Dismiss Notice
'Users of this forum are reminded they should not discuss performance of individual attendees at PRMC or in Recruit Training for PERsonal SECurity and in observance of Diversity & Inclusion legislation'.

DT changes transgender thread into climate debate

Discussion in 'Current & Military Affairs Discussion Forum.' started by R, Jul 31, 2017.

  1. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    906
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Based on the very simple fact that all his points were logically refuted using evidence to the point where he resorted to questioning the legitimacy of said evidence based on an unfounded conspiracy theory.

    I don't know of the incident in question but I have read several news articles claiming that people had changed "to fit predictions" when actually what they had done is drawn a line of best fit through the data - a scientifically relevant way to display data in order to show trend.

    While not, I agree, an honest action, you cannot possibly claim that because there was a false citing of an individual case study to show extent of climate change that climate change must be untrue. Not to mention that we have no idea what a true figure for that might have been. What if it was five years later?

    Not sure how he got "torn a new one". Certainly he took a while to answer but then did, at the end of the interview, say exactly what climate would have been like without human intervention - at which point they suddenly "ran out of time" despite Tucker asking Nye not to end the interview. Wonder why it came as soon as Bill did indeed answer the question?
    I don't understand what more evidence you are asking me to give! We can prove climate has increased. We can prove CO2 levels have increased are in correlation with the temperature increase. We can prove the heat trapping properties of CO2. We can prove that we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that would otherwise have been locked in the ground. What is it you take issue with? As a genuine question, do you disbelieve climate change altogether, or only human influence? Or do you merely question to what extent?

    I like the thread title by the way.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2017
  2. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    906
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    I wanted to establish that first as that is 100% solid fact that anyone can prove with a thermometer. CO2 levels somewhat harder to measure.
     
  3. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    6,236
    I can't recall the precise circumstances but the story broke a few years back and the university kissed goodbye to its research credibility and considerable research funding.
     
  4. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    906
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Having done some research- "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."

    It seems, though I do not wish to sweep this under the rug, that these were largely taken out of context such as the phrase "We cant account for the lack of warming" which was actually referring to monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability.

    I stress that I am not denying any wrong doing here as I am unfamiliar with the occurrence but can anyone provide evidence to show that they actually changed/manipulated data?
     
  5. GreyWing

    GreyWing Nobody

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Posts:
    4,908
    I'd just respectfully disagree. Immediately trying to link the guy to not believing moon landings was pretty desperate. Brain Cox isn't really credible in my book. I just don't rate him as a scientist. That's not just him on MMCC.

    Personally I'd love to see a genuine calm debate on the issue between both sides, it just doesn't happen in a fair environment. Take away the audience and let's see how it goes. I don't want to hear cheering or boo'ing either side. I'm capable of making up my own mind, as are a lot of people.

    The trouble is, despite 30 years of climate debate. A true TV debate hasn't happened, that leads me to believe one thing. The TV people don't want it to happen. Now the TV people are overwhelmingly believers on MMCC (man made climate change).



    They won't even debate with a guy who believes man made global warming to some extent.

    I think it's a lot stronger than that mate. He made data up, The University of Anglia made data up to fit the MMCC model.

    Why would they make it up if the data was there?

    It's not so much that they are lying. They are so deluded, desperate to prove their theory that they automatically think the results must be wrong. They don't see anything immoral in changing their data.

    There are many experiments where scientists were faced with results which they didn't think they would get. They didn't change their data, they went back to square one and re questioned what they believed.

    He answered that you couldn't grow wine in Britain today. The guy is as poor an historian as he is a scientist. Roman's were growing wine in Britain at 100 BC.

    The guy is wrong wrong wrong.

    It's simple, for it to be considered science it has to be one of two things.

    1) Something that is repeatable
    2) Predicted and verified by results

    1) Something that is repeatable.
    Can you or anyone else recreate the conditions in which you can show that it is man made.

    The variables are that are so massive that it is impossible unless you have another earth. With the best will in the world, that's out.

    2) Predicted and verified

    This is the only possible option for MMCC to be considered science. But yet, it keeps failing. Nobody has brought forward a model that has shown any predictions that have actually happened.

    If scientists agreed on the model, it should be easy to predict what the climate will be like next year, the year after - it doesn't happen.

