- 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.
- 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?
Does Objective Reality Exist? Great Mysteries of Physics Part 4 -- FQxI Podcast
Lorraine Ford
I mentioned press sensationalism and people being frightened. Possible motives for that were suggested but left unspecific. Certainly not directing accusations at any individual
Georgina Woodward
I am using the words 'entity' and
'Agency' ,with their common dictionary definition. Eg. Merriam Webster; being, existence; especially ; independent or self contained.
The existence of a thing as contrasted with it's attributes.
Eg. Oxford Languages: agency: action or intervention producing a particular effect.
Maybe this illustration will be helpful. Imagine a sheet of paper that has writing on it front and back. You are allowed or able see left or right of one side of the paper the rest is not visible/obscured. In big letters on the left side of page 1, it says ‘truth, in objective reality, is one, complete and absolute.’ On the right hand side it says ‘see both sides ’The left side of page 2 says ’there are many partial, relative truths that may seem to contradict but have validity according to their viewpoint.’ The right hand side says ‘this is the end’. Imagine having just one of the four statements and no other guide to its intended meaning. What meaning might be given to each statement alone without information about the others and where the writing was situated on the page.
Georgina Woodward
You have accused people of “fearmongering”, and of having hidden agendas (“sociall [sic] enginerring [sic], political and financial reasons”). Unlike you, 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.
Georgina Woodward
The Merriam Webster and the Oxford dictionaries do not explain the physics of agency, or of entities. If, when looked at very closely, the physics of "agency" is identical to the physics of non-agency, then this "agency" is merely superficial appearances. So, how is the physics of agency different to the physics of non-agency?
Georgina Woodward
Your crude, folksy illustration is just ludicrous.
Lorraine Ford
People do not generally have lives where they are only concerned with one thing only .That they might have social, political and financial conerns of their own too is not a conspiracy theory. It is recognizing we are talking about complex human beings, not 1 dimensional sterotypes. I do not think it unreasonacle conjecture that scientists try to promotre their work to get funding, that news organizations sensationalize to sell more news or advertizing, that frightened people try to get action to publisize their concerns, that politicians may be motivated by using the issue to gain votes.
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
The majority of climate scientists have come to a very different conclusion to the paper you approvingly summarised a few days ago, where your summary seems to claim that climate change will usher in a green and productive utopian future. But unlike you, climate scientists have taken many, many factors into consideration in reaching their very serious consensus conclusion about what is happening to the world’s climate, and the cause of what is happening to the world’s climate. The conclusion is that if humanity continues on its current path, WHAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE DOING WILL LIKELY IRRETRIEVABLY DAMAGE OUR ONLY HOME AND THE ECOSYSTEMS THAT SUPPORT US.
Instead of facing up to this very serious issue, you accuse the very people who are trying to face up to these very serious issues of “fearmongering” about climate, and of having hidden agendas behind their alleged fearmongering about climate (“Aside from the science itself there are sociall [sic] enginerring [sic], political and financial reasons for fearmongering”). And you distrust the honesty, integrity, and competence of the very people who are trying to face up to these very serious issues.
Again, instead of facing up to these very serious issues, your deplorable response is that, well, people have busy lives, and people are not “1 dimensional sterotypes [sic]", and people “have social, political and financial conerns [sic] of their own”.
And once again, deplorably, you try to minimise what the climate scientists are saying, when you claim that the very people who are trying to face up to these very serious issues raised by the climate scientists are likely to have hidden agendas: “I do not think it unreasonacle [sic] conjecture that scientists try to promotre [sic] their work to get funding, that news organizations sensationalize to sell more news or advertizing [sic], that frightened people try to get action to publisize [sic] their concerns, that politicians may be motivated by using the issue to gain votes.”
- Edited
Lorraine Ford
May I start by apologising for the spelling mistakes in the text you quoted, It was written from my, acute medical, hospital bed on a mobile phone.
