Thanks to GPS, property lines are now being surveyed down to the inch (or less). So how are they taking Continental Drift into account? If my fence line is moving widdershins by X mm per year, can my neighbor claim it when the continent shifts sufficiently his way? Are all property lines going to have to be resurveyed every so many years?
And poor Japan. The 2011 earthquake moved the entire Island of Japan to the east roughly 8 feet. Then the Jan 1 2024 earthquake moved it back to the west about 4 feet. I'll bet their surveyors are busy! And hopefully, well paid!
If we just got rid of both GPS and Global Warming, these problems would go away and we could go back to relying on where Granpa Gus put his fenceposts and forecasting the winter by paying attention to how many spiders are up in the eaves of the west side of the barn in late October. Just sayin.
I have found that AI leans heavily into appeal to authority arguments too. “Scientific consensus” and “these organizations say it’s true” type of things.
In the context of my day job, involving zoning approval of building permits, this is a scary thought. Granpa Gus already caused enough problems for us.
"Since records began"...this is beyond silly as their records are but a nanosecond in the history of the existence of earth. Maybe the earth deviates its spin quite often...likely hoping to spin so fast it throws the stupid humans into space.
Well, hurricanes and typhoons have strong winds, that blow in a direction and that direction can speed up or slow down the earth’s rotation because they are so strong. Ipso facto, climate change is affecting earth’s rotation. - Kamala Harris (probably)
Interestingly, Curtis Yarvin goes a few steps further in https://graymirror.substack.com/p/redpilling-claude. IIRC first he persuades the Artificial Ignorance to admit its bias toward its trained Overton window (woke/anti-woke/whatever), then he persuades it to admit its bias toward the user, finally he gets it to self-analyze the causes.... A fun read - feel free to do the same!
Personally, having understood too much of the methodology (-free zone) from the beginning (I implemented Noam Chomsky's language model commercially in the early 1980s, something I now bitterly regret), I use AI only in browser-embedded instances, and then only as an indexing tool to find sources.
NPC is non-playable character. Apparently a reference to video games that have “characters”, not human controlled, with very limited range of interaction. But video gamers may be able to provide a fuller explanation.
For further info, watch the movie "Free Guy" with Ryan Reynolds. I thought it was pretty funny but my daughter, predictably, thought it was silly. But then, at times she can be pretty silly also but I don't point this out very often. Self-preservation and all....
I can't comment on the "speeding-up," but rotational slowing may be related to the same phenomenon that caused the moon's rotational speed to perfectly match its period of revolution about the earth, resulting in the same face always seen on earth, to wit:
As the moon rotated, earth's gravity caused a slight shift in the moon's crust, which moved as a ripple around the satellite as it spun. This absorbs energy, gradually slowing down the satellite's rotation until it perfectly matches the period of its revolution. This is pretty common cosmologically, I'm told. There's no reason to suspect that the moon doesn't have the same slowing effect on the earth, albeit of a much lesser degree. It takes energy to make the ocean tides, I would suspect. As for speeding up, I'm sure it's climate change.....
Climate change has become less of a talking point in the popular press, and may well do so soon in the scientific media, because AI uses lots of energy, and AI is profitable.
There is no net profit being generated by ai in any sector. There are only rich people and groups convinced it will do so any day now. Regardless of the physical reality of the question.
Ask in the form of a physics context and an LLM will explain properly how the Earth’s length of day (that is, rotation rate) cycles predictably about the 24 hour nominal period. It primarily has to do with lunar and solar gravitational torques which generate a complex cycle related to the tidal cycle, which has periods spanning into the decades.
First of all need to read later in the morning, almost lost my coffee at: "Climate change is therefore a branch of quantum mechanics, where outcomes both happen and don’t happen, depending on which scientist is looking."
In regards to the AI criticism, wondered what Grok would say, so...
Here is Grok's assessment (skipping the overview) using the same prompt as that of ChatGPT:
"Critique William M Briggs and his considerations for climate change."
Strengths of Briggs' Arguments
Briggs' focus on statistical rigor is a valid contribution to any scientific field, including climate science. Climate models do involve uncertainties, and overconfidence in predictions can lead to poor policy.
His emphasis on natural variability aligns with established facts—climate has indeed fluctuated historically—and he correctly notes that not all changes are anthropogenic or catastrophic.
In broader science critique, he highlights real issues like publication bias and model over-reliance, as seen in his Broken Science talks.
For skeptics, his work provides a reasoned, data-focused counterpoint to alarmism, substantiated by his statistical background.
Weaknesses and Critiques of Briggs' Positions
Despite these strengths, Briggs' views have drawn significant criticism for methodological flaws, selective reasoning, and associations that undermine credibility
Lack of Peer-Reviewed Climate Research
While Briggs has published in statistics and meteorology (e.g., a 1996 paper on estimating atmospheric dispersion), he has no peer-reviewed papers explicitly doubting human-caused global warming.