    Let me tell what I predict, these people will tell you in 50 years the climate will be like xyz. When 50 years have gone, then so will your money.:D
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    6,236
    From memory alone, the gist of the issue seemed to focus on a lack of transparency. As I recall the institution was widely condemned—not only by the usual suspects—for not adopting best practice. The topic being contentious, it snapped into sharp focus.

    But while I can't recall precise circumstances I can vividly recall the chancellor of the university being dissected by John Humphreys on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
     
  7. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Posts:
    33,264
    Brain hurty time :(
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
  8. Teapot

    Teapot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    Posts:
    158
    App Stage:
    TMU
    Some of you lads really are passionate about whether climate change is real or not :eek:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    906
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    I'd take you up on that except I haven't got any money anyway :(.

    There are in fact reasonably accurate models but not without factoring in human CO2 emissions (see graphs below).

    Fair point about Bill Nye but it is worth baring in mind that he is a mechanical engineer who had a children's TV show. No disrespect to the man but they likely could have found a more clued up interviewee.

    As I mentioned in my previous post, it was found the scientists did not do anything scientifically amoral. Could you provide some evidence to actually falsifying data?

    I cant really comment on Brian Cox. He is vastly more educated than I so who am I to judge but I do agree that he is a little Hollywood for my liking, though his points are still valid.

    Maybe if we write to the BBC they will televise our debate and I can earn some money for that bet? :D

    Also apologies for not quoting and answering your points backwards but I got bored of editing to just the relevant bit on my phone.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    906
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Oops, forgot my graphs. As you can see, neither natural nor man made alone can account for the changes we have seen
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  11. GreyWing

    GreyWing Nobody

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Posts:
    4,908
    That's the thing, I'm genuinely not. I'm really passionate about not living under mob rule. One of those things which currently has all the characteristics of a mob, is the climate change groups. If people study the facts and still believe what they do then fine, whichever way it goes. I'm just not having that because 99% of celebrities believe something then it's now fact.

    I don't know if climate change is man made or not. I'm almost certain it isn't but I don't 100% know. What I do know is that it hasn't been proven in science.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    6,236
    What fascinates me about climate change is that just about every credible scientist will eventually admit that all science is a theory as it is impossible to conclusively prove anything.

    For example, even gravity is apparently only a scientific theory.
    Personally I find this reassuring. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 1
  13. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    906
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    I'm just passionate about winning arguments...
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 1
  14. GreyWing

    GreyWing Nobody

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Posts:
    4,908
    I'd loved to have been there the day you tried to argue that theory to your instructors in the Para's.

    I don't know how it would have ended but as long I was able to film it, I'd have been happy.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    6,236
    Sounds like a perfect career combination to me. I clearly missed my vocation.
     
  16. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    906
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    This is the crucial point I feel. We have both presented evidence to support ourselves and have not tried to shout each other down (though I might have gotten a bit gobby). As TPA once said "Debate is good. You either come away with your opinion changed or reinforced". I certainly will at least now entertain the possibility that climate change is false even though my opinion is that its true.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. RM2977

    RM2977 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Posts:
    380
    App Stage:
    Passed PRMC
    When scientists use the term theory, as in 'scientific theory' it has a slightly different meaning to the word theory we often use. A theory in science, is something that can be repeatedly tested and found to be true, and is supported by substantial evidence. As opposed to when we say theory. a lot of the time we just mean an idea or a hypothesis.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    6,236
    You'd have needed a Super 8 cine camera back then. :)
     
  19. Old Man

    Old Man Ex-Matelot

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Posts:
    2,079
    Sorry, don't understand your answer.
     
  20. GreyWing

    GreyWing Nobody

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Posts:
    4,908
    Absolutely debate is good. I think one of the things that makes non believers are bad and believers are good is that if non believers are wrong, we are all going to drown in floods. But if believers are wrong, there isn't an issue.

    This is the false narrative put out. Believers are genuinely hurting people. British Gas said today that £150 goes on the average annual bill each year to pay just for green taxes. The poor and elderly are literally freezing or starving to death because they can't afford heating. Even though age concern is clear on this, it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...killed-15000-people-last-winter-10217215.html

    There are consequences if either side is wrong.

    Ironically I support reducing of fossil fuels being burnt in vehicles, not for climate change reasons but for simple air quality reasons. It has to be commercially viable though, no grants from tax payers.
     
    • Like Like x 1