• FQXi Podcast

  • Does Objective Reality Exist? Great Mysteries of Physics Part 4 -- FQxI Podcast

Lorraine Ford
Ad hominem, huff and puff.
'Whether conclusions drawn from simulations are as reliable as real world observation is debateable. The way in which the simulation is constructed is relevant.
This is not specific to climate complexity and chaos.'
'' Science progresses by identification of errors leading to falsification and replacement with new hypotheses and explanatory framewworks .Disalllowing discussion of it creates an unchageable ideology,that is religion-like or political-like.
This too is not specfic to climate.
i apologize if i have misunderestimated your knowledge and ability to reason rather than just use insults I am basing my estimation of those mental faculties on how and what you have written in the discussion threads.

      Georgina Woodward
      You watched a couple of videos, and now you think you are capable of making reasoned arguments, and raising pertinent issues about climate, with mere words and no mathematics. The issue is YOUR "mental faculties", because you overestimate yourself, and underestimate professional climate scientists.

          Lorraine Ford
          More ad hominem. You are not demonstrating your ability to focus on the specfic points made. Which are not specific to climate but relevant to science in general. These two specific points do not require calculation.

              Georgina Woodward
              “Ad hominem” is appropriate because the hominem is the actual problem, NOT the professional climate scientists. The hominem who watched a couple of videos, and now believes she is a professional climate expert, is the actual problem. I don’t accept that you are in any way capable of evaluating or criticising the work of professional climate scientists, who have come to a consensus opinion about the world’s climate.

                  Georgina Woodward
                  I never bother to watch your rubbish videos, and I don't ever checkout the links you provide. Seemingly, you are not capable of personally, coherently explaining whatever it is you are trying to say.

                  And you are not asking philosophical questions, don't kid yourself.

                  I don’t accept that you, and your loony, foolish fellow travellers, are in any way capable of evaluating or criticising the work of professional climate scientists, who have come to a consensus opinion about the world’s climate. Ever heard of peer review? Next you'll be claiming that you are capable of doing a peer review of a physics paper. OMG.

                    Fot the record:
                    I m not a climate change denier. if I have not made rt clear ,
                    climate change is happening.
                    Average global temperayure is currently increasing
                    I have stated that co2 is a known greenhouse gas.
                    Human's are releasiing Co2 into the atmosphere ,so some temperaturee rise maytbe attributable to that.

                    I have also stated that co2 increases plant growth . (Fact utilized by greenhouse plant growers.)
                    I have made some points applicable to science in general;
                    Correlation does not prove causation. Models are effected by the theory/hypotheses used to construct them. Science is never proved and progresses (In part) by falsification
                    Consensus among a group of scientists does not mean that every sensation press story is correct. Or that every individual expressing alarm and urging rapid action is responding proportionately to the IPCC's own models. The last video, in which a mathematician explains,shows this
                    Response must be carefully considered before and after any implementation ,to be sure we are not making things worse, Aside from the science itself there are sociall enginerring, political and financial reasons for fearmongering.

                      Georgina Woodward
                      Georgina Woodward: ANTHROPOGENIC climate change denier.

                      She can't accept the work of the majority of professional climate scientists, who, taking all factors into consideration, have come to a consensus opinion about the world’s climate, and its causes. She calls the considered, consensus opinion of the majority of the world's professional climate scientists "fearmongering", and she seems to believe that the majority of the world's professional climate scientists have hidden agendas: " sociall enginerring, political and financial reasons".

                      Basically, she just can't accept that what human beings are doing could have any significant negative effect on the world's climate. That sounds to me like a type of religious belief about the nature of the world. So, for example, fundamentalist Christians seem to believe that their "man in the sky" is controlling everything, including the climate.

                          Lorraine Ford
                          'Fearmongering' was not refering to the actual output of the climate models but repoting othe media and alarm expressed and spread by individuas, who are not themseves climate scientists
                          The last paragraph of the preceeding post is just riidiculous and totally irrelevant musing.

                              Georgina Woodward
                              Georgina Woodward: ANTHROPOGENIC climate change denier.

                              She can't accept the work of the majority of professional climate scientists, who, taking all factors into consideration, have come to a consensus opinion about the world’s climate, and its causes. She calls the considered, consensus opinion of the majority of the world's professional climate scientists (AND THE OPINION OF THOSE WHO ACCEPT THE CONSIDERED CONSENSUS OPINION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S PROFESSIONAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS) "fearmongering", and she seems to believe that the majority of the world's professional climate scientists (AND THOSE WHO ACCEPT THE CONSIDERED CONSENSUS OPINION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S PROFESSIONAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS) have hidden agendas: " sociall enginerring, political and financial reasons".

                              Basically, she just can't accept the fact that what human beings are doing is having a significant negative effect on the world's climate. That sounds to me like a type of religious belief about the nature of the world. So, for example, fundamentalist Christians seem to believe that their "man in the sky" is controlling everything, including the climate. Georgina Woodward is, basically, just another type of woo-woo religious believer: she just can't accept the fact that what human beings are doing is having a significant negative effect on the world's climate.

                              Georgina Woodward: ANTHROPOGENIC climate change denier, and woo-woo believer.

                                  Georgina Woodward
                                  Georgina Woodward can't accept the conclusions reached by the majority of professional climate scientists, who, taking all factors into consideration, have come to a consensus opinion about the world’s climate, and its causes.

                                  She calls the considered, consensus opinion of the majority of the world's professional climate scientists (and the opinion of those who accept the considered consensus opinion of the majority of the world's professional climate scientists) "fearmongering", and she seems to believe that the majority of the world's professional climate scientists (and those who accept the considered consensus opinion of the majority of the world's professional climate scientists) have hidden agendas: "sociall enginerring, political and financial reasons".

