This is a guest post from John Mashey.

An amusing coincidence surfaced a few days ago, relating the US Presidential
campaign of Texas Governor Rick Perry to the Peter Wood kerfuffle at Chronicle
of Higher Education (CHE), including the stir in some parts of the
blogosphere.
I explain that, followed by the weird background.

0) Rick Perry and Peter Wood

1) Chronology at CHE and NAS

2) Deltoid and elsewhere

3) Climate thuggery discovered by blogosphere

4) Chronology of the thuggery wave

5) Conclusion

0) Rick Perry and Peter Wood

See Washington Post, 08/18/11 Fact-Checker: href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rick-perrys-made
-up-facts-about-climate-change/2011/08/17/gIQApVF5LJ_blog.html"
rel="nofollow">Rick Perry’s made-up ‘facts’ about climate change:

“Another Perry spokesman, Ray Sullivan, provided links to a number of
recent articles that he said demonstrated skepticism in the scientific
community. We reviewed the articles, and they are anecdotal in nature, not
evidence of the groundswell of opposition suggested by Perry.”

The “to” link there is to Wood’s 2nd article:
rel="nofollow">Climate Thuggery.
They gave 4 other links: one on Charles Monnett on polar bears, and 3
separate stories about Spencer/Braswell, of which the most credible (Seth
Borenstein is good), explains why people don’t think much of this.

Do Perry staffers follow CHE? Or was this a quick Google to back their
leader?

We thus have a (well-funded) Presidential candidate (or his staff) relying
on Peter Wood for credible opinion regarding climate science.

1) Chronology at CHE and NAS

#c = total comments

#w = Wood comments

Status = S (slowed/stopped) or A (still active)

Date Src #c #w Status URL

06/30 CHE 101 6 S href="http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/bottling-up-global-warming-skep
ticism" rel="nofollow">Bottling Up Global Warming Skepticism Wood

07/07 NAS 003 0 S href="http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=2080"
rel="nofollow">Bottling Up… + Barnum picture

07/29 CHE 225 3 S href="http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/climate-thuggery"
rel="nofollow">Climate Thuggery Wood

08/04 NAS 024 0 S href="http://nasblog.org/2011/08/04/climate-thugs-get-thuggish/"
rel="nofollow">Climate Thugs Get Thuggish Ricketts

08/04 CHE 204 0 A href="http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/guest-post-bottling-nonsense-mi
s-using-a-civil-platform" rel="nofollow">Bottling Nonsense, Mis-using a
Civil Platform Mashey & Coleman.

08/05 NAS 001 0 S href="http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=2121" rel="nofollow">Climate
Thuggery plus thug picture.

08/05 NAS 002 0 S href="http://nasblog.org/2011/08/05/post-partisan-university/"
rel="nofollow">Post Partisan University? Ricketts

..”Although the responses so far aren’t quite up to the level of
screeching directed at NAS president Peter Wood for his recent piece on
Climate Thuggery …”

08/08 NAS 031 0 S href="http://nasblog.org/2011/08/08/thuggish-climate-thugs-contd/"
rel="nofollow">Thuggish Climate Thugs, Cont’d Ricketts

Wood seems to have quit responding a while back, with zero comments on our
08/04 article, although he has managed 3 more articles (08/05. 08/17, 08/18)
since then.

Since 06/30, the ~40 other articles in the CHE Innovations average ~14
comments apiece.
The 3 CHE articles above (101, 225, and 255) account for more than 50% of
all comments since 06/30. The 255 seems a record high in last 4-5 months,
and it is still going, thanks especially to href="http://reclaimreality.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">JonasN and
marionjay, among others. EricAdler has more endurance than I, or as
suggested elsewhere, a bigger head-vise.

(And please, be polite if for some reason you comment there, … but
actually, I think the expected point of all this has been amply made
already. Unsurprisingly, I got called a “disgusting thug” and similar
things, often … good for my collection like Andrew Weaver’s “Wall of Hate”
bulletin board at U VIC, BC, and mild compared to comments elsewhere.)

It was amusing to see more Dunning-Kruger (D-K) sufferers commenting on the
non-plagiarism of Wegman, or its non-importance, or repeating Steve
McIntyre’s fantasies of Ray Bradley plagiarizing Hal Fritts.

Some people may be unaware of The Google. After watching the fun a
while, I finally posted that my coauthor Rob Coleman (an award-winning
Professor of Chemistry at Ohio State) also Chaired OSU’s Academic Misconduct
committee, and of course, was one of the experts quoted by Dan Vergano href="http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-clima
te-report-questioned_N.htm" rel="nofollow">last Fall. But of course, to
D-K afflictees, that means nothing.

2) Deltoid and elsewhere

There were a few mentions elsewhere (a few email lists and comments),
and 2 posts by Tim:

07/06 DEL 072 – S href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/peter_wood.php"
rel="nofollow">Peter Wood’s double standard on plagiarism

08/04 DEL 032 – A href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/john_mashey_replies_to_peter_w
.php" rel="nofollow">John Mashey replies to Peter Wood’s hit piece

(Much of the first was trying to understand who Peter Wood was and what NAS
was, and this led people to visit CHE, mostly to be ignored and/or answered
less than politely by Wood. I was mostly researching.)

But this caused some to point at Deltoid as an echo-chamber… amusing
in the light of the next section.

3) Climate thuggery discovered by blogosphere

The big wave came from the 07/29 “Climate Thuggery” piece.

This is now my favorite illustration of propagation via tightly-related
blogs, bounded enough in time and count that one can track them. It
resulted in a wave of people:

  • By people whose connections with academe are less than evident. Of
    course, I’m no academic, but I have long involvement with academe and got
    connected to CHE last fall, as they’ve covered the Wegman story.]
  • into a domain whose implicit rules are very different from many blogs.
    Academics can argue intensely, but there are rules. People can say
    anything, but are expected to back their opinions with credible evidence and
    citations. [Even in my 11th-grade high school AP American history class,
    those were the rules.] Many institutions are simply unused to anti-science
    incursions, and I think that includes CHE.
  • The main wave sources included WUWT (with a H/T to Roger Pielke, who
    first mentioned it) and Bishop Hill … but the main one seems to have been
    Dr Judith Curry @ Climate, Etc … who advertised her post at WUWT and BH,
    and got 497 comments, although many of them had nothing to do with this.

4) Chronology of the thuggery wave

Date Src #c #w Status URL

08/01 BH 035 – S href="http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/8/1/a-conspiracy-of-warmis
ts.html" rel="nofollow">A conspiracy of warmists (1)

08/01 RPS 001 – S href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/07/simple-math-and-logic-underp
inning.html?showComment=1312216706564#c5188435537559269720"
rel="nofollow">Comment by Roger Pielke, Jr

“An interesting perspective here:” and links to Thuggery.

08/01 WUWT 058 – S href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/01/new-term-from-the-chronicle-clim
ate-thuggery" rel="nofollow">New term from the Chronicle: “Climate
Thuggery” (2) Watts writes: “h/t Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.”

08/02 JC 497 1 S href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/02/trying-to-put-the-climategate-genie-
back-in-the-bottle" rel="nofollow">Trying to put the Climategate genie back
in the bottle (3) Judith Curry

tallbloke | August 2, 2011 at 7:42 am

I agree. The public is long weary of sham ‘investigations’ which fail to
live up to their billing, and the resulting whitewash endlessly repainted as
it flakes off by the mouthpieces such as John Mashey, Gavin Schmidt,
Deepclimate Dave et al.”

