I'm not sure cynicism is proeminent. The in-betweens are concentrated on making a living and paying taxes, which are supposed to finance citizen's protection. More victims than cynical IMO.DaveP said:
It's the Climate, Stupid.
- Thread starter DaveP
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Jimi Hendrix was a remarkable guitarist but not much of a role model other than for dying young from a drug OD.Scodiddly said:
Speaking of musicians, Frank Zappa (RIP) was somewhat knowledgeable about government. I recall seeing FZ testify before congress over Tipper Gore's attempts to regulate popular music. I would have voted for him. Jimi I only bought his records.
Joan of Arc was only 16... Malala Yousafzai a Pakastani schoolgirl survived being shot in the head by the Taliban and went on to become a global advocate for human rights and women's education (not routinely available in the middle east).
JR
ruffrecords
Well-known member
living sounds said:
I beg to differ. I would say overpopulation, under education and pollution/waste disposal. AGP, if it exists, is less threatening than any of the others. It just gets better press so the general populace thinks it is a bigger threat.
Cheers
Ian
living sounds
Well-known member
ruffrecords said:
Scientists have come to a different conclusion than you ... using science.
ruffrecords
Well-known member
Not true. Some scientists conclude differently, others agree with me. However, science never has been and never will be about consensus. It is about verifiable truth. There is little if any verifiable truth to AGP.living sounds said:
I care very much about the world my children and grandchildren will inherit. But AGP is where the money is, it is where the politicians can tax us so it gets the big voice, But it is not the big problem. Our children are being sorely misled by those seeking power, money, publicity and self aggrandisement. I pray they see through this folly before the planet is destroyed by some things they could easily prevent.
Cheers
Ian
objective truthruffrecords said:
I find what some people think is science amusing. That said I do not find politics amusing (lets get a million kids to protest :
). JR
living sounds
Well-known member
ruffrecords said:
The overwhelming number of experts in the relevant fields agree. While most of the high profile climate denier scientists come from different fields. Not that there are that many.
And the "money" argument is just preposterous. We are talking about the people sitting in underfunded publicly financed labs, choosing to do what they do despite the bad pay and the uncertainties.
As opposed to the most profitable industry in the world - hydrocarbon extraction. Where do you think the biggest doners of Republicans in the US (like the Koch brothers) made their money? Not by doing climate scientists and publishing accurate results.
Please, you guys, stop embarrassing yourselves and wake up to reality.
living sounds
Well-known member
BTW, every argument you can come up with has been refuted time and time again, here's a good rundown:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
scott2000
Well-known member
living sounds said:
While linking a site founded by a scientist in an unrelated field...
not that it matters but.....
lol
living sounds
Well-known member
scott2000 said:
Exactly, it doesn't matter. You can report the science even though not a scientist yourself.
What the science deniers do is make up a framework based on erroneous notions and half-understand concepts and call it science. But it's not. We have decades of data from a multitude of scientific fields that all point to the same general conclusion. It's a very complicated issue, but it's also been very thoroughly researched.
Matador
Well-known member
We keep having this same debate every few months.ruffrecords said:
AGP isn't falsifiable under your definition because it's a system science based on consensus of observation , starting with basic thermodynamics and phenomenological modelling (in areas where theories are still forming).
Since I last wrote about this, I found a really good example that shows this.
Most tube models are based on a 3/2 power law which comes directly from Maxwell's electric field theory (aka. your underlying truth). But these models are very inaccurate at high plate potentials and low plate currents.
Normann Koren derived a new pentode tube model based on the arctan() function combined with logarithmic scaling. This tube model fits to measured curves at nearly all points with less than 2% error.
These functions are completely divorced of any underlying physical process or theory, and yet they can predict the operation of a pentode with astounding accuracy.
Is Koren's model therefore useless and shouldn't be used? There is zero verifiable truth in the model, so it's extremely accurate predictions are invalid?
ruffrecords
Well-known member
The consensus of observation demonstrates that the climate is changing, just as it always has. It does not directly point to a single major cause.Matador said:We keep having this same debate every few months.
AGP isn't falsifiable under your definition because it's a system science based on consensus of observation , starting with basic thermodynamics and phenomenological modelling (in areas where theories are still forming).
I agree with your analysis of Koren's models. It can accurately predict pentode operation under many conditions. Unfortunately the current models for climate change demonstrably fail this test.
Cheers
Ian
Since I last wrote about this, I found a really good example that shows this.
Most tube models are based on a 3/2 power law which comes directly from Maxwell's electric field theory (aka. your underlying truth). But these models are very inaccurate at high plate potentials and low plate currents
Normann Koren derived a new pentode tube model based on the arctan() function combined with logarithmic scaling. This tube model fits to measured curves at nearly all points with less than 2% error.
These functions are completely divorced of any underlying physical process or theory, and yet they can predict the operation of a pentode with astounding accuracy.
