• FQXi Podcast

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

Georgina Woodward
Surprise, surprise: you and I don't get to decide what is happening with the climate. The consensus opinion and expert analysis of climate scientists is what builds a picture of what is happening with the climate, so that humanity is in the best position to respond to what is actually happening in the real world, as opposed to humanity responding to the type of fake view of the world that you are trying to promulgate.

Surprise, surprise: watching a video or two does not make you a climate expert.

      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.

              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
                      There are on one hand the theory and model based climate change alarmists. Frightening people and causing societal level harm by misleading political decision making..Not honestly pointing out that bad weather and disasters due to mismanagement of resources are not evidence of an imminent existentially threatening climate change. Ad homimem and other social pressure is used to silence differing opinion as if totalitarian control is appropriate . On the other hand, based on what is currently happening inthe real world and historical data and ata from prehistory, there are climate change realists,,Who are not denying that change occurs , but are advocating for adaptation and preparedness, for catastophies that always have and will happen.

                        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.

                                    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.