Should maths be taught?????

This forum contains threads from main General Chat forum older than 3 months.

Moderator: thunderchero

KrazeeXXL
BORG Trouble Maker
BORG Trouble Maker
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:00 am
Location: the 36th Chamber

Re: Should maths be taught?????

Post by KrazeeXXL » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:33 pm

^whoa guys calm down ;)
Peter1981 wrote:This ultimately leads me to ask, 'Why do school children come to hate mathematics?' Well It is my view that not all ideas and concepts are taught well so the 'brick' becomes mis-shaped or worse gets lost and is left out of the structure leaving a hole. Now a few gaps in your knowlegde isn't going to be much of a problem, but, If you have misconceptions and gaps (mis-shapes and holes) then the understanding (the structure) become unstable. Mathematics in many ways is self referencing and is designed to be checked. However in the analogy if there are to many gaps and hole in the childs knowledge then they may not beable to check their understanding.
True words. I never had any good math teachers in school tbh (and I was in a lot of schools). I learned the simple 1x1 from a computer program, my dad wrote for me as I was 6 years old. Background was the bad teachings at school.

But I never became a fan of maths, tho. I'm pretty good at trigonometry but failed at higher maths at some point. Just not my thing.
Peter1981 wrote:When speacking with strangers mention mathematics or show that you can do a quick calculation, say 40% off £399.00 = £239.40, these people come to look at you like your bizzar. (The method I used was £399 minus 40% of £400 plus 40% of £1) no its not bizzar it just a 'trick' or I'd prefere to call it a techneque.
that's indeed kinda sad. I mean that's rly simple stuff, even for me xD

To maths in general: Imho, you need better teachers and less pupils in classes. It makes no sense at all to teach maths to a class with 30 pupils in it. One of my biggest shocks in life was when I came back from secondary school to yea... "normal school" as I was 12 years old. They throw things through the classroom and the teacher couldn't do anything about it. She even came to our tables trying to teach some friends and me something about equations (as only we were interested) where like 25 ppl acted like they were insane. We got the principal a year later as maths teacher and she was highly authoritary and you finally learned a thing or two in maths. But I never got the hang for it.

I'm more the philosopher and maths is absolute. I do see its advantages as you always can check it back to be sure but I also see that it's a non absolute science, too, and still kinda "under development/construction". To be more precise:
MrGwangGwang wrote:shouldn't be treated like a religion
I totally agree with this...

In some schools I went to, you srsly were in deep trouble when you didn't have a math-IQ of 130 or something. Higher maths still is a pain for me, but I somehow learned to get the things I want from maths.

Maths is one of the tools/sciences where we're trying to explain everything but it (ironically) will never be sufficient enough to explain everything. At best explained if you look between the gap between 0 and ∞.

As there's an "everything" between. ;)

or just take "0"...

Maths is definitely very very important to us and the world we're living in but it isn't the answer to all of our questions as some may say...
QuasarDonkey wrote:It's generally within the context of "controversial" and often not very rigorous areas of science. I've noticed these same people tend to be militant atheist, "pro-choice", "liberal", anti-gun, Captain Planet-types :o. Am I right?
You're not.
if you pack ppl in such onesided and sorry to say that: stupid categories, you make a very big mistake.

just sayin'

//multiple edits

MrGwangGwang
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:22 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Should maths be taught?????

Post by MrGwangGwang » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:33 pm

KrazeeXXL wrote:if you pack ppl in such onesided and sorry to say that: stupid categories, you make a very big mistake...
The only categorization that's somewhat applicable where it relates to global warming/climate change, are the "Captain Planet" types. To me, these "types" simply consist of members of the general population who are misled by corporate media reports relating to climate change, or indeed professionals in the field of science, who knowingly manipulate climate data (ref: Climategate) to justify establishment policy on the matter i.e. carbon taxes, excessive fuel taxes, domestic energy quotas (ref: Carbon Cops), depopulation (ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064 etc. High profile individuals such as Bill Gates and David De Rothschild also fall into this "category".

