Comments by "Engineering the weird guy" (@engineeringtheweirdguy2103) on "The West Report"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
You say albo is bad. but Labor hasnt had a go at government for a decade. and the last time they were in government, Australia improved in nearly every metric. Economics, foreign policy, jobs, education, infrastructure, energy. The current governement says they've lowered emissions. they havnt. that was labor. current emissions are lower than they were when labor took the government from john howard. But since it went back to liberals, its been climbing again ever since. How long is it ok to take credit for someone elses accomplishments.
and at least albo hasnt burnt several international and domestic bridges. such as the debark with the french priminister, not ordering vaccines, the solomon islands. etc. etc. If we leave liberals in, and you vote none of the above, we continue with worse in our downwards trajectory. At least if we vote for labor we have a relatively fresh slate on the international stage and we could start doing better. we might not, it might be more of the same. but at the moment scott hasnt set a very high bar to do better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nat Smythe here’s another. If the ocean increases in temperature but even just a little bit. The amount of water evaporated into the air as clouds increases. Over the area of the ocean. A little bit warmer is a lot more evaporation. That makes clouds heavier. Which means they dump more rain as they move inland and the dump it faster with the clouds being expended more near coastal areas. This increases the likelihood and severity of flooding events Guess what we’re seeing?
Since the clouds are drying out faster before they get more inland, other areas will experience increased occursnces and severities of droughts. Guess what we’re already seeing?
This also leads to higher foliage in areas due to repeated flooding which, when it dries out, creates the perfect conditions for devastating fires. Guess what happened at the end of 2019? One of the largest bushfires in recorded history.
But idiots with google think because climate scientists doing hand calculations in the 1980’s predicted a change of X degrees by 2020, despite not know how computers, renewables, EV’s covid, eruptions, etc etc would all affect such predictions. And the temperatures predicted were out by say 10%-20% that therefore all predictions are entirely wrong because the science is wrong.
Sorry but they’re not. They’re not pinpoint, time machine, crystal ball accurate. But what they describe happening is indeed happening.
Maybe when the most educated and intelligent people on the planet collectively tell you something. Maybe. Just maybe, they know what they’re talking about more than joe blogs on YouTube conspiracy channels who didn’t even passed high school.
1
-
@Nat Smythe you clearly don’t understand what peer review means. Let me elaborate. Let’s say I collect data and do an analysis. I have to publish those findings in scientific papers or publications. All the information required to replicate the study is provided to the entire world. (in this case being the “peers” or “fellow man”) anyone, from dick and Harry in their grandmothers basement to Stephen Hawkins, can see, replicate your analysis and conclusions and conduct their own. In this case reviewing and verifying your results and conclusions. If they think your argument is illogical, isn’t supported by the evidence, your calculations flawed or ignores contradictory facts or data, than anyone who find that from dick and Harry to Stephen Hawkins can publish their own article or paper, purely on why the original paper was faulty or bad.
It requires very little investment of funds, much less time, and if debunking an established or accepted hypothesis, makes that author very famous and rich. Likewise, everyone else is free to peer review their rebuttal paper, and so on and so forth.
This air a process you and I can take part in.
Why it’s less expensive is because to do experiments and tests to collect the data, one must buy the machines, instruments, pay for the time to do the experiments the materials, any travel and so on. Someone with the exact same funding from say a University or their own pocket, can disprove your paper on its merits alone and no spend a dime. But if successful opens them to grants, scholarships, paid interviews, paid written opinion pieces for scientific publications etc etc.
But one needs to be careful. Although your rebuttal if substantiated can make you famous and leave the original papers authors career in tatters. If someone makes a rebuttal to your rebuttal and is factually substantive and accurate, your reputation will be in taters. So there is every incentive to be as accurate and backed by facts and figures and sound logic before publishing. Lest you end your own carreer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1