                                  Georgina Woodward can't face the facts about the real world, so she turns to loony woo-woo videos, and she INSULTS HONEST SCIENTISTS, and the people who trust the work of these honest scientists, by accusing them of fearmongering, and of having hidden agendas.

                                      Lorraine Ford
                                      I do not know if the majority of climate scientists really believe the extreme views and sensationalism of the press. I doubt it .They probably are educated enough to know better.

                                      co2 was at much higher levels in prehistory. Human's rely on plants and animals that eat them to provide food for their human bodies . Some of that food provides the means to generate a soucse of energy in transportable form,ATP. ATP is manufactured by the mitochondria of cells from glucose extracted from food. The nuance and precise details of nutrition are another discussion.
                                      in order to make starch, chains of glucose, plants use a process of photosynthesis , manufacturing glucose from carbon dioxide in the air and water. co2 is a limiting factor in this process. Plants can grow much better with higher co2. Fossil fuels have trapped the fixed co2 from ancient forests and sea creatures. Releasing it alows it to be used by new growth. co2 in the atmoshere is at extremely low levels for healthy plant growth. More atmospheric co2 should be encouraging plant growth. It has the potential to increase crop yields and help feed people ,who require food to live. Plants also can provide shade, have a role in the hydrological cycle and generally benefit from slight increase in temperature, Heat is another limiting factor as chemical reactions can happen faster when reactants move around more. This is a generalization discounting specialisation to sprecific themal tollerance niches of some species.

                                          Georgina Woodward
                                          Georgina Woodward seems to consider that she, after consulting the internet, has the depth and breadth of specialist knowledge to counter the unpalatable-to-her consensus opinion of the majority of climate scientists.

                                          And Georgina Woodward insults these honest climate scientists, who have come to a consensus opinion about the world’s climate and its causes, and she insults the people who trust the work of these honest climate scientists, when she accuses them of “fearmongering”, and of having hidden agendas (“sociall enginerring, political and financial reasons”).

                                          Forget about ChatGPT and the purportedly coming AI apocalypse, Georgina Woodward has already morphed into a climate change conspiracy theorist, just from watching rubbish internet videos:

                                          “Climate change conspiracy theories assert that the scientific consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce manipulated data or suppress dissent. It is one of a number of tactics used in climate change denial to attempt to manufacture political and public controversy disputing this consensus. Conspiracy theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming and climate change has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_conspiracy_theory

                                              Georgina Woodward
                                              Georgina Woodward has repeatedly clarified that she is a conspiracy theorist (climate change conspiracy theorist), and an anthropogenic climate change denier, who very badly overestimates her own expertise.

                                              Georgina Woodward insults honest climate scientists, who have come to a consensus opinion about the world’s climate and its causes, and she insults the people who trust the work of these honest climate scientists, when she accuses them of “fearmongering”, and of having hidden agendas (“sociall enginerring, political and financial reasons”).

                                              I have already told you that I never bother to look at the videos or articles you link to. You are incredibly presumptuous and lazy, when you expect other people to read articles and watch videos for you. I am not going to do your work for you: it is up to you to explain in your own words what these people are saying, if you can, which I doubt.

                                                  Lorraine Ford
                                                  Objective reality, is not a construction from one viewpoint. Consider the ancient tale of six blind men and the elephant. Everyone should know and take heed of its message. The blind men each feel a different part of the elephant and says what an elephant is from his own experience. There is no agreement. J.C.N. Smith on FQxI once asked me “What is truth?” I replied, “The whole elephant.” It is not just the elephant, but its happening; breathing, moving etc. That is the objective absolute reality. It is and happens independently of the individual, partial, relative perceptions of it.
                                                  Imagine the blind men moving around so they feel what another of them feels. Imagine the one who has felt the trunk getting another group of blind fellows to feel as he has. So they can know and agree with him. Is it correct as they declare, if you disagree with the trunk view you are either an ignorant fool, mistaken a liar, hallucinating or confabulating No disagreement will be allowed because the trunk group agree and confirm it is correct.
                                                  This is why preventing discourse, is not a good thing. Both disagreeing parties can potentially learn from each other. It does not have to be adversarial ‘I’m right so you must be wrong. Hopefully it is clear that the blind-men even with consensus of a viewpoint are not describing absolute Objective reality. That does not alter the honesty of their reporting what they have found from their own investigation. Ignorance, mistakes lies, hallucination and confabulating can happen but we do not need to immediately decide that this is the reason for disagreement, rather than the holding of equally legitimate alternative incomplete viewpoints.
                                                  Quantum theory suggests that the outcome, prior to measurement is a mix of outcomes that will and won’t be found. In the elephant dilemma, the whole elephant animal does not exist as a collection of singular perceptions before the ‘feeling’ by the blind men of the elephant has happened. The whole elephant is an observation independent entity. Its existence does not depend on perception of it. The Moon (object) really does exist when I’m not looking (Forming an observation product Moon semblance). On observation a relative observation product is formed. It is relative, it is contextural. Many alternative, singular, relative, contextural outcome products could have been formed under different circumstances.

                                                      Georgina Woodward
                                                      Your homespun philosophy, which mixes in elephants and naïve ideas of quantum theory, is quite muddled and unconvincing to me.

                                                      Getting back to the actual specific article you linked to, which you seem to think is some sort of proof of your conspiracy-theorist ideas about climate:

                                                      I have already told you that I never bother to look at the videos or articles that you, or anyone else, links to. You are incredibly presumptuous and lazy, when you expect other people to read articles and watch videos for you. I am not going to do your work for you: it is up to you to explain in your own words what this person or these people are saying, if you can, which I doubt.