitigation. They found the cost of incremental mitigation over time was actually less than any of the usual short-term proposals.
There's a 2021 policy study: https://reason.org/policy-study/evidence-based-policies-to-slow-climate-change/
There's also an earlier policy study from 1993: https://reason.org/policy-study/global-warming/
I am in fundamental agreement with the 2021 policy study you provided (thanks!). The status quo is the challenge, for example "reduce subsidies and tax expenditures for energy and energy related technologies". Fossil fuels receive direct subsidies of $20-30 billion annually. Many were justifiable at first but even in the most obvious cases our system has proven to be unable to sunset them. The result is market distortion - they are more competitive than they should be. The very innovation that Reason supports is thus being undercut.
The 2021 study notes that batteries are not competitive with natural gas generation for renewable backup power. Thanks to innovation that is no longer true globally (in the US interconnect charges, permitting cost etc. still make batteries the LCOE higher). And we keep shooting ourselves in the foot - literally paying companies to NOT build cost effective wind power.
We've been the most technologically and economically dynamic country in the world and that has kept us great. Clean energy - including nuclear and geothermal - is the future. If not because of climate change then because of the externalities of fossil fuels and if not for that plain old economic efficiency.
We've turned energy policy into an ideological war that seeks to suppress better sources of energy. Its as if we'd clung to whale oil for lamps after oil was discovered in Pennsylvania. Makes me crazy.