However, I don't agree with categorizing individuals. It's misleading, dangerous and encourages division amongst people. For example, those who reject mainstream talking points on matters of climate change are often branded "Climate Change Deniers" by the corporate media. Their intention is to isolate these individuals by drawing a parallel with "Holocaust Deniers" and thus, those who disagree with climate change are automatically associated with Antisemitism and something to be despised.
QuasarDonkey wrote:Such a philistine, MrGwangGwang.
Another silly move by Donkey - categorizing me using the "Philistine" reference in an attempt to isolate my remarks as something outrageous i.e. "Math and Science becoming more like religion". My remark has since been clarified. The term "Philistine" itself however, certainly does not apply to me: "a person who is lacking in or hostile or smugly indifferent to cultural values, intellectual pursuits, aesthetic refinement, etc., or is contentedly commonplace in ideas and tastes" I like to think that I have an open mind - only thing that bothers me is a person's inability/unwillingness to critically evaluate and derive conclusions based on their own observations - instead they conform to societal norms for fear of being branded "different" or "abnormal".

KrazeeXXL
BORG Trouble Maker
BORG Trouble Maker
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:00 am
Location: the 36th Chamber

Re: Should maths be taught?????

Post by KrazeeXXL » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:47 am

whoa MrGwangGwang hold on :)

that's a bit much even for my taste ;)

ok I'm willing to try to answer you on this one.
MrGwangGwang wrote:The only categorization that's somewhat applicable where it relates to global warming/climate change, are the "Captain Planet" types. To me, these "types" simply consist of members of the general population who are misled by corporate media reports relating to climate change, or indeed professionals in the field of science, who knowingly manipulate climate data (ref: Climategate) to justify establishment policy on the matter i.e. carbon taxes, excessive fuel taxes, domestic energy quotas (ref: Carbon Cops), depopulation
Well you can consider me Captain Planet if you want, as I was a member of the "green movement" long b4 it became popular and was even mentioned on the media.

Lots of data is manipulated, I agree with that. But that runs way much deeper. If you look at many of the complex systems which is a damn hard task, you'll recognize that maximizing profit with "climate change" is the only way to go for this (monetary) system we're living in. A very big problem for all of us. As it won't change anything at all - as this would mean to put in some effort. Making money is often a lazy conservative business. You don't have much invention there. You have technologies and make minor improvents like CO2-savings or something like that f.e.

or SSDs become a 100 MB faster next month... not much of a difference.

And I don't see a change to this happen anytime soon.

The whole system is very complex. I think this thread isn't sufficient enough for this. (but well lets try it out :lol: but plz stop naming one philisist as that doesn't help a constructive discussion at all)

- Bill Gates and his new found philantrophy... a mere bad joke imo. As he's a part of the problems in this world. Well perhaps he recognized that he can just change things like 3rd world toilets... dunno... There are still a lot of things money can't buy.

I mean lots of african countries are still working with win95 or 98 because they don't have the money to afford the newer versions. XP is something for them what Windows 8 is for me... (just as comparison) - l Iike Ubuntu for trying to change that.
MrGwangGwang wrote:However, I don't agree with categorizing individuals. It's misleading, dangerous and encourages division amongst people.
I agree. I don't like categorizing in general when it's about ppl. You can't simply put anyone on this planet in a drawer and thats it. That's not right and we limit ourselves and whole humanity doing this as every human being is unique in it's own way. We might have much similarities. True... But everyone has a different life with different experiences and background which seperates from the rest in a unique and special way.

