Lorraine Ford
Labels, insults big bold capitals doen't change the climate of the Earth, huff and puff all you want.
.
Does Objective Reality Exist? Great Mysteries of Physics Part 4 -- FQxI Podcast
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?
- Edited
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.
- Edited
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.
- Edited
Lorraine Ford
The specific questions i asked are philosophical and not specific to climate science.
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.
- Edited
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.
- Edited
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.
- Edited
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.
Lorraine Ford
Using more bold letters does not make your innaccuracies, bigoted misinterpretations and insults true.