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

Georgina Woodward
Consensus opinion (e.g. on climate science, COVID, and anything else you like to name) is something that Georgina Woodward has, apparently, never heard about.

"A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong. In Unsettled, Steven Koonin deploys that highly misleading label to falsely suggest that we don’t understand the risks well enough to take action' by Gary Yohe on 13 May 2021, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/ .

Lorraine Ford
S. Koonin,, in the video, describes using the facts presented by the IPCC itself. Which are at odds with sensationalism fed by members to the press, that does not accurately portray the science itself. He is a climate scientist and knowledgeable about climate modelling. Gary Yohe is an economist and climate economist. An economist's opinion of the writing is neither here nor there. We should be concerned with the facts, not opinion based on hearsay sensationalism Even consensus opinion can be wrong. Agreeing about a fiction does not make it true. S. Koonin points out that most people will not read the original science that is considered for the IPCC report, as there is so much of it.

Georgina Woodward
Surprise, surprise: you and I don't get to decide. The consensus opinion of climate scientists is what decides the matter. I can't understand why you are getting so unnaturally excited about this issue. I guess the consensus opinion of climate scientists clashes with your view of the way you think the world ought to work. Too bad about that.

Lorraine Ford
The actual climate of planet Earth isn't decided by consensus by any group of people. To think climate scientists are in control of the climate and determine how its going to behave, just by agreeing ii daft. It is objective reality , that is observation independent. Very complex and chaotic, not easily modeled, Measurement generates observation products that may be used to generate models. Which may or may not have some semblance to what exists and or happens ,depending on their particular construction.

Lorraine Ford
Making a picture of what is assumed to be happening but producing models that are not working as intended i.e. not producing accurate predictions. So we can reasonably call them wrong. Then exaggerating the wrong predictions; misleading the media ,who whip up catastrophic stories (that gets attention and sells more news ) not justified by the raw data input, or even better uncorrupted satellite data . Terrifying young people and misdirecting civil servants .
You have the cart before the horse, claiming the computer model, picture, of reality is the undeniable truth and 'what is actually happening in the real world' So the climate of the material world must correspond to it. The model's are imperfect approximations at best if the inbuilt assumptions about climate are correct, which we do not certainly know .

Georgina Woodward
What ludicrous nonsense. Georgina Woodward, who admits that she is an anthropogenic climate change denier (though she doesn't like to be labelled as such), seemingly spends her entire life in front of a screen, passively watching rubbish videos, and now she thinks she is the climate expert, and the expert on the TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE effects climate predictions are having on society: "catastrophic stories" that are apparently "Terrifying young people and misdirecting civil servants"!! Gosh!

Re: "You have the cart before the horse, claiming the computer model ... "

You might not have noticed. but I never claimed anything. I actually said that we need to trust the consensus opinion and expert analysis of professional climate scientists, in order to build the best possible picture of what is happening with the climate, and why it is happening. And that is what sensible people are doing.

Lorraine Ford
Labels, insults big bold capitals doen't change the climate of the Earth, huff and puff all you want.
.

Georgina Woodward
We need to trust the consensus opinion and expert analysis of professional climate scientists, in order to build the best possible picture of what is happening with the climate, and why it is happening. And that is what sensible people are doing.

Lorraine Ford
Here's a short discussion of consensus in science. https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2016/04/20/consensus_is_part_of_the_scientific_method_109606.html
I would remind you that theories in science are never proven but only not yet disproven. They are ideas about how things are, relations, or happenings. Computer science in climate science is using current theories,which may be wrong and that they have been disproven may become the new consensus. The current theories and data (quality should be considered) are used to produce prediction of future climate-( i.e. fortune telling.) As i have explained; the model's are imperfect approximations at best if the inbuilt assumptions about climate are correct, which we do not certainly know . Climate is very complex and chaotic making modelling it very difficult. "Need to trust " sounds a lot like have belief. Is that scientific?

Georgina Woodward
Georgina Woodward, knows nothing about climate; watches a video or two; now thinks she is a climate scientist; now thinks she knows more than the majority of professional climate scientists; now thinks she can tell them how to do their jobs; because apparently these professional climate scientists are not capable of doing their jobs.

Apparently these professional climate scientists need to be told that “Climate is very complex and chaotic making modelling it very difficult” !

Georgina Woodward: an utterly foolish person.

Lorraine Ford
Ad hominen, huff and puff. Not reasoned debate of the presented arguments.
Philosophical debate is not conducted by having a survival of the shoutiest or most insulting competition. Some thought is given to the issues raised.
That 'climate is complex and chaotic' is given as a reminder to you,

Whether conclusions drawn from simulations are as reliable as real world observation is debateable. The way in which the simulation is constructed is relevant.
Science progresses by identification of errors leading to falsification and replacement with new hypotheses and explanatory framewworks .Disalllowing discussion of it creates an unchageablwe ideology,that is relligion-like or politicdal-like.

Georgina Woodward
Re "'climate is complex and chaotic' is given as a reminder to you,":
DUH. I never knew that the "climate is complex and chaotic" !!!!!! Thanks for underestimating my knowledge.

You are not in fact capable of making reasoned arguments, or raising pertinent issues, when it comes to the complexities of climate: there is absolutely no point in debating climate with someone like you. It is the professional climate scientists who are capable of making reasoned arguments, and raising pertinent issues, and coming to a majority conclusion. You severely underestimate the abilities of the majority of professional climate scientists, and you severely overestimate your own ability to make reasoned arguments and raise pertinent issues about climate.

Georgina Woodward watches a couple of videos, and now she thinks she is making reasoned arguments, and raising pertinent issues. This is because she is an utterly foolish person, who overestimates herself, and underestimates other people.

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.