Forum Statistics

Threads
27,576
Posts
541,640
Members
28,554
Latest Member
pbtom
What's New?

Climate Change - Real or Not?

MorganKane

MorganKane

VIP Member
Nov 12, 2012
1,721
1,001
Wow! Do I sense a person that doesn't know what the hell he is talking about?
She's 19 years old and has a mental disability like RD pointed out so I guess we should be nice but hard to be with a hard core climate nut job.

lets add that legal age to fuck in Sweden is 16 so she is totally legal.
Totally nuts and the world is even more nutty for listing to a child when it comes to issues like this.
Nothing but BS propaganda putting her on that pedestal in UN>
 
fasttwitch

fasttwitch

VIP Member
Mar 17, 2011
461
567
Doubt anyone will watch this. But here's an extremely skeptical scientist (Sabine Hossenfelder) interviewing a climate scientist who's been studying weather for decades. They go over all the complexities of making computer models, setting up the experiments, adjusting parameters, defining what is considered "extreme" weather, explaining different experiments' approaches, explaining the problems with public perception of climate science that happen because of poor communication with the public, etc.

Sabine Hossenfelfeder has a reputation in the scientific community as being militantly anti-bullshit and against making wild conclusion based on partial data. She's the epitome of the skeptical scientist. She also has no incentives either way. Her work is funded by individual Patreons (like me) who donate to her to keep her working on quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.

 
testboner

testboner

VIP Member
Oct 10, 2010
1,479
1,799
The broad term “Climate Change” holds merit; Climate change has always occurred, true.
In my observation (of weather patterns personally experienced) by comparison to younger years (several decades back), there seems to be greater extremes and less predictable patterns occurring.

“Global Warming” seems to be one side of the overall extremes happening, but only one. There are extreme cold anomalies occurring as well, extreme drought, floods, etc…
But nevertheless, studies and articles on warming patterns persist.
Weather has irrefutably shifted from the time of my earlier years — that much is unarguable (for me), because I’ve lived consciously aware /observant of the differences firsthand… it’s irrefutable. But exactly what, who, and to what extent is responsible (humans, nature, both) can be and is strongly debated.

I just recently happened to see the following new headline: “The last 7 years have been the warmest on record as planet approaches critical threshold”

The info in it was cited as being from something known as the “Copernicus Climate Change Service”
Their site describes the following:

“C3S is one of six thematic information services provided by the Copernicus Earth Observation Programme of the European Union. Copernicus is an operational programme building on existing research infrastructures and knowledge available in Europe and elsewhere. C3S relies on climate research carried out within the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and responds to user requirements defined by the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS). C3S provides an important resource to the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS).”
 
Littleguy

Littleguy

TID Board Of Directors
Sep 30, 2011
4,497
3,517
It is warmer now and less snowy than when I was a kid growing up in the same region.
I have seen with my own eyes glaciers in Montana and Alaska being much smaller than 20-25 years ago.
Cyclical?
I don't know, but the above are facts, man made or natural occurrences I cannot say.
 
BackAtIt

BackAtIt

MuscleHead
Oct 3, 2016
2,185
668
Doubt anyone will watch this. But here's an extremely skeptical scientist (Sabine Hossenfelder) interviewing a climate scientist who's been studying weather for decades. They go over all the complexities of making computer models, setting up the experiments, adjusting parameters, defining what is considered "extreme" weather, explaining different experiments' approaches, explaining the problems with public perception of climate science that happen because of poor communication with the public, etc.

Sabine Hossenfelfeder has a reputation in the scientific community as being militantly anti-bullshit and against making wild conclusion based on partial data. She's the epitome of the skeptical scientist. She also has no incentives either way. Her work is funded by individual Patreons (like me) who donate to her to keep her working on quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.


Thanks for the vid, FT!!!...I can remember years ago while studying evolution and reading quotes by a few scientists (evolutionists), making comments on how a lot of scientists DON'T BELIEVE evolution to be a valid scientific theory...When they were asked, "why" they were still promoting evolution if they didn't believe it, their response was that they would be ostracized/lose their job if they were to make a stink of it...

So, it's good to see that there are still folks in the scientific community who are "sticking to their guns" in their profession!!!...

.
 
fasttwitch

fasttwitch

VIP Member
Mar 17, 2011
461
567
Thanks for the vid, FT!!!...I can remember years ago while studying evolution and reading quotes by a few scientists (evolutionists), making comments on how a lot of scientists DON'T BELIEVE evolution to be a valid scientific theory...When they were asked, "why" they were still promoting evolution if they didn't believe it, their response was that they would be ostracized/lose their job if they were to make a stink of it...

So, it's good to see that there are still folks in the scientific community who are "sticking to their guns" in their profession!!!...

.

