Pcdefender said..

The People's Republic of China maintains the world's most sophisticated surveillance state. With the possible exception of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), no state knows more about the activities of its people.

There are in China, for instance, over 700 million surveillance cameras in its SkyNet system, about one camera for every two residents. Those devices are being connected to one centrally controlled system as the regime stitches together a nationwide social credit system to monitor every person in the People's Republic.

In addition, the regime uses the 1.69 billion cellphones - 0.97 billion of these are smartphones - for surveillance purposes. Taxis and other vehicles also have government-installed cameras. The CCP has thought of everything. As a result, China is fast becoming totalitarian and a total surveillance state.

I wouldn't be worried. If an iPhone can't tell two Chinese people apart from a close up hi-res image, what hope does a dodgy security camera have from a distance of 20 meters?

www.eteknix.com/iphone-x-face-id-unable-tell-two-chinese-women-apart/

remery said..

Paradox said..
...
As a counterpoint to this topic here is something you won't see on the ABC:

public.substack.com/p/imperialism-of-the-apocalypse?fbclid=IwAR0FFO6LdkbUDJpQE5L5VZSpiuxv2mwsm4FPoEnNG0Ut43044DdrZx-1-hU

When asked if he believes in climate change by ranking member James Comer, Shellenberger responded: "Well, yeah, I mean, of course, I think climate change is happening. I think it's being caused by humans."

Of course. How can we not be warming the planet? An asphalt carpark causes warming, urban heat island effect is real, clearing a forest for a farm or develepment permanantly increases the local temperature. CO2 is a greehouse gas, no matter how little you think it contributes it does contribute.

Shellenberger also goes on to say that he believes the resultant impacts are easily managed and are way down the list of priorities of humans and the planet. I agree with him. There is no evidence increased CO2 is any sort of problem and plenty of hard evidence that it is massively beneficial. The earth has greened something like 20% since CO2 was 280ppm, mostly in desert fringe areas. World crop production hits record highs every year.

All the evidence indicates humans and planet thrived when the temperature was warmer than it is now during the Holocene Climactic Optimum 5 to 9000 years ago.

The science is pretty clear that there is no real problem with either increased CO2 or a warmer planet, both are actually beneficial.

encyclopedia.pub/entry/32197

Paradox said..

Most of your arguments seem to be based on people claiming there is no warming. Why is this? Do you think that showing evidence of warming somehow proves a point? No one I know of seriously claims there has not been a slight warming over the last 40 years or that CO2 hasn't contributed something to that observation. The satellite data is very clear and is free from the issues associated with the land based records.

The debate between scientists is how much can be attributed to CO2 and is it any sort of problem. On the balance to me it seems that only a small portion can be attributed to CO2 and there is no evidence the resultant warming causes any sort of net problem. Likely the benefits may well outweigh the negatives, certainly the emperical data suggests a net positve.

Mahahosy's comments if you take them in context is that CO2 is climbing at a steady rate. Temperature is not and there are long periods of steady temperature or even cooling. The lack of correlation suggests there is something else at play than simple warming of the lower atmosphere. It is almost certainly linked to ocean currents as the clear jumps align with the ENZO swings. There are many published papers on this and of course the CO2 fans claim it must be atmospheric CO2 that is warming the ocean, but the mechanism is a little elusive given that the IR backradiation only penetrates a few microns into water.The full graph rather than your cropped one will show what Morahasy is talking about.

Thanks for that graph. I thought I would have a crack at a line-of-best-fit. Apologies, there are no fiducial limits, I did it by eye.

Pcdefender said..
The anti-Christian 'drag nun' group The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence was honored by the LA Dodgers on Friday night. But almost no one showed up for the ceremony.

Does your equating an anti-bigotry group as Anti-Christrian mean you believe Christians are bigots?






You failed to mention that the photo was taken 4 1/2 hours before the Pride night game. Wouldn't think you'd have too many turning up to witness any minor charity award that long before any game? I understand baseball games are long enough as it is.

