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'.

Extinction Rebellion

Discussion in 'Jollies Bar' started by Chelonian, Apr 19, 2019.

  1. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    That science is being taught in science classes? Doesn’t seem all that scary to me. Mass extinction events owing to climate are pretty scary though...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    185
    It's more the fact that youngsters aren't questioning what they are told. From the last post the definition of science these days seems to be whatever someone in authority tells me it is. That's scary, it's straight out of the middle ages or the the hills of Afghanistan.

    Science has only ever been about one of two things. Predictions of measurements that can be verified or recreating the effects of something. Not a single one of these two things has ever happened when it comes to climate change. Therefore it is a religion and not science.

    When I was at school, my teachers used to teach me how to think, not what to think.

    No, what is scary is the little old lady on her pension not being able to turn the heating on because 70% of the cost of fuel is a tax on energy. Thousands of poor people in the UK have died whilst trying to decide whether or not to eat or heat due to this scam. Take all your terrorist events over the last 50 years and it comes to nothing compared to the deaths from this garbage.
     
  3. Omega

    Omega Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Posts:
    296
    App Stage:
    Joining other service
    Apart from the flat cap chumps, respect to the Paras for the turn out for Soldier F

    Screenshot_20190420_203145.jpg
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    6,798
    I'm uneasy with the notion that if a subject is on the curriculum in school it automatically assumes credibility.

    Some jurisdictions in the USA permit creationist theory being taught in mainstream high schools and actively rejecting the theory of evolution.
     
  5. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    6,798
    I loathe that flat cap nonsense.
    Last Of The Summer Wine or what? :eek:
     
  6. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Just because you’ve chosen to bury your head in the sand does not mean it isn’t happening. Schools present the facts, the heat trapping properties of CO2 and methane, the reaction between CFC free radicles and Ozone, the amount of emissions we know we are creating. That’s science, hence why it is taught.

    I absolutely agree, but that’s because the government won’t tax emissions high enough to cause energy companies to switch to renewable sources. Instead they tax just enough to act like they’re doing something, which is just enough for the energy companies to crush those of us with tiny incomes. Don’t think I don’t understand the problems, but they are nothing to those climate change poses.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Nailed It Nailed It x 1
  7. reddevil7

    reddevil7 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2019
    Posts:
    8
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Can you link evidence for this?

    Can you link evidence from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that shows that the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by humans has not directly led to an increase in global temperatures?

    The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists (97% in 2013) agree that humans are the cause of recent global warming trends and it is extremely bold of you to appeal to "science" while at the same time ignoring the scientific consensus.
    The is nothing wrong with kids not questioning the word of the scientific community because even they have an understanding that issues like these are extremely complicated and it would be foolish to have an opinion other than that of mainstream science. There is, however, a problem with you making claims like these as if you know better and passing it off as common sense.
     
  8. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    185
    Seriously, 97% of Scientists? I love these statements. It's like there is some tracking system on Scientists. When they retire, when they pass out, when they die. It's almost comical to suggest we know how many scientists there are and asked them.

    You mean I have to prove a negative? Sort of like the cops arrest me and I have to prove my innocence? That's a crazy argument. You guys believe in craziness, you are the ones that want to tax people - you prove it.

    All you have to do is to predict things using your own models. Show me how your models can use data from the 60s-70s-80's to justify today's climates. Make predictions using that data to predict the climate in 5 years.

    It's never happened. If you say it has, you tell us what amount of todays climate is down to man made change? Is it 1c, 2c, 3c?

    If you answer that then I'll admit you are right and give up.
     
    • Disagree. Disagree. x 2
  9. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    185
  10. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
  11. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    185
    There is a point behind that one?
     
  12. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    https://www.royalmarines.uk/attachments/wp_ss_20170801_0001-png.3972/

    Some graphs showing how accurate our models are - and showing that human effects must be counted for models to be even close to correct.
    Actually I’d suggest you give that entire thread a read and if you can refute the science, I’d love to hear.
    https://www.royalmarines.uk/threads/dt-changes-transgender-thread-into-climate-debate.102984/

    Below I’ve attached a graph from the IPCC showing the total observed increase in temperatures, the warming caused by human emissions and that which is offset by aerosol pollution (aerosols effectively work the other way to green house gases and reflect light before it enters the atmosphere).

    Climate change over time is very difficult to model entirely accurately because of the enormous number of variables and we have no knowledge of how they might change, which governments might do what etc.

    I’m not naive enough to expect you really will concede but this is everything you asked for.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    That was just a tongue in cheek reply ;)
     
  14. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    185
    Fair one. Just wasn't sure if you were asking me something.
    You did see me question yep? I'll copy and paste it.

