@rorysutherland@markritson As our capabilities as humans have increased, mechanisms allowing people in positions of responsibility to escape culpability for the results have also flourished.
Perhaps one useful way to look at AI is as the best expression yet of that trend.
In this week's @Spectator, I've written about the worst aspect of the current heatwave: being button-holed by eco-zealots who think the soaring temperatures 'prove' they're right and you're wrong.
The first person to confront me during the current sunny spell was a Guardian journalist at at the ARC conference, which the newspaper had clearly identified as a hotbed of 'denialism'. It didn't help that the air conditioning wasn't working and it was approaching 40°C in the main auditorium.
'I see you're sweating profusely,' he began, shoving a microphone in my face. 'Still think climate change is a hoax?'
I had to patiently explain that few people on my side of this debate deny that climate change is real. We don't even maintain that man-made carbon emissions aren't a contributory factor – not many of us, anyway. The disagreement is about how much of the 1.5°C rise in average global temperatures since the 1850-1900 period is due to these emissions and how much to other factors, such as solar variability, natural ocean cycles and land-use changes.
Yes, we're fond of pointing out that the 1850-1900 period may have been unusually cold, coming as it did at the end of the Little Ice Age -- so may not be a reliable baseline; and that the rise in temperatures since may have been exaggerated by recordings being made in built-up urban areas or near airports. But that isn't to deny that the climate has changed in the past 125-175 years.
This all matters, I told the journalist, because if the 'climate emergency' lobby is wrong about the extent of global warming and its causes, it may not be necessary to immiserate ourselves to achieve Net Zero by 2050. Even if we allow that there would be some benefits (in the unlikely event of China, America, India and Russia committing to the same target), they would likely be outweighed by the costs, which, as we know from estimates of how many billions we need to spend to decarbonise the UK's power grid, are eye-watering.
Needless to say, none of this made it into the Guardian article.
https://t.co/xZi1SpFfXI
@brianheg@FamedCelebrity Fantastic. Instructive that Miller's only substantive argument was a ludicrous one about longer life spans being somehow equivalent to immigration from different cultures, but Powell still engaged with it clearly and calmly.
@Sptme1@Edessagospels@volcaholic1 Good point. Weather stations are designated class 1 to 5 according to how accurate & reliable they are. Less than 15% of UK weather stations are in the top two classes.
@LoftusSteve I wonder if this will apply to money market funds? If not, surely ISA providers could just switch to these as vehicles for cash in an S&S ISA (like for example Trading212 does currently as an option).
I sense that political obituarists are preparing to run with the line that @Keir_Starmer was a decent fellow, but ill-suited to politics. Honest but naïve.
Well, have a look at this and then try to tell me he was honest. The signs were there from the start.
@TheSimonEvansX I'm not sure Freddie conceding only to being "overly hasty in expressing scepticism" quite counts as a formal apology for his comments.
@KathrynPorter26 Exactly this. A key part of the Speaker's job should be ensuring that Parliament can properly hold the government to account. If ministers can just ignore questions without real consequence, what is the point of Parliament?