Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Oh look, scientists disagreeing about, science. Who'd ever have thought about that when the science is, apparently, settled? So who is it little Johnny and Mary in school going to believe, who is correct?
Not old grandad Rob hopefully.El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Oh look, scientists disagreeing about, science. Who'd ever have thought about that when the science is, apparently, settled? So who is it little Johnny and Mary in school going to believe, who is correct?
Not old grandad Rob hopefully.robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Oh look, scientists disagreeing about, science. Who'd ever have thought about that when the science is, apparently, settled? So who is it little Johnny and Mary in school going to believe, who is correct?
Not old grandad Rob hopefully.El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Oh look, scientists disagreeing about, science. Who'd ever have thought about that when the science is, apparently, settled? So who is it little Johnny and Mary in school going to believe, who is correct?
Not old grandad Rob hopefully.robinessex said:
It's abundantly clear you have no idea what science is, to claim that "Climate Change is a science just like meteorology". Meteorology is a branch of science. When you've been through all the basics and fundamentals of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, and a few others, then you can use that knowledge to apply it to meteorology, To learn any technological subject, you start at the beginning, learn the basics and fundamentals, then apply it. You can't teach a class of 5yr olds climate change, meteorology, or any other highly technical technological subject until you have gone through all the basics. Which takes you up to A level standards. You can't run before you can walk.
Semantics basicallyI'd say science is any research based activity that advances the sum of human knowledge about the world/universe about us.
So qualifications don't make you a scientist (or my A level physics means I are one!) because you are just learning from research already done, though learning the basics is important obviously - but if you aren't actively adding to that knowledge base then a scientist you are not. I know of people who have discontinued to call themselves scientists when their careers moved away from active research because they no longer considered it a valid title despite all the letters after their names and that seems like the proper approach to me.
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 9th June 10:38
kerplunk said:
Semantics basically
I'd say science is any research based activity that advances the sum of human knowledge about the world/universe about us.
So qualifications don't make you a scientist (or my A level physics means I are one!) because you are just learning from research already done, though learning the basics is important obviously - but if you aren't actively adding to that knowledge base then a scientist you are not. I know of people who have discontinued to call themselves scientists when their careers moved away from active research because they no longer considered it a valid title despite all the letters after their names and that seems like the proper approach to me.
I'd say you can be a scientist without being a research scientist, you could work in more of an applied field where you are using science to solve problems or obtain information, though things start to get blurred with engineering then. I'd say science is any research based activity that advances the sum of human knowledge about the world/universe about us.
So qualifications don't make you a scientist (or my A level physics means I are one!) because you are just learning from research already done, though learning the basics is important obviously - but if you aren't actively adding to that knowledge base then a scientist you are not. I know of people who have discontinued to call themselves scientists when their careers moved away from active research because they no longer considered it a valid title despite all the letters after their names and that seems like the proper approach to me.
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 9th June 10:38
robinessex said:
When you've been through all the basics and fundamentals of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, and a few others, then you can use that knowledge to apply it to meteorology, To learn any technological subject, you start at the beginning, learn the basics and fundamentals, then apply it. You can't teach a class of 5yr olds climate change, meteorology, or any other highly technical technological subject until you have gone through all the basics. Which takes you up to A level standards. You can't run before you can walk.
Not true at all.We teach people about electricity and magnetism, about chemistry, about biology all without going through the basest fundamentals.
My own "branch" was physics, so for example by your statement you couldn't teach anyone about simple electricity without first deriving Gauss' law, Maxwell-Faraday and Ampere's equations from first principles, then doing all the related bits and pieces until you finally end up with a set of rules like Kirchoff's Laws for circuits.
Then once you've done that you need to start with statistical thermodynamics and material science to explain resistors, quantum electrodynamics and deep material science (mining, refinement and production of elements like gallium, aluminium, arsenic, phosphorous etc) for LEDs, the list goes on and on. And that's just one small topic in physics, biology and chemistry are equally complex.
Totally pointless, as the practical rules and equations are so much simpler than teaching it the "right" way from the very basics. And arguably most people aren't capable of the maths required to derive things like this from first principles anyway, I did it all at undergraduate level and only just managed to grasp it.
If you couldn't teach any science without starting at the basest fundamentals first, you'd have far less science knowledge than today in the general population, as no bugger would understand it.
Krikkit said:
robinessex said:
When you've been through all the basics and fundamentals of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, and a few others, then you can use that knowledge to apply it to meteorology, To learn any technological subject, you start at the beginning, learn the basics and fundamentals, then apply it. You can't teach a class of 5yr olds climate change, meteorology, or any other highly technical technological subject until you have gone through all the basics. Which takes you up to A level standards. You can't run before you can walk.
Not true at all.We teach people about electricity and magnetism, about chemistry, about biology all without going through the basest fundamentals.
My own "branch" was physics, so for example by your statement you couldn't teach anyone about simple electricity without first deriving Gauss' law, Maxwell-Faraday and Ampere's equations from first principles, then doing all the related bits and pieces until you finally end up with a set of rules like Kirchoff's Laws for circuits.
Then once you've done that you need to start with statistical thermodynamics and material science to explain resistors, quantum electrodynamics and deep material science (mining, refinement and production of elements like gallium, aluminium, arsenic, phosphorous etc) for LEDs, the list goes on and on. And that's just one small topic in physics, biology and chemistry are equally complex.
Totally pointless, as the practical rules and equations are so much simpler than teaching it the "right" way from the very basics. And arguably most people aren't capable of the maths required to derive things like this from first principles anyway, I did it all at undergraduate level and only just managed to grasp it.
If you couldn't teach any science without starting at the basest fundamentals first, you'd have far less science knowledge than today in the general population, as no bugger would understand it.
robinessex said:
Krikkit said:
robinessex said:
When you've been through all the basics and fundamentals of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, and a few others, then you can use that knowledge to apply it to meteorology, To learn any technological subject, you start at the beginning, learn the basics and fundamentals, then apply it. You can't teach a class of 5yr olds climate change, meteorology, or any other highly technical technological subject until you have gone through all the basics. Which takes you up to A level standards. You can't run before you can walk.
Not true at all.We teach people about electricity and magnetism, about chemistry, about biology all without going through the basest fundamentals.
My own "branch" was physics, so for example by your statement you couldn't teach anyone about simple electricity without first deriving Gauss' law, Maxwell-Faraday and Ampere's equations from first principles, then doing all the related bits and pieces until you finally end up with a set of rules like Kirchoff's Laws for circuits.
Then once you've done that you need to start with statistical thermodynamics and material science to explain resistors, quantum electrodynamics and deep material science (mining, refinement and production of elements like gallium, aluminium, arsenic, phosphorous etc) for LEDs, the list goes on and on. And that's just one small topic in physics, biology and chemistry are equally complex.
Totally pointless, as the practical rules and equations are so much simpler than teaching it the "right" way from the very basics. And arguably most people aren't capable of the maths required to derive things like this from first principles anyway, I did it all at undergraduate level and only just managed to grasp it.
If you couldn't teach any science without starting at the basest fundamentals first, you'd have far less science knowledge than today in the general population, as no bugger would understand it.
They won't need advanced maths or chemistry to understand the basics though. The detail behind that can be explored at a later stage.
As global warming is a fact amongst the scientific community it's only sensible that it's taught alongside other science.
Yes, let's frighten the living daylights out of them with CC scare stories, the planets going to cook, we're all going to be flooded, horrible very hot, very cold, very wet, very dry weather is coming, Etc., Etc. Then they can provide psychologists to help them get over this, meanwhile, the goody faries will pop up, AKA the Green Party, who'll promise us if we follow their mantra, we'll all live happily ever after in La La land.
robinessex said:
Yes, let's frighten the living daylights out of them with CC scare stories, the planets going to cook, we're all going to be flooded, horrible very hot, very cold, very wet, very dry weather is coming, Etc., Etc. Then they can provide psychologists to help them get over this, meanwhile, the goody faries will pop up, AKA the Green Party, who'll promise us if we follow their mantra, we'll all live happily ever after in La La land.
..or, like previous generations, they’ll just take it in their stride and it’ll be part of everyday life for them. 
Look after yourself and the environment and life can be good.
Misbehave and wreck the environment, as the deniers would have you do, and you’ll suffer the consequences.
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Yes, let's frighten the living daylights out of them with CC scare stories, the planets going to cook, we're all going to be flooded, horrible very hot, very cold, very wet, very dry weather is coming, Etc., Etc. Then they can provide psychologists to help them get over this, meanwhile, the goody faries will pop up, AKA the Green Party, who'll promise us if we follow their mantra, we'll all live happily ever after in La La land.
..or, like previous generations, they’ll just take it in their stride and it’ll be part of everyday life for them. Look after yourself and the environment and life can be good.
Misbehave and wreck the environment, as the deniers would have you do, and you’ll suffer the consequences.
dickymint said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Yes, let's frighten the living daylights out of them with CC scare stories, the planets going to cook, we're all going to be flooded, horrible very hot, very cold, very wet, very dry weather is coming, Etc., Etc. Then they can provide psychologists to help them get over this, meanwhile, the goody faries will pop up, AKA the Green Party, who'll promise us if we follow their mantra, we'll all live happily ever after in La La land.
..or, like previous generations, they’ll just take it in their stride and it’ll be part of everyday life for them. Look after yourself and the environment and life can be good.
Misbehave and wreck the environment, as the deniers would have you do, and you’ll suffer the consequences.
Gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Yes, let's frighten the living daylights out of them with CC scare stories, the planets going to cook, we're all going to be flooded, horrible very hot, very cold, very wet, very dry weather is coming, Etc., Etc. Then they can provide psychologists to help them get over this, meanwhile, the goody faries will pop up, AKA the Green Party, who'll promise us if we follow their mantra, we'll all live happily ever after in La La land.
..or, like previous generations, they’ll just take it in their stride and it’ll be part of everyday life for them. Look after yourself and the environment and life can be good.
Misbehave and wreck the environment, as the deniers would have you do, and you’ll suffer the consequences.
Gadgetmac said:
And I told you that the link was about education and not politics.
Your opening gambit...... "Despite Trump's best efforts some more good news on the fight against AGW.".Everyone and his dog knows it's a political move from New Jersey. It's made quite clear in your link. But hey ho, over to you get the last word in.
dickymint said:
Gadgetmac said:
And I told you that the link was about education and not politics.
Your opening gambit...... "Despite Trump's best efforts some more good news on the fight against AGW.".Everyone and his dog knows it's a political move from New Jersey. It's made quite clear in your link. But hey ho, over to you get the last word in.
First Lady Tammy Snyder Murphy, said: “In New Jersey, we have already begun to experience the effects of climate change, from our disappearing shorelines to harmful algal blooms in our lakes, superstorms producing torrential rain and summers that are blazing hot.
“This generation of students will feel the effects of climate change more than any other and it is critical that every student is provided an opportunity to study and understand the climate crisis through a comprehensive, interdisciplinary lens.”
A political move? You provide a prime example of a denier trying to spread misinformation.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff