Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

Mark Pawelek said:
Post some science please - leave out the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo 'forcing'
Click to expand...

I think there is substantial evidence, both scientific and self-observed if one does not have ones head a certain place, that man-made (heavily influenced) climate change is real. The ones that are spouting "humbo jumbo pseudoscientific" are the ones denying the rapid and dangerous changes that has happened over the last n years. Given that one side has provided evidence (real, quantified, measured etc and provided reasoning for the evidence) then it should be reasonable for the other side to come up with similar evidence that the other side is wrong. So, seeing as you are posting on this forum and therefore connected to the internet, and assuming you are not living in China or North-Korea, you will have access to Google. Please use it and provide the cabal here with evidence (measurable, quantified, logic) that climate change is NOT real. If you manage to do this, I can almost guarantee you that you will be awarded one of the relevant Nobel prizes, if not all of them.

For your sake, I hope that you are trolling.
 
Fosu-Mens said:
I think there is substantial evidence, both scientific and self-observed if one does not have ones head a certain place, that man-made (heavily influenced) climate change is real. The ones that are spouting "humbo jumbo pseudoscientific" are the ones denying the rapid and dangerous changes that has happened over the last n years. Given that one side has provided evidence (real, quantified, measured etc and provided reasoning for the evidence) then it should be reasonable for the other side to come up with similar evidence that the other side is wrong. So, seeing as you are posting on this forum and therefore connected to the internet, and assuming you are not living in China or North-Korea, you will have access to Google. Please use it and provide the cabal here with evidence (measurable, quantified, logic) that climate change is NOT real. If you manage to do this, I can almost guarantee you that you will be awarded one of the relevant Nobel prizes, if not all of them.

For your sake, I hope that you are trolling.
Click to expand...
In addition to becoming a celebrity, getting paid in millions from oil companies, giving lectures in the most prestigious universities (and getting paid a lot to do so).
 
Mark Pawelek said:
Stupid question.

You think you know something about climate change eh? But you don't know who Jack Eddy was? Even after I told you we're now entering the Eddy minimum. Who do you think that minimum was named after?

Climate experts who are so ignorant about climate science they don't know who Jack Eddy was. Where do such people come from?
Click to expand...

In your hubris, you seem to be struggling with what I was getting at. I wasn't really asking, I knew the answer, not least because in amongst your attempts to spout bollocks on any available platform is your home address (I can only repeat niMic's warning that using your real details is not smart).

What I was really getting at, that I'd have thought someone as clever as you claim to be would have picked up on, is that you have spent the past page decrying people posting under pseudonyms and yet are using one yourself on Twitter. Not for the first time, you're displaying some pretty outrageous hypocrisy.

@Damien This might be getting too close for comfort to doxxing. Not sure where we stand when the poster asks us to do it, but feel free to delete if it is.
 
Last edited:
Obama put this really well

“If you went to a doctor, no change that ... If you went to a hundred doctors and 99 of them said, you’ve got diabetes you’ve got to stop eating bacon and doughnuts everyday, we’ve got to monitor your health, we’ve got to fix this. You wouldn’t say, nah that’s a conspiracy, they’re making that up. All 99 of those doctors got together ... with Obama, to try to prevent me from eating bacon and doughnuts. You wouldn’t do that, there’s not a single person who would do that, it would be funny but this is about climate change ... that was an analogy.”

I don’t know much about the science, but I am prepared to believe the 99% of climate scientists who say man made climate change is real rather than oddballs who deny it.
 
The following quotation is from Scott Carpenter during his spaceflight in Mercury 7 in 1962.
It is even more relevant now than it was then:
'This planet is like a delicate flower and it must be cared for or else it will die. It is small and lonely and it is isolated.
And there is no re-supply.
And we are mistreating it.
The highest loyalty we should all have is not to ourselves or even our family or even our country or our religion.
It should be to our planet.
This is our home.
And this is all we've got'.

How incredibly far sighted he was back then in 1962.
And the reason he said those words was that he was one of the first humans to look back at the earth from space and be amazed by its beauty.