Mike Mangan | August 2, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Desmog blog has launched a hilarious, over-the-top attack on Peter Wood

How dare anyone who is not an accepted climate scientist say anything
against the great Michael Mann?”

curryja | August 2, 2011 at 9:18 pm

Hilarious . . . they certainly made Wood’s case for him.”

08/02 Curry also advertises her post at threads (1) and (2) above,
apparently regarding BH and WUWT as valuable sites.

08/03 SPPI …. rel="nofollow">Climate Thuggery Robert Ferguson, features picture of
Mike Mann. SPPI is a ~1-man website, heavily involved with Christopher
Monckton and with attack on Naomi Oreskes in 2007. Most debunk was here at
Deltoid.

08/03 JC ….. href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/02/trying-to-put-the-climategate-genie-
back-in-the-bottle#comment-93573" rel="nofollow">Long comment by Wood

He is very well-received by Curry and others.

08/04 BH 253 – A Mashive attack
Andrew Montford #2.

The discourse is lively, such as:

“John Mashey is a repugnant individual. He is one of the most repulsive
compulsively dishonest people around chronically posting at various sites.
… . I can’t even bear to read his name. Aug 6, 2011 at 6:48 AM | NICO”

I had not realized I had a Name of Great Power, like something out of
fantasy stories. Actually, the same thread did include Shub (or Shub
Niggurath sometimes), who is unfond of me also. I can understand href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shub-Niggurath" rel="nofollow">why he
might have a bad mood.

5) Conclusion

I have no idea what possessed Peter Wood to write the first piece. Few
cared until the “Thuggery” article, and then the blogospheric echo chambers
took off. There might be as many as 3 independent chains (BH,
Pielke-to-WUWT, JC), where each separately noticed the CHE piece or were
told of it. But clearly, by 08/02, with Curry’s cross-posts, the chains
were linked, if not before. (One never knows about emails).

This reached the presidential campaign as a credible source.

More analysis is needed to track who came from where, but it is a fine,
bounded example, and anyone who wants to may calibrate the level of
discourse in the various blogs.

As Rob Coleman and I ended our article:

“Some climate scientists have faced this politically based assault for
years. Anti-science echo-chamber blogs amplify anger, yielding nothing like
legitimate scientific discussion, and as a likely result scientists get
death threats and dead rats left on doorsteps.”

Comments

  1. #1 Andy S
    September 7, 2011

    Oh for Chrissake, are people still arguing with this troll? Section 9.4.1.4 and in particular Fig 9.9, and if the troll has any objections, he should have stated them in the context of what they actually are doing there! In precise terms!

    Everybody, don’t waste your time on this individual anymore. Let him shout and rave as much as it pleases him, but leave him alone.

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    September 7, 2011

    I think that this might be the first documented example of an ‘hypothesis’ (and I use that term generously) the proof of which has been established entirely by not providing any data, any evidence, or any analysis.

    My further conjecture is that a person who disproves in a single pass a whole discipline, involving of hundreds of years of science and thousands of scientists’ work, on the basis soley of a vague and unsubstantiated speculation in ideological opposition to the fundamental tenets of the scientific discipline in question, is either a profound genius or a profound fool.

    Applying Joans N’s technique myself (with the slight benefit of actually having some evidence) I delare that Jonas N is a profound fool.

    Quod erat demonstrandum

  3. #3 Michael
    September 7, 2011

    Just did a quick review of Jonas’ contributions in just the last few days – almost 2500 words. Within which he manages to say absolutely nothing.

    It’s really quite impressive, that kind of waffling.

  4. #4 Jonas N
    September 7, 2011

    Bernard J – Owngoal!

    Actually, that 90% confidence of a specified attribution is the claim, and is the one that is made without providing any data and analysis.

    “who disproves in a single pass a whole discipline, involving of hundreds of years of science and thousands of scientists’ work” Sloppy strawman nonsense!

    Andy S – IPCC claims to assess the science. That it states the above claim is obvious. However, that is not at all the issue. The issue is that the statement is has no basis in real published science.

    In IPCC AR4, it is only supported by armwaiving, footnotes, circular arguing, Appendix ‘reasoning’ and proclamations. (And no! Your Figure 9.9 is still not science)

    I am suprised that so many here, some claiming to be ‘scientists’, still pretend that the issue is a completely different one.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    September 7, 2011

    >Bernard J – Owngoal!

    Um, quite the opposite, if one deigns to carefully parse my post.

    It seems that mild subtlety escapes you as much as does basic scientific discourse. Oh, and after you’ve finished trolling for phantasms go learn when to properly call on claims of strawman usage. You’re not very good at it.

    My original conclusion is reinforced.

  6. #6 Jeff Harvey
    September 7, 2011

    Jonas,

    Yawn. Read Bernard’s last two posts over and over and let them sink in. And you still haven’t told us here what you do for a living. Scared to be honest?

    That it is warming well outside of normal boundaries is beyond doubt. There are huge numbers of biotic indicators as proof of that. There is also broad consensus among the scientific community that humans are primarily responsible. What part of this simple English escapes your muddled brain? Now go back to your right wing sand box and play with your toys, will you?

  7. #7 Drewski
    September 7, 2011

    SKEPTIC = An expert in a particular field questioning conclusions or methodologies in studies that are within their field of expertise.

    SCEPTIC = So Called Expert Perpetually Talking In Circles. Example: See Jonas N

  8. #8 Jonas N
    September 7, 2011

    Jeff H and Bernard J

    You are merely trying to escape the fact that none of you (and none I’ve asked previously) has the slightest clue about where any scientific basis for the main AR4 claim is to be found.

    I believe you, you don’t. And let me tell you, neither does any of the ‘climate scientists’ I’ve asked.

    I understand that this hurts your sensitive feelings and egos. But sorry guys, I can’t help you with that.

    I repeat ( for the umpteeth time):

    If anyone of you actually has seen, read and understood proper science establishing that main AR4 claim, just show it to me!

    Until then, you are just nagging and whining, like schoolboys who had their candy taken away.

  9. #9 Stu
    September 7, 2011

    You are merely trying to escape the fact that none of you (and none I’ve asked previously) has the slightest clue about where any scientific basis for the main AR4 claim is to be found.

    I just casually counted six separate instances of people pointing you to the references for that claim. No, don’t bother with the “nah-ah, show me” baloney your utter disfunction is undoubtedly compelling you to reply with. If the first half dozen times did not penetrate your reality avoidance field, you’re going to believe what you believe anyway.

    I’m actually genuinely curious about something else: do you truly think you’re fooling anyone? You do realize that these wonderful computermachines have advanced features such as “scrolling up”, right? Do you consider yourself rational?

  10. #10 Andy S
    September 7, 2011

    Stu, don’t waste your time. He will just repeat the same thing over and over again. It’s an act. Street theater.

  11. #11 Stu
    September 7, 2011

    Andy: I know… still curious to know if he thinks he’s fooling anyone though. The mind absolutely boggles at the irony of

    Until then, you are just nagging and whining, like schoolboys who had their candy taken away.

    Never did a triple spit-take before that nugget.

  12. #12 GSW
    September 7, 2011

    Apologies Chaps,

    Have to agree with Jonas here. Someone referenced the IPCC report (Section 9.4.1.4) as proof of attribution, this is quite simply bogus.

    Modelling past climate to get a pre determined result is unimpressive – a bit like telling people you predicted last weeks lottery results – extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and there is none here.

