A prediction that fails to materialize is not a scientific one.
12 karma · joined August 16, 2019
Rule number whatever of backups: Don't discard old backups. Bitrot occurs, and people make mistakes, and newer backups can have flaws that older ones don't, which will go undiscovered until it's too late.
We're not talking about piles of tapes, we're talking about virtually unlimited disk space. State-of-the-art backup software chunks and deduplicates data and stores snapshots of directory trees. For most cases, there's no reason not to keep a subset of old snapshots, and many reasons to keep them.
Something like Attic, Borg, CrashPlan, Restic, etc, that allow snapshot retention periods, like "1 per year for the last X years, 1 per month for the last X months, one per day for the last X days".
> I completely agree that something like RAID is not backup, but 30-60 days seems comparable to other backup services and covers most scenarios.
That doesn't protect against bitrot. e.g.
1. File is backed up (snapshot A).
2. File is slightly corrupted by bitrot, cosmic ray, etc.
3. File is modified by user, corruption is unnoticed.
4. File is backed up again (snapshot B).
5. "Backup" service deletes snapshot A.
6. User discovers corruption.
7. User looks to restore earlier versions until an uncorrupted one is found.
8. User discovers that all available snapshots were made after corruption happened.
Or replace "file" with "directory" and "bitrot" with "accidental file deletion" and the user still suffers from data loss.
Mirrors are not backups, and a few revolving snapshot slots is effectively a mirror.
Did you miss how she sold American uranium interests to Russia?
Did you miss how Russia worked with her campaign to prepare the Steele dossier, i.e. how Russia worked with the Clinton campaign to prevent Trump from being elected?
Did you miss how the Obama administration (in which she was Secretary of State) worked with Russia, how Obama was caught on-mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin that Obama would have more flexibility after Obama was reelected?
These are all widely reported facts.
It's bizarre how people still think Russia wanted Trump to win the election.
1. Invent a pseudoscientific field.
2. Make normative, political claims from said field.
3. When people outside the field express dissent, invent a non-profit to "verify the credibility of influential claims," and only allow people in said field to join said non-profit and verify the credibility of said claims: https://sciencefeedback.co/for-scientists/
> To Apply: You need to have a PhD in a relevant discipline, have at least one published article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last four years in the field they are commenting on.
To criticize climate science, you must first become a climate scientist, which requires assenting to the belief in the validity of climate science, because anyone who dissents from that belief would not be awarded a PhD in the field nor have peer-reviewed articles published in it.
So only people who agree with them are allowed to criticize them. Hm, sounds a lot like HN. And so scientific! I'm convinced, thanks for the link.
I'm glad to hear that Backblaze has finally made such an option available. However:
> For cost reasons, Backblaze purges the files that you deleted from your local drive after 30 days.
As someone who once almost lost his PGP key and had to recover it from old physical backup media, I'd like to point out that that is not a "backup" service. It's sort of like a lazily expiring mirror, but it's definitely not a backup service.
Do you look at all of your files every 30 days? How long would it take you to notice that a random file had disappeared from the filesystem 7 layers deep? Have you ever needed to restore a years-old file?
(You need not explain why you do it; I understand about users who could use it as a cloud storage service by deleting files after they're backed up. The point remains that it's not a backup.)
That's nonsense. Not only have you not supported your assertion, but: 1) there's no reason to think that AGW is immune to these problems; and, worse, 2) AGW research is not reproducible, because it's not falsifiable, so it specifically does apply to AGW; and 3) even if you think models are meaningful, falsifiable predictions, the models have proven to be inaccurate. The claim fails in every way, from general to specific.
> It's supported by thousands (millions?) of papers, models, meta-studies, science bodies, and so on, all agreeing.
I have to wonder here if you actually believe what you're saying. "All agreeing"? That's a nonsensical, blanket statement. That's not science.
Five seconds on a search engine would prove to you that there are many scientists who do not agree with AGW hypotheses and alarmism. The parallels between your mindset and those of religious true believers who can't tolerate dissenting views are striking. Nope, don't look at any information that might contradict your scriptures, that might reveal their weaknesses, that might undermine the foundations of your faith.
> See for example NASA's overview: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
See for example this former NASA employee: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20997978
I worked on NASA's "Mission to Planet Earth" program for a few years. Cherry-picking of models that produce results that meet the current agenda is not uncommon. Just as researchers have a (deserved IMHO) reputation for publishing data that concurs with their topics...
> Gosh, you're furious.
Let's recap:
1. You accuse me of "bullshit." 2. I make a truthful claim. 3. You accuse me of lying. 4. I prove my claim and say you should retract your accusation. 5. You say, "Gosh, you're furious!"
Where did you learn to act so shamefully? You accuse someone of bullshitting and lying, then when they prove they're not, your response is, "lol u mad." You can't even handle the truth, and your trolling is predictable.
> He was not suggesting misleading the public.
Of course he was. But he's practiced at couching, characterization, deflection, and projection, just like you are.
Have you looked up John Cook's fraudulence yet? Can you admit that knowledge to your psyche, or does it need to be protected from dissent?
You may not like my swapping the definitions of those words, but that is language how literally works. Therefore, according to your logic, it is valid.
Well, you probably didn't, because the mainstream media didn't cover it. You'll have to search for it. Up to you.
Are you also unaware of the peer-review crisis?
> No. You're the one insisting that the global scientific orthodoxy is wrong. You present the evidence.
Since you appeared to be unaware, I informed you that a particular, widely cited paper was discovered, years ago, to have been fraudulent, and that the information about it is freely available on the Internet. Five seconds on Google (or perhaps DuckDuckGo) would present you with the information.
