- Edited
Lorraine Ford
IRRELEVANT TO WHETHER CLIMATE CHANGE MEASUREMENTS ARE ABSOLUTE OR RELATIVE, You supposedly know some math, do you understand the difference? it has nothing to do with an individual's employment.
Does Objective Reality Exist? Great Mysteries of Physics Part 4 -- FQxI Podcast
Georgina Woodward
You are using cancel culture as if disapproval of someone's former employers is evidence that they are incorrect on a specific matter of fact. it is not logical thinking. Climate change depends not just on the variation that has occurred but over what specific period of time. It not only fluctuates but from when, a viewpoint, matters. It affects the value for net change output and whether there has been 9overall cooling or warming found
Georgina Woodward
Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. On the other hand, climate scientists, who seem to have a majority opinion on the matter of what is happening to the climate, and why it is happening, are NOT paid spokespeople for polluting industries. Why would I bother to do the figures, when I trust climate scientists to do their specialist jobs?
Why don't you stop watching rubbish videos?
Lorraine Ford
Still as irrelevant as last time you tried that failure to use logic. I'm not expecting you to anything with the figures. is it absolute. or relative? The specialists aren't going to tell you by the way. The video gives some context .
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
I notice from the comments you posted yesterday (see below, where I have highlighted parts of your comment), that you are an anthropogenic climate change denier:
Global warming panic is based in confusing of the difference between short term local weather, man made local disaster such arson and mismanagement and long term global climate, ignorance of normal, natural planetary climate fluctuation and the difference between a singular unreal absolute measurement and variable, contextual relative measurement.
Lorraine Ford
It is well known that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. i accept that some warming may occur due to its increase. However i don't think every bit of bad weather can be accounted for by climate change.
Georgina Woodward
Water more of a greenhouse gas and far more associated with temperature.
Georgina Woodward
The objective truth, is not the fiction predicted by IPCC models. the models are not accurate predictions that fit the incoming data. Name calling doesn't change the facts.
Georgina Woodward
Right now, you seem to think that you are a climate scientist, or better than a climate scientist.
Next, you’ll watch another video and tell us you are a brain surgeon, or better than a brain surgeon.
Lorraine Ford
Confucius said, words to the effect,"' Do not make a mistake into a crime by failure to admit it."
The computers may be very expensive and the models they run very complicated. That does not mean they are actually foretelling the future. The generated fiction rather than objective fact is being used , misleading humanity., Scaring the public, especially children, adversely affecting food production, energy and transportation policies to the detriment of the populous. Costing a fortune but only making things worse for the environment. Horrible lithium mining, non recyclable new' green' technology, people suffering in the cold of winter etc. . co2 encourages plant growth and satellite data shows greening of the Earth is happening.
Cancel culture mentality does not make the failed models suddenly correct or change the data.
Still waiting-relative or absolute?
Georgina Woodward
Unfortunately, Georgina Woodward watched a video, LOTS of crackpot videos, and now she thinks she is a climate scientist, BETTER than a climate scientist.
I'm curious if she also wants to tell the mechanic how to fix her car, or if she wants to tell the dentist how to treat her teeth, or if she feels compelled to tell the nurses and doctors how to treat her medical conditions.
Lorraine Ford
Here is some expert testimony by a climate scientist. Knows about the subject. Unlike Lorraine who believes in the media and political sensationalism and fearmongering. Belittling interest in the actual science and real world happening.
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.
- Edited
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.
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?
- 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.
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.