Jonas Thread

By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Michael
    September 14, 2011

    GSW @ 85
    “Good site the bish has. v. polite…”

    Very, as you can see from the examples below,

    Can we be sure Citizen Mashey is wholly sane?

    John Mashey is a repugnant individual. He is one of the most repulsive compulsively dishonest people around

    extreme, unbalanced and postulating behavior on the open blogs by certain acolytes of the so-called IPCC consensus

    hyperbole hissy fits

    Mashey’s just pissed off that, someone, stood up and called him for he is

    trying to create a commonality of criminality

    basic structure, is to take a up-front denunciation of his ratf**king, as a sign of a denunciation of his ratf**king activities

    this lays bare the man’s oeuvre, self-perception, and projection: ‘take me seriously because I read big fat books. Some of them have a thousand pages.’

    The guy’s slighty of the rocker .

    a nuissance, pestering various bodies, demanding that this and that should be retracted. An internet stalker-wannabe

    not just irrationally intolerant of any opposing views, they are starting to look fanatically imbalanced.

    fringe-borderline-Mashey

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    September 14, 2011

    Jonas N.

    >No, Bernard #65, that’s not what I’m saying. Read what I say, and stop inventing your ‘facts’, OK?

    I’ve read what you say, and you said that you couldn’t name any of the references that might have supported your case. Indeed, by your own words it seems that you have not read any of the IPCC references at all, and hence there is no need for me to “invent… my own facts” – I am simply summarising the gist of your own confessions.

    >In short, I need at least to respect them and have the impression of a person who can has [sic] some knowledge of the field (preferably has read that reference too)