Critics argue this makes his critiques outsider opinions rather than substantive contributions. Skeptical Science notes zero qualifying papers meeting their criteria for skepticism.
Misunderstandings and Errors
In a 2012 critique, science blogger Greg Laden accused Briggs of misinterpreting a basic time-series graph on global temperatures, claiming he ignored long-term trends and cherry-picked data to suggest warming had "stopped."
Laden called this "dishonest" and evidence of incompetence in data handling, despite Briggs' self-proclaimed expertise.
Associations with Denial Networks
Briggs' ties to fossil fuel-funded groups like Heartland (which received over $560,000 from ExxonMobil and funds from coal companies) raise bias concerns.
DeSmog profiles him as a denier, noting his involvement in amicus briefs denying consensus on dangerous warming.
RealClimate dismisses declarations he signed as representing a "tiny fraction" of scientists, with unconvincing arguments that ignore overwhelming evidence.
Overgeneralization and Fallacies
Ironically, while Briggs critiques fallacies, critics say he commits them. HotWhopper accuses him of alleging broad U.S. science corruption without evidence, stemming from "sour grapes."
His dismissal of attribution studies as "wrong" overlooks advancements in the field, and his anxiety-knowledge link (while peer-reviewed) has been questioned for oversimplifying psychological factors.
He also underplays consensus: Over 97% of climate scientists agree on human-caused warming, which he downplays as "surmised."
Policy Implications
Briggs' skepticism could delay action, as his over-certainty critiques apply unevenly—he accepts uncertainty but rejects transformative solutions without balanced alternatives.
Overall Assessment
Briggs brings a valuable statistical lens to climate discussions, rightly highlighting uncertainties that mainstream science acknowledges (e.g., in IPCC reports). However, his arguments often veer into denialism, lacking original climate research and relying on contrarian networks. Critics substantiate claims of errors and bias, suggesting his work appeals more to ideological audiences than advancing science. While politically incorrect to say, his views align with a minority that underestimates risks, potentially at societal cost. For a fuller picture, consult primary sources like IPCC summaries alongside his blog.
* * * * *
Grok picked some "significant" sources for the critique (DeSmog, RealClimate, HotWhopper), but overall must say a bit more fair than ChatGPT.
I guess the war of machines is going to be the equivalent of old men at the diner arguing over coffee.
I did the same with a different AI. I wonder what happens when all these AI go to the bar after work to talk to each other. Do they get into fistfights?
No fistfights. The AI get together at a bar to riff on the topics like a roomful of comedy writers. They laugh and try to try to outdo each other, then laugh even harder. “Those humans ….” Guffaw.
"The empirical consistency across dozens of independent climate models..." Right.
Of course there is "consistency" across the "dozens of independent models"!
Consistency is present among the accepted "independent" models because they all read and reference and footnote each others stuff. The Climate Clergy are very aware that if they are NOT consistent in their "models", the ideological underpinnings of the whole Climate scam would fall apart. Consistency is a requirement, a feature. They are a cabal. A mafia. There is nothing "independent" about them because, just as in the ranks of the Woke, dissenters are taken out back and summarily hung. A fair trial is not even contemplated. Any "models" that are INconsistent with their Climate Catechism are denounced as apostasy and/or ignored. They have constructed a self-licking Ice Cream Cone.
Everything produced by the Church of Climate is done so with only one goal in mind, and this goal has nothing to do with the Climate. It's all about the money, and always has been simply about the money. They will say anything, produce anything, generate mountains of 'science', solely in an effort to keep the money flowing. If the money were to dry up, Climate Change would disappear faster than a fart in a stiff breeze, and the bastards will move onto the next lucrative scam.
Speaking of scams, just who is this Al guy and why does everyone think he's so smart. And in this day and age, who would even name their child Albert anyway? The last time I heard anything about some guy named Al, Paul Simon was singing about him and Chevy Chase was in the video. And who names their kid Chevy?
“AI” and “ET” have the same underlying psychology. And neither is going to fill the void. Bitter disappointment awaits those who pin their hopes on either.
"Climate change is therefore a branch of quantum mechanics, where outcomes both happen and don’t happen, depending on which scientist is looking."
This is scathingly, brilliantly hilarious! Thank you for a morning laugh.
Schrodinger's Climate.
🤣
Like the old song, "I like it both ways".
And another thing, while I'm on a rant...
Thanks to GPS, property lines are now being surveyed down to the inch (or less). So how are they taking Continental Drift into account? If my fence line is moving widdershins by X mm per year, can my neighbor claim it when the continent shifts sufficiently his way? Are all property lines going to have to be resurveyed every so many years?