    It's never happened. If you say it has, you tell us what amount of todays climate is down to man made change? Is it 1c, 2c, 3c?

    You interpret your own graphs and tell me a figure?
     
  15. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Not sure why I have to read it to you but the total warming effect of human emitted greenhouse gases is roughly 1°. This has been partially offset, largely by aerosols, in the realm of 0.2 - 0.3° to give a total observed human caused increase of 0.7 - 0.8° just since 1951.

    The other graph shows our modelled predictions against the observed rise, as well as modelled with only natural causes and only man made causes, and, as you can see, together they model very accurately; man alone reasonably accurately and natural alone with virtually no correlation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Corona

    Corona Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2018
    Posts:
    110
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    I can see where you both are coming from, but when you are being taught things that you have to learn and memorise in order to pass exams, exams which will often decide whether or not you can follow your dreams you tend to spend less time questioning it and more time learning it.

    I understand this is not really the right way of thinking, but many are of the mindset if we can get good grades here, at school, we can then go on and get to positions where we can make real change.

    Apologies if that doesn't read well, it is late.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Nailed It Nailed It x 1
  17. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    185
    Very well put, you made me stop and think about what I wrote. You make a very good and pragmatic point about the realities of the situation. My frustrations are with politicians, education and some teachers. Mind you, saying that one was sacked last week for standing up and questioning the mob.

    Whatever you believe in life on issues such as this, I'd be happy for you if it was your own thought process that got you there and not others (including myself).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    185
    You might have to read it to me because I'm not that fluent in BS. From the IPCC report you took the graph from, below it there are these caveats.

    ". The contribution from the combined anthropogenic forcings can be estimated with less uncertainty than the contributions from greenhouse gases and from other anthropogenic forcings separately" i.e, this one is slightly less made up than the other one.

    "Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for warming trends over the 1951–2010"

    That's science in 2014 is it? Estimated, Likely! :D

    I've tried searching on the internet and can't find one paper that specifically states temperatures are somewhat around 1 degree higher due to human related CO2. Even the IPCC doesn't make that statement and it's their graph. In fact, I can only find you making that prediction. I think you should call them and tell them that you cracked it :(.


    I'm actually struggling to find anyone anywhere that will state any kind of prediction. Did find this funny vid of Carlson trying to get a prediction out the "Science Guy". Flick to 2:18. :D



    One thing I don't understand is why it was circa 1 degree warmer in 1000AD than it is now?

    Nor do I understand why termites are estimated (Science Journal 1982) to produce 10 times the CO2 that humans do now, yet are never cited as the cause.

    By the way, I don't know what is causing the climate to change, how much it has changed or if it will become a problem. But then again, I'm not the one killing little old ladies with my theories.
     
    • Disagree. Disagree. x 2
    • Seen Seen x 1
  19. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    6,798
    I agree that one must be pragmatic. I've pretended to accept ideology that I have doubts about in order to remain employed!

    However I did once 'fail' a diversity awareness course because I argued that 'phobia' has a clinical definition and should not lazily be attached to other words to describe a bigotry.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  20. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Far from fluent in BS, I’m beginning to think you may be scientifically illiterate, or brilliantly trolling me. Of course they are estimates. In science, estimates are values obtained by means of sampling and applying statistical distributions in order to ascertain the overall value. In this case, they are estimates as only sections of atmosphere are tested - unless you think scientists ought to test the entire atmosphere.
    You mention uncertainty, and as any year 8 science student will tell you, one must take uncertainty into account when making any measurement at all. There will always be uncertainty in values because there is no instrument that can ever be exact to a perfect value. This is not in fact a caveat at all and is, had you bothered to look, included on the graph - those black lines are called ERROR BARS.
    The large value for termites comes from a largely discredited paper, though still often brought up by denialists such as yourself, because the data was collected using one group of one of the many thousands of species of termite under lab, not natural, conditions. Furthermore, respiration is not counted in greenhouse emissions inventories as they fall in the natural carbon cycle, the same reason human exhaled CO2 does not contribute in this data.
    You are correct, few papers explicitly define the human caused temperature increase, but a huge number contribute to the graph below which is a probability distribution of mans impact. As you can see (or perhaps you can’t) the most likely and agreed upon value for mans contribution is 100-110% (can cause more than 100% of warming which is then offset by aerosols to reduce warming) of total temperature rise, which gives a value of - surprise, surprise - roughly a degree.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Gucci Info Gucci Info x 1