Saying that climate is chaotic was not meant as an insult. I am refering to the scientific meaning of the word. A system is chaoic if it can flip unpredictably between steady states and shows sensitivity to initial conditions. This sensitivity is illustrated by the well known 'Butterfly effect' .Telling how the flap of a butterfly's wings (small input) can be amplified to a storm (large output). Each small input, because of this, is potentially very important ,yet we can not account for every flap of every butterfly on the olanet and every other tiny input.
I also think I should say more about correlation. A football fan may notice his team has won more often han not when he was wearing pink socks. The fan decides he should wear pink socks on match days. Pause for your own thoughs, I won't spell it out. correlation between co2 level rise due to human activity and global temperature increase, during industrial times is noticed. Since climate change can potentially be very unfavorable to humans and this correlation may be due to humans maybe we can stop the correlated change by changing our activity, in case the alteration to the climate sets in motion unstoppable effects. What people think does not effect whether there is causation or not.
The context in which the word 'fearmongering' was used, the media, is important.Taking it out of conext misrepresents the intended meaning.
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
You have made an absurd assumption that climate scientists, and others, are simpletons who don't know about "chaos" and "complexity" and "correlation"!
But unlike you, climate scientists have taken many, many factors into consideration in reaching their very serious consensus conclusion about what is happening to the world’s climate, and the cause of what is happening to the world’s climate. The conclusion is that if humanity continues on its current path, WHAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE DOING WILL LIKELY IRRETRIEVABLY DAMAGE OUR ONLY HOME AND THE ECOSYSTEMS THAT SUPPORT US.
And you did NOT just accuse the media of having reasons for "fearmongering", you also implied that at least three other groups were "fearmongering" for their own reasons: "scientists try to promotre [sic] their work to get funding", "frightened people try to get action to publisize [sic] their concerns" and "politicians may be motivated by using the issue to gain votes".
People in the media and others, who take what the majority of climate scientists are saying very seriously, ARE NOT FEARMONGERING.
- Edited
Lorraine Ford
I guess it doesn't matter what my intention is , you are determined to be offended and will put your own interpetation on my words. Other people than the media do indeed induge in fearmongering, As your big bold letters show. However I was refering to the media ,when using that specific word.
Georgina Woodward
I don't care what your intention is, I only see the actual words you have written, where you repeatedly approvingly linked to videos and papers that cast doubt on the consensus opinion of the majority of climate scientists, and where on two separate occasions, you cast doubt on the very people who are honestly trying to face up to the very serious issues raised by the climate scientists, by saying that these people are:
- "fearmongering" and
- are "fearmongering" because they have hidden agendas : “I do not think it unreasonacle [sic] conjecture that scientists try to promotre [sic] their work to get funding, that news organizations sensationalize to sell more news or advertizing [sic], that frightened people try to get action to publisize [sic] their concerns, that politicians may be motivated by using the issue to gain votes.”
From Stanford encyclopedia ofd philosiophy Soics
Quotes "In response to the concern posted on this thread about moral responsibility for violent acts, Chrysippus begins by distinguishing different types of causes. Although nothing happens without an antecedent cause, he claims, not all antecedent causes are sufficient for bringing about their effect (Plutarch, ....):"
An illustration of different responses to the same impetus-
["Chrysippus] resorts to his cylinder and cone: these cannot begin to move without a push; but once that has happened, he holds that it is thereafter through their own nature that the cylinder rolls and the cone spins."
Nature and nurture affect how people behave. Nature , genetics is not a personal choice nor is nurture during early chilhood.Adults though may be ina position to influence nurture by controlling , choosing or avoiding certain exposures.
Definitions by Oxford languages
to reason
- think, understand, and form judgements logically.