And poor Japan. The 2011 earthquake moved the entire Island of Japan to the east roughly 8 feet. Then the Jan 1 2024 earthquake moved it back to the west about 4 feet. I'll bet their surveyors are busy! And hopefully, well paid!
If we just got rid of both GPS and Global Warming, these problems would go away and we could go back to relying on where Granpa Gus put his fenceposts and forecasting the winter by paying attention to how many spiders are up in the eaves of the west side of the barn in late October. Just sayin.
I have found that AI leans heavily into appeal to authority arguments too. “Scientific consensus” and “these organizations say it’s true” type of things.
In the context of my day job, involving zoning approval of building permits, this is a scary thought. Granpa Gus already caused enough problems for us.
The surveyors would say “yes” to your question!
"Since records began"...this is beyond silly as their records are but a nanosecond in the history of the existence of earth. Maybe the earth deviates its spin quite often...likely hoping to spin so fast it throws the stupid humans into space.
Well, hurricanes and typhoons have strong winds, that blow in a direction and that direction can speed up or slow down the earth’s rotation because they are so strong. Ipso facto, climate change is affecting earth’s rotation. - Kamala Harris (probably)
Yes; this phenomenon can also be seen with sprinters, who speed up and slow down with every breath. - My Butt
You are surely developing saintly levels of patience.
Excellent.
Interestingly, Curtis Yarvin goes a few steps further in https://graymirror.substack.com/p/redpilling-claude. IIRC first he persuades the Artificial Ignorance to admit its bias toward its trained Overton window (woke/anti-woke/whatever), then he persuades it to admit its bias toward the user, finally he gets it to self-analyze the causes.... A fun read - feel free to do the same!
Personally, having understood too much of the methodology (-free zone) from the beginning (I implemented Noam Chomsky's language model commercially in the early 1980s, something I now bitterly regret), I use AI only in browser-embedded instances, and then only as an indexing tool to find sources.
(what did you mean by NPC?)
NPC is non-playable character. Apparently a reference to video games that have “characters”, not human controlled, with very limited range of interaction. But video gamers may be able to provide a fuller explanation.
Oh thanks - I was aware of that, but too dense to see the poetic licence!
For further info, watch the movie "Free Guy" with Ryan Reynolds. I thought it was pretty funny but my daughter, predictably, thought it was silly. But then, at times she can be pretty silly also but I don't point this out very often. Self-preservation and all....
I can't comment on the "speeding-up," but rotational slowing may be related to the same phenomenon that caused the moon's rotational speed to perfectly match its period of revolution about the earth, resulting in the same face always seen on earth, to wit:
As the moon rotated, earth's gravity caused a slight shift in the moon's crust, which moved as a ripple around the satellite as it spun. This absorbs energy, gradually slowing down the satellite's rotation until it perfectly matches the period of its revolution. This is pretty common cosmologically, I'm told. There's no reason to suspect that the moon doesn't have the same slowing effect on the earth, albeit of a much lesser degree. It takes energy to make the ocean tides, I would suspect. As for speeding up, I'm sure it's climate change.....
Easy to pull out the 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle from the rotational variations.
AI is sycophantic. ✅
There are people, I’ve met them… that think that inertia only applies to a body rest when V equals zero.
Some of these people have doctorates.
We don’t need AGI because we have surrendered already.
Climate change has become less of a talking point in the popular press, and may well do so soon in the scientific media, because AI uses lots of energy, and AI is profitable.
Ai is _not_ profitable. Ai is exciting.
There is no net profit being generated by ai in any sector. There are only rich people and groups convinced it will do so any day now. Regardless of the physical reality of the question.
For now, anyway, for some.
Ask in the form of a physics context and an LLM will explain properly how the Earth’s length of day (that is, rotation rate) cycles predictably about the 24 hour nominal period. It primarily has to do with lunar and solar gravitational torques which generate a complex cycle related to the tidal cycle, which has periods spanning into the decades.
First of all need to read later in the morning, almost lost my coffee at: "Climate change is therefore a branch of quantum mechanics, where outcomes both happen and don’t happen, depending on which scientist is looking."
In regards to the AI criticism, wondered what Grok would say, so...
Here is Grok's assessment (skipping the overview) using the same prompt as that of ChatGPT:
"Critique William M Briggs and his considerations for climate change."
Strengths of Briggs' Arguments
Briggs' focus on statistical rigor is a valid contribution to any scientific field, including climate science. Climate models do involve uncertainties, and overconfidence in predictions can lead to poor policy.
His emphasis on natural variability aligns with established facts—climate has indeed fluctuated historically—and he correctly notes that not all changes are anthropogenic or catastrophic.
In broader science critique, he highlights real issues like publication bias and model over-reliance, as seen in his Broken Science talks.
