| General > General Technical Chat |
| heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial. |
| << < (36/67) > >> |
| Dr. Frank:
In 1978, being 17 years old and already very well educated STEM-wise, I always watched technical and scientific TV programs. This science journalist and psychology professor in the picture was quite famous. His daughter co-founded the Green party in Germany. Since that time, I disdained this Green movement, due to their absolute incompetence in technical and scientific matters. In this show, he just presents the Mauna Loa CO2 measurement, and explains that in 2050 a temperature rise of 2..3°C would be expected. He also explains the other 5 or 6 threats in discussion, from the Club of Rome: "Limits of Growth". He already explained the oil consumption dilemma, i.e. that a reduction in the Industry nations would not lead to a global reduction, because there would be a rising consumption in the 3rd World, instead. So the Exxon study is nothing of a secret, as these facts were obviously publicly known. I remember well, that I was a bit frightened by this TV show, but due to my education, I always thought that we'd be able to find technical solutions. Like Prof von Ditfurth, I'm as convinced, that over-population will kill or reduce mankind sooner or later, but there's barely anything we can do about. I think, I aligned my personal behavior following this and similar other publications. So I always tried to save resources as far as I could. My passion to repair EVERYTHING and design technical things originates from that period of time, already. Frank |
| PlainName:
--- Quote from: RAPo on August 05, 2023, 09:55:40 am --- --- Quote from: PlainName on August 05, 2023, 09:03:15 am ---It was (immediately) clear from the hospital admission data that the rule had no effect It would take at least 2 weeks for any effect to begin to show, so perhaps you might want to define 'immediately' so it's a bit more believable. --- End quote --- Nope in Amsterdam there was a test with cameras in order to see how busy the streets were. And guess what: no real difference. Together with the evening clock a whole range of other measures were taken. You cannot attribute the effect only to this very harsh measure. --- End quote --- Er.. you've completely lost me. What effect did this evening clock (whatever that was) have, or meant to have? I assumed it would be a change in people turning up in hospital due to covid symptoms, but your comment above seems to note that places didn't get less busy and there is nothing whatever about covid symptoms. Perhaps you could clarify since your original (quoted here) suggests the former, which is the context for my comment: --- Quote ---In the Netherlands there was an evening clock between 21.00 and 04.30. Nobody from the scientific community said, hey, a virus cannot watch clocks. Why these strange cutoff times? It was (immediately) clear from the hospital admission data that the rule had no effect, but still, politics endured this rule for three months. --- End quote --- |
| PlainName:
--- Quote from: RAPo on August 05, 2023, 10:37:25 am ---And where are the scientist speaking up now we have concrete data of not warming up/decrease of ice? When is the science community standing up because we have data that prove that solar panels are increasing CO2 levels? Where is the scientific community stating to all government officials: it is not true that the world is on fire. --- End quote --- The last thing we need during a crisis it multiple disagreements of what, when, how, etc. You want rules by social media, and the loudest and flashiest video will win. We elect governments to deal with that stuff. Scientist can advise them (and disagree) but the politicians decide policy. They may get it wrong, and if they do so mendaciously then hopefully they get voted out and a better government installed. That's how you get to be able to do 70mph up a motorway without dodging head-on cars whose drivers think the right way must be to drive on the right, or middle, or whatever tiktok craze is this week. |
| RAPo:
--- Quote from: PlainName on August 05, 2023, 01:17:07 pm ---The last thing we need during a crisis it multiple disagreements of what, when, how, etc. You want rules by social media, and the loudest and flashiest video will win. We elect governments to deal with that stuff. Scientist can advise them (and disagree) but the politicians decide policy. They may get it wrong, and if they do so mendaciously then hopefully they get voted out and a better government installed. That's how you get to be able to do 70mph up a motorway without dodging head-on cars whose drivers think the right way must be to drive on the right, or middle, or whatever tiktok craze is this week. --- End quote --- My post was about the (non-)reaction from the scientific community, not about the choice of politicians. In fact we do need multiple disagreements, if the effect of policy is interfering with fundamental rights of citizens, or are using taxpayers money for goals that are questionable. How much should the dutch taxpayer pay for a policy that states, we will reduce global warming with 0,000036C worldwide? The taxpayer is not dumb and knows that a day later in China a coal mine is opened that completely offsets this measure. |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: tom66 on August 04, 2023, 11:13:08 pm --- --- Quote from: coppice on August 04, 2023, 11:06:23 pm ---With COVID, as with many respiratory diseases, you shed from your sinuses. The viral load in your body is irrelevant. The viral load in your nose, and out of reach of the immunity a COVID vaccine can infer, is where the transmission comes from. Where is your evidence to the contrary? --- End quote --- It's really just logic. --- End quote --- So, we have the smartest person in history among us. The rest of us struggle to figure out how the interplay of various factors in a complex system will play out, and need to do extensive research in the real world. You've worked out how to reduce it to logic. --- Quote from: tom66 on August 04, 2023, 11:13:08 pm ---The less sick you are, the less you cough, the less you sneeze, the less likely you are to have any symptoms at all. In the initial studies of the Pfizer vaccine, around 70% of people infected experienced no symptoms at all. Since asymptomatic spread of COVID is close to being a myth (there is some risk but it's very mild) you can infer the reduction in risk just from a reduction in symptoms. --- End quote --- Can you cite your sources, or does your logical process avoid the need for them? --- Quote from: tom66 on August 04, 2023, 11:13:08 pm ---Viral spread isn't binary too - yes, you can be infected by a few virons, but the more viral load you receive in any given period of time, the more likely you are to experience serious side effects.dose of the virus but frequent and significant exposure killed them. --- End quote --- So, you don't exclude complexity completely from your analysis. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |