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. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    186
    I've told you what science is already. Predictions of measurements that can be verified or recreating the effects of something. Your models don't fit what is going on at the moment or what happened in the past.

    I'll call them BS bars. Try filling in your tax returns with Error Bars and see how far that gets you.

    Only 0.3% of Climate science papers peer reviewed (11,944) said that CO2 drove most of the warming since 1950. That's not even man made CO2, that's all CO2. Why are you arguing with me on a forum?

    These are the numbers, no voodoo, no wishy washy excuses about aerosols that are unproven - these are the facts. Global temperatures are around 0.6c higher now that they were in 1860.

    These scientists are unwilling to say 0.3c (over half of the 0.6c rise) of that is driven by CO2.

    Bearing in mind that according to the EPA, man makes up 3% of global CO2 volumes. Let's take that 0.3c and reduce it to 3% to account for man made CO2.

    That leaves us, if your theory is right with a temperature rise due to man of just 0.009 of a degree.

    Let me know if you disagree with any of that and if so which parts.
     
  2. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Oh, so you are scientifically illiterate. If you measure something to the nearest centimetre, you have an error margin of +/- 0.5 cm. That’s primary school.

    Did you bother to look at the charts of our models against the observed? Already very close and becoming more accurate all the time as finer detail is added. Deny it if you want but that doesn’t change the facts.

    Well honestly, and not to sound petulant, but I disagree with every last word. Could you link me wear you got those numbers before I go on so I can read them for myself because I can’t find anyone at all that disputes CO2 as the main cause of global warming because it’s heat trapping properties are easily demonstrable. Also bare in mind that, while still a reasonably reliable source, Trump has been filling the EPA with climate denialists and oil company lobbyists.
     
  3. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
  4. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    6,803
    Interestingly ER has now 'paused' its campaign in central London while seeking protest concessions that are not unreasonable. I have my suspicions about ER's motives but I admire a slick media campaign.
     
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
  5. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    186
    Peer reviewed paper "Legates et al 2015" - 99.7% of Climate Science papers did not say that CO2 drove most warming since 1950.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

    :D

    "in fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

    It's called Bulloxs
     
  6. reddevil7

    reddevil7 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2019
    Posts:
    8
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    wattsupwiththat.com is a widely criticised source of information known for its heavily biased pseudoscientific posts. My guy, this is easy stuff to find out.
     
  7. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    186
    I quoted the peer reviewed paper "Legates et al", I linked to it via the first link that came up in Google.

    One think's you are employing straw man arguments pal. Bit of a cheap way to debate but you knock yourself out on it.
     
  8. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Oh dear. Let’s start of with the credibility of your link. Here’s the media bias fact check report:
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/
    “Conspiracy/pseudoscience. Factual reporting low.” Not so reliable, wouldn’t you agree? Not to mention that their own article states that this paper could only get published in an unknown journal and a subsequent paper was entirely rejected.
    The subject matter - well, what it actually shows is that very few papers ‘explicitly state’ that man caused more than half of climate change since 1951. By their own admission, 8000 paper expressed no explicit opinion. So in fact what they’ve done is said that because they didn’t say anything, they must not believe it. Another poor assumption.
    Further, what rebuttals for every other paper reaching similar conclusions? Here’s a page with seven of them:
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
    Got an outdated and statistically flawed rebuttal for each one? And, in case you were wondering, the media bias fact check for the above gives “very high factual reporting”.
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/skeptical-science/
     
  9. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    One thinks you don’t know what straw man means. A straw man argument seek to refute an argument you never made. Questioning the validity of two discredited sources, would not constitute such a fallacy.
    However, redefining the parameters of someone’s study then criticising them for not coming to a different result, would. I wonder who we know did that...?
     
  10. reddevil7

    reddevil7 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2019
    Posts:
    8
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    The actual paper, then, seems to have been discredited on the basis that the author misquoted and misrepresented the points made and the authors have issued an official follow up addressing each of the points made.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    186
    You are strawman arguing too. It's just the link that came top when I typed "Legates et al" into Google. I haven't a clue who is behind that site and nor do I care. You asked for a link that quoted the paper and I gave you one.