Now. Who really cares whether some try to argue that we are not damaging our home.
There can be absolutely no doubt at all that we owe a duty of care to look after our home and everthing that lives here and not treat it as a place that exists simply for our pleasure.
We claim to be the most intelligent life form so why don't we behave like it..
 
What a mad thread this has become. It used to be the odd occasional post of recent research, fascinating graphs, time lapses, etc. All factual, deeply researched stuff.

All washed away by the rising guff levels of this lad, fuelled by a runaway hubris gas effect. Fair play for adding as much anti-science to one of the few very sciencey threads on this site. I wouldn't dare mention the others because you'd probably go off and make a mess of those too.
 
You cant really fault @Mark Pawelek for trolling the caf though. It's a very easy place to troll.

How are so many people still engaging at this point? Dude thinks fish breathe water for God's sake.
 
nimic said:
Just so we're absolutely clear here, are you making a joke, or are you genuinely considering the possibility that people who disagree with you were trained on moderated forums for the purpose of getting rid of you? This is a genuine question.
Click to expand...
On second thoughts, I think its most likely the cabal of carbon dioxide catastrophists, here, are journalists. Rather than, say, any other clear category of person, I alluded to before. Journalist: is now my favoured projection. Why?
* Many journalists enter the profession for wokish motives.
* They are very tribal, PC and Woke (I worked with them for a few years).
* They love to slyly assassinate the character of people they disagree with without actually going so far as libel. It's almost a sport in some places.
* Anyone replying to them is thrown in the waste bin. They are unused to dealing with critics. So they have no experience of criticism. Which explains why they quickly degenerate into character assassination.
* Journalists regard it their duty to censor the media and present the Carbon Dioxide catastrophe as fact (rather than the fiction it is).
* None of them are scientists. Scientists do not: 'argue from authority' and insult with 'ad hominem'. OK, when very busy, they sometimes do. Certainly not, in public forums like this.
* Some of them have some woke climate activism training. Probably from Starmer. For example. 'Books do not count as knowledge', is typical climate-wokism; I've only ever heard it from climate-wokes. No educated person will disparage books like that; not even bad books.

I would not be surprised if they are journalists or wannabees.
 
Last edited:
Mark Pawelek said:
On second thoughts, I think its most likely the cabal of carbon dioxide catastrophists, here, are journalists. Rather than, say, any other clear category of person, I alluded to before. Journalist: is now my favoured projection. Why?
* Many journalists enter the profession for wokish motives.
* They are very tribal, PC and Woke (I worked with them for a few years).
* They love to slyly assassinate the character of people they disagree with without actually going so far as libel. It's almost a sport in some places.
* Anyone replying to them is thrown in the waste bin. They are unused to dealing with critics. So they have no experience of criticism. Which explains why they quickly degenerate into character assassination.
* Journalists regard it their duty to censor the media and present the Carbon Dioxide catastrophe as fact (rather than the fiction it is).
* None of them are scientists. Scientists do not: 'argue from authority' and apply 'ad hominem'. OK, they sometimes do when very busy, but certainly not, in public forums like this.
* Some of them have some woke climate activism training. Probably from Starmer. For example. 'Books do not count as knowledge', is typical climate-wokism; I've only every heard from climate-wokes. No educated person will disparage books like that; not even bad books.

I would not be surprised if they are journalists or wannabees.
Click to expand...
:lol:
Bless your heart man.
 
Mark Pawelek said:
On second thoughts, I think its most likely the cabal of carbon dioxide catastrophists, here, are journalists. Rather than, say, any other clear category of person, I alluded to before. Journalist: is now my favoured projection. Why?
* Many journalists enter the profession for wokish motives.
* They are very tribal, PC and Woke (I worked with them for a few years).
* They love to slyly assassinate the character of people they disagree with without actually going so far as libel. It's almost a sport in some places.
* Anyone replying to them is thrown in the waste bin. They are unused to dealing with critics. So they have no experience of criticism. Which explains why they quickly degenerate into character assassination.
* Journalists regard it their duty to censor the media and present the Carbon Dioxide catastrophe as fact (rather than the fiction it is).
* None of them are scientists. Scientists do not: 'argue from authority' and insult with 'ad hominem'. OK, when very busy, they sometimes do. Certainly not, in public forums like this.
* Some of them have some woke climate activism training. Probably from Starmer. For example. 'Books do not count as knowledge', is typical climate-wokism; I've only ever heard it from climate-wokes. No educated person will disparage books like that; not even bad books.

