52.33225 -313338 Met Office CIMO assessed Class 5S Installed 1/1/1989

This manual station lies 3 miles west of Knighton on the Wales/England border with the major Shobdon. Airfield site under 14 miles away. Its record of observations is exemplary as is so often the case with these types of dedicated amateur sites reporting on behalf of the Met Office. The question is, are such sites’ readings suitable for inclusion in compiling the national historic temperature record? I contend that they are not and this site is another of the very many examples that demonstrate why.

My concerns regard the simple fact that domestic gardens serve firstly the functions of the household and the needs of the homeowners. Whilst these weather stations will almost certainly be held in high regard by their custodians, the necessities and eventualities of life will inevitably often take priority over the reading’s integrity. As shown at Derrylin in Northern Ireland there are no regulations controlling garden activites that have no enclosures restricting access. Pitching a tent next to the screen was demonstrated there as an example. Below is the 2009 Google Streetview image of this Cefnsuran site.

Warning signs are, no proximity restrictions, the relatively low but seemingly new perimeter hedging, and the potential for activities outside the owners control close by in the field alongside the perimeter. If this seems trivial, bear in mind that drastic actions affecting everyone’s lifestyles and well being are based on historic temperature change and its alleged dangerous recent increase based on data from this type of site. Without wishing to make any allegations, what surety can the public have that readings are never tampered with to gain area publicity – the issues raised at Faversham were never resolved and many consider the 2003 record there was not authentic.

So now consider the more recent 2021 view.

The CIMO assessed ratings I quote are for the related issues of both temperature and humidity. Hanging out the “washing” is a typical garden function intended to dry out the items by evaporating the water into the environment. What other occasional garden functions are likely to occur – barbecues, garden waste fires, storage items, entertaining …anything in normal life can happen detrimental to the temperature readings such as at Copley.

Then consider the considerable shading issue noted in the headline image which orientates north/south and this additional Streetview image from the indicating significant tree growth since site instalation further compromising the screen.

To summarise, I am confident there are many useful purposes to such weather stations, however, basing a long term national historic temperature record on such normally transient sites is not one of them under any circumstances. The recent inclusion of so many relatively new and climatically dubious sites to the station listing of climate reporting sites seems more than just slightly “motivated” to find “proof” of a theory. Again i will make the comment – this has to stop.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/ERGtj0D

February 8, 2025 at 11:58AM

The potential for AI to solve problems is growing exponentially…like a fire set off by a tiny spark on an endless ocean of gasoline.

Someday, likely much sooner than we believe, it may itself solve the riddle of how to give itself a conscience – and do it! The result will be a machine that will feel compassion, care, and perhaps even hate and anger. 

For humans, giving a machine a conscience may seem an impossible task. But as AI grows in problem-solving power, it could very well solve that problem without our help. Elon Musk warned that we are not devoting enough resources to safeguard against that possibility. Ironically, Trump just announced huge investments in AI with seemingly little thought to oversight.

What does AI itself say when asked if it could develop a conscience? 

Could a machines soon be outfitted with a conscience? I asked Google Gemini itself 3 questions. Here’s what I got:

1. What would be necessary for an intelligent machine to develop a ‘conscience’? Would this be possible? Gemini answered:

Developing a conscience in an intelligent machine is a complex and debated topic. Here’s a breakdown of what it might entail and the challenges involved:

What is Conscience?

Conscience involves:

• Moral awareness: Understanding right and wrong.
• Emotional responses: Feeling guilt or remorse for wrong actions.
• Self-reflection: Evaluating one’s own actions against moral standards.

Challenges in Creating a Conscience for Machines:

• Defining morality: Morality is complex and varies across cultures. Programming a universal moral code is difficult.
• Emotional simulation: Machines don’t naturally experience emotions like guilt. Simulating these convincingly is challenging.
• Self-awareness: Machines may struggle with the level of self-reflection needed for a true conscience.

Possible Approaches:

• Reinforcement learning: Training machines to recognize and avoid actions that lead to negative consequences (simulated pain or disapproval).
• Ethical guidelines: Programming machines with explicit rules and principles to guide their behavior.
• Evolutionary algorithms: Allowing machines to develop their own “morality” through interactions and feedback within a simulated environment.

Is it Possible?

It’s uncertain whether a true conscience can be replicated in machines. Some argue that consciousness and subjective experience are necessary for a conscience, and these may be unique to biological beings. However, advancements in AI and our understanding of consciousness could lead to machines with sophisticated ethical decision-making abilities, even if it’s not exactly the same as human conscience.”

2. As AI is quickly outpacing a human’s ability to solve problems, could AI itself figure out how to provide an intelligent machine with a conscience? Gemini answered:

That’s a fascinating question! It gets at the heart of whether AI can truly achieve autonomy and surpass human capabilities in all areas, including those we consider uniquely human.