    “Magic ing” (there is no analysis to support the claim) this into a 90% confidence level is pure unsubstantiated advocacy, nothing more.

    To the extent that any of you have any scientific training, I can only assume that these were in the non empirical sciences, hand-waving and unjustified conclusions the order of the day it would appear.

  13. #13 Jonas N
    September 7, 2011

    Seriously Stu!?

    Do you really think that I cannot find the list of references in AR4 Wg1 ch9 myself?

    I am not going to read 2-300 references searching for something that none of the guys who pretend to know has never seen. Believe me, I have asked AGW-beleivers this for a long time. And even serious scientists, who I can respect for believing in the AGW-hypothesis and being able to have level headed discussions about it without flying of the handle. And no, nobody knows where it comes from. Obviously you don’t either. And this is kinda my point. As you said:

    “you’re going to believe what you believe anyway”

    which you will of course do. But be reminded now, that this particlular claim none of you can claim is based on proper science hereafter. You’d be knowlingly taking it on faith only.

    Andy S – Reality is a sour grape if you have been avoiding or denying it for too long. You made some intelligible comments before, which I responded to (and you never came back). Now, you really just sound like you want that disturbing information just to go away so you can forget it again.

    Stu – I don’t need to fool anybody. I can be perfectly open with what I am saying: I found that AR4 claim quite remarkable, and have been trying to find out how one can make such strong assurances about a field still in its infancy, and with so many unanswered questions and holes in it. The more I’ve been looking, the more convinced I have become that that number nowhere has anything to do with proper science. And nobody has so far even attempted to convince me of the opposite. Only handwaving, like you above, ‘there are so many references … go and look’

    Well, I am not making that claim (rather the opposite: I’m very sure it is bogus). But if there actually were any real science behind it, I’d have to scrutinize it before repeating that. And the thing is, some of you above (certainly not all) are not stupid people, some do actually possess som skill (albeit in other fields), and those are sufficiently mature to realize that they the brouhaha is not enough. That claims need to be backed up. And my guess is that this is the reason they are so eager to talk about something else, and irrelevant .. I don’t know if this includes you.

    Because you know, science which nobody has seen is not science. It is religion ..

  14. #14 Stu
    September 7, 2011

    I am not going to read 2-300 references searching for something that none of the guys who pretend to know has never seen.

    Thank you for admitting that you don’t WANT to know, sweetheart. Was that so hard?

    I think we’re done here.

  15. #15 Jonas N
    September 7, 2011

    Stu – I want to know, that’s why I’ve been asking for those references. Only thing I require, that the person has actually read and understood them.

    All those pointing to references they haven’t read and understood themselves are irrelevant, they are just posturing here.

    And since you are one of those, you were ‘done here’ even before you entered. As was essentially everybody else. (Martin V had read/seen one reference though. Better than every single one of all the others. To bad that ref didn’t cut it either)

  16. #16 Stu
    September 7, 2011

    A) Why do I have to have read a reference in order to point it out to you?

    B) What specifically are you missing that is not in one of the references provided?

    C) Have YOU read these references?

  17. #17 chek
    September 7, 2011

    Trolls who think they have a point are rather like hippos who think they’ve successfully emulated Nijinsky.

    By my reckoning lads, refuting eight papers ought to do it, although YMMV.

    Off you go.

    Don’t let the door smack those big hippo butts on the way out.

  18. #18 Andy S
    September 7, 2011

    Stu, stay away from that troll!

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    September 7, 2011

    *And let me tell you, neither does [sic] any of the ‘climate scientists’ I’ve asked*

    Who exactly have you ‘asked’? I’d like to know. But I don’t expect and answer because my guess is that you haven’t asked anyone. You want answers from people here but you always fail to answer our own queries. What is your professional background to be able to disparage AR4 and its ~ 300 references? Your response: silence. Silence that is worth a thousand words.

    As for GSW, you have about as much credibility in this discussion as our Dunning-Kruger model, Jonas. Which is to say NONE. Moreover, I’d also like to ask you waht your professional background is in any scientific endeavor? Let me guess: none, like your twin. Buh-bye.

  20. #20 Stu
    September 7, 2011

    Andy: the party was over back at #414. At this point I’m just seeing how big of a fool Jonas wants to make of himself. He seems quite the persistent little muppet, rather than the drive-by handwaver types like GSW (holy handgrenade, #412 is epically vapid — am I the only one hearing it in my head in the Charlie Brown teacher voice?)

  21. #21 Jonas N
    September 7, 2011

    Stu

    A) Because I’m not interested in listening to any of the know-nothing hangarounds. And believe me, they are the absolute majority here and elsewere.

    B) I’ve stated that at least a dozen times. Only the really stupid may have missed what I am looking for.

    C) I already answered that! I have read those where I thought they’d possibly could contain some substance.

    Andy S – You have no clue, and you know it. That’s why you so desperately don’t want to be reminded. Look at Fig 9.9 for consolation (but not affirmation)!

  22. #22 Jonas N
    September 7, 2011

    Jeff H

    All you have is your own twisted version about what should be regarded as ‘credibility’. You:

    1) Have not seen any science justifying that AR4 claim, and

    2) You would not know the first thing of what would be required to do so.

    I don’t blame you for your impotence, but you have been absolutely immaterial here wrt that question.

    The claim I make here is that I know what I am talking about. Nobody has so far even tried to seriously challange any of my statements. (Only the stupid-beyond-belief talkbacks from the gutter here). You have not come up with one piece of substance either. And that’s why you’d rather talk about ‘credibilty’, ie your own belief system.

    But we already knew about that. It was a given from the start, and carries no relevent information at all. As you said: “put up, or shut up!”

    And since you cannot put up anyting … what we hear from you is the miserable whining from those who whished but couldn’t. And it is immensely boring. Even if there are many of you ..

  23. #23 chek
    September 7, 2011

    Jonas ‘Nijinsky’ here firmly believes of course that he’s far too smart for everyone else here and firmly believes he’s blown AR4 atttribution apart, although the evidence for that is often alluded to, but as usual conspicuously lacking. Support hippo GSW buys this proposition, being the pliant pawn of Bishop Moron that he is and ‘firmly believes it too.

    ‘Firmly believes’ is of course religion or delusion, or religious delusion, not science.

    Oh look! We’re back on topic talking about Rick Perry at last.

  24. #24 Stu
    September 7, 2011

    I have read those where I thought they’d possibly could contain some substance.

    Name one, cupcake.

  25. #25 Luke Scientiae
    September 7, 2011

    Denialist and delusional comments by Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and other Republicans are widely commented on, but never are the opinions of all the candidates compared, or even listed, in one place. The same exact thing on creationism/evolution – another area where they seem to climb all over each other to deny basic reality most strongly. For instance, do you know what Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich think about evolution?

    Accordingly, I have compiled a list of ALL the Republican candidates and what each of them thinks about climate and evolution. Along with sources, videos, quotes:

    http://www.lukesci.com/2011/09/06/all-of-the-2012-republican-candidates-on-climate-and-evolution/

  26. #26 GSW
    September 7, 2011

    The point Jonas makes is valid.

    Come on guys where’s the beef? 400 odd comments and none of you can think of a single substantive piece of evidence for attribution.

    Bizarrely when the BBC asked Phil Jones he answered “It must be man, cos it wasn’t the Sun or a volcano” Jesus.H.C you’ve got to joking haven’t you?

    Labelling this as an argument from ignorance would be giving too much credit to the man.

    Any of you non-empirical types do any better?