"humans do not reason entirely from facts"
rationality - the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
"like any phobia, rationality plays only a small role"
To belive with absolute faith in a given ideology , not permitting any dicussion, questioning or examination of it ,seems the antitheses of reason and rationality.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds, APR 26, 2016, Karl B. Hille
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
NOAA Satellite Data Used in Study Finding Significant Greening in Earth's Vegetative Areas, April 26, 2016, https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/noaa-satellite-data-used-study-finding-significant-greening-earths-vegetative-areas
Here are the two articles given at the end of that writing
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/876845
and,
Zaichun Zhu, Shilong Piao, Ranga B. Myneni, Mengtian Huang, Zhenzhong Zeng, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Almut Arneth, Chunxiang Cao, Lei Cheng, Etsushi Kato, Charles Koven, Yue Li, Xu Lian, Yongwen Liu, Ronggao Liu, Jiafu Mao, Yaozhong Pan, Shushi Peng, Josep Peñuelas, Benjamin Poulter, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Benjamin D. Stocker, Nicolas Viovy, Xuhui Wang, Yingping Wang, Zhiqiang Xiao, Hui Yang, Sönke Zaehle & Ning Zeng , Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Clim Change 6, 791–795 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004.
Abstract, https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
Correction , as has not copied acccurately nor allowed me to edit
Definitions by Oxford languages
to reason
2. think, understand, and form judgements logically.
"humans do not reason entirely from facts"
rationality
1. the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
"like any phobia, rationality plays only a small role"
In my words-
To belive with absolute faith in a given ideology , not permitting any dicussion, questioning or examination of it ,seems the antitheses of reason and rationality.
'Ocean Health – Is there an “Acidification” problem'?
https://co2coalition.org/publications/ocean-health-is-there-an-acidification-problem/
The white paper can be downloaded from tthe end of his article, that writes about it.
A single relative view generated from uncorrupted data, is true, as in a faithful likeness, within ts context ie. seen this way. Other views **are not,** _because of that_, **untrue or incorrect,** they must be seen in there own different ‘seen this way’ context. Rather than right and wrong _they are parts of the image of a greater objective reality_, This is not permissive, I.e. saying there is no right and wrong. It is not either saying ‘anything goes’. There can still be individual views that are not faithful likenesses of the objective reality – maybe because of malfunction of device or organism, during their production, lack of fidelity may be because of interference or other particular environmental conditions, there can be intentional fakes and lies that appear to be likenesses of objective reality but are not. Many relative views amalgamated, as each is true in it’s own context, doesn’t give a singular objective view but blurs the individual views where they disagree not being clearly this or that. So is an incorrect approach. More information in this case does not increase the fidelity of the semblance. In other words does not provide a clearer picture than one clear relative view from a particular viewpoint. Many individual views are better than the amalgamation. This or this or this or this etc. is correct. This and this and this and this is incorrect. Stitching images together to give a coherent singular output is okay but overlapping isn’t. Think of a hospital 3d scan output or panorama photographic picture.
To get an appreciation of the objective reality, viewpoint must change, whether by the observer moving, like the blind men walking around and feeling the different parts of the elephant. Or the object source must be moved, like tuning a sea shell in one’s hand to view all of it. Either way alters the relation of the observer with the sensory data emitted by the material source object, so that it is experienced or measured to be different. Either by; change to the data being received from the environment from a relatively stationary source. Or change to the data and distribution put into the environment by moving the source.
Georgina Woodward
I don't know what happened when I last posted. i can't correct it it seems. I meant to say
'
A single relative view is true, as in a faithful likeness, within ts context ie. seen this way. Other views are not, because of that, untrue or incorrect, they must be seen in there own different ‘seen this way’ context. Rather than right and wrong they are parts of the image of a greater objective reality, This is not permissive, I.e. saying there is no right and wrong. It is not either saying ‘anything goes’. There can still be individual views that are not faithful likenesses of the objective reality – maybe because of malfunction of device or organism, during their production, lack of fidelity may be because of interference or other particular environmental conditions, there can be intentional fakes and lies that appear to be likenesses of objective reality but are not.'
The text then contiues as posted in the main body of the previous post