Climate Change

Whether my conclusions are valid or not you consider to be objective, and I consider to be subjective. Looks like we each have our own Subjective opinion on it lmao

And same to you regarding the “made up your mind and recycling your arguments” part

 

Posting one more time. Keep watching CNN guys!

 

What does Al Gore know?

 

Keep living in your fake news bubble!

 

Hilarious how not even that clip makes the slightest dent in your psyche. You’re hopeless then bro lmao…

 

I’m really curious how old you are

 

Tell that to every Quantum Physicist

 

Tell that to every Quantum Physicist. You clearly haven’t gone very deep into this field…

 

And debate is a part of that. A HUGE part of it actually. Peer-review and journals are all about Scientists attacking and debating each other.

Ever heard of EPR? Gigantic debate (that’s still unresolved)

 

A lot of word salad in your last post, but no substance to your words. Of course, you would disagree. That’s because we each have our own subjective interpretation of our arguments.

Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

“Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best "represents" reality.[1][2]”

Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox - Wikipedia

“The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen which argues that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics is incomplete.[1] In a 1935 paper titled "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?", they argued for the existence of "elements of reality" that were not part of quantum theory, and speculated that it should be possible to construct a theory containing these hidden variables. Resolutions of the paradox have important implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics.”

It seems that according to you, Einstein doesn’t care about the Scientific Method since he considers Quantum Mechanics as an entire field to be incomplete

 

I remember a debate I had on this site a few years back with a guy who denied the existence of physical reality. I suggested he take a leap off a tall building to test it. Never heard from him again. I've felt kinda guilty since,and hope he didn't take me too seriously. Anyhow, it's hard to argue with an extreme relativist and subjectivist, since there's no common ground around which discourse can take place.

Things may seem chaotic at the subatomic level, but elsewhere physical reality seems relatively stable and predictable. Science seems to be the best tool we have for figuring it out. Even Newton seems to work well in everyday contexts. Logically speaking though, it would seem that a person who denies the value scientific consensus on grounds that it's been wrong in the past would have nothing much further to post that can be taken seriously--since anything you or anybody else says is just their "subjective take". But you seem to have no hesitancy to bring forward contrarian scientists as the last word on climate change. Seems like it's just their subjective take. You think climate scientists are part of a grand conspiracy run by a shadowy unnamed elite out to deceive us. I take their expertise seriously, unless you can provide clear and convincing evidence otherwise. I thought Meagain's "word salad" was delicious and quite nutritious. Try some. It might improve your thought processes. But of course it's just a matter of taste.

 

“Things may seem chaotic at the subatomic level, but elsewhere physical reality seems relatively stable and predictable.”

Key word would be seems.

And I hope you realize that this point you’re making is the exact point that Einstein is making, which you earlier said to me that “Science has passed him by” because he was “talking outside of his expertise”. Remember?

Meanwhile, the Quantum Physicists are saying things like this:



Moving on…

“Logically speaking though, it would seem that a person who denies the value scientific consensus on grounds that it's been wrong in the past would have nothing much further to post that can be taken seriously.”

When did I ever say that it’s been “wrong in the past”? I’m saying that Quantum Mechanics has been debated for 100 years. No consensus has been met.

“But you seem to have no hesitancy to bring forward contrarian scientists as the last word on climate change.”

I never said it’s “the last word” either. YOU guys are saying that anyone who disagrees “aren’t doing Science”. So I guess Quantum Mechanics isn’t “doing Science” either since physicists have been bickering about it for 100+ years.

It’s pretty clear to me that you and many others want to shut down ANY debate on Climate Change. “The Science is settled”. From my perspective and from the perspective of John Clauser and the other Scientists, it is you who are not doing Science, simply because you want to make it taboo to even suggest that there needs to be a further debate about it.

You’re going into the realm of being Dogmatic.

 

The fact that you insist there needs to be an objective consensus reveals much about your underlying beliefs about reality. Quantum Mechanics challenges this directly and insists that an objective reality separate from your subjective consciousness may not exist.