  27. #27 Jonas N
    September 7, 2011

    Stu – The point is that you haven’t read any! Obviously, you don’t even know what’s being discussed. Now, go and play with the other morons here. There are plenty, and they need the company. They were done the same instant they opende their mouths. Even before that ..

  28. #28 chek
    September 7, 2011

    Never mind your dumb arguments from incredulity GSW – get refuting those 8 (or more) papers before drivelling away as your support act act is wont to do.

  29. #29 Stu
    September 7, 2011

    Stu – The point is that you haven’t read any!

    Really, sweetheart? Do you know me? Do you know what I have and have not read?

    Obviously, you don’t even know what’s being discussed.

    I’m confused. Me asking you what your problems are with the references that were provided means that I do not know what is being discussed?

    Or was it me asking you to name ONE of the referenced papers that you have read that lead you to this deep, stupendous jump of banana-cake guano-infused leap?

    Back to square one, Jonas. It’s a very simple question. Name ONE of the papers referenced that you have read.

  30. #30 Jonas N
    September 7, 2011

    Stu – At any point, you are (and have been) totally free to present anything of substance you can come up with!

    I’m the one sticking my neck out. Nobody even dares to take a swing at it. Only talk about how unneccesary that would be. ..

    Pathetic!

  31. #31 Stu
    September 7, 2011

    I’m the one sticking my neck out.

    By not naming any of the references that you have read?

    You are a hero indeed. A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

    Either that, or you’re a complete blowhard who rolls in, pees on the carpet, demands the credentials of everyone present and when asked for a single, concrete thing wilts like a bag of acrid flatulence in the void of his staggering ignorance.

    But go ahead, prove me wrong. Point out a paper in the AR4 references that you have read, and point out what is wrong with it. Surely that would not be too much to ask of an intrepid crusader such as yourself? Surely that would not be sticking your neck out too far?

  32. #32 chek
    September 7, 2011

    GSW said: “Bizarrely when the BBC asked Phil Jones he answered “It must be man, cos it wasn’t the Sun or a volcano” Jesus.H.C you’ve got to joking haven’t you?
    Labelling this as an argument from ignorance would be giving too much credit to the man.

    This statement bears a couple of seconds consideration, because it exemplifies the average, follow-my-leader denier mindset. The sort of mundane word-parser attracted by Bishop “ignoramus” Montford, for example.

    Because climate scientists generally pitch their responses to their expected audience’s ability to comprehend, the information gets simplified, for the benefit of that audience and particularly so when that audience is reached via the mass media.

    Then along comes one of Bishop Moron’s eager-beaver flock to pretend that some hastily googled, two-sentence press statement supercedes the 60 page paper the statement was summarised from. From that point onwards, in GSW et al’s minds, the IPCC bases it’s case on just thoae two sentences. That’s exactly how stupid GSW’s case is. And then he and his herd of ilk wonder why they’re dismissed for comedy value.

    Thanks for providing such a clear and straightforward case study GSW.

  33. #33 Vince whirlwind
    September 7, 2011

    When you get your “knowledge” of climate science from idiot-blogs like Nova’s or McIntyre’s then you probably know to not read any of the primary literature in order to prevent it from puncturing your preconceived ideologically-based position.

    Jonas, to us normal people, AR4 was a round-up of all established climate science up to that time. If you have made some stunning new discoveries, you will no doubt be able to have these discoveries published, in which case your discoveries will be included in AR5.

    Or, you can carry on waving your hands here.

    Obviously, if you’re nothing but a blowhard ignoramus, only one of the above options is available to you.

  34. #34 Michael
    September 7, 2011

    Jonas really does deserve some kind of prize.

    Stupidest ‘gotcha’ maybe? – ‘you can’t prove X, cause I ain’t gonna to look at literature about X, ha!’

  35. #35 luminous beauty
    September 7, 2011

    [Jonas,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-5101855)

    You asked for references. __[These](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-references.html) are the references you asked for.__ They are the particular papers that are the basis of the general review of the science (yes, it __is__ science) from which AR4 is abstracted.

    You are dismissing it all with the unsubstantiated claim, without even the feeblest argumentation, that it is __not science__). This is __not__ presenting an actual argument. You can’t be refuted, because there is nothing to refute. Just a bottomless pit of stupid.

  36. #36 jemima
    September 7, 2011

    Luke @ 425 “I have compiled a list of ALL the Republican candidates and what each of them thinks about climate and evolution”

    It’s a good read Luke. For Republican-leaners with any respect for science it would help make clear to them their few possible choices of candidate.

  37. #37 Michael
    September 7, 2011

    LB,

    I think Jonas is just trying to rack up some Frequent Denier points.

    If you get enough you can trade them for a Nobel Prize Pin.

  38. #38 GSW
    September 7, 2011

    “Any of you non-empirical types do any better?”

    Apparently not.

    ;)

  39. #39 Jonas N
    September 8, 2011

    Stu, luminous b, Vince …

    I am and have been asking for a quite particular thing. Something others claim exists. Somthing the IPCC implicitly claims is to be found there (but only with off-hand remarks, footnotes, armwaving, apendix reasoning, but nowhere pinpointed). But something I very much doubt exists.

    You guys can’t pinpoint it either.

    I am claiming a negative. Racking up references that don’t contain what i say isn’t in any om them won’t prove my point. Showing one singular reference that does, disproves it. And all you guys (well maybe not all) know it!

    That’s why you so desperately want to talk about something else.
    ____________________________________________________________

    Many of the cringing backwards arguments are quite hilarious, some outright false or nonsense:

    Stu – I’ve discussed the one reference presented to me here. Still you repeatedly claim the opposite. Amazing!

    luminous b – Nowehere do I say that those refs aren’t science. But a general view isn’t, and I am not asking for a general view, I’m asking about one very specific and quantified AR4 claim. One ref refutes my statment. Yet you state the opposite. Remarkable!

    Vince – If you claim that the AR4 was a round-up of established climate science, then there should be science for the most prominent AR4 claim, shouldn’t it? You talk about the “primary literature” and when asked to see it, it’s not there. And nobody has ever seen it. Immedeately, everybody starts running with their foalposts and strawmen. Fascinating!

  40. #40 Vince whirlwind
    September 8, 2011

    I see you’ve gone with the hand-waving option, Jonas. Quelle enorme surprise!

    Found an error in the science? Refute it. Publish. Accept Nobel Prize.

    I assume you aren’t because you can’t because you haven’t.

  41. #41 Jonas N
    September 8, 2011

    Stu – To find an error in the science, I must first be able to see it. Finding errors in non-existing science? .. This is getting ridiculous … Still living the pretence? Or has it progressed to denial?

  42. #42 chek
    September 8, 2011

    As Jonas troll increases his legendary status (in his own head) it’s worth returning to the point of the thread and reminding ourselves of his less than legendary comprehension skills.
    “Now that Mashey has aired his complaints (and a lot more) about quotation marks missing (in his view) what does it all amount to in the real world?”

    Presumably those are the self-same skills he has used to overturn AR4 and vanquished those vaporous scientists he’s talked to, and of the same calibre as used by Peter Wood to excuse the Wegman scandal.

  43. #43 Vince whirlwind
    September 8, 2011

    Jonas isn’t just the lone genius who’s seen through the entire scientific community’s errors, he’s the lone genius who can understand what the hell it is that Jonas is on about. And all without any scientific qualifications of his own!

    Two Nobel prizes, surely.

