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

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.

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.

Lorraine Ford
You are repeating the same misinterpretations despite repeated clariifcation.
You have not addressed https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/29/the-lancets-scientific-chicanery-on-mortality-exposed-by-co2-coalition
I'm not the one throwing around insults and false accusatiions.
Dying of cold or hunger is no fun either-don't think you re supporting the moral high ground

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

1. Climate change scientists have taken many, many factors into consideration in reaching their consensus conclusion. I am amazed that you would question their honesty, integrity, and competence.
2. I think that your view of the world is that people have no effect on the world. Both the earth and the earth’s movement round the sun are 100% the outcome of underlying processes, and the earth can’t be said to be an actor that has control over its own movement. I think that you think that both people and people’s movements (raping, murdering, burning fossil fuels) are also 100% the outcome of underlying processes, and people can’t be said to be actors that have control over their own movements (raping, murdering, burning fossil fuels).

So clearly, I think that you have a very poor opinion of the abilities of human beings and other living things, because you think that they are pseudo-entities (like the earth) that have no genuine control over their own movements and outcomes, pseudo-entities (like the earth) that have no genuine input to the world.

Do you deny this? Do you say that people ARE genuine entities that have genuine input to the world? Do you say that people ARE genuine entities that have genuine control over their own bodily movements?

Georgina Woodward

1. Climate change scientists have taken many, many factors into consideration in reaching their consensus conclusion. I am amazed that you would question their honesty, integrity, and COMPETENCE.
2. How is an entity different to a pseudo-entity (like the earth or the sun); what do you mean by "agency"? These are just words, and you clearly have no conceptual model of entities or agency, and how they are different to pseudo-entities and non-agency. So, despite what you say, I think that you think that, when looked at very very closely, people and people's movements, are 100% the outcome of laws of nature, just like the earth and the earth's movements round the sun, are 100% the outcome of laws of nature. You clearly have no conceptual model of entities or agency: this is very pertinent to the issue of whether or not human beings can actually, genuinely have an effect on the planet and the planet’s climate.