Schools

[filsgreen]

No shame in that Rich, I was out of my depth by about the third page :lol:

 

[Digit]

The original post died I think.
What was it again?

Roy.

 

[Rich]

Well if I remember rightly it raised the question of wether teachers are competent enough to lecture on CC, reading the highbrows on this forum, I think not, and that's NOT being rude or derogatory to teachers at present, merely practical in my view.

Rich.

 

[filsgreen]

To quote Python " I think you've finished!"

 

[Digit]

Actually Rich the question was which version were they going to teach?

Roy.

 

[Rich]

To quote Python " I think you've finished!"

Okay, I can take a hint, :lol:

Rich.

 

[Smudger]

Well if I remember rightly it raised the question of wether teachers are competent enough to lecture on CC, reading the highbrows on this forum, I think not, and that's NOT being rude or derogatory to teachers at present, merely practical in my view.

Rich.

You are also utterly and completely wrong.

As I have said before, but no-one seems to have bothered to read it, preferring prejudice to knowledge, geography syllabi have included this for years, and geography teachers are very aware of climatological issues, which are taught at all levels.

Do I need to say it again?

I would really like to see a debate in which people speak from knowledge, rather than some half-baked supposition or something they vaguely remember someone saying.

I'm surprised that no-one has yet told us that the world will end next week when CERN turns on the Large Hadron Collider...

 

[Digit]

Well aware of the collider turn on Smudger, we mentioned it weeks/months ago when it was originally intended to fire it up.
The turn on also has nothing to do with the first run, apparently that is weeks away according to the scientific press.
A point here is the same as with CC, one group of, presumably qualified experts say 'we're doomed' and another, presumably equally qualified group say 'rubbish'!
You pays your money and takes your choice.
One thing I will say that I suspect NO one will be able to argue about, is that one group is going to be wrong!

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

.

I'm surprised that no-one has yet told us that the world will end next week when CERN turns on the Large Hadron Collider...

We did, ****, here :wink:

Well, maybe not 'end ' as such.......

 

[Smudger]

Well aware of the collider turn on Smudger, we mentioned it weeks/months ago when it was originally intended to fire it up.
The turn on also has nothing to do with the first run, apparently that is weeks away according to the scientific press.
A point here is the same as with CC, one group of, presumably qualified experts say 'we're doomed' and another, presumably equally qualified group say 'rubbish'!
You pays your money and takes your choice.
One thing I will say that I suspect NO one will be able to argue about, is that one group is going to be wrong!

Roy.

No, no no no no.
A group of very adequately qualified scientists say it is probably very safe (proper science never allows for 100% certainty) and a load of know-nothing conspiracy theorists say it isn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/bigbang/asktheexpert.shtml

Not all opinions are equally valid...

 

[Digit]

Not all opinions are equally valid...

Very true! So in CC which do you believe. As I said, you pays your money...

Roy.

 

[Smudger]

If you 'pays your money' - what does that mean? That it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, that you just choose the one that suits your preconceptions? Or do you actually LOOK at the weight of evidence and the science behind it, which is much harder?

 

[Digit]

Or do you actually LOOK at the weight of evidence and the science behind it, which is much harder?

Have been since the 1970s, as I have posted on two occasions.
Also, as I have posted, in that period the same experts have gone from an ice age is around the corner to we are all going to fry, using much the same data.
I also posted that as well.

 

[Smudger]

So the 'scientists' (presumably climatologists) should have been 100% certain before they published? Never going to happen. And having come up with a theory they should never have tested or modified it? Abysmal science.

This is a straw man argument. You set a series of criteria which are impossible to meet and then decry the efforts of 'scientists' because they can't meet them. It's a common ploy, but not convincing.

By the way, which university or research institute were you doing your research at, since the 70s?

Not being snotty, but one bloke doing a bit of reading is not the same as a major international scientific effort.

 

[Digit]

So the 'scientists' (presumably climatologists) should have been 100% certain before they published?

Never suggested that.

And having come up with a theory they should never have tested or modified it? Abysmal science.

Nor that!

This is a straw man argument. You set a series of criteria which are impossible to meet and then decry the efforts of 'scientists' because they can't meet them. It's a common ploy, but not convincing.

Where did I do that?

By the way, which university or research institute were you doing your research at, since the 70s?

See below.

Not being snotty, but one bloke doing a bit of reading is not the same as a major international scientific effort.

Granted, so the next best is to at least read some of their reports. Anything else?

 

[Smudger]

I give in.

 

[tnimble]

Indeed, following their research, reader some (all would be almost impossible) of their report and following whats picked up by media and politics is not he same as doing the actual research, but it does make you knowledgeable of what's going on, how things are represented and what's chanings over the years.

What's for sure is that the climate is changing, what's also for sure is that the last couple of decades our climate has been politically debated and measures ibeen taken. What is also noticeable is that for these decades they have not been concerned for the same scenerio nor for the same causes. They have made U turns and jumped from bandwagon to bandwagon.

In science there will always be groups that have different theories which can fully contradict each other, but both theories are sound. However one or neither theories may reflect the actual situation present in real live.


About CERN, we have little idea what is going to happen after taking the facility operational. This does not mean when it's 'switched on' he thing may explode, the world converted into a black hole or anything ehrm stupid like that. If all is successful and operation we will be able to do tests at levels not possible before. We can try to verify some theories, we might be able the generate (reveal would be a better word) particles we had no knowledge of that they could exist. (not to brag or anything but my work a few years back was on the data acquisition unit for a exit port measurement device for one of the experiments goi to be performed.)

 

[MikeG.]

Guys,

this isn't the first particle accelerator in the world!! This has all been done before on a smaller scale (and therefore slower speed). They aren't guessing here, you know!

Mike

 

[andycktm]

Man creates Black Hole........... :roll:
beam me up Scotty :lol: :lol:

 

[Rich]

Smudger, if it's already part of the geography syllabi, why bring it into the national curriculum when the kids already have enough to worry themselves with, does that mean a degree in CC?, I personally can't see the benefit of yet another subject to have to worry about that is most unlikely to get them a position of employment, far better to concentrate on the 3rs, once you have THOSE under your belt, the rest is easy.

Rich.