  44. #44 Jeff Harvey
    September 8, 2011

    Jonas,

    Take Vince’s advice: *Found an error in the science? Refute it. Publish*

    In other words, put your money where your mouth is for once, instead of crowing on and on and on and on in a blog as if this somehow vindicates you and gives you intellectual superiority. None of us here are cotributors to IPCC AR4; so why the hell aren’t you writing to the authors of said 300 papers and writing up your own rebuttal (your first and last article ever – and certainly no publishable?)

    The you write, “I’m the one sticking my neck out”.

    What – on a general web site? You really are an ignoramus. If you were truly sticking your turkey-gobbler neck out you’d have written your own article already (with all of the verbiage you’ve already spewed out here) and submitted it somewhere. Or else signed up to attend a conference where you could present your grievances in person. You have about as much courage as a hermit crab.

  45. #45 Jonas N
    September 8, 2011

    Jeff _ I believe you when you (indirectly) say that you have no clue where that claim is to be found. You are in an absolutem majority here and in the entire world. Because I cannot find it either.

    My take is that it doesn’t exist. The backwards arguing and cringing among many here, that it still somheow may or should exist, although nobody has seen it, nobody can find it, nobody can name it, nobody can name the claimats is quite … erhm .. amusing.

    I think it is quite indicative of how you guys ‘understand’ science.

  46. #46 Michael
    September 8, 2011

    “I must first be able to see it. Finding errors in non-existing science?” – Jonas

    Shorter Jonas: I refuse to look, therefore it doesn’t exist.

  47. #47 Stu
    September 8, 2011

    To find an error in the science, I must first be able to see it.

    So you are saying you have been physically unable to read any of the references presented to you? I’m sorry I’ve been making fun of you Jonas; it was uncouth of me to make light of your disabilities.

  48. #48 Jonas N
    September 8, 2011

    Stu – No, that’s not what I’m saying, and you know it.

  49. #49 Stu
    September 8, 2011

    Okay Jonas, we’ve finally established that the reason you cannot find science in the references is because you have not read them, and that the reason you have not read them is that you don’t feel like it.

    The reason we’re starting from the basis that the AR4 is sound is not only that the IPCC report represents the overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists, but also that an entire cottage industry of corporate sponsored denialist flacks has been diligently trying to discredit it for over a decade and has come up with nothing more than a fake controversy by quote-mining some e-mails.

    You’re the one disputing mountains of scientific material, Jonas. Material that you are refusing to read. The burden of proof is completely, fully, totally and squarely on you.

    Do you have anything concrete? “I don’t believe 90% is scientific and I don’t wanna read up on where they got it from” seems to be all you’ve come up with so far, and if you want to flaunt your pathetic, childish obstinacy by sticking with just that, please just let us know so we can get back to things more productive than indulging your trollish contrarianism. If you have anything concrete, such as a specific paper that you have a specific problem with, do tell.

    No, that’s not what I’m saying, and you know it.

    The entire problem is that you’re not saying much of anything.

  50. #50 Jonas N
    September 8, 2011

    Stu – The entire problem is that nobody has seen the claimed science. You haven’t, I haven’t, Jeff hasn’t, nobody I’ve asked has, and of course none of the shouting crowd here who have no clue about anything.

    And no, it is the IPCC AR4 who is making that claim and who trumpeted all over the world. I am not the one who has to prove it wrong. It is those who say that the IPCC is based on science who have to show that science. Before that happens there isn’t even a contest.

    What I am disputing here is not mountains, it is one very specific claim (and you know that, so why are you all the time pretending something else?)

    Are you as afraid of reality as so many other here? So that you constantly must redefine what the issue is. Making things up? I am asking if anybody has seen and read such science. And you say I am “refusing to read”!?

    Do you at all know what published science is? Why they index it in databses, with the searchable abstratcs and keywords, why it is called a reference, why proper referencing is so important, why they keep track of who cites who etc.

    If you didn’t know: This done for the reason so that somebody later (years, decades) easily can find what has been done by others. And equally, so that people relying on results by others, experiments, calculations etc can quote that work for the same reason, and not have to repeat every detail.

    Published articles, ie references, are explicitly there
    not to put you guys in the spot you are in, not having any clue where to find the science.

    And still you (many) keep repeating that a specific result supposedly is contained in some nebulous way, not in the specific reference where the analysis actually is presented, but as lingering cloud of insight hovering somewhere around and above among 2-300 references as a combined “overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists”?

    It is obvious that nobody here has the slightest clue were to find it. I don’t blame you for that. But you all trying to point somewhere else, your affirmations that it may be found in there somewhere, or if you ask the right persons, only reveals that you have no clue about how science is presented … and that all you now desperatly hope to accomplish is to reaffirm to yourselvs that the blind belief in perceived authority was not entirely unwaranted.

    And what is really pathetic is that what we are talking about is the most prominent message from the enitre AR4, promulgated as the best science in the world. Everybody has heard it. Many times. And taken it on pure faith.

    And when this is pointed out, all the selfrighteous pretence here, about being on the side of the science, the talk about ‘the primary literature’ the ‘peer reviewed articles’ … is instantly exposed as being nothing but empty posturing.

    And the funniest thing is that so many of you want to make me, my person, responsible for that fact. There is ‘denial’ for you if you ever seen such … ;-)

  51. #51 Stu
    September 8, 2011

    And the funniest thing is that so many of you want to make me, my person, responsible for that fact.

    Ah yes, playing the victim. The last one I needed on my denialist Bingo card.

    So, cupcake, I assume you’ve contacted the scientists who compiled the report with your astonishing findings, right?

    Right?

    If not, why are you still here? What are you trying to accomplish?

  52. #52 Jonas N
    September 8, 2011

    Stu – Really, is making things up all you have left?

    Nobody has a clue, that’s why they/you want to talk about me instead? It’s so obvious. All they’d have to do is to study up a little (if they’d believe in what they say), read one or a few ref:s and then hit me over the head with them.

    But it ain’t happening, Stu. Although they have all the worlds publications at their fingertips.

    So no, I’m not feeling sorry for my self. And you didn’t really believe that either. It was just one more diversion. As was the ‘write to the compling scientists’. And you know that too …

    Don’t know how to put this in any other way:

    But it sucks to be a sucker …

  53. #53 chek
    September 8, 2011

    Jonas troll said: “The entire problem is that nobody has seen the claimed science”.

    Time to give the crank his own thread where he can witter away about whatever his fevered brain is telling him.

    Like a dogwhistle, whatever it is seems to be is beyond ordinary human perception and can only be comprehended by the likes of GSW and sunspot. Neither of which recommendations score very highly.

    Humanity may just have to struggle along without Jonas’ bizarre revelations. I think we’ll manage just fine.

  54. #54 Michael
    September 8, 2011

    Oh, I think I get it now – Jonas wants someone here to come around to his place and read it all to him as a bed time story.

  55. #55 Stu
    September 8, 2011

    Random aside first: telling people what they do or do not believe is monumentally stupid and arrogant. Doing so repeatedly is psychotic. Just a thought.

    Anyway.

    If you can’t make a more specific point than “tell me which of these 300 references contains this one claim”, you don’t want to know.

    If you haven’t read these resources to find out, you don’t want to know.

    If you haven’t written to the scientists, you don’t want to know.

    Every comment you post here is time not spent in finding these things out and proving 97% of climate scientists wrong. But yet you persist, and whine, and blatantly fail to address anything substantive, like for instance naming one of the papers you have read and your issues with it. As a very random for-instance.