The poor kid which sits on the montain of electronic scrap to make a living with some cents a day isn't any different then me. I was born in a second world country which became a first world one... that's my luck(?) and what seperates us. Nothing more.
MrGwangGwang wrote:For example, those who reject mainstream talking points on matters of climate change are often branded "Climate Change Deniers" by the corporate media. Their intention is to isolate these individuals by drawing a parallel with "Holocaust Deniers" and thus, those who disagree with climate change are automatically associated with Antisemitism and something to be despised.
Well, more people talking about a topic doesn't mean they become smarter. More the opposite of that. I just can tell it from my view as I'm aware of environmental changes for a very long time and noone ever cared about this topic for a very long time. So for me at least it's a good thing ppl finally talking about that. That the media with their influence is trying to manipulate all of that is a major downside ofc. :/ (but will taken care of...)

I know, in at some point in the future they will know what mistakes "they" did. But atm nobody listens. Still a big problem. May it be 15 years ago or now. Makes no differences at all :/.

The accord with holocaust deniers I don't find correct tbh. We have this problem here in Germany but these are a whole bunch of different misguided ppl imho. You can't rly compare them imho.
Those are ppl... dunno what to say about them... difficult somehow to explain.
Well if you don't learn from your past, you're forced to make the same mistakes again. When I take a look at my country and those ppl who are full of hatred, I know what'll happen when they got any power again. It'll be the end for all times. Not just for us here...
They're kinda misguides masses but in a different more dangerous way then ever b4 imo. And I fear they will become strong again...

only over my dead rotting corpse...

edit: I know you didn't meant it this way as I responded to it and I got your point. but your comparison is lopsided MrGwangGwang @holocaust deniers. But no need to discuss this part of the topic further imo

MrGwangGwang
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:22 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Should maths be taught?????

Post by MrGwangGwang » Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:33 am

KrazeeXXL wrote:That's a bit much even for my taste ;)
I completely understand why my previous post may have seemed a little shocking and a few years ago I would have reacted the same way. For many years I shared the consensus that global warming was real and represented a serious threat to our planet. My initial views were molded during my time in primary school during the 90s. The "fundamental science" underpinning global warming was taught to the students. It wasn't part of the main curriculum but was something discussed as part of our general education. Teachers also showed T.V. documentaries on the subject. I graduated secondary school having no reservations about the science whatsoever. My younger brother is making his way through secondary school now and it seems they've stepped up their attempts to convince young students of what is now titled "climate change". They frequently show Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" in classrooms of various grades. The schools offer no opposing views on the subject and treat the "science" of climate change as irrefutable truth even though scientific theories should be the subject of ongoing scrutiny. Notice how it's now referred to as "climate change" more so than "global warming". This is to ensure that, whether temperatures increase or decrease at various points throughout the globe, academic and governmental institutions in favour of the science can continue to attribute the cause to human activity (anthropogenic climate change).

Recently, I've begun to question the science and political motivations driving forward the climate change agenda. I realised that establishment attempts to counter climate change were centered around global taxation, cap and trade and imposing quotas on end users, as opposed to finding realistic alternatives to fossil fuels and thus reducing our CO2 emissions (the supposed cause of global warming). Global taxation and quotas simply burden the private consumer, who will continue to use coal, oil, gas and petrol, because a reasonable alternative has not, and will not be proposed. Cap and trade simply makes it more expensive for countries to pollute - none of these solutions affect the reduction of greenhouse gases. Personally, I favour alternatives to fossil fuels e.g. solar, wind, hyrdo-electic, wave power etc. These sources are cleaner and reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas. If done correctly, alternative energy has the potential to fuel the entire planets' energy needs. But there is nothing profitable in energy abundance! The establishment will obviously seek to ensure that global energy supplies remain scarce, technologically complicated (nuclear power) and its delivery to the end user problematic, so only governments and multinational corporations have the ability to provide energy solutions to the rest of the world. A simple solution would be the erection of solar panel farms at global hotspots. For example:



The above image was taken from a Der Spiegel news article dated 2009 in which it details a E400 Billion project led by a German Consortium to build a solar panel farm in North Africa:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/bus ... 99,00.html

