Pauline on Q&A

Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
While science is amazing I would tend to keep an open mind, with some facts as wobbly pointed out scientists are not always right, it was only a few years ago that another eminent scientist one Stephen Hawking and other scientists believed that following the big bang all sorts of **** went hurtling through space in a cone shape and it had now slowed down, and when it stops it will all come hurtling back down to its point of origin. Now they say far from slowing down it is actually speeding up so they certainly got that one wrong.
Last year NASA said that the hole in the ozone was getting even bigger, this year they say it has shrunk by 4 million square miles.

When Stephen Hawking was asked at the end of that science show he introduces (can't recall the name) how long has man got left on earth, he replied 1000 years, but I had to admire his sense of humour when he added, if they can slow down climate change tack a couple of weeks on to the end of that.
 
well, the point about singularity is that it is at the very limits of our understanding/models of fundamental physics. There isn't really a parallel with that and climate science - the uncertainty with climate science is that we're dealing with a very complicated system and how it will behave with increased heat energy will be a 'wait & see' situation - what we do know is that we're causing a geologically abrupt change to it, and we can make predictions based on models which accurately fit past data. It's the best we can do.
It's highly unlikely that humans will be extinct in the near future - but fast changes in the environment will cause many ecosystems that we rely upon to collapse, taking thousands of years to recover any kind of biodiversity.

The point regarding the ozone hole is that it fluctuates seasonally - and last year was a particularly large peak. They didn't say "it's getting bigger"

Paul A. Newman said:
While the current ozone hole is larger than in recent years, the area occupied by this year’s hole is consistent with our understanding of ozone depletion chemistry and consistent with colder than average weather conditions in Earth’s stratosphere, which help drive ozone depletion,
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/annual-antarctic-ozone-hole-larger-and-formed-later-in-2015
 
wobbly said:
I don't know Mal Roberts but to suggest that he shows little intelligence or is a moron is stretching a bit of a long bow. He holds an honours degree in engineering as well as a masters degree in Business Administration.
In reading the various post about his interchange with Brian Cox a number of observations spring to mind.
Cox is a physicist not a climatologist and therefore it is unlikely that he is qualified to pass "factual vs anecdotal" evidence on the subject.
Whilst it is acknowledged that Cox is very intelligent that doesn't necessarily extend to this subject and lets not loose sight of the fact that most if not all of his income comes from being a speaker on the popularist environmental, political and economic ideology circuit. Hence his appearance on Q&A to continue to support the one sided climate change debate under the guise of so called Science Based Evidence.
"Don't let the facts spoil a good story" springs to mind.

Those that haven't should take the time to "see the other side" of this whole climate change debate and read the Publication "Climate Change-The facts" by a number of well qualified Phd authors/writers.

The conclusion of chapter one is worth repeating.

Climate change catastrphism is the biggest scientific fraud that has ever occurred. Much climate "science" is political ideology dressed up as science. There are times in history when the popular consensus is demonstrably wrong and we live in such a time. Cheap energy is fundamental for employment, living in the modern world, and for bringing the Third World out of Poverty
As a result of noisy minority political pressures, Western democratic governments have increased energy costs and created subsidised energy systems that have created a new source of tax revenue. Politicians have responded to a ground swell of unscientific environmental concerns rather than make hard decisions. The end result is increased unemployment, lack of competitiveness, energy poverty and increased costs. unless nature has another surprise for us, three short decades of irresponsible climate policy will take at least a generation to reverse because there are now armies of bureaucrats, politicians, scientists and businesses living off the climate catastrophe scare. Furthermore, the education system has been captured by activists, and the young are inculcated with environmental, political and economic ideology. During their education, these same young people are not given the basic critical and analytical methods to evaluate ideology that has been presented as fact. Only a brave government can change the education system to one that prepares people for life.

wobbly
A demonstrably high degree of intelligence is not necessarily bulwark against mighty ignorance. This guy is one of the best (and most ironic) examples I can think of.
Meet Francis Collins, head of the human genome project. Check the mans credentials, no dummy to say the least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins


Now, an excerpt from his NYT best seller:

language_god_200.jpg



On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains during my first trip west of the Mississippi, the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.