    You are completely uninterested in finding out the details about claims you profess to care greatly about. Why is that, Jonas?

  56. #56 Jonas N
    September 8, 2011

    Stu – It is very obvious that:

    1) Neither you, nor any of the other kids here, have seen any such science, and
    2) That you have no way of finding it either.

    The retort: ‘But start reading at random, somewhere, over there’ is only an admission of the above. And you know it. (Regrettably, it seems that some of the others don’t even know that)

    Really, what an absolute load of rubbish, Stu: “If you haven’t read these resources to find out, you don’t want to know. If you haven’t written to the scientists, you don’t want to know.”

    As if you had no clue what a reference is!

    None of you has seen it, none of you claims to have seen it either. And still, all of you yap: ‘it’s in there, we know, but you go and find it yourself’

    If there ever was delusion, there it is right in your face!

    I liked: “telling people what they do or do not believe is monumentally stupid and arrogant”

    :-)

    You’re essentially kicking everybody who ever addressed me (including yourself) in the shin. Good boy!

    And no, I don’t whine, I don’t complain. I know exactly what to expect here. And am seeing it.

    Really:

    The absolute, most prominent centerpiece claim of the IPCC AR4, and all af you guys are to scared to look if it exists!?

    Me? I don’t believe in that claim (on purely scientific reasons), and I don’t believe there is any basis for it either. (For good reasons, since nobody honest would put his name to it). And that’s why you can’t find it. And are stalling for time, hoping to save face, by focusing on me instead!

    Does anybody of you think that the authors of IPCC AR4 even knew of me back then? Answer is simply: No!

    So go and find that science for the claim, or accept what I am telling you! (Grudgingly if you need to) That it doesn’t exist.

    Arguments like ‘It has to be there’ because:
    1) We haven’t checked yet
    2) we’re so many, and so convinced, so dedicated
    3) Jonas is arrogant
    4) 97% of them believe in something else
    5) I’m proud of my CV
    6) At meetings I attend, we talk about global warming
    7) Republicans ars so stupid
    8) I speak for ‘the scientific community’
    9) IPCC comprises the finest, etc
    Are all bunk! Completely irrelevant!
    Either it is in there, or not! And all the pathetic cringing definitely points to the latter. And let me remind you: It’s been 4+ year now!

    Yes really, it sucks to be a sucker!

  57. #57 luminous beauty
    September 8, 2011

    >luminous b – Nowehere do I say that those refs aren’t science. But a general view isn’t, and I am not asking for a general view, I’m asking about one very specific and quantified AR4 claim. One ref refutes my statment. Yet you state the opposite. Remarkable!

    What we have here is a failure to communicate, Jonas. The AR4 claim is not a very specific scientific finding, but a generalized conclusion. The claim you question is backed by Chapter 9 of the WGI. Though you claim the WGI isn’t science you are utterly wrong. WGI is a review of the scientific literature, supported by all those many references you reject as not giving a specific answer to your very general question.

    This indicates you really don’t know how science works. A specific paper is usually devoted to one particular aspect of a single line of evidence. This reductionism is a necessary aspect of dealing with a complex issue such as climate. It is only by combining multiple lines of evidence in a general review, like WGI, Chap. 9, that such general conclusions, like the one you are questioning can be inferred. This is known as consilience of evidence, or, informally, scientific consensus.

    The phrase, ‘not seeing the forest for the trees’ comes to mind.

  58. #58 Michael
    September 8, 2011

    “The absolute, most prominent centerpiece claim of the IPCC AR4, and all af you guys are to scared to look if it exists!? ” – Jonas

    Jonas has been rambling so long I can’t quite remember which ‘centrepiece claim’ he’s been pretending to be interested in.

  59. #59 Stu
    September 8, 2011

    The absolute, most prominent centerpiece claim of the IPCC AR4, and all af you guys are to scared to look if it exists!?

    Scared? Are you serious? No Jonas, sorry, it’s just that I don’t have time to hunt any of it down. I prefer spending my free time online exploring denialist psychosis.

    I don’t believe in that claim (on purely scientific reasons)

    Really? What would those be? I’m dead serious. Do you actually have a scientific reason? You know “I can’t find proof and neither can you and no I’m not gonna look neener neener neener” is not a scientific reason, right?

    And that’s why you can’t find it.

    Actually, I won’t find it for you, if only for the continued entertainment value of watching your delusion of knowing better than everyone else (pro-tip, Jonas: no-one is laughing with you).

    Also, det är onödigt krusa för alepinnar.

    And are stalling for time

    Pure projection. It is AGW denialism that is purely about stalling for time, in order to maximize short-term profit.

    Which leads me to yet another teensy problem with your attempts at logic.

    Bear with me.

    Let’s for the moment assume that you, Jonas, intrepid crusader, have found a gaping hole in the AR4. Let’s assume that the IPCC is full of it and you, Jonas, intrepid crusader, are the first and only person to have found out.

    Still with me?

    Companies such as Exxon spend millions upon millions of dollars funding think tanks writing ridiculous denialist claptrap.

    Still with me?

    You, Jonas, have their Holy Grail! Ready-made! A massive, undeniable hole in the IPCC’s argument! AGW is bullpuckey! This means billions and billions of extra profit for them! They should show up to your door with a large briefcase full of cash and plaster your dagger in the AR4’s heart all over the world! Game over man, game over!

    Except they have not, have they Jonas?

    Why do you think that is?

  60. #60 Stu
    September 8, 2011

    The AR4 claim is not a very specific scientific finding, but a generalized conclusion.

    Oh damn you… why did you have to go and give it all away like that? I was just starting to have fun.

  61. #61 Ian Forrester
    September 8, 2011

    Jonas proudly boasts:

    At meetings I attend, we talk about global warming

    Glad to see that you have admitted to yourself that you have a problem and are attending meetings of “idiots anonymous”. How often do you attend? Are you and the others who are attending making progress in ridding yourself of your Dunning Kruger affliction?

    Anyway, it is good to see someone addressing their problems and taking the first steps in overcoming them.

  62. #62 Jeff Harvey
    September 9, 2011

    Jonas whines: *Does anybody of you think that the authors of IPCC AR4 even knew of me back then? Answer is simply: No*

    And they still don’t.

  63. #63 chek
    September 9, 2011

    News just in: [“Rick Perry: Modern-Day Galileo of Climate Science”?](http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/211023/20110909/rick-perry-republica-presidential-debate-climate-change-hoax-bust-global-warming-skeptics-galileo-cl.htm)

    Leaving aside that the inclusion of a query at the end of a press headline invariably means the correct response is ‘no’, you can see where they’re coming from.

    What with the famous, plucky little 16th Century Italian ‘D’ grade gun-nut student and religious maniac taking on the science establishment armed with nothing but a swagger and a dad haircut. The parallels are uncanny.

    Er… wait, that can’t be right…

    All Rick Perry needs to add now, with gravelly Nixonian gravitas is, “People have got to know whether or not their President candidate is a moron. Well, I’m not a moron”.

  64. #64 lord_sidcup
    September 9, 2011

    463 Chek

    No hint of self-doubt from Perry despite his home state of Texas recording its hottest August ever, and hottest and driest Summer ever. In fact, the hottest summer ever recorded in any US state:

    [State of the Climate National Overview August 2011](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2011/8)

  65. #65 chek
    September 9, 2011

    Yes lord_s, Michael Tobin’s been [blogging about the wildfires in his area around Bastrop](http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/) for the past few days over at his site. I think their was also a linked video (there or perhaps Joe Romm’s) demonstrating the speed that the firefront advances at – quite terrifying to watch, especially if you consider families trying to herd kids and/or old folks etc. out of the path.