Is Koren's model therefore useless and shouldn't be used? There is zero verifiable truth in the model, so it's extremely accurate predictions are invalid?
[/quote]
Yeah, here we go again.
What another conspiracy! I thought they had worked it out all on their own!That said I do not find politics amusing (lets get a million kids to protest :
When I start seeing charts going exponential, common sense tells me it ain't natural, its Man made.
You're as old as me JR, are you saying that the weathers just the same as when you were a kid?
DaveP
All serious climatologists agree on he fact that global warming is primarily due to the natural cycles that have been confirmed by the study of gealogical strati.
They don't deny that it is aggravated by human activity, though. When a phenomenon can be attributed to several, causes, one choses to pinpoint their favourite target.
I believe the greatest delusion is to claim we can, by our own actions, stop or even reverse that trend. There'll be less coastal land, less polar bears, in the years to come, whatever we do. It's not a reason for doing nothing.
But the immediate ceasefire that is advocated by eco-activists is not a reasonable proposition either. There is a need for transition, and for sometime, even the most virtuous humans will continue to pollute.
They don't deny that it is aggravated by human activity, though. When a phenomenon can be attributed to several, causes, one choses to pinpoint their favourite target.
I believe the greatest delusion is to claim we can, by our own actions, stop or even reverse that trend. There'll be less coastal land, less polar bears, in the years to come, whatever we do. It's not a reason for doing nothing.
But the immediate ceasefire that is advocated by eco-activists is not a reasonable proposition either. There is a need for transition, and for sometime, even the most virtuous humans will continue to pollute.
ruffrecords
Well-known member
Notes on the pitfalls of relying on models.
A few hundred years ago the observational consensus was that the earth was the centre of the universe and that the sun, moon, planets and starts revolved around it. There was even a model of it using epicyclic gears. The along comes a new guy with a new model. He says the sun is the centre of the inverse and the earth planets and stars revolve around it in ellipses. For his pains, this skeptic was thrown in jail. Sometime later a new model was agreed that gave the earth no special place in the universe. Later still it was observed that the universe appears to be expanding so a new model was created. The there's relativily, the big bang etc all to be accounted for. The point is the current model is only our best guess.
Going back to Koran tube models, although they map very well onto published (static) curves, all models are currently very poor at predicting distortion products at high levels. I know because I have measured lots of tubes. Tubes of the same type/manufacturer distort very similarly but quite differently from the way the models predict. Tubes of the same type from different manufacturers have noticeable differences in their distortion spectra.
Cheers
ian
It is important to rememeber models are just models, they are not a crystal ball or a substitute for reality.
A few hundred years ago the observational consensus was that the earth was the centre of the universe and that the sun, moon, planets and starts revolved around it. There was even a model of it using epicyclic gears. The along comes a new guy with a new model. He says the sun is the centre of the inverse and the earth planets and stars revolve around it in ellipses. For his pains, this skeptic was thrown in jail. Sometime later a new model was agreed that gave the earth no special place in the universe. Later still it was observed that the universe appears to be expanding so a new model was created. The there's relativily, the big bang etc all to be accounted for. The point is the current model is only our best guess.
Going back to Koran tube models, although they map very well onto published (static) curves, all models are currently very poor at predicting distortion products at high levels. I know because I have measured lots of tubes. Tubes of the same type/manufacturer distort very similarly but quite differently from the way the models predict. Tubes of the same type from different manufacturers have noticeable differences in their distortion spectra.
Cheers
ian
It is important to rememeber models are just models, they are not a crystal ball or a substitute for reality.
I caught up with the Swedish girls impassioned plea to the UN ,
an award wining performance if ever I saw one ,holy jaysus ,it was Iike Hansel and Gretel meets the Exorcist
Best thing for her is get herself over to Hollywood for a few auditions ,
Greta Thunberg ,Actor and Activist
an award wining performance if ever I saw one ,holy jaysus ,it was Iike Hansel and Gretel meets the Exorcist
Best thing for her is get herself over to Hollywood for a few auditions ,
Greta Thunberg ,Actor and Activist
Matador
Well-known member
ruffrecords said:
Who put Galileo in jail? His fellow scientists? Or was it the church whose 'sincerely held beliefs' were questioned?ruffrecords said:
This is defeatist. Humans could destroy most life on the planet and plunge the world into a decades-long nuclear winter in a mere 20 minutes. To say we lack the capacity to greatly change the planet isn't correct. If you are saying we lack the collective will to act, then I agree.abbey road d enfer said:
living sounds
Well-known member
ruffrecords said:
What a stupid "argument". Sorry, but it really is.
And not new:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm
not an argument but an observation/judgement, please keep this civil.living sounds said:
This is one of the longer running discussions around here, I suspect Ian is weary of repeating himself as am I.
JR