I would not be surprised if they are journalists or wannabees.
Click to expand...

:)

Not too surprised at this comment to be honest, seeing as it seems you scour the internet looking to jump in on climate conversations wherever you can. If you look that hard everywhere, you're bound to find conspiracies at every corner.

Unchanged_Lineup, Chief Doubleplusgood Truth Journalist, Soros Daily Gazette.
B.Sc in Woke Science, University of Starmer.
 
Imagine having such a sad life that you have to promote your lonely crusade in a football forum subthread to earn internet brownie points.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
I take back my previous dismay at this thread. He's probably pushed it into classic territory just now.

That is still somewhat of a pity though. This thread was informative and important.
Click to expand...
The pity about this debate is the fact that some people have already arrived at a conclusion before researching anything. They write down their conclusion and try and find data to support said conclusion. It's science in reverse. Couple that to the "everyone who disagree with me is a stooge/shill/alarmist"and and any form of discourse truly dies. That's why engaging in a debate with someone like that is beyond pointless. Which is a shame, because it's an interesting topic, completely derailed by one person.
 
Last edited:
KirkDuyt said:
The pity about this debate is the fact that some people have already arrived at a conclusion before researching anything. They write down their conclusion and try and find data to support said conclusion. It's science in reverse. Couple that to the "everyone who disagree with me is a stooge/shill/alarmist and science truly dies. That's why engaging in a debate with someone like that is beyond pointless. Which is a shame, because it's an interesting topic, completely derailed by one person.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. There's not many threads on here that you can dip into and know it'd be just relevant, interesting information. This thread was one, mostly because it was fairly quiet.

From all appearances, it looks like this lad positively haunts everywhere he touches.
 
Some simple questions for our resident expert. If he is debating in good faith, he will address them:
A) is the world warming or not?
B) is co2 a greenhouse gas or not?
C) does he accept the physics of CO2 IR absorption?
E) does he accept co2 levels are rising?
D) what is his explanation for rising co2 not therefore influencing temperatures, if he does not think it does?
 
Mark Pawelek said:
Are you a cabal of comics? I told you that character assassination does not work in open internet forums. Especially when it comes from sniveling, little, anonymouse posters. Yet you only know one trick. It's like watching bots in action. You only do one thing, even after you were warned it will not work.
Click to expand...
 
nickm said:
Some simple questions for our resident expert. If he is debating in good faith, he will address them:
A) is the world warming or not?
B) is co2 a greenhouse gas or not?
C) does he accept the physics of CO2 IR absorption?
E) does he accept co2 levels are rising?
D) what is his explanation for rising co2 not therefore influencing temperatures, if he does not think it does?
Click to expand...
He isn't and he won't.
 
nickm said:
Some simple questions for our resident expert. If he is debating in good faith, he will address them:
A) is the world warming or not?
B) is co2 a greenhouse gas or not?
C) does he accept the physics of CO2 IR absorption?
E) does he accept co2 levels are rising?
D) what is his explanation for rising co2 not therefore influencing temperatures, if he does not think it does?
Click to expand...
Also scientists love being more right than others, or proving others wrong.

I have a paper out next week (probably) basically saying you can take these previous results within our field and shove them up your hole.
 
