• FQXi Podcast

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

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.

                                    Photosynthesis is a chemical reaction that happens on Earth.
                                    Carbon dioxide is necessary for photosynthesis.
                                    Plants use photosynthesis to make their food, simple sugars, stored as starch.
                                    Photosynthesis is necessary for plant survival, growth and reproduction.
                                    Most (but not all) life on Earth depends on photosynthesis, directly or indirectly.
                                    Photosynthesis produces an excess of oxygen, released as waste.
                                    Excess oxygen from photosynthesis allows animal life to exist and survive.
                                    There is more photosynthesis when carbon dioxide levels are raised, as carbon dioxide is a limiting factor.
                                    Growers may add carbon dioxide to greenhouses to increase photosynthesis, thereby increasing the yield of the crop.
                                    Human beings rely on plants as food directly and as food for the animals they eat. As Photosynthesis keeps ‘food’ plants alive, this is another way human life is dependent on photosynthesis.
                                    Other benefits of photosynthesizing plants; shade, part of the hydrological cycle, root stabilization of soils, banks etc.
                                    Satellite data shows the earth is greening. Li, Y., Li, ZL., Wu, H. et al. Biophysical impacts of earth greening can substantially mitigate regional land surface temperature warming. Nat Commun 14, 121 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-35799-4
                                    retrieved via https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-35799-4#citeas oct 2023

                                    Georgina Woodward has a degree in biological sciences and studied plant biology and ecology including topic of global warming in year 3

                                    Lies, falsehoods and hatred are different from different views of a greater reality that is not appreciated with only one limited relative viewpoint.

                                      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?

                                        People in my opinion are entities with agency to act upon the material world. I don't know why you imagine I think otherwise.
                                        It is true that humans are adding to co2 in the atmosphere. It is true that global temperature has risen in industrial times (but not lately). It's true most life depends on photosynthesis, providing food and oxygen. Its true that photosynthesis needs co2 and works better with more of it.

                                          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.

                                              Lorraine Ford I have not questioned the honesty, integrity and competence of the work of climate scientists.It is you who who have said that I have.
                                              I have alway been interested in how living things work. I took comparative anatomy, physiology and cell biology classes at University. I have taught both biology and human biology. I know the functional difference between animate and inanimate objects.

                                                  Georgina Woodward

                                                  1. You have accused people of “fearmongering”, and of having hidden agendas (“sociall enginerring, political and financial reasons”), no doubt due to your obsessive watching of rubbish videos. Climate change scientists have taken many, many factors into consideration in reaching their consensus conclusion about what is happening to the climate, and the cause of what is happening to the climate. I am amazed that you would question their honesty, integrity, and competence and the honesty, integrity, and competence of those who trust the majority opinion of climate scientists. You are an anthropogenic climate change denier, and a climate change conspiracy theorist, who very very badly overestimates your own expertise in the subject of climate.
                                                  2. You haven’t explained the difference between entities and non-entities, and the difference between agency and non-agency. Where is your explanation? The reason you can’t explain the difference between entities and non-entities, and the difference between agency and non-agency, is because you do not see any difference in the physics of entities and non-entities, and the physics of agency and non-agency. If there is no difference in the physics, then there is no difference, except superficial appearances, between entities and non-entities, and no difference, except superficial appearances, between agency and non-agency. And therefore you can have no conception of how people's agency could potentially affect the climate, and no conception of how people's agency could potentially avert climate disaster. Where is your explanation?