If governments were to fund similar projects in their respective countries, instead of funding banker bailouts and selling out their nations, then perhaps the dream of free, clean energy could become a reality for all Earth dwellers :) But that would be too easy ;) Which leads us back to "climate change" and the "Convenient Lie" (as opposed to "An Inconvenient Truth") that's propagated by the establishment.
KrazeeXXL wrote:Well you can consider me Captain Planet if you want, as I was a member of the "green movement" long b4 it became popular and was even mentioned on the media.
It was not my intention, nor do I intend to, label you as a "Captain Planet". I was merely proposing how the "Captain Planet" label might apply in the context of climate change but I don't agree with it. In my previous post I think I've clearly outlined my position on labeling/categorizing individuals.
KrazeeXXL wrote:Lots of data is manipulated, I agree with that.
Indeed, lots of data is manipulated and this applies to climate data also. The climate gate scandal represents the epitome of climate data manipulation and confirmed my suspicions that anthropogenic climate change was indeed a fraud. Emails from top climatologists at the University of East Anglia exposed how they manipulated climate data to give the appearance of rising temperatures, or more specifically, to hide the decline in global temperatures:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

This brings up an interesting question: Is there really a correlation between global temperature increases and CO2 concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere. Obviously, CO2 levels have been increasing for decades but if climatologists are forced to hide temperature declines (for the past 15 years) then I have my doubts. CO2 levels are also regulated by northern hemisphere vegetation during the summer months but this is inconsequential since it would appear that there's no link between rising temperatures and the increased levels of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. There's no way to know for certain however - I guess wait another 20 years and see how the graphs jive - just remember that association does not imply causation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pers ... -1998.html

Despite the above I don't dismiss the contention that the Earth undergoes cyclical changes - I just don't submit to the view that it's man-made. In my opinion, the Sun has a greater impact on the Earth's climate than humans. It even effects planets that are further from it than Earth:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... southpole/

"The polar cap (on Mars) is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it."

On Earth, the corporate media love to appeal to human emotions by posting videos of the Arctic cap melting (during summer time) whilst showing the poor polar bears running out of ice and claiming that they may become extinct. They also warn of drastic sea level rises and so on. Of course they fail to mention that polar bear populations are increasing and that the icecap freezes again in the Winter :)

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/ ... rvey-s.htm

As for rising sea levels this is another myth. My father is a marine engineer and during his time in the merchant navy has spoken with many seasoned harbour pilots from around the world who've been active since the 70s. Harbour pilots are fully aware of tides, water levels and report no change in the past 40 years. To me this is the best kind of evidence, first hand, presumably not manipulated. They've no reason to lie.
KrazeeXXL wrote:I know you didn't meant it this way as I responded to it and I got your point. but your comparison is lopsided MrGwangGwang @holocaust deniers.
Unfortunately, that's how the mainstream media operates Krazee. It's a form of Neuro Linguistic Programming which is designed to maintain a self-regulating society. Those who hold views that fail to conform to the general consensus will be afraid to express those views for fear of being ridiculed/demonized by their peers. The Climate Change deniers/Holocaust deniers comparison is valid. Another example would be the use of the term "Conspiracy Theorist" to discredit those with opposing views. But that's another issue :) Incidentally, I think it's disgusting how Germany, and I believe Austria, impose jail sentences on those who deny the holocaust. I firmly believe in every individuals right to freedom of expression whether I agree with their views or not:

“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.” Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we’re all damaged.

Jean-Luc Picard
Last edited by MrGwangGwang on Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:02 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Peter1981
Rear-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England

Re: Should maths be taught?????

Post by Peter1981 » Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:47 am

@eber3 -- your comments are typical of a lot of inteligent people who seem mathematics as compartmentalised, sadly this view while comforting couldn't be worse for you understanding of the beauty of mathematics. all subject within mathematics are connected. An while some part seem for now distant from others in time new connections and ideas will bring them together. Who new that by creating a simple expantion to the real numbers ie. complex numbers (i^2=-1) to allow mathematics to solve every quadratic equation we'd find a new rich and fertile ne 'plain' to farm which has produced some incredibly useful tools for engineers?