Mark Pawelek said:
On second thoughts, I think its most likely the cabal of carbon dioxide catastrophists, here, are journalists. Rather than, say, any other clear category of person, I alluded to before. Journalist: is now my favoured projection. Why?
* Many journalists enter the profession for wokish motives.
* They are very tribal, PC and Woke (I worked with them for a few years).
* They love to slyly assassinate the character of people they disagree with without actually going so far as libel. It's almost a sport in some places.
* Anyone replying to them is thrown in the waste bin. They are unused to dealing with critics. So they have no experience of criticism. Which explains why they quickly degenerate into character assassination.
* Journalists regard it their duty to censor the media and present the Carbon Dioxide catastrophe as fact (rather than the fiction it is).
* None of them are scientists. Scientists do not: 'argue from authority' and insult with 'ad hominem'. OK, when very busy, they sometimes do. Certainly not, in public forums like this.
* Some of them have some woke climate activism training. Probably from Starmer. For example. 'Books do not count as knowledge', is typical climate-wokism; I've only ever heard it from climate-wokes. No educated person will disparage books like that; not even bad books.

I would not be surprised if they are journalists or wannabees.
Click to expand...

Good to see that you are keeping up your record of being 100% wrong.
I started this thread and I can assure you that I am very far from being one of your so called journalists.
You are in danger of becoming a laughing stock if not one already.
 
Buster15 said:
Good to see that you are keeping up your record of being 100% wrong.
I started this thread and I can assure you that I am very far from being one of your so called journalists.
You are in danger of becoming a laughing stock if not one already.
Click to expand...

I did say I was projecting.
Journalist: is now my favoured projection
Click to expand...
Which means I imagine you are. But like your climate science, I guess you're only able to read what you want to see. Projecting, in much the same way some of your mates project me to be a paid agent of the fossil fuel industry.
 
Last edited:
Maagge said:
Also scientists love being more right than others, or proving others wrong.

I have a paper out next week (probably) basically saying you can take these previous results within our field and shove them up your hole.
Click to expand...
They threaten me with a ban but I wonder how many points Maagge scores here with this almost rape threat?
 
You really do torture the English language don't you?
I project you to be (sic) a man with no knowledge whatsoever of the field you are expounding pompously about.
This used to be an interesting thread until it was hijacked by an ego unsupported by actual ability.
 
Mark Pawelek said:
I did say I was projecting. Which means I imagine you are. But like your climate science, I guess you're only able to read what you want to see. Projecting, in much the same way some of your mates project me to be a paid agent of the fossil fuel industry.
Click to expand...
Mark Pawelek said:
On second thoughts, I think its most likely the cabal of carbon dioxide catastrophists, here, are journalists.

I would not be surprised if they are journalists or wannabees.
Click to expand...
 
Mark Pawelek said:
So what? I studied maths and science: chemistry mostly, but also biology and physics. I've read, and understood, over 50 books on climate science and even more papers. I'm perfectly able to read and understand papers on climate science. It's nor hard, just detailed. I'm also able to detect pseudoscience and confident enough to call it.

Since I'm posting under my own name you can check everything I say about myself. What can I check about you, posting under an anonymous name?

How come you're happy with a cabal of trolls here posting climate science claims, but you insist only I need credentials?

I'm almost falling over laughing at the army of trolls here impinging my character behind their cowardly, anonymouse, accounts.
Click to expand...

The truth of the matter is, aside from running an experiment or model, a lot of research isn't just reading books and journal publications but its discussing and sharing ideas with colleagues. What you appear to do in every post, is quote and reply selectively to suit your argument. When you are demonstrated to be incorrect, you retort to saying the terminology the other person uses is wrong, or the paper is wrong, or some other excuse. Even when other users point out experimental data, you quickly dismiss it, because it isn't worded in accordance with the terminology that you use.
 
KirkDuyt said:
The pity about this debate is the fact that some people have already arrived at a conclusion before researching anything. They write down their conclusion and try and find data to support said conclusion. It's science in reverse. Couple that to the "everyone who disagree with me is a stooge/shill/alarmist"and and any form of discourse truly dies. That's why engaging in a debate with someone like that is beyond pointless. Which is a shame, because it's an interesting topic, completely derailed by one person.
Click to expand...

