SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1028814)8/25/2017 3:53:25 AM
From: James Seagrove2 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1579896
 
Debbie behind bars will be almost as good as Trump getting elected.




To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1028814)8/28/2017 1:45:46 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Respond to of 1579896
 
Marohasy’s Machine Learning Paper Gets Schooled

By Guest • Sunday, August 27, 2017 - 08:58



This is a guest post by ClimateDenierRoundup

The big news in denierworld this week is obviously the latest (and peer-reviewed) #ExxonKnew study.

But before Exxon stole the spotlight on Tuesday, the newest paper of note in the Denivory Tower was one published earlier this month in an obscure and soon-to-be discontinued journal. T he paper claims current warming is driven by natural forces, and is not uniquely human-caused.

Despite being based entirely on usually denier-derided computer modeling, the study was immediately–and lazily–championed by the climate denial fake news apparatus. Co-author Jennifer Marohasy wrote about the study in an op-ed for the Spectator and at her own blog; her description of her findings was uncritically copy-and-pasted into a Michael Bastasch story at the Daily Caller, reposted at WUWT and TallBloke, praised by James Delingpole at Breitbart and briefly linked to at Drudge (complete with an irrelevant photo of Al Gore).

Yet a quick fact check on science Twitter shows the study’s conclusions are “based on inaccurately cited data that's incorrectly scaled & incorrectly aligned in time.” What’s more, even if the authors had used the data correctly, it’s still “essentially just a complicated curve-fitting exercise,” as And Then There’s Physics points out in a short and simple debunking of this complicated exercise. Marohasy et al’s paper tries to use machine learning to find natural patterns in warming unrelated to carbon pollution, and admits that it doesn’t take actual real world physics into account. As And Then There’s Physics concludes, the study uses a “naive approach – that completely ignores [the] physics” that govern the climate system.

Given that the study itself admits as much, it’s a bit bizarre that the authors couldn’t have seen these many intelligent criticisms about their artificial intelligence paper coming. Unless, of course, they did, and the allure of fawning fake news coverage and a convenient talking point about the denier-beloved Medieval Warming Period was just too great to resist.

There’s also the added bonus that the study was funded by a denier and that the authors work for an Australian industry-funded think tank. Doesn’t take any intelligence, artificial or otherwise, to deduce what’s going on here.

You can lead AI to denial, but you can’t make it think.

desmogblog.com