You have refused to avail yourself of said information.
It is not my responsibility to educate you about science. If you care about scientific integrity, you can look up the information without any interference from me. If you prefer to remain ignorant and fixed in your beliefs, that is your decision.
> No, he didn't. Try looking up the original. But even if he did, it wouldn't matter. The science is overwhelming. It makes no difference what one individual said 23 years ago.
You accused me of "bullshit," but here you are simply lying. I have cited the original, and I have the original, and since you are willfully ignorant, I will quote it here:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
--Stephen Schneider in APS News, Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5
Now you can look it up and see for yourself, and then you can retract your ignorant lie and false accusation.
You obviously don't care about the truth. Climate change is your religion, and your faith is unwavering.
Human biology, perhaps? After all, haven't we evolved over thousands of years to be omnivores?
> It's a little strange to see a comment so boastful of a lack of intellectual curiosity on HN.
In other words, according to you, people who aren't interested in being vegetarian lack intellectual curiosity. It's a little strange to see a comment so boastful of intellectual intolerance on HN...
Have you heard of the Viet Cong?
BTW, since you care about reducing wealth inequality, can you send a dono to my paypal?
Don't take my word for it. You're on the Internet. Look up the evidence about Cook's paper. Their fraud was exposed years ago, yet people continue citing him, his paper, and his Web site. (You probably won't find much about it on Wikipedia, of course.)
And the lies are nothing new. For example, Stephen Schneider advocated scientists and media deceiving the public in APS News Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5. It's been going on for decades.
> Papers rejecting AGW are in an extreme minority.
All the science that's been proven correct was once an extreme minority view. An argument based on the number of people who believe something is not a scientific argument.
And why would you make an unscientific argument about a scientific issue?
It's because of claims and citations like yours that people don't believe alarmists. It's dishonest (or ignorant) to cite a fraudulent paper as the source for a claim that the science is settled. Real science is falsifiable and can withstand dissent.
In effect, voting is simply a measure of whether random HN users were pleased or displeased by your comment.
And you're not allowed to mention it, either. If your perfectly reasonable and polite comment gets downvoted to invisibility by random, angry users who won't tolerate diversity of opinion, then suck it up, comrade, and learn to please the hivemind--no complaining!
Of course, certain very-high-karma users can get away with saying things that would be flagged and downvoted to death if said by anyone else.
And that's what HN wants voting to be. Welcome to HN. Enjoy your stay, if you can.
In other words, you're not considering the issue fairly.
You did admit that you're not a Christian and haven't studied theology or interpretation, which is fair of you. So let me ask a few simple questions which demonstrate the necessity of interpretation and the diversity of views on the topic:
Who are your neighbors? Are they the people in the house next door? Are they the people in the nation across the border? Should you help the people across the border at the expense of the people next door? If so, to what extent? If you decline to let into your country every foreigner who wants in, but offer to help them by other means, are you failing to honor the command to love your neighbor?
Why does "love your neighbor" necessarily mean "admit to your nation every foreigner who wants in, and freely give them everything they want, otherwise you're violating the command"?
It quickly becomes clear that such demands are, at best, based on a very shallow theology, and at worst, deception by those who couldn't care less about any religion.
Therefore it makes sense for alarmists to move from a scientific discussion (which has largely been lost) to a political/emotional one, where things are more flexible and a good presented bad argument might still enable you to win.
This very submission is an example of the alarmists doing that.
There are none so blind...
> Atmospheric scientist John Christy developed a global temperature record of the lower atmosphere using highly accurate satellite soundings. NASA honored him for this achievement, and he was an author for a previous edition of the U.N. report. He told a House Science Committee hearing in March 2017 that the U.N. climate models have failed badly.
> Christy compared the average model projections since 1979 to the most reliable observations — those made by satellites and weather balloons over the vast tropics. The result? In the upper levels of the lower atmosphere, the models predicted seven times as much warming as has been observed. Overprediction also occurred at all other levels. Christy recently concluded that, on average, the projected heating by the models is three times what has been observed.
You characterize that as "classical climate change denial" and "just an artifact of a hand picked timeframe." Then you link to a Wikipedia article about "Climate change denial," as if he just needs to read it to understand what an ignorant denialist he is, and then he'll agree with you.
So, according to you, is John Christy in denial?
No, that's a very caricatured interpretation of Christian theology about stewardship of the environment. But Christians are a convenient scapegoat, right?
Therefore, to say, "However big they seemed compared to the past, they're nothing compared to the future," is clearly unscientific, alarmist propaganda. Of course, it's not surprising, given that some scientists have advocated misleading the public on this matter for over 20 years.[0]
There are people on the other side of the issue who have done the same thing and come to the opposite conclusion. For example, over 500 scientists and engineers recently signed a letter to the U.N. saying:
· “Nature as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming” · “Warming is far slower than predicted” · “Climate policy relies on inadequate models” · Carbon dioxide is “plant food, the basis of all life on Earth” · “Global warming has not increased natural disasters” · “Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities”
Signers of the letter include: MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen; Freeman Dyson of the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton, and Stanford University professor emeritus Elliott D. Bloom, as well as several signers formerly affiliated with NASA.
Are they all "incredibly ignorant clowns, not even arguing in good faith"?
That's not at all why global warming alarmists exist. The reason they exist is because the green energy industry managed to make believing in climate change a political issue rather than a scientific one, which is why the alarmism is embraced by one party but not the other. The actual "arguments" don't matter, this one especially since it's impossible to tell if Dorian would've even existed or not had the climate not changed.
Perspective matters.
How far back down the technology tree are we supposed to go?
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJn6pja_l8s "Climate crisis: the unsustainable use of online video"