@MrGwangGwang -- Intrestingly enough the ancient history of mathematics and it formalisation in ancient Greece had much religious overtones; many of the ideas and concepts were jealosly guarded by the mathmatician of the day e.g. pythagoras and the pythagorean movement. -- Indeed many non-mathematical view i.e. sqrt(2) is not irrational lead to pythagoras beeing thrown to his death from a cliff top. Modern Mathematics is not a religious movement however the higher levels are certainly had to access and to the uniniciated could seem like a secret society.

@QD -- I was quite heartend in reading yesterdays 'Sun' newspaper that state school primary school children (5-8 year olds) are nolonger going to be allowed to use calculators in mathematics lessons.

Regarding 'Mathematics as a Tool' -- I think it is fair to say mathematics is a tool; that, like computers, you get more out of them from better understanding. Indeed many people would forearm themselves better for the modern world with a better grasp of the concepts in mathematics.

User avatar
Peter1981
Rear-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England

Re: Should maths be taught?????

Post by Peter1981 » Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:48 am

@MrGG -- its not about global warming its about cliamte change.

MrGwangGwang
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:22 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Should maths be taught?????

Post by MrGwangGwang » Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:10 am

Peter1981 wrote:@MrGG -- its not about global warming its about cliamte change.
MrGwangGwang wrote:Notice how it's now referred to as "climate change" more so than "global warming". This is to ensure that, whether temperatures increase or decrease at various points throughout the globe, academic and governmental institutions in favour of the science can continue to attribute the cause to human activity (anthropogenic climate change).
From this point onward in the previous post I refer to it as "climate change". Not like it matters - just another phrase the media adopted to compensate for the fact that global temperatures are no longer rising.

And a little piece of advice Peter - try to read the entire post before commenting :)

User avatar
eber3
Captain
Captain
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:00 am

Re: Should maths be taught?????

Post by eber3 » Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:41 pm

Peter1981 wrote:@eber3 -- your comments are typical of a lot of inteligent people who seem mathematics as compartmentalised, sadly this view while comforting couldn't be worse for you understanding of the beauty of mathematics. all subject within mathematics are connected.
Well of course they are all connected, however it would be very hard to teach them all at once, and almost impossible to learn that way. Simply because I enjoyed learning about some areas of math more than others doesn't mean I don't understand or appreciate that they are interconnected. Or perhaps you don't like my calling Calculus a non math? Neither algebra nor Calculus are mathematics, they are taught as math classes, but they are actually mathematical language classes. You don't learn any new areas of math in Algebra, but you do learn more effective and efficient ways to solve complicated problems with less work. The same is supposed to be true of Calculus, but I could never see it. Instead of making the solving of problems easier, the use of Calculus seemed to me to have the exact opposite effect. And truthfully the only people who will ever use calculus, beyond pre-established "plug & chug" formulas, are advanced physicists and the like.

User avatar
Peter1981
Rear-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England

Re: Should maths be taught?????

Post by Peter1981 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:30 am

I'd like to make my self very clear I really enjoy discussing maths and in no way ar my comments ment to be a dig at any one. Sorry to anyone who my feel slighted, I have very defined views on this subject ;)

Your right eber3 I could never see the beauty(?!?) in statistics and probabilities although I understood the need for these subject for quantum theory. Your also correct in your assertion that
And truthfully the only people who will ever use calculus, beyond pre-established "plug & chug" formulas, are advanced physicists and the like.
with regard to my disintrest in statistics and probabilities this is probably motivation for my negitive view towards media-hyped claims of cliamte change. But I've been reading 'Future Babble' and it ultimately proves prognosticators are invariable wronge, so go figure.,

User avatar
Flocke
BORG Trouble Maker
BORG Trouble Maker
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Re: Should maths be taught?????