What's good to know is that scientific papers require peer review. Peer review requires reproducibility. Reproducibility requires that scientists document and show all aspects of their work. An experiment will not be considered valid by the scientific establishment unless all other scientists evaluating the experiment are also able to reproduce the results of the original experiment. Unlike most professions, scientists writing papers are required to document all phases and all aspects of their experiments. Their hypothesis, their methods, sample sizes, how they choose their sample and experimental methodology. Their conclusion must follow from the evidence. Also, good science is probabilistic, not definite. Most scientists will not say a theory IS correct. They will assign the theory a probability. But it's the peer review process and the need to show one's work and have that work be reproducible that makes science the best means to dive into complicated issues.

And it's a highly competitive field. The way a scientist really makes his/her mark is to prove the consensus scientific views wrong. Science is self-correcting because everybody in science is looking for a way to take other scientists' theories down. And since everybody is required to show their work to others it weeds out BS. I remember math tests in school. My teacher in 8th grade required everybody to show their work. If you show your work so that the teacher can follow the process, it makes cheating very difficult.
 
luckysaint

luckysaint

VIP Member
Aug 5, 2011
175
93
The truth is humanity will only be around so long and that just a few thousands years after the last one dies, a mere blink of an eye in the age of the planet, there will hardly be a sign we were here.

There have been quite a number of mass extinctions in earths history, almost all of them were theoretically caused by periods of (slightly) greater volcanic activity. As smart as some people think they are, they are ignorant that we aren't as powerful as we think we are and don't really control our destiny. Heck, humans may not even be the smartest creature on a planet that is 3/5 covered with water.
Ok that was some interesting Sh$#t, deep! I mean deep! I like you're answer and totally agree
 
BackAtIt

BackAtIt

MuscleHead
Oct 3, 2016
2,185
668
What's good to know is that scientific papers require peer review. Peer review requires reproducibility. Reproducibility requires that scientists document and show all aspects of their work. An experiment will not be considered valid by the scientific establishment unless all other scientists evaluating the experiment are also able to reproduce the results of the original experiment. Unlike most professions, scientists writing papers are required to document all phases and all aspects of their experiments. Their hypothesis, their methods, sample sizes, how they choose their sample and experimental methodology. Their conclusion must follow from the evidence. Also, good science is probabilistic, not definite. Most scientists will not say a theory IS correct. They will assign the theory a probability. But it's the peer review process and the need to show one's work and have that work be reproducible that makes science the best means to dive into complicated issues.

And it's a highly competitive field. The way a scientist really makes his/her mark is to prove the consensus scientific views wrong. Science is self-correcting because everybody in science is looking for a way to take other scientists' theories down. And since everybody is required to show their work to others it weeds out BS. I remember math tests in school. My teacher in 8th grade required everybody to show their work. If you show your work so that the teacher can follow the process, it makes cheating very difficult.

If u get a chance I would like to pic your brain on quantum physics and the like?...We had touched on it a little in another thread...I have some theory-based questions that I would like for u to take a look at?...These questions spawn from the book I read on "Space-Time" written by SH...It was loaded with 'THEORIES'...

*I 100% believe that there are at least 8 dimensions in space-time!*, just FYI...:)

.
 
fasttwitch

fasttwitch

VIP Member
Mar 17, 2011
461
567
If u get a chance I would like to pic your brain on quantum physics and the like?...We had touched on it a little in another thread...I have some theory-based questions that I would like for u to take a look at?...These questions spawn from the book I read on "Space-Time" written by SH...It was loaded with 'THEORIES'...

*I 100% believe that there are at least 8 dimensions in space-time!*, just FYI...:)

.

:)

Sure thing. Let me know.

When it comes to quantum wave function collapse interpretations I tend to be a Many Worlds ( Everettian) guy. Sean Carroll has many lecture on this theory. Sabine Hossenfelder has an interpretation called Super Determinism which is interesting.

My favorite areas of interest are quantum entanglement, quantum gravity, computational complexity (Stephen Wolfram). I'm also very interested in dark energy (cosmological constant) and the expansion of the universe. And of Black Holes.
 
JackD

JackD

Senior Moderators
Staff Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,406
1,606
Doubt anyone will watch this. But here's an extremely skeptical scientist (Sabine Hossenfelder) interviewing a climate scientist who's been studying weather for decades. They go over all the complexities of making computer models, setting up the experiments, adjusting parameters, defining what is considered "extreme" weather, explaining different experiments' approaches, explaining the problems with public perception of climate science that happen because of poor communication with the public, etc.

Sabine Hossenfelfeder has a reputation in the scientific community as being militantly anti-bullshit and against making wild conclusion based on partial data. She's the epitome of the skeptical scientist. She also has no incentives either way. Her work is funded by individual Patreons (like me) who donate to her to keep her working on quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.

Thanks, I’ll check it out. Hopefully not to long.
 
Who is viewing this thread?

There are currently 0 members watching this topic

Top