    I guess to a presidential candidate of Rick Perry’s calibre, [cutting public spending]( http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2011/09/another-anthropogenic-forcing.html) (including firefighters) during a historic drought and diverting attention and resources into organising public prayer meeting rallies makes perfect sense.

  66. #66 TrueSceptic
    September 9, 2011

    Jonas is a zombie deniatroll. It retains rudimentary linguistic processes capable of generating high word volumes superficially resembling language, but all cognitive function is absent. It cannot be reasoned with: any attempts to engage will result in it eating brains, its only reason to exist. If it is ignored for long enough it will go elsewhere. It might return home but not for long: all residents’ brains there were eaten long ago and its appetite is insatiable.

    Please don’t let it eat yours!

  67. #67 Jonas N
    September 9, 2011

    luminous b – You say that the AR4 attribution statement should be seen more as handwaiving. I certainly agree. It is not a scientific statement (see further my #380)

    But you are wrong. it is definitely not a ‘general question': That AR4 statement (albeit awkwardly phrased) is a very precise and quantified statement.

    Stu – It is pretty obvious that you, and many others hanging here, rather cultivate your fantasies about how ‘the others’ are, their motives, ineptness etc than deal with the substance. It is cute in one way (if one disregards that many are adaults, even professionals of some kind)

    But you essentially confirm my observations: You have no interest in finding out, knowing for your self. Your goal is reaffirmation of held prejudices. Same is true for Jeff H, and quite some more. That you won’t call it that doesn’t change what you are practicing here. And I can tell you (wrt to that ‘stated goal’) you are doing as lousy a job as wrt the science. Blindly guessing just isn’t the method, Sorry.

    Thereafter, you suddenly pretend to be interested in scientific arguments after all. Well, I’m afraid those would be slightly over your head. I’d suggest you start understanding what a reference is first, and why scientists try to be specific about what their work actually does show, and present their best case supporting their conclusions. So far, that’s where the big disconnect is in this matter.

    The “I won’t find it for you” is empty posturing, as is the pretence reason you give. I actually wonder if you could have found it even if it actually existed.

    And yes, in this ‘debate’ you (plural) are stalling for time. Everybody is making up ‘reasons’ (excuses) to talk about anything else but the core issue.

    The rants about Exxon, profits, denies and their claptrap etc is pure conspiracy nonsense, regurgitated at places like this by their hang arounds. I could of course speculate why this need is so extremely predominant among many there, but that would more resemble the prevailing psycho-babble there, so I’ll leave it at ‘noted’!

    Really, all paragraphs after ‘stalling for time’
    I think are much closer to the target, dscribing what motivates you. Not that unexpected …

    Ian F – Too bad you can’t correct once you posted, isn’t it? ;-)

    Jeff H – Correct! So I am not the reason they’ve hid it so well that not even the proponents can find it!

  68. #68 Michael
    September 9, 2011

    Good call there Truesceptic!

    I wish Jonas would amuse us with some more of his ‘plagiarism is just missing quotation marks’ schtick.

  69. #69 chek
    September 9, 2011

    I think Stu had it right at #459.
    “Companies such as Exxon spend millions upon millions of dollars funding think tanks writing ridiculous denialist claptrap. Still with me?

    You, Jonas, have their Holy Grail! Ready-made! A massive, undeniable hole in the IPCC’s argument! AGW is bullpuckey! This means billions and billions of extra profit for them! They should show up to your door with a large briefcase full of cash and plaster your dagger in the AR4’s heart all over the world! Game over man, game over!

    Except they have not, have they Jonas?

    Why do you think that is”?

    Quite so. But instead for consolation, Jonas haunts the usual pseudo-science and political blogs with his posturing nonsense.
    Unfortunately for him, as we have seen here with his would-be superior troll act, real scientists won’t even give him the time of day.

    As Stu so eloquently put it: why do you think that is?

  70. #70 Bernard J.
    September 9, 2011

    FFS people, stop playing cat-like with the troll – it stopped being funny days ago, and he’s not going to show any progress no matter how hard you swat him or poke him.

    Troll, if you’re seriously unable to comprehend the origin of the 90% CIs, you obviously have not read for example SM9.6 of [Appendix C](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9-supp-material.pdf). And if you really do want to see the actual algorithms used to generate the material, you should be chasing the appropriate authors through the references for Chapter 9, as so many have already told you to do.

    I have three pre-school age kids. They all love the “why” game, and it can go on for hours. You are showing yourself to be of exactly the same intellectual age as my children, or more likely, somewhat younger… and with the difference that my kids are quite pleasingly showing a strong capacity for speedy progress in learning beyond their current chronological ages, which you are patently unable to achieve yourself – even using my children’s chronological ages as the guide.

    The information that you claim to be seeking exists. Yes, it really does. That you also claim that said information does not exist simply shows what a piss-weak capacity you have for scientific review, and for self-directed research and data-tracking. Your misplaced imagining of a ‘gotchya’ discredits no-one else on this thread except yourself.

    Why are you such a fuckwit?

    Why?

  71. #71 Bernard J.
    September 9, 2011

    …’Ranges’ is probably a better term than ‘CIs’, btw.

  72. #72 John Mashey
    September 9, 2011

    BACK TO THE ACTUAL TOPIC

    1) NAS published:
    http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=2162

    (A political philosopher in The James Madison Center @ Princeton, funded by some of the same folks who fund NAS).
    http://www.desmogblog.com/nas-president-peter-wood-wrong-dishonest-or-hopelessly-compromised

    That didn’t get enough comments, so:

    2) http://nasblog.org/2011/09/06/the-global-warming-debate-on-campus/ Leef is at the Pope Center, which seems akin.

  73. #73 Holly Stick
    September 9, 2011

    John Mashey, did you notice that another blogger at the NAS blog referred to the “shrieking at Wood’s blog post:

    http://nasblog.org/2011/09/03/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-of-course-he-did-it-2/

  74. #74 Stu
    September 9, 2011

    But you essentially confirm my observations: You have no interest in finding out

    Wait, what? Are you now down to “I know you are, but what am I” level? Cupcake, are you even aware that people can scroll up and read the entire conversation?

    Maybe not. To recap: the AR4 says their predictions are “very likely”. They quote hundreds of papers in support of this. You have either not read, not understood or refuse to acknowledge those papers because you damned well know that they are sound. So instead of addressing them, you flail about demanding a direct quote for “very likely”.

    Did I miss anything?

    The rants about Exxon, profits, denies and their claptrap etc is pure conspiracy nonsense

    Yes, I totally made that up. It’s not a matter of debate, you illiterate jackwagon. Exxon has admitted they funded “denies”.
    So Jonas, answer my question: why aren’t you rich yet, sweetheart?

  75. #75 Stu
    September 9, 2011

    To those getting bored with me playing with the troll: when pushed enough, it’s always possible to tease forth a new data point, such as

    The rants about Exxon, profits, denies and their claptrap etc is pure conspiracy nonsense

    Personally, I think that one is priceless, both for entertainment value and for future reference. Someone with a rectal-cranial insertion sufficiently severe to be in denial about even that is truly a sight to behold.

  76. #76 Andy S
    September 9, 2011
  77. #77 Jonas N
    September 9, 2011

    Bernard J

    I know that you don’t master the field, and I don’t consider any of your many rants and insults relevant at all.