Post by Flocke » Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:10 am

math is one thing, it doesn't matter to me if people find it important, may they keep dumb in math,
but as you've already begun discussing climate change in here ( :lol: )
and I've read some pretty <strange views>, I can no other than to push in some important facts people should know about when discussing climate change.

First, it's NOT the first time earth temperature increased so much. It's already been hotter in the cretaceous age (Kreidezeit) around 100 million years ago, the time of the dinosaurs. But much more important for us today probably is 250 million years ago, the perm trias catastrophe, read up on it if you don't know about. There have been thoughts it might have been an asteroid, like the one ending dinosaur age, but more modern research gives a different view on this, read below.

Second, it's known that CO2 heats the atmosphere, but it's not the only climate gas, methane is a much more trouble some. Climate change by methane emission of stock farming today is known to be much more troublesome than global car emissions. So if you want to help against climate change you better eat less meat. Furthermore it's true that sun has an effect, it has periodical heating phases. But it's also true that global heating - in the sense of global average temperature - is much higher than to be reasoned by sun heating.

Third, climate change by CO2 and methane alone might be just a few degree, doesn't sound much, but the effects are immeasurable. And as always with immeasurable consequences of a later time, even more when it doesn't matter who caused it and there are other countries not caring about, it's not taken serious as it should till there's no way to deny.
Not only that poor countries, especially in africa will have troubles with food production and shortage of drinkable water increases. Both are problems more related to population growth and worldwide food sharing anyhow, both not taken care on as it should.
Not only that whole countries disappear cause the water level and spreading changes. Spreading changes means the water level doesn't raise equal on earth, it partially even can lower. To learn why, you've to understand that earth isn't an equally shaped sphere and water gathers on spots with higher masses, as well as it's affected by earth rotation.
Not only that there will be more weather catastrophes due to higher heating differences.
Not only that many species won't survive, and we already extincted alot cause they can't adapt.
No, the real problem is the frozen methane and methane hydrat frozen in sibiria, arctic as well as on the ocean ground. A few degree can make it start to melt in many places, and if methane hydrate or permafrost melts, this means more methane in the atmosphere and more heating.
That's what probably happened during the perm-catastrophe triggered by super vulcanic activities, and it already has begun to melt everywhere on earth again. Our current CO2 and methane emission this time works like the trigger for it. In sibiria I've seen reports in tv, not related to climate change itself, but e.g. showing truckers driving their way and having a warm meal by stinging into the snow and kindle the methan of melting permafrost.
Now imagine, in the arctic alone there's told to be a billion tons frozen methane hydrate, worldwide maybe 12 billions or more, can you imagine such a number? Can you imagine what it means when all this melts?
Of course it won't melt all at once, and it doesn't have to mean all melts, but it might be faster than expected, it's immeasurable by todays research.


Btw, one reason increasing global heating, as absurd as it sounds, is our emission reduction. Why? Simply cause with lest dust or smut in the air, more sun light passes through! Even the air plane emissions and contrails were measured to have an effect on the temperature in the usa when no plane was allowed to fly after the world trade center terror attacks, who'd have expected that. So while the beginnings of industrialization came with more CO2 but also reduced sun light passing through by smut, now we're going to have both, more CO2 and less smut, and today the CO2 emissions are by far higher. We can be happy of the global financial crisis in terms of climate emissions if you want.

And I agree, humans by far don't take care on consequences as they should, we think in a too short time frame, so let's await what kinda perm-catastrophe this will bring to us. For earth, it's probably not the last one.
One 'hope' remains, once the antarctic is melt, or even before, the gulf stream might stop. This might not stop global warming, but at least here in europe it would keep cold, pretty cold. :lol:

That reminds me to note that ice and snow give a good reflector to sunlight. With ice melting, there's less reflection and even more heat. All factors hard to compute in a global estimation...
And don't tell me global warming has stopped, industrians and global merchants are happily awaiting to plunder the arctic and make use of the north-west passage whole year. They'd be pretty much disappointed if it had stopped! :P

So now I'm going back to program and in twenty or fifty years we'll probably be smarter. :)

KrazeeXXL
BORG Trouble Maker
BORG Trouble Maker
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:00 am
Location: the 36th Chamber

Re: Should maths be taught?????