I began accepting the IPCC consensus position. From late 1980s to about 2014. I accepted it despite knowing nothing about climate science. "Accepted it"as in I never challenged it. (I say 'accepting' because I don't believe things I take on trust.) About 4 years ago some climate activists tried to persuade me equilibrium climate sensitivity, ECS = 6.1 and the 2013 IPPC WG1 report had been superceded by the latest science. I didn't fall for it. Then I started reading books on climate. Out of curiosity at first. I tried to find out what the central climate consensus papers were and read them. I began looking and asking for the evidence. The evidence never arrived from climate modelers who were pushing anthropogenic global warming. None of their ideas seemed to be evidence based!

"The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models."
-– Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, 1992.

I discovered that AGW is a very one-sided story which leaves out the sun, ocean cycles, evapotranspiration and other crucial climate change mechanisms. The more I asked for proof of one AGW idea, the more suppositions, assumptions, and models I was expected to believe. None of them apparently based on experiment. Observations often by dubious proxy or liberally interpreted via another assumption. In other words: observations liberally interpreted.

Some statements by so-called climate scientists are crazy. For example: "methane is 30 times more powerful global warming gas than carbon dioxide" How am I expected to believe that one KirkDuyt? Do you, personally believe it?

GHGE-spectrum.jpg


The green CO2 absorption on the left is bigger, and at a more energetic frequency than the tiny orange CH4 (methane) absorption. Is methane, CH4 a 30×, some say: 100 times, more powerful global warming gas than CO2?
 
Last edited:
Mark Pawelek said:
Some statements by so-called climate scientists are crazy. For example: "methane is 30 times more powerful global warming gas than carbon dioxide" How am I expected to believe that one KirkDuyt? Do you, personally believe it?

GHGE-spectrum.jpg


The green CO2 absorption on the left is bigger, and at a more energetic frequency than the tiny orange CH4 (methane) absorption. Is methane, CH4 a 30×, some say: 100 times, more powerful global warming gas than CO2?
Click to expand...

I haven't touched this stuff for a few years, but IIRC:

Wavenumber is inversely correlated to wavelength (By definition, wavenumber = 1/wavelength)
Wavelength is inversely correlated to frequency (lambda=c/freq)
Hence, wavenumber is directly correlated to frequency.

Frequency is directly correlated to energy (E = h*freq)
Hence, wavenumber is directly correlated to energy.

CH4 has a higher wavenumber (~1300) compared to CO2 (~650).

Hence, whatever this spectrum is (I can't say without knowing more, like the source of the graph or what the dotted lines are), what is bolded is simply untrue. CH4 on this graph is at a more energetic frequency.
 
Did you delete your reply to me? From a brief glance, you posted a graph with far IR labeled on the left and mid IR on the right and claimed that the higher frequencies were on the left. I can no longer see that post.

However, far IR is as the name suggests a higher wavelength, (farther away from visible), and hence lower frequency.
 
Mark Pawelek said:
GHGE-spectrum.jpg


The green CO2 absorption on the left is bigger, and at a more energetic frequency than the tiny orange CH4 (methane) absorption. Is methane, CH4 a 30×, some say: 100 times, more powerful global warming gas than CO2?
Click to expand...


Hey, since we're posting graphs.

methane_absorption_spectra.png


Huh. Would you look at that? Turns out methane has very high levels of absorption at wavelengths where CO2 does not.
 
berbatrick said:
I deleted my first reply but my reconsidered reply is here.

CH4 on this graph is at a more energetic frequency.
Click to expand...
They messed me up by writing it inside out. I expected sunlight to be on the left. But here it must be on the right.

What if CH4 is about 2x more energetic than CO2, there still hundreds more CO2 absorption. No way is methane even as strong an absorber as CO2, let alone 30, or 100 times stronger. IPCC climate consensus are clearly telling lies here.
GHG_Earths_IR_Radiance_as_seen_from_space.jpg


Note 1: 1 micron = 10E-04 cm. Or 1 cm = 10,000 microns.
Note 2: Wavelength is converted to wavenumber by taking its inverse (remember to use the same units)
Note 3: A wavenumber in inverse cm (cm-1) can be converted to a frequency in GHz by multiplying by 29.9792458 (the speed of light in centimeters per nanosecond).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.