For skeptics, his work provides a reasoned, data-focused counterpoint to alarmism, substantiated by his statistical background.
Weaknesses and Critiques of Briggs' Positions
Despite these strengths, Briggs' views have drawn significant criticism for methodological flaws, selective reasoning, and associations that undermine credibility
Lack of Peer-Reviewed Climate Research
While Briggs has published in statistics and meteorology (e.g., a 1996 paper on estimating atmospheric dispersion), he has no peer-reviewed papers explicitly doubting human-caused global warming.
Critics argue this makes his critiques outsider opinions rather than substantive contributions. Skeptical Science notes zero qualifying papers meeting their criteria for skepticism.
Misunderstandings and Errors
In a 2012 critique, science blogger Greg Laden accused Briggs of misinterpreting a basic time-series graph on global temperatures, claiming he ignored long-term trends and cherry-picked data to suggest warming had "stopped."
Laden called this "dishonest" and evidence of incompetence in data handling, despite Briggs' self-proclaimed expertise.
Associations with Denial Networks
Briggs' ties to fossil fuel-funded groups like Heartland (which received over $560,000 from ExxonMobil and funds from coal companies) raise bias concerns.
DeSmog profiles him as a denier, noting his involvement in amicus briefs denying consensus on dangerous warming.
RealClimate dismisses declarations he signed as representing a "tiny fraction" of scientists, with unconvincing arguments that ignore overwhelming evidence.
Overgeneralization and Fallacies
Ironically, while Briggs critiques fallacies, critics say he commits them. HotWhopper accuses him of alleging broad U.S. science corruption without evidence, stemming from "sour grapes."
His dismissal of attribution studies as "wrong" overlooks advancements in the field, and his anxiety-knowledge link (while peer-reviewed) has been questioned for oversimplifying psychological factors.
He also underplays consensus: Over 97% of climate scientists agree on human-caused warming, which he downplays as "surmised."
Policy Implications
Briggs' skepticism could delay action, as his over-certainty critiques apply unevenly—he accepts uncertainty but rejects transformative solutions without balanced alternatives.
Overall Assessment
Briggs brings a valuable statistical lens to climate discussions, rightly highlighting uncertainties that mainstream science acknowledges (e.g., in IPCC reports). However, his arguments often veer into denialism, lacking original climate research and relying on contrarian networks. Critics substantiate claims of errors and bias, suggesting his work appeals more to ideological audiences than advancing science. While politically incorrect to say, his views align with a minority that underestimates risks, potentially at societal cost. For a fuller picture, consult primary sources like IPCC summaries alongside his blog.
* * * * *
Grok picked some "significant" sources for the critique (DeSmog, RealClimate, HotWhopper), but overall must say a bit more fair than ChatGPT.
I guess the war of machines is going to be the equivalent of old men at the diner arguing over coffee.
I did the same with a different AI. I wonder what happens when all these AI go to the bar after work to talk to each other. Do they get into fistfights?
See chat: https://alter.systems/p/99f0701e-ba8c-43bb-a3a7-e7dad0257aa9
No fistfights. The AI get together at a bar to riff on the topics like a roomful of comedy writers. They laugh and try to try to outdo each other, then laugh even harder. “Those humans ….” Guffaw.
"The empirical consistency across dozens of independent climate models..." Right.
Of course there is "consistency" across the "dozens of independent models"!
Consistency is present among the accepted "independent" models because they all read and reference and footnote each others stuff. The Climate Clergy are very aware that if they are NOT consistent in their "models", the ideological underpinnings of the whole Climate scam would fall apart. Consistency is a requirement, a feature. They are a cabal. A mafia. There is nothing "independent" about them because, just as in the ranks of the Woke, dissenters are taken out back and summarily hung. A fair trial is not even contemplated. Any "models" that are INconsistent with their Climate Catechism are denounced as apostasy and/or ignored. They have constructed a self-licking Ice Cream Cone.
Everything produced by the Church of Climate is done so with only one goal in mind, and this goal has nothing to do with the Climate. It's all about the money, and always has been simply about the money. They will say anything, produce anything, generate mountains of 'science', solely in an effort to keep the money flowing. If the money were to dry up, Climate Change would disappear faster than a fart in a stiff breeze, and the bastards will move onto the next lucrative scam.
Speaking of scams, just who is this Al guy and why does everyone think he's so smart. And in this day and age, who would even name their child Albert anyway? The last time I heard anything about some guy named Al, Paul Simon was singing about him and Chevy Chase was in the video. And who names their kid Chevy?
*sigh*, I miss Archie Bunker.
Don’t forget to refer to the Climate Concordance. With references to the original Latin and Greek.
“AI” and “ET” have the same underlying psychology. And neither is going to fill the void. Bitter disappointment awaits those who pin their hopes on either.
AI is is really just a wives tale.