Post by KrazeeXXL » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:45 pm

whoa Flocke, did you write this or did I write this? xDDD

I had this discussion about Methan with "Spektrum der Wissenschaft" last week so I don't feel the need to add anything as this is nothing new and you expressed it in an understandable way.
MrGwangGwang wrote:I completely understand why my previous post may have seemed a little shocking and a few years ago I would have reacted the same way.
erm, it was just a bit much for my taste as it hasn't much to do with the thread@maths-topic imo (and for a few other reasons...)
MrGwangGwang wrote:This brings up an interesting question: Is there really a correlation between global temperature increases and CO2 concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere. Obviously, CO2 levels have been increasing for decades but if climatologists are forced to hide temperature declines (for the past 15 years) then I have my doubts. CO2 levels are also regulated by northern hemisphere vegetation during the summer months but this is inconsequential since it would appear that there's no link between rising temperatures and the increased levels of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. There's no way to know for certain however - I guess wait another 20 years and see how the graphs jive.
Well, you just took a look at a few points but climate is, as I wrote before a complex system.
So it makes no sense just to take a look at CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

The Ocean's are known to be huge CO2 sinks and what's happening there and what will happen if they're saturated is widely unknown. Known are huge death-zones where there's a complete lack of oxygen. But this is nothing new and also happenend in the past some million years ago. Proof are some well conserved fossils.
MrGwangGwang wrote: *The polar cap (on Mars) is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it."

On Earth, the corporate media love to appeal to human emotions by posting videos of the Arctic cap melting (during summer time) whilst showing the poor polar bears running out of ice and claiming that they may become extinct. They also warn of drastic sea level rises and so on. Of course they fail to mention that polar bear populations are increasing and that the icecap freezes again in the Winter.
Polar bears are pretty good swimmers but as Flocke I also wanted to mention the northwest-passage. Arved Fuchs, a german explorer, found some good words for climate change as he tried to make his way through this passage a few times. Iirc he got stuck a few times like 20 years or so ago but tried it again later and meant that it's becoming more and more easy from year to year.

Drillings in ice are an important way to collect data of our climate. The same thing if you take a look at the woods around the world.

You make a lot of black and white painting here MrGw. From your mouth or hands it all sounds absolute and you seem to be convinced that it is exactly the way you think. You have some truth in what you say about some manipulated data but don't know all the facts nor did you came to correct conclusions imo.

Not all of the ppl are payed lobbyist at some point. Most ppl I know, who have way more background knowledge of climate change in their little finger then mentioned here in this thread, aren't.

So I don't feel the need to continue this discussion.

User avatar
marhawkman
Commander
Commander
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:00 am

Re: Should maths be taught?????

Post by marhawkman » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:58 pm

what I find most amusing about all the climate change statistics is how little data we have to compare it to. One study I remember reading pointed out that our current view of "normal" temperatures is skewed by the "Little Ice Age" that accompanied the Dark Ages in Europe. Global temperatures Dropped several degrees and it's not certain that they've gone back up to where they were before.

One thing I've heard Global Warming Climatologists bemoan is the expansion of the Sahara Desert. The problem with that? The Sahara predates the Little Ice Age. Not only that, but most of it used to be a semi-tropical forest. Oases are relics of that time before the Sahara as we know it existed. There's also ruins left by people who lived there. Some of them have paintings depicting the area as it was before it became a desert. Not in great detail, but enough detail to be useful.

But I digress, math is fundamental to understanding the universe. If more people were skilled at math we wouldn't have to listen to so much garbage about global warming.

Post Reply

Return to “General Chat Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users