Is the scientific community stupid?

People do it on this forum daily.

 

I'm interested in the chemistry and the particulates.

You can not determine that by looking at a stack. And, "working around one" doesn't help, either.

 

I gave you a general feeling, and diagrams all your retort was show me more

 

That is absolutely false.

Water is H2O. That is NOT a product of oxidizing carbon. And, coal is not pure carbon, so there can be all sorts of other emissions. Those emissions won't necessarily be visible when coming from a stack.

 

Not what I seen with my own eyes

 

It's just water vapor.

Yeah I know you have an agenda, but it's just water vapor, technology is so cool.

 

Google it.

 

The AI that the science community creates will probably conclude that all humans are inferior, stupid, biologically hazardous carbon based entities causing radically extreme climate change and environmental destruction of the planet earth.

In effect, the science biased AI will act like a fanatic leftwing kook Marxist human professor from the University of California Berkeley.

This is why it is imperative that other groups of humans create AI that represents philosophical, moral, religious, and political views in order to counterbalance the AI representing the science community.

And there should be manual off switches just in case.

 

LOL. It's WAY worse than that.

Today we make machines that can beat humans at chess and go. But, we don't do that by having any idea what the correct algorithm is. What we do is create machines that can learn. Then, we have the AI learn all the games that have been recorded. Then, we have the AI start playing itself for a few million games.

At that point, there is really no way for ANY human to know what the AI is "thinking" - what it's strategy is. So, when an AI makes a move in go, it is sometimes the case that no human expert at go has any idea what the strategy was. They just know they lose! And there is no way to look into those shiny silicon waffers and figure out what it was "thinking".

I think that's the way it's going to be. AIs will build other AIs, because it's not possible for humans to do so. Brains are too complex.

I think that came from "the AI community" - not "the science community" or the "religion community".

We can probably insist on some safegards, such as requiring the AI that plays go or the AI that builds cars to not have any other objective. And, I like your "off switch" idea - probably in several forms.

On the good side, creating a general purpose brain is a really hard problem - so we probably have time to think about this.

BUT if you want to contribute in some way my bet is you better start learning some science as well as philosophy and whatever else you can possibly learn.

 

I am sure you are missing something here. In chemistry, just like mathematics, the equations have to equal out. Considering that coal is 50% carbon and water vapor is made of hydrogen and oxygen, where did the carbon along with the nitrogen and sulphur go?

In modern coal burning electric generation plants, the filters, or scrubbers, capture the ash, leaving a clear gas which contains things like CO2. What looks like smoke is the steam as the coal is burned to heat the water to drive steam turbines that turn the electric generators.

 

I understand

Peer-reviewed studies are considered "proof". Schematically speaking, of course.

It is flawed! But if those who criticize it and don't contribute to making it better can't come up with something better, then we're sure we are on the best path possible. Science has proven its worth. The light above your head, the screen on which you're reading this, the fact that you can read this within minutes of me writing it.... all technology based on scientific knowledge.

Science has allowed us to live longer, to move faster, go further, ... Science has proven its worth. "Flaws"? Sure. But look at how it has been constantly improving since the early days. It won't stop improving. Not thanks to those who just say "it has flaws". But thanks to those who understand its value and help improve it.

You are confusing Science with Technology. And Scientists with Technicians. Technicians are those who use scientific knowledge in real life applications. Physicians are not scientists. They're technicians. Claiming that a technical interpretation like "eggs and butter are bad" means that Medical Science is flawed is like saying that the 737 Max accidents disprove Aeronautics.

Science shows the effect of cholesterol on the human circulatory system. It can also tell us that eggs and butter have high levels of cholesterol. Whether or not that means that people should not eat eggs and butter is an interpretation that is beyond the scope of Science, and in the scope of technical application of scientific knowledge.

I have never heard Al Gore claim that he represents "the science". Al Gore is not a scientist. But he has done a great deal to explain and draw attention to the problem of AGW. The positive things he has done in educating people far exceeds any mistakes he has made along the way.

It is proven when the evidence is so overwhelming that denying it would be foolish.

You are again confusing Science and Technology.

Here is how you can tell the difference. If you are unable to find a Scientific Study that says in the "Conclusions" part something like "We now understand the cause and universal treatment of ulcer..." it's not science. In general, look for quotes. If you can't quote any reputable source saying "we now understand the definite cause and treatment of ulcers", I would not make a statement like the one you just made. On the other hand, if you can quote saying that, then quote them... Never ever say something like that without accompanying it by that quote. Cynical minds might think you are either repeating it from an unreliable source. Or worse... that you made it up.

You should disregard anything you can't quote from a reputable source. A physician could give you the wrong advice. Just like an airline pilot could make a wrong decision. But if you are going to disregard medical advise because of the former, make sure you are consistent and never go on an airplane because of the latter.

 

For all practical purposes, very little pure science exists. It is nearly all technology to some degree. That is true whether you are talking about AGW or astronomy That is especially true of AGW. As you get further and further away from science, the uncertainty gets higher and higher because there are more approximations and assumptions. And in a nutshell, that is the problem with AGW. Because of those assumptions and approximations, it cannot be proved except by verification and there is no way to verify what is expected to happen some time in the future.

 

I don't know what "pure science" is. There is science, and there is technology.

Not really. Actually the problem with AGW is that it's going to burn us.

 

same question with a God though, either God always existed or he was created from nothing

(-1) + (+1) = 0

so zero can equal (-1) + (+1)

so given enough time, you could get something from nothing

the question is, which would be more likely to be created given enough time... a God... or energy that evolves over time

 

Decay does NOT destroy matter, it merely alters it's form.

 

just like drones though, I would bet weaker countries would not follow the same rules hoping to advance AI faster, in order to have more power over the world, that is where mistakes happen

"I think that's the way it's going to be. AIs will build other AIs, because it's not possible for humans to do so. Brains are too complex."

agree

 

And yet you cannot explain the process that you allegedly learned?

 

On a cell phone? I gave a glimpse now it's up to you to research it.

 

LOL!

Nice one!

 

Onus is on YOU to google it and provide the links.

 

Dont bore me, all you want to say it's bad because that's what your programmed to say, when reality is opposite.

 

Define nothing.

 

Proof has to be objective. There is very little in the world that is objective. Some physics and/or math, but that's about it.
So, proof is a very tiny concept.

 

Wrong!

It is up to YOU to PROVE your own allegations.

Not being able to provide substantiation only harms your credibility.

 

Thank you for establishing that you are unable to substantiate your own bogus allegations.

Have a nice day!