Cox himself is hardly a voice in the wilderness on the topic of anthropomorphic climate change and stands shoulder to shoulder with the likes of astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and theoretical physicist Laurence Krauss, a formidable brains trust of critical thinkers if ever there was one, and yes, Cox obviously a charismatic spokesperson, particularly if you're a fan of D:Ream..
By that measure though, Roberts is making an argument so vastly outside his own field of expertise it's risible. His political loyalties pretty much omit him from any rational discourse in any case.
Perhaps Mal needs apply that masters degree to his own thought process and iron out the bugs.
 
wide eyed and legless said:
While science is amazing I would tend to keep an open mind,
Whoa,

Hold it the **** right there.......

Science is the epitome of an open mind. Any perspective, comments, or assertions to separate the two need a bullet.

WEAL, FFS.

Not you too???
 
Ducatiboy stu said:
Thats right. Things will only get better.
Originally, yes, than changed to things can only get better. Apparently Cox wasn't comfortable with 'will' and its implication of inevitable events in the future tense in respect to the random motion of objects as it relates to gravity and quantum mechanics.
 
Y2K? Predicting stock markets?
Wobbly, do you have shares in a straw man factory?
 
wide eyed and legless said:
Another candidate for a bullet.

5c8c78ee48f3809838e0636179ab5967.jpg

What the **** are you on about....? NdGT (in that pic) is expressing the Socratic Paradox....in self awareness of the enormity of life and relative insignificance of our individual knowledge. NdGT asserts that curiosity remains and is innately human. All that can remain is the pursuit of truth....the mechanic to do this is the scientific method.

WEAL, if you indeed are on the fringe of rationality, for purposes other than inflammatory forum additions, then articulate your....for lack of a better word...'points' thoroughly.

That way I can be more methodical in dismantling the errors, question the details and uncover the truths.

What we need to get out of here is the pissing contest of egos.......Your points of view are entirely welcomed, but respect us by standing on the stage of adults so the discourse is intelligent and progressive. I dearly want that.

If you are simply **** stirring because you can then it is unwelcome and you will end up being ignored.

How do we both reach the point where we are open to being wrong and taking a new point of view..... That can and should be our common ground.
 
wide eyed and legless said:
While science is amazing I would tend to keep an open mind, with some facts as wobbly pointed out scientists are not always right, it was only a few years ago that another eminent scientist one Stephen Hawking and other scientists believed that following the big bang all sorts of **** went hurtling through space in a cone shape and it had now slowed down, and when it stops it will all come hurtling back down to its point of origin. Now they say far from slowing down it is actually speeding up so they certainly got that one wrong.
Last year NASA said that the hole in the ozone was getting even bigger, this year they say it has shrunk by 4 million square miles.

When Stephen Hawking was asked at the end of that science show he introduces (can't recall the name) how long has man got left on earth, he replied 1000 years, but I had to admire his sense of humour when he added, if they can slow down climate change tack a couple of weeks on to the end of that.
Excellent, another member with no clue of the scientific process.

Is climate change a done deal? Of course, not. Scientists are constantly feeding new data in to the models to reassess. It would be amazing if we came up with the data that showed it was wrong but on the current overwhelming amount of evidence this is not the case. No denier has ever trumped up quality, peer reviewed evidence to validate their hypothesis.

The idea that scientists are not open minded is so utterly ignorant. Science is the ultimate in open mindedness, it is not driven by belief but instead by evidence. Do we as scientists get it wrong? Absolutely! I for one, am wrong far more often than am I right and it is often the hypotheses I get wrong that are the most useful.

Your examples demonstrate exactly that, open mindedness. New data showed the original hypothesis/theory to be wrong, scientists did not argue with the data, instead they changed their view. This is exactly how science works.
 
wide eyed and legless said:
zorsoc cosdog what I suggested is keeping an open mind allows one to not be swayed by preconceived ideas, can't see anything wrong with that.
What...like climate change isnt real
 
Back
Top