And, only 49,000 people turned up for game

remery said..

Paradox said..

Most of your arguments seem to be based on people claiming there is no warming. Why is this? Do you think that showing evidence of warming somehow proves a point? No one I know of seriously claims there has not been a slight warming over the last 40 years or that CO2 hasn't contributed something to that observation. The satellite data is very clear and is free from the issues associated with the land based records.

The debate between scientists is how much can be attributed to CO2 and is it any sort of problem. On the balance to me it seems that only a small portion can be attributed to CO2 and there is no evidence the resultant warming causes any sort of net problem. Likely the benefits may well outweigh the negatives, certainly the emperical data suggests a net positve.

Mahahosy's comments if you take them in context is that CO2 is climbing at a steady rate. Temperature is not and there are long periods of steady temperature or even cooling. The lack of correlation suggests there is something else at play than simple warming of the lower atmosphere. It is almost certainly linked to ocean currents as the clear jumps align with the ENZO swings. There are many published papers on this and of course the CO2 fans claim it must be atmospheric CO2 that is warming the ocean, but the mechanism is a little elusive given that the IR backradiation only penetrates a few microns into water.The full graph rather than your cropped one will show what Morahasy is talking about.

Thanks for that graph. I thought I would have a crack at a line-of-best-fit. Apologies, there are no fiducial limits, I did it by eye.

Yes, that is reasonably close. UAH Satellite data puts the observed surface warming at 0.5 deg since 1979.

remery said..

An opinion piece. Interesting rebuttal.

One that from another view point could be taken as re-enforcement of arguments put forward by conspiracy theorists no less.

but i suppose it bears just as much relevance in an argument where the participants are just doing their best to shoot down each others quoted science experts.

remery said..
An interesting aspect of the book is that not all opinions are equal, the opinions of experts should be held in higher regard. Unfortunately we are moving away from this, to the detriment of society and democracy.

Pretty sure that is exactly the same thing every generation has said since Ugg and Ogg complained their kids didn't listen how to hunt dinosaurs properly.

Also think that is exactly the same attitude that allowed the Church to declare itself holy and beyond question.

Got to be careful about using the word "opinions" of experts. For sure the facts or findings or conclusions presented by experts should be held in high regard, but the right to question an opinion should be equal. Otherwise it isn't science, it is doctrine.

nsidc.org/greenland-today/

ranked average
that peak means nothing and will be smoothed.

"In an August 2019 Interview With Donald Trump:

"I said, you know, 'I have a great idea. I've been thinking about it a lot'. This was during the campaign," Mr Trump said "And I came back to my people, I had experts, and I said, 'I have a great idea. These lines for the veterans are too long. It takes them three, four weeks sometimes to see a doctor. I have a great idea - let's let them go outside, go to a private doctor. We'll pay the bill, they'll be all fixed up all perfect, and they can do it immediately and we'll pay the bill'.

"And I thought, I said, 'Man am I smart. I am the smartest guy, to think of that'. So I went before this panel of experts that were with me working on things, and I said, 'How do you like that idea?' And they said, 'Sir, we've known about it for about 40 years, but we've never been able'.

Isn't that nice? Trump just out there thinking about how to take care of Vets. Sounds Great, right?

Except that The Veteran's Choice Act, which allows Vets access to health care outside the VA system was the result of Senate Resolution S.2450 co-sponsored in the Senate by Bernie Sanders and John McCain, and House Resolution 3230, co-sponsored by Harold Rogers, Tom Latham and Jackie Walorski. After the House passed HR 3230, the Senate set aside S2450 which was basically the same bill, and Took up HR3242 in its place.

It passed the House On Oct 3, 2013 by a vote of 265-160.

It passed the Senate on June 11 of 2014 by a vote of 93-3. The Three "Nays" were all Republicans.

It was signed into law by Barack Obama August 7, 2014.