    Thank you

    :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. reddevil7

    reddevil7 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2019
    Posts:
    8
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    You linked that website not the actual article.
    You can forgive us if we dont accept the evidence of a paper which has been refuted and said to be "based on a comprehensive misinterpretation of Bedford’s paper" posted on a website which is known for being highly unreliable and even misinforming.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    You do know what explicitly MEANS don’t you? Someone would have to write in a paper “I think more than 50% of global warming since 1951 is caused by humans.” I’m not surprised you are unfamiliar with conventions within research papers given that you seem to struggle with basic, high school science but that is just not something that is said - hence why EIGHT THOUSAND papers expressed no opinion. I don’t know how you can’t understand this.

    The actual paper largely attacks aspects of a different paper than the one it is supposedly a rebuttal to and effectively makes the argument that the paper is misleading because they didn’t come to the conclusion that they would have had they followed a different procedure. THAT’S a strawman.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    186
    Let's just take what you are saying there. 8000 out of 11,944 climate papers expressed no view. That leaves 3,944 that expressed a view and only circa 41 of them said that most of the warming was down to CO2.

    3,903 against - 41 for, and that is on your own figures.

    :(

    From what I have read, the paper was written by someone who believed in man made climate change.
     
  15. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    186
    Still very vague waffle finished off with a jump back to a strawman argument of bashing a website that nobody cares about.
     
  16. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    No, that’s using your made up figures. If you actually read these papers rather than just googling something that will back you up, you would be able to find the actual statistics from said paper.
    “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”

    :(
     
  17. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    And please, for the love of god, learn what straw man is! No one’s refuting points you didn’t make - they’re questioning the validity of both the website AND the paper you linked! We get it, you’ve conceded the website but you are still clinging to the paper and IT IS DISCREDITED! That isn’t straw manning!
     
  18. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    186
    I never cited the website has evidence for anything. Why you two started to attack it is beyond me. Definition of a strawman argument.

    "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

    Do you actually read what I post? I've long since given up arguing with you about whether or not man made climate change is real, because I can't prove a negative and I'm not bringing science to an argument about religion.

    My last 10 posts have been giving you the benefit of the doubt on man made climate change but attacking the fact that 11,900'ishclimate papers refused to confirm that MOST (above 50%) was down to CO2. Therefore attacking your claims that you presented a graph that showed 1c of temperature was down to man. Do you now realise how utter bonkers that claim was?

    I broke down the maths at the bottom of this post

    https://www.royalmarines.uk/threads/extinction-rebellion.118213/page-3#post-672040
     
  19. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Again and again you ignore what I’m saying. We’ve addressed BOTH the article AND the paper it pertains to. You then responded by saying that the article was simply to link the to the paper - which is reasonable. But both of us had said in post after post that the issue is not simply with the website but with the paper AS WELL - something you refuse to address. FORGET the article, THE PAPER ITSELF IS DISCREDITED. Were we to be questioning only the article, you’d be quite correct however we question both and you pretend not to know that because you cannot argue the validity.
    No, you refuse to bring science to a discussion about science because it doesn’t back you up. You know you cannot argue the science because it is fact. I haven’t asked you to prove a negative, I’ve asked you to find one hole in any of the relatively basic science involved with climate change and you are unable. That speaks volumes.
    You “broke down” some maths using a random figure of 3%, actually. You decided based on a single, discredited paper - disregarding dozens of others in direct disagreement - that 50% was not true and then plucked 3% out of nowhere, citing the EPA but no source and performed some entirely inaccurate maths as you have falsely equated CO2 and temperature. Even if 3% were an accurate value, percent of CO2 emissions is not necessarily percentage of temperature. That equivalent to me saying Chelsea play their players 50% more than Tottenham so they score 50% more goals. The two are related but not equivalent. Again, basic maths.
     
  20. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    942
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Having read how heated some of my replies sound, I want to add that I bare no ill will and this is all just academic debate - I still think you’re a cracking bloke outside of this discussion.
     
    • Like Like x 1