Here’s how AI might approach developing a conscience for itself:

• Analyzing vast datasets of human morality: AI could be trained on massive amounts of text, philosophy, ethical codes, and even real-world examples of human choices to identify patterns and principles of morality.
• Simulating social interactions: AI could be placed in simulated environments where it interacts with other AI agents or even humans, learning to predict and understand the consequences of actions on others.
• Evolutionary algorithms: AI could use these algorithms to generate and test different “moral codes” within a simulation, gradually refining them based on which ones lead to the most harmonious or “ethical” outcomes.
• Self-reflection and learning: As AI systems become more sophisticated, they might develop the ability to reflect on their own decision-making processes, identifying biases or inconsistencies and adjusting their internal “moral compass” accordingly.

However, there are significant challenges:

• Defining “ethical” outcomes: Even for AI, defining what constitutes a “good” or “ethical” outcome is subjective and complex.
• Avoiding bias: AI trained on human data could inadvertently inherit and amplify existing biases in our moral systems.
• The nature of consciousness: It’s still unclear whether a true conscience requires consciousness and subjective experience, which may be beyond the reach of AI.

The possibility:

While it’s uncertain whether AI can truly create a conscience for itself, it’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility. AI is rapidly evolving, and we may be surprised by its future capabilities. If AI can achieve a level of self-awareness and understanding of human values, it might be able to develop a form of ethical decision-making that resembles a conscience, even if it’s not exactly the same as ours.

This raises profound ethical questions about the future of AI and its role in society. If AI can develop a conscience, what responsibilities does it have? How do we ensure that its “morality” aligns with our own? These are questions we need to start considering now, as AI continues to advance.”

3. Could a machine ever be made to feel remorse, anger, happiness and love? Can this be done electronically, or is this something that is only biologically possible, i.e. requiring biochemical tissue? Gemini answered:

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/Uq8REeN

February 8, 2025 at 11:18AM

Legal Newsline reports the string of climate lawfare defeats in their article Fifth judge agrees with Big Oil, dismisses another climate change case.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) – A New Jersey state court judge refuses to be the one who sets international energy standards and has thrown out a climate change lawsuit brought by the state.

Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s case is one of dozens around the country making state law claims under consumer protection and public nuisance laws, and Mercer County Superior Court judge Douglas Hurd on Feb. 5 tossed it out of court.

Hurd becomes the fifth state court judge to grant motions to dismiss by companies like Chevron and Exxon, targeted by private lawyers who earned contingency fee contracts from government officials. Platkin hired lawyers at Sher Edling for his 200-page 2022 lawsuit.

“This court’s decision is reliant upon and consistent with both federal and state courts across the country that have rejected the availability of state tort law in the climate change context,” Judge Hurd wrote.

“This court agrees that the logic and reasoning of those decisions compel dismissal of claims seeking damages by transboundary emissions.”

Hurd joins two state judges in Maryland, one in Delaware and one in New York in throwing out this type of case. His is the third dismissal since the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the issue, which kept Honolulu’s case going past the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The cases allege consumers would not have burned as many fossil fuels
as they did had companies been more forthright about their effects.

The litigation started with a battle over where the cases should be heard. Defendants wanted them in federal court to bolster their defense, and that strategy resulted in federal judges in California and New York granting motions to dismiss. The Second Circuit affirmed the New York dismissal.

But the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the lawsuits belonged in various state courts because plaintiff lawyers had crafted their cases to make state law claims under consumer protection statutes and for public nuisance.

At issue is whether state court judges should have the power to essentially impact the international energy market. Twenty Republican state attorneys general argued the Hawaii case involves questions of interstate and international law that can only be decided by Congress or in federal courts.

Judge Brown, in the Baltimore case, said the litigation goes beyond the limits of Maryland law, or whatever states other cases are filed in. Most municipalities and states that have filed suit are near oceans, though Boulder, Colo., has also sued.

Theodore Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher represents Chevron
says the New Jersey decision joins a “nearly unanimous consensus.”

These types of claims are precluded and preempted by federal law and must be dismissed under clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent. As the Court rightly held, ‘the leading and most persuasive case supporting dismissal is the Second Circuit decision in City of New York. There, the federal appeals court rejected the availability of state tort law in the climate change context.’”

Hurd says the fundamental principles of federalism in the U.S. Constitution show that state law cannot operate in areas of uniquely federal interests.

“The Hawai’i Supreme Court’s decision in City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco is not persuasive to this court because it does not address this critical point,” he wrote.

“And that point being that ‘state law does not suddenly become presumptively competent to address issues that demand a unified federal standard simply because Congress saw fit to displace a federal court-made standard with a legislative one,’” he added, citing the New York decision.

Summary

So, after several years of waging war in the courtroom without racking up even a single victory, and with a Congress and White House that have expressed a sincere desire to do the things that could actually tackle climate change, why are the proponents of litigation continuing to waste taxpayer resources in this vain effort so a few trial lawyers can hopefully become very rich while accomplishing precisely nothing on climate change?

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/COj4qKz

February 8, 2025 at 09:24AM

Five years ago, Boris Johnson said the UK can be the Saudi Arabia of wind power. UK can be ‘Saudi Arabia of wind power’ – PM The wind isn’t blowing in the UK, and wind power is producing only 5% … Continue reading →

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/COe2dct

February 8, 2025 at 08:51AM