    But since you actually made the claim that the science is to be found in the ‘Supplementary information’, and the effort name a page and to link to it, I’ll make an exception and respond briefly:

    1) No, Appendix 9.C is not the scientific basis. It only explains some background to some ch9 Figures. It doesn’t either make that claim. It mentions 90% but wrt to something very different.

    2) Page SM9.6 describes the background to Fig 1 in FAQ 9.2 with the model runs. It says explicityly (in pt 12) that it choses the 90% center span of all 58 simulations.

    3) And then plots in FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, the observed temperature within that span (averaged over time and space, for the various regions) when the agreement was at least 50%.

    (I am simplyfying the description a bit, for the sake of brevity, but that’s the gist of it)

    That is what’s stated in sm 9.6. It is not a attribution, or validation of the hypothesis of the models. It describes how well the models can be fit to the observation when simulating the propsed hypothesis, and compares it to when no hypothesis (at all) is applied. Nowehere does it confirm that the chosen hypothesis indeed is the true one, and even less that is explains it with 90% certainty!

    Sorry Bernard, but this only talks about how well they were able to fit the curves. The underlying physics are not even addressed, other than that they already are assumed to be the explanation (in the simulations).

    That is what I’ve been saying all along (see eg #363):

    It’s circular arguing: ‘If it is true, then we are 90% certain that is indeed is (at least to some extent)!’

    __________________________

    But I want to add another point here. Related to the ‘attribution’, and found on the previous pages, Appendix 9.B. Because it is rather enlightening. It deals with how to estimate the ‘climate sensitivity’ and the use of Bayesian statistics to arrive at the high values, required for the models, and the attribution, and the certainty! Also this, I have already addressed in #363. It explicitly states that:

    “This function, together with a prior distribution on the parameters, can be combined by means of Bayes theorem to obtain a posterior distribution”

    Meaning that the previously assumed pdf:s can be padded by expert’s a priori assumtions , to be ‘refined’ to give a better certainty! It is expalined further down. This a priori assumed knowledge comes from:

    “The prior distribution p(q) that is used in this calculation is chosen to reflect prior knowledge and uncertainty (either subjective or objective) about plausible parameter values”

    Ie. explicitly stating that is the ‘expert’s guesses’ that are applied. And shortly after it says, that these opinions are:

    “often simply a wide uniform distribution. Such a prior indicates that little is known, a priori, about the parameters of interest except that they are bounded below and above. Even so, the choice of prior bounds can be subjective. In the case of climate sensitivity, a uniform prior with a lower bound of 0°C and an upper bound between 10°C and 20°C has often been used”

    Reading this superficially, it sounds modest, they declare that they don’t know (completely contradicting that 90% certainty). But what it actually says, that the observational (scanty) data to assess the climate sensitivity is padded with ‘expert opinions’ of a value of 5-10°C/doubling (the mean value of that uniform distribution between 0 and 10 or 20 °C)

    Well, Bernard J (and others), I already pointed this out in #363, and now you provided the link to the material explicitly explaining how things are done. I guess I should say ‘tank you’, but I’m afraid the details might be a little over your head. And totally in line with what I’ve already said.

    PS I’m sure your kids are adorable. But they have nothing to do with the above.

  78. #78 Jonas N
    September 9, 2011

    Bernard J (contd) – ‘Ranges’ (of simulation runs) is certainly a better term than ‘confidence intervals’. I totally agree, and this has been my point for quite a while.

  79. #79 Jonas N
    September 9, 2011

    Stu

    I am close to deferring you to the cheks, Michaels, Marcels Kincades, Holly Shticks, Emretssons, True Sceptics etc of this site. But will respond reasonably one mote time:

    Once you stated that you “prefer spending [your] free time online exploring denialist psychosis.”, you pretty much gave it away, looking for prejudice confirmation, ie keeping your belief system intact. And a system at odds with almost anything existing in the real world.

    People who pursue such needs, quite often come up with various conspiracy theories, often involving Exxon, flat earth, creationist, tobacco lobby, republicans, think tanks etc. All of which exist, and none of which bear any explanatory value on how the climate works. For the same reason that taxation, left wing or green loonies, Greenpeace, Al Gore, communists, CCX, Enron, Waxman etc do not disprove the AGW-hypothesis.

    People who believe that such things somehow carry any value, can be dismissed without any loss. (And I know there are plenty believing that the existance of oil and oil companies somehow would explain why the climate scare is constantly losing traction. But they are just the same old looines they’ve always been)

    Tell me you are one of them, and I’ll leave you alone.

    OK, back to the AR4

    Yes, they quote 100 of refs. ‘In support’ you say, but that’s questionable. Repeating a belief doesn’t make it more true. Armwaving and really really wanting it to be true doesn’t either. And all the papers that don’t properly (and formally) address that issue are irrelevant to giving it any scientific value. You are still beating around the bush, bringing up other issues of no consequence …

  80. #80 Stu
    September 9, 2011

    I’m afraid the details might be a little over your head.

    Jonas, you are absolutely adorable.

    So you’ve taken the time to put down your laser-sharp insights in #477. I see you’re still missing the point and pathetically harping on that one particular windmill, but hey, you’ve put it all down.

    So you’ve forwarded this to all IPCC scientists, all scientists on the referenced papers and the PR department at Exxon, right?

    If not, why?

  81. #81 Jonas N
    September 9, 2011

    Stu – By now I am absolutely certain that it is way over your head. I refer you to Hallelujah lecture of:

    http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php

    And it is really funny to see at what level people here are capable of arguing …

  82. #82 adelady
    September 9, 2011

    For some “explanatory value on how the climate works” perhaps we should just look at some recent evidence.

    Arctic sea ice has now hit the trifecta – lowest ever volume, extent and area.

    And that’s **before** the remnants of Katia blow through the feeble ragtag ice still out there next week.

  83. #83 Michael
    September 9, 2011

    Breaking news: Jonas continues to display his cluelessness on science and stats…..and dog bites man.

    OT.

    John, interesting links.

    The denial machine grinds on.

  84. #84 Stu
    September 9, 2011

    Jonas, you just linked to a site that proved you wrong. I’ll leave you be now, since I hate arguing with the clinically insane.

  85. #85 Bernard J.
    September 10, 2011

    Guys, [I’ve tried again to drag Jonas N away from this thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/september_2011_open_thread.php#comment-5137776), where he is simply off-topic troll-shit.

  86. #86 TrueSceptic
    September 10, 2011

    All: please ignore the Jonas zombie. Can’t you see that it’s eating your brains?

  87. #87 Jonas N
    September 10, 2011

    Bernard J – Your long post contains nothing other than repitition of the (many) wishful beliefs that the attribtution claim is to be found even further in, but nobody has put a namne or reference(s) to it.

    The general gist of what is presented in Appendix 9, I had already addressed in #363. And:

    “If you want to determine how a particular “90% certainty” was derived, why don’t you select an example from AR4 and show us how you have attempted to validate the value”

    As I said, there is still no reference. Only armwaiving in an appendix, showing pretty much the opposite of proper attribution. I even explained (a bit simplified) what it presented instead to give the impression of that certainty.

  88. #88 Michael
    September 10, 2011

    Apropos of nothing…….anyone who thinks that a confidence interval of 90% means “near certainty” is so clueless that it’s probably pointless to try and explain anything to them.

  89. #89 Michael
    September 10, 2011

    ahem…level.

    Preview is your friend.

Current ye@r *