SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-need-a-full-copy-of-production-for-testing dept.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the 'pause' or 'slowdown' in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world's media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, 'unverified' data.
It was never subjected to NOAA's rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a 'blatant attempt to intensify the impact' of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
More details can be found in his own words here:
They promised to begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived. I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @07:42PM
China experimented with decentralized steel production in one of their idiotic plans or another. From memory it ended up not being terribly productive and definitely not green. Just a warning the decentralized isn't the answer for all industries.
If we decentralize enough we better get rid of the grid because its going to blow if we don't get rid of it. Or we'll need some kind of miracle AI to run the grid under those generating conditions.
Life was so easy when the consumers had positive value resistances and there were only a couple generators. Not so much fun when every roof is trying to upload power and the grid is possibly going to be zero or even worse negative resistance.
People love to talk about the coolness of solid state power control and VFDs and switching power supplies but some day the grid goes negative resistance even on a small scale and all hell breaks loose.
I'd say its even odds right now for what destroys the power grid, a negative resistance event (obviously not today, but extend the graphs), a solar storm EMP thingie, or simple lack of maintenance cascading failure.
Once the grids down it stays down, theoretical black start capability is different from practical black start capability.
Gridless electrical power will be interesting.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:04PM
China experimented with decentralized steel production
You failed to mention that participation in "The Great Leap Forward" was *mandated* by Mao.
Hardly "decentralized" in that regard.
The Workers would rather have been producing FOOD instead of doing something that produced starvation and low-grade steel that nobody wanted.
one of their idiotic plans
Not "their"; HIS.
Red China was/is NOT "Communist"; it was/is Totalitarian.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @08:52PM
Red China was/is NOT "Communist"; it was/is Totalitarian.
How many examples do you jibronies need before you realize Communism and Totalitarianism is one and fucking same! Your lofty ideals of Communism are totally divorced from reality. Only thing a Communist will ever receive from me is a free helicopter ride (I realize it is de-humanizing and amoral approach towards dealing with useful idiots, but upon deep reflection it is ethical).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:47PM
Now tell us how USA's gov't is "a Democracy" (AKA "the majority rules") when supermajorities want single-payer healthcare and can't get that.
Repeat for less military spending; an end to The War on Drugs; a move back to non-regressive taxation; ending corporate welfare and bailouts of failed Capitalists.
Don't forget to mention how The 1 Percent get what they want.
Properly denoted, USA is an Oligarchy, but the mainstream news media^W^W^W^W corporate propaganda won't ever say that.
The Nazis were "The National Socialist German Workers Party".
...yet they put trade unionists and Socialists/Communists in concentration camps (when they didn't kill them outright).
You can name your political party / governmental form anything you want.
That doesn't make that description of yourself accurate.
...and having other governments repeat your made-up term doesn't make it legit either.
Socialism is a bottom-up system; Communism is Socialism perfected.
What China has is is top-down.
That is the OPPOSITE of Communism.
free
You are deeply confused about governmental and economic forms.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:56AM
How many examples do you jibronies need before you realize Communism and Totalitarianism is one and fucking same!
Well, all of them, obviously, since none of the ones you have provided proves your point. Are you a Papist? Or a member of the Chamber of Commerce? Perhaps of the Knights of Malta, or the Knighets who say "Niiii!"? In any case, your understanding of politics, economics, and the ranking of sci-fi television shows from the sixties, is sorely lacking, and is would probably be better if you just shut the fuck up. Like, Now?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by canopic jug on Monday February 06 2017, @08:17PM
China experimented with decentralized steel production in one of their idiotic plans or another. From memory it ended up not being terribly productive and definitely not green. Just a warning the decentralized isn't the answer for all industries.
Making steel was just the official reason, the real reasons being in my opinion the destruction of any pre-communist cultural artifacts (even paper and cloth containing pins or rivets) and especially weapons. Anything and everything metallish was thrown into the crucibles. Weapon technology was a lot more primitive and larger numbers armed with knives could overwhelm smaller numbers armed with lame varieties of rifle, especially if the latter group was unmotivated or even demoralized. There was a lot of discontent brewing at that time and the melting to slag of all spare metal objects got rid of potential weapons, and got people worrying more about their next meal again. By the time Mao was done with making slag (yeah it was slag not steel), there were not even sufficient kitchen knives to go around.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:20PM
. Weapon technology was a lot more primitive and larger numbers armed with
Bosun's Mate: "15 year old Libertarian decloaking off the starboard bow, Sir!"
Cap't of the Watch: "Does he post a hazard to navigation?"
Mate: "Vessel in heading on a collision course, but it is only a dinghy."
Cap't: "Well then, hardly a threat to a ship of state. Hold course and speed."
Mate: "Should we attempt a rescue, Sir?"
Cap't: "Of what, Bosun's Mate?"
Mate: "Of the debris, Sir."
Cap't: "Not likely to be worth the trouble of salvage. Carry on."
Mate: "Aye, aye, Sir."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NewNic on Monday February 06 2017, @09:52PM
Miracle? Hawaii already has solutions for this issue. [energy.gov]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @10:32PM
That's good, that's at least a partial fix. But proven not to make the grid more unstable when its unstable doesn't fix the inherent instability to begin with.
It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday February 06 2017, @11:51PM
Gridless power is not the problem. It's the ultimate upside. When all power is off the grid, and it can be with renewable sources and house batteries, we can get rid of one of our most intransigent monopolies, thereby eliminating the need for hefty government regulation of that monopoly. It represents a true return to the free market in a way that isn't feasible with centralized power production.
As for getting there, the nonpartisan politics involved are working their way through local municipalities right now. This is one of the only causes for hope in American politics. Everyone wants their free power and doesn't much care for the government/power companies standing in the way.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:54PM
The problem with gridless is it only scales well to suburban residential. No more industrial plants, no more skyscrapers, no more urban cities, no more office buildings. You could drop the grid from the burbs, which might help slightly with infrastructure costs, but you're still going to have the same expensive lines running from coal plants to skyscrapers and now the min/max ratio of power use is even higher which will make times tough on the remaining grid.
Also gridless hardware is kinda like libertarianism, in that if a community is exclusively IQ > 100 or IQ > 110 or so it'll work, otherwise it'll collapse under the destruction of the folks under those criteria. Which is pretty much everywhere except maybe some university towns, SV maybe.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:15PM
Industry will solve their own problems. They had electricity before anyone else, after all, and plenty of factories already have dedicated power resources. Green companies are already leading the way due to a combination of customer demand and lack of availability on the standard grid.
As for stupid people, well we'll just have to make it simple enough for everyone. We will eventually reach a point where renewable power is so cost effective that new buildings will have it built in, and may never even be connected to the grid in the first place. Tesla's solar shingles are a step in this direction. All of this is still a positive. I may be capable of dicking with my personal electrical system, but there are better uses of my time. If an idiot can keep it running then that frees my brain for other things. And if somebody else blows up their panels, well they're not on my grid so I don't have to care.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?