General > General Technical Chat
heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
<< < (35/67) > >>
Dr. Frank:

--- Quote from: snarkysparky on August 05, 2023, 03:06:46 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on August 05, 2023, 12:16:50 am ---
--- Quote from: Dr. Frank on August 04, 2023, 02:44:03 pm ---Climate Research is therefore not yet a "complete" science, as the final experimental proof will be available in 30, 50, 100 years from now.

--- End quote ---

I suspect it will never be a complete science. It's just such a complex dynamic system, and our ability to accurately measure stuff on a global scale is limited.
Even in the 30, 50, 100 years time, the "proof" may not be available. The result might match a prediction, but having absolute proof your model was right will still be elusive.
They already have not had the best track record in this regard.

--- End quote ---


Can you name ONE complete science,  according to your definition?

If incomplete then there is no point ?

--- End quote ---


Well, Physics is strictly based on this concept of proof, so it's such a "complete" science.

We had several bad examples like Cold Fusion by Fleischman and Pons, and in Germany the "Physics Faker" Jan Hendrik Schön, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal, which led to a stricter Peer Review process.
Peer Review I should add to my description of "Scientific Methods", and which is still lacking to the actual discussion about possible new room temperature superconductors.

Physics anyhow, does never raise the claim to find the absolute truth. The confirmed results give the best description of phenomena's at a given time, but can always be improved, complemented or even falsified at a later point in time.

I agree to Dave that Climate Research might face problems to really confirm their predictions, due to very vague measurements or unstable simulation models, also due to the complexity and chaotic behavior.

For me, that whole IPCC science community is non-transparent, and their simulations are very difficult to reproduce.

That's in big contrast to the usual behavior of the physics community. For example, when the New Kilogram was defined, you could openly follow the discussion and the experiments, how and when they made their decisive measurements on the Kibble balance versus the Avogadro experiment (Silicon sphere)- They also explained to the public, how they came to their conclusions.

Please, download the latest full AR6 report: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf
Try to follow all their simulations, measurements, and so forth, which decide over the ww. strategy how to combat the global warming.
You can decide for a strict CO2 budget, i.e. absolutely no more fossile burning any more, or you can take into consideration, that 50% of the emissions are absorbed by the oceans and by rising land vegetation, which would give much more time for changes.

The IPCC decided that the 2nd option is not feasible due to a probable depletion of this effect.

I'm following a Climate lecture series of a German physics professor, who recently notified, that this IPCC decision is based on a single, very nebulous paper, which is also not well cited in this report.
As this is only a singular indication, that the IPCC report might not be well founded, I want to understand more about that whole scientific construct.

So I will stay skeptical further on, but will not negate the whole Climate Change discussion, as I'm convinced since 1978, that it's one severe problem, but beneath many others, over-population being the worst.

On the UN charter for sustainability, it's also one item amongst 16 others:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

Frank
Wallace Gasiewicz:
RAPo:
PLEASE QUOTE CORRECTLY
That was not me saying   this particular quote

It was me Quoting tom66
RAPo:
Sorry,but the presentation really made it look like the red text is yours.
Wallace Gasiewicz:
I will have to be more careful also, Probably use italics for quotes, or something like that
This thread is getting a bit complicated and quite active.
And I agree with you the Authorities made it clear that the Vaccines would stop the spread and stop the disease. They kept hounding us, saying that vaccinations help the other person. Fauci himself said that the Vaccines would provide Herd Immunity.  Herd Immunity does not occur in "non sterilizing" vaccines. Old Article for reference:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2020/09/23/fauci-were-nowhere-near-herd-immunityin-the-us/?sh=2bfab3c979f3

They had no idea what the success rate would be and did not know the complications and maybe even hid the adverse effects from the medical community and the populace. If he thought the Vaccines would induce Herd Immunity, either he does not know what that means or does not know what the vaccines will do or is just lying and making thing up out of thin air..
Wallace Gasiewicz:
Perhaps the global warming hypothesis people can concentrate on cooling down the Sun:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2022/08/02/the-sun-is-now-more-active-than-nasa-predicted-it-could-be-in-its-strongest-cycle-since-records-began/?sh=4f3eae13cd59
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod