Australia’s Science Channel
Renowned DR. Karl is invited by students to express his thoughts, no holes barred, on the big question of climate change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuioyJC6gfk&t=306s
o holes zoned
sarahs mum said:
Australia’s Science ChannelRenowned DR. Karl is invited by students to express his thoughts, no holes barred, on the big question of climate change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuioyJC6gfk&t=306s
No argument with the intent of what he said, but I wish people wouldn’t just go along with the religious hi-jacking of the word “belief”.
If you believe something you think it’s true.
That might be because someone you respect has told you it is true, or it might be because you have examined the evidence and you find the evidence convincing, or some combination of those two, but it does not imply acceptance without evidence.
The Rev Dodgson said:
sarahs mum said:Australia’s Science ChannelRenowned DR. Karl is invited by students to express his thoughts, no holes barred, on the big question of climate change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuioyJC6gfk&t=306s
No argument with the intent of what he said, but I wish people wouldn’t just go along with the religious hi-jacking of the word “belief”.
If you believe something you think it’s true.
That might be because someone you respect has told you it is true, or it might be because you have examined the evidence and you find the evidence convincing, or some combination of those two, but it does not imply acceptance without evidence.
what is evidence
The Rev Dodgson said:
No argument with the intent of what he said, but I wish people wouldn’t just go along with the religious hi-jacking of the word “belief”.
If you believe something you think it’s true.
That might be because someone you respect has told you it is true, or it might be because you have examined the evidence and you find the evidence convincing, or some combination of those two, but it does not imply acceptance without evidence.
Tell that to Buffy.
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
sarahs mum said:Australia’s Science ChannelRenowned DR. Karl is invited by students to express his thoughts, no holes barred, on the big question of climate change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuioyJC6gfk&t=306s
No argument with the intent of what he said, but I wish people wouldn’t just go along with the religious hi-jacking of the word “belief”.
If you believe something you think it’s true.
That might be because someone you respect has told you it is true, or it might be because you have examined the evidence and you find the evidence convincing, or some combination of those two, but it does not imply acceptance without evidence.
what is evidence
My off the cuff response is: observations that are consistent or inconsistent with some hypothesis.
No doubt that could be improved.
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:No argument with the intent of what he said, but I wish people wouldn’t just go along with the religious hi-jacking of the word “belief”.
If you believe something you think it’s true.
That might be because someone you respect has told you it is true, or it might be because you have examined the evidence and you find the evidence convincing, or some combination of those two, but it does not imply acceptance without evidence.
Tell that to Buffy.
OK
She has a different opinion?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:No argument with the intent of what he said, but I wish people wouldn’t just go along with the religious hi-jacking of the word “belief”.
If you believe something you think it’s true.
That might be because someone you respect has told you it is true, or it might be because you have examined the evidence and you find the evidence convincing, or some combination of those two, but it does not imply acceptance without evidence.
Tell that to Buffy.
OK
She has a different opinion?
Last time we discussed it she took issue with whether climate change was real and insisted it was not about ‘beliefs’.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:No argument with the intent of what he said, but I wish people wouldn’t just go along with the religious hi-jacking of the word “belief”.
If you believe something you think it’s true.
That might be because someone you respect has told you it is true, or it might be because you have examined the evidence and you find the evidence convincing, or some combination of those two, but it does not imply acceptance without evidence.
what is evidence
My off the cuff response is: observations that are consistent or inconsistent with some hypothesis.
No doubt that could be improved.
yes, we would like to know, how to account for the strength or weight or value (or other metric) of evidence
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Tell that to Buffy.
OK
She has a different opinion?
Last time we discussed it she took issue with whether climate change was real and insisted it was not about ‘beliefs’.
sounds philosophical
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:what is evidence
My off the cuff response is: observations that are consistent or inconsistent with some hypothesis.
No doubt that could be improved.
yes, we would like to know, how to account for the strength or weight or value (or other metric) of evidence
In the context of an engineering question, like what to do about GHG emissions, the procedure is:
1. Make a rational estimate of the significance of all available evidence.
2. Consider the consequences if the estimated future effects of the activity in question are wrong.
3. Choose the course of action that:
- has the greatest nett benefit (considering all costs and benefits, not just those with current commercial prices), based on the best estimate of consequences.
- has a very low probability of significant unexpected detrimental consequences
- has a probability of disasterous consequences as close to zero as possible.
That’s already part of Australian law by the way.
Anybody responsible for a design (in a construction context anyway) is required to remove or minimise all risks, so far as is reasonably practicable.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:My off the cuff response is: observations that are consistent or inconsistent with some hypothesis.
No doubt that could be improved.
yes, we would like to know, how to account for the strength or weight or value (or other metric) of evidence
In the context of an engineering question, like what to do about GHG emissions, the procedure is:
1. Make a rational estimate of the significance of all available evidence.
2. Consider the consequences if the estimated future effects of the activity in question are wrong.
3. Choose the course of action that:- has the greatest nett benefit (considering all costs and benefits, not just those with current commercial prices), based on the best estimate of consequences.
- has a very low probability of significant unexpected detrimental consequences
- has a probability of disasterous consequences as close to zero as possible.That’s already part of Australian law by the way.
Anybody responsible for a design (in a construction context anyway) is required to remove or minimise all risks, so far as is reasonably practicable.
That puts Intelligent Design out of the question because if God did it then he forgot the risk minimisation bit.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:yes, we would like to know, how to account for the strength or weight or value (or other metric) of evidence
In the context of an engineering question, like what to do about GHG emissions, the procedure is:
1. Make a rational estimate of the significance of all available evidence.
2. Consider the consequences if the estimated future effects of the activity in question are wrong.
3. Choose the course of action that:- has the greatest nett benefit (considering all costs and benefits, not just those with current commercial prices), based on the best estimate of consequences.
- has a very low probability of significant unexpected detrimental consequences
- has a probability of disasterous consequences as close to zero as possible.That’s already part of Australian law by the way.
Anybody responsible for a design (in a construction context anyway) is required to remove or minimise all risks, so far as is reasonably practicable.
That puts Intelligent Design out of the question because if God did it then he forgot the risk minimisation bit.
Not at all.
It just means he was an architect, rather than an engineer :)
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:In the context of an engineering question, like what to do about GHG emissions, the procedure is:
1. Make a rational estimate of the significance of all available evidence.
2. Consider the consequences if the estimated future effects of the activity in question are wrong.
3. Choose the course of action that:- has the greatest nett benefit (considering all costs and benefits, not just those with current commercial prices), based on the best estimate of consequences.
- has a very low probability of significant unexpected detrimental consequences
- has a probability of disasterous consequences as close to zero as possible.That’s already part of Australian law by the way.
Anybody responsible for a design (in a construction context anyway) is required to remove or minimise all risks, so far as is reasonably practicable.
That puts Intelligent Design out of the question because if God did it then he forgot the risk minimisation bit.
Not at all.
It just means he was an architect, rather than an engineer :)
> see Masonic bible.
I mean he was a candidate with the Climate Change Coalition
I still maintain it is not about beliefs.
buffy said:
I still maintain it is not about beliefs.
I agree.
roughbarked said:
buffy said:
I still maintain it is not about beliefs.I agree.
However once convinced that the facts indicate, a firm opinion may form.
buffy said:
I still maintain it is not about beliefs.
Considering the weight of scientific evidence it is the contrary position of denialism that is a belief and not vice versa.
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
I still maintain it is not about beliefs.Considering the weight of scientific evidence it is the contrary position of denialism that is a belief and not vice versa.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/certainty
Maybe the federal government should put up a website of validated scientific inforation sourced from universities, CSIRO and other trusted sources.
Schools, public and businesses could access it.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Maybe the federal government should put up a website of validated scientific inforation sourced from universities, CSIRO and other trusted sources.Schools, public and businesses could access it.
validated scientific information about climate change and human created global warming
Maybe Dr Karl could do a follow-up.?
Do you believe in things that don’t exist and should laws be created around that?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Maybe the federal government should put up a website of validated scientific inforation sourced from universities, CSIRO and other trusted sources.Schools, public and businesses could access it.
Maybe the federal government should stop shutting down validated scientific inforation sourced from universities, CSIRO and other trusted sources.
Schools, public and businesses could access it.
sarahs mum said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Maybe the federal government should put up a website of validated scientific inforation sourced from universities, CSIRO and other trusted sources.Schools, public and businesses could access it.
Maybe the federal government should stop shutting down validated scientific inforation sourced from universities, CSIRO and other trusted sources.
Schools, public and businesses could access it.
If we have so many validated sources.
Then why any denial?
Why the need to discuss it?
Why focus on Climate Change and not “Human Created Global Warming?
Will they discuss the differences or carry on with the confusion?
Will they discuss each observation?
Will they discuss each solution?
Will it be “Gee Skippy things are bad.”
I suppose the obvious example is the past climates changes on earth. climate change occurs , ice cores support this and therefore mitigating consequences of climate change seems smart and obvious too.
buffy said:
I still maintain it is not about beliefs.
What do you believe a belief to be though?
roughbarked said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
I still maintain it is not about beliefs.Considering the weight of scientific evidence it is the contrary position of denialism that is a belief and not vice versa.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/certainty
I’m not saying the Cambridge dictionary is wrong.
But the Cambridge Dictionary is wrong.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Considering the weight of scientific evidence it is the contrary position of denialism that is a belief and not vice versa.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/certainty
I’m not saying the Cambridge dictionary is wrong.
But the Cambridge Dictionary is wrong.
It’s all semantics.
Climate change what a lie
List of Human created global warming effects
1 Increased temperatures bringing heatwaves and drought in local areas
2 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased volcanism in some areas
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Effects of climate change on crop pollination
11 Warmer oceans global average increase of 0.1°C
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers, causing trapped methane to be released.
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere Global average increase of 1.4 °C
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe
23 Increased tidal levels in some areas
24 Plant and animal ranges are changing
25 Trees flowering sooner in some areas
26 Increased flooding and erosion is some areas
27 Declining water supplies in other areas
28 Declining biodiversity related to global warming
29 Extinctions related to global warming
30 Increase in human deaths related to global warming
31 Migration of people as rain patterns change local drought
32 Changes in crop locations with changing precipitation patterns
33 Increases in diseases related to floods and sewage
34 Changes in house prices due to various reasons flooding, rising sea levels.
35 Increase in malnutrition and food shortages
36 Increases in air conditioning cooling and heating use as temperatures soar or plummet
37 Extreme Weather Is Preventing Plants From Processing Carbon
38 Agriculture linked Global Warming
39 Deforestation linked Global Warming
40 Changes in climate since 2000 have cut Australian farm profits 22%
Still some to more to add.
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/certainty
I’m not saying the Cambridge dictionary is wrong.
But the Cambridge Dictionary is wrong.
It’s all semantics.
Semantics are important.
This is what the Oxford Dictionary says:
belief (in something/somebody) a strong feeling that something or someone exists or is true; confidence that something or someone is good or right.I’m happy with that one.
In fact I believe it to be correct.
Tau.Neutrino said:
sarahs mum said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Maybe the federal government should put up a website of validated scientific inforation sourced from universities, CSIRO and other trusted sources.Schools, public and businesses could access it.
Maybe the federal government should stop shutting down validated scientific inforation sourced from universities, CSIRO and other trusted sources.
Schools, public and businesses could access it.
If we have so many validated sources.
Then why any denial?
Why the need to discuss it?
Why focus on Climate Change and not “Human Created Global Warming?
Will they discuss the differences or carry on with the confusion?
Will they discuss each observation?
Will they discuss each solution?
Will it be “Gee Skippy things are bad.”
I don’t understand why some people want to use “Global Warming”, which is a sub-set of Climate Change, rather than the general term “Climate Change”.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Witty Rejoinder said:It’s all semantics.
Semantics are important.
Is that a belief?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
sarahs mum said:Maybe the federal government should stop shutting down validated scientific inforation sourced from universities, CSIRO and other trusted sources.
Schools, public and businesses could access it.
If we have so many validated sources.
Then why any denial?
Why the need to discuss it?
Why focus on Climate Change and not “Human Created Global Warming?
Will they discuss the differences or carry on with the confusion?
Will they discuss each observation?
Will they discuss each solution?
Will it be “Gee Skippy things are bad.”
I don’t understand why some people want to use “Global Warming”, which is a sub-set of Climate Change, rather than the general term “Climate Change”.
I see climate change as natural.
Global warming has human created.
Why combine the two ?
When the causes are different?
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Witty Rejoinder said:It’s all semantics.
Semantics are important.
Is that a belief?
Yes, it is my belief.
Based on my observation of discussions and arguments.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:If we have so many validated sources.
Then why any denial?
Why the need to discuss it?
Why focus on Climate Change and not “Human Created Global Warming?
Will they discuss the differences or carry on with the confusion?
Will they discuss each observation?
Will they discuss each solution?
Will it be “Gee Skippy things are bad.”
I don’t understand why some people want to use “Global Warming”, which is a sub-set of Climate Change, rather than the general term “Climate Change”.
I see climate change as natural.
Global warming has human created.
Why combine the two ?
When the causes are different?
I think focussing on what to do about the roll on effect matters more than the debate now
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:If we have so many validated sources.
Then why any denial?
Why the need to discuss it?
Why focus on Climate Change and not “Human Created Global Warming?
Will they discuss the differences or carry on with the confusion?
Will they discuss each observation?
Will they discuss each solution?
Will it be “Gee Skippy things are bad.”
I don’t understand why some people want to use “Global Warming”, which is a sub-set of Climate Change, rather than the general term “Climate Change”.
I see climate change as natural.
Global warming has human created.
Why combine the two ?
When the causes are different?
They should be combined because that is what the words mean.
Global warming is just as natural as climate change.
The current example of climate change is largely human induced though.
Or so it seems, based on the available evidence.
monkey skipper said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I don’t understand why some people want to use “Global Warming”, which is a sub-set of Climate Change, rather than the general term “Climate Change”.
I see climate change as natural.
Global warming has human created.
Why combine the two ?
When the causes are different?
I think focussing on what to do about the roll on effect matters more than the debate now
I agree.
monkey skipper said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I don’t understand why some people want to use “Global Warming”, which is a sub-set of Climate Change, rather than the general term “Climate Change”.
I see climate change as natural.
Global warming has human created.
Why combine the two ?
When the causes are different?
I think focussing on what to do about the roll on effect matters more than the debate now
for example if we lived on an island being swamped by seawater and being told the island will be lost to the sea in 12 months. doing something about the people and where they will live is more important than a debate on the internet in this moment. for the simple reason people are aware of the eminent issue living on that island and so it is true for people living in a town where the dams are running dry. they want a way to survive the immediate threat to their life and way of life.
monkey skipper said:
monkey skipper said:
Tau.Neutrino said:I see climate change as natural.
Global warming has human created.
Why combine the two ?
When the causes are different?
I think focussing on what to do about the roll on effect matters more than the debate now
for example if we lived on an island being swamped by seawater and being told the island will be lost to the sea in 12 months. doing something about the people and where they will live is more important than a debate on the internet in this moment. for the simple reason people are aware of the eminent issue living on that island and so it is true for people living in a town where the dams are running dry. they want a way to survive the immediate threat to their life and way of life.
Islands being swamped by sea can be raised like China is doing making artificial islands
Tau.Neutrino said:
monkey skipper said:
monkey skipper said:I think focussing on what to do about the roll on effect matters more than the debate now
for example if we lived on an island being swamped by seawater and being told the island will be lost to the sea in 12 months. doing something about the people and where they will live is more important than a debate on the internet in this moment. for the simple reason people are aware of the eminent issue living on that island and so it is true for people living in a town where the dams are running dry. they want a way to survive the immediate threat to their life and way of life.
Islands being swamped by sea can be raised like China is doing making artificial islands
What about existing structures at sea-level? The Chinese are building facilities after they have raised the atolls.
Tau.Neutrino said:
I see climate change as natural.
Global warming has human created.
Why combine the two ?
When the causes are different?
The climate is always changing but the phrase ‘climate change’ is now used to describe anthropomorphic changes to the climate.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I don’t understand why some people want to use “Global Warming”, which is a sub-set of Climate Change, rather than the general term “Climate Change”.
I see climate change as natural.
Global warming has human created.
Why combine the two ?
When the causes are different?
They should be combined because that is what the words mean.
Global warming is just as natural as climate change.
The current example of climate change is largely human induced though.
Or so it seems, based on the available evidence.
Muddies science, keep studies of them separate, but combine them for overall observation.
List of solutions getting longer than the observations.
Teaching emotional intelligence to everyone
Stopping bully behaviour in politics and society around the world.
Reduce world population
Planting more trees
Bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
Planting more ocean plants
Making companies more aware and responsible for the environment
Reduce creek, river and seawater pollution
Cleaning up plastics in the environment
Breeding more fish
Accepting that humanity has an effect on the environment
Accepting that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
We need to stop species becoming extinct
We need to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
Building houses to a better energy saving standard
Building smaller homes
Taxing larger homes ?
Building smaller cars
Taxing larger cars and domestic vehicles
Bring manufacturing energy levels down
Focusing on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
Reducing domestic waste towards zero
Recycling 100 percent waste
Reducing emissions and pollution in the atmosphere
Eliminating non-renewables as much as possible
Stop coal mining.
Reduce other mining operations.
We need to electrify out cars more and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.
Create more environment jobs worldwide ?
Build more solar power stations worldwide
Create more fish farms worldwide
Raise Islands sinking like China is doing with its artificial islands.
Reduce micro plastics in the food chain and in the environment…
Work out accurate sustainable population levels.
Creating more efficient heating and cooling systems
Fix starvation
Stop people from using heating and cooling systems completely, (building smarter homes)
Phasing out non-rechargeable batteries.
Work towards 100% reuse and no recycling
Voluntary euthanasia
Must be more to add as well.
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Witty Rejoinder said:It’s all semantics.
Semantics are important.
Is that a belief?
i believe that semantics are often used to distract / detract from the more important arguments
SCIENCE said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Semantics are important.
Is that a belief?
i believe that semantics are often used to distract / detract from the more important arguments
Yes.
They are also often used to define and resolve the differing positions in important arguments.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:I see climate change as natural.
Global warming has human created.
Why combine the two ?
When the causes are different?
They should be combined because that is what the words mean.
Global warming is just as natural as climate change.
The current example of climate change is largely human induced though.
Or so it seems, based on the available evidence.
Muddies science, keep studies of them separate, but combine them for overall observation.
Just the reverse.
Talking about “climate change” as though it was a separate phenomenon to “global warming” muddies the science.
That’s why the pseudo-sceptical climate change deniers like to do it.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Is that a belief?
i believe that semantics are often used to distract / detract from the more important arguments
Yes.
They are also often used to define and resolve the differing positions in important arguments.
we believe that doing so after sensible argument has begun, is considered “posting the shift goals” or something similar, and makes argument insensible
we believe that we could define “sensible argument” as one that has begun after semantics are defined and resolved with differing positions
actually, we believe that we could call the principle of doing so, “posting the shift goals”
Tau.Neutrino said:
I see climate change as natural.
Global warming has human created.
el oh el doubleyou tee ef
speaking of semantics
“climate”, “change”, where does that say “natural”
“global”, “warming”, where does that say “human”
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:i believe that semantics are often used to distract / detract from the more important arguments
Yes.
They are also often used to define and resolve the differing positions in important arguments.
we believe that doing so after sensible argument has begun, is considered “posting the shift goals” or something similar, and makes argument insensible
we believe that we could define “sensible argument” as one that has begun after semantics are defined and resolved with differing positions
actually, we believe that we could call the principle of doing so, “posting the shift goals”
Who is “we”?
If sensible arguments had well defined starting points where both sides defined and agreed all the terminology in advance, that would make sense.
But since they don’t, it doesn’t.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Yes.
They are also often used to define and resolve the differing positions in important arguments.
we believe that doing so after sensible argument has begun, is considered “posting the shift goals” or something similar, and makes argument insensible
we believe that we could define “sensible argument” as one that has begun after semantics are defined and resolved with differing positions
actually, we believe that we could call the principle of doing so, “posting the shift goals”
Who is “we”?
If sensible arguments had well defined starting points where both sides defined and agreed all the terminology in advance, that would make sense.
But since they don’t, it doesn’t.
sorry we’re talking about mathematics and SCIENCE
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:we believe that doing so after sensible argument has begun, is considered “posting the shift goals” or something similar, and makes argument insensible
we believe that we could define “sensible argument” as one that has begun after semantics are defined and resolved with differing positions
actually, we believe that we could call the principle of doing so, “posting the shift goals”
Who is “we”?
If sensible arguments had well defined starting points where both sides defined and agreed all the terminology in advance, that would make sense.
But since they don’t, it doesn’t.
sorry we’re talking about mathematics and SCIENCE
No, we are talking about engineering.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Who is “we”?
If sensible arguments had well defined starting points where both sides defined and agreed all the terminology in advance, that would make sense.
But since they don’t, it doesn’t.
sorry we’re talking about mathematics and SCIENCE
No, we are talking about engineering.
:)
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Who is “we”?
If sensible arguments had well defined starting points where both sides defined and agreed all the terminology in advance, that would make sense.
But since they don’t, it doesn’t.
sorry we’re talking about mathematics and SCIENCE
No, we are talking about engineering.
No we’re talking about 18th century French poetry: see we can all play that game!
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:sorry we’re talking about mathematics and SCIENCE
No, we are talking about engineering.
No we’re talking about 18th century French poetry: see we can all play that game!
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:sorry we’re talking about mathematics and SCIENCE
No, we are talking about engineering.
No we’re talking about 18th century French poetry: see we can all play that game!
But the thread heading is about climate change, which is an engineering question, not purely maths and/or science, and certainly not 18th Century French poetry.
The Rev Dodgson said:
But the thread heading is about climate change, which is an engineering question, not purely maths and/or science, and certainly not 18th Century French poetry.
IMO it can’t be categorised so succinctly. I think tackling climate change is the fusion of engineering and economics and all that entails.
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:But the thread heading is about climate change, which is an engineering question, not purely maths and/or science, and certainly not 18th Century French poetry.
IMO it can’t be categorised so succinctly. I think tackling climate change is the fusion of engineering and economics and all that entails.
Engineering includes a lot of economic considerations in any decision.
>If you believe something you think it’s true.
I guess belief is related to want and hope, and anticipation, people believe things into existence
I believe I will have a second apple in a moment, they’re so nice, well, I won’t know for sure if it will be nice, or as nice, and even if it isn’t I might just go with it is, or was after i’ve eaten it
taste lingers though doesn’t it, which could raise the question of when did I really stop eating the apple, I mean i’ve just finished one, in my mind in some way i’m still sort of eating it, when I start on the second apple it’ll be like just one apple, certainly if I drop it in the acid bath of my tummy fast enough.
anyway I’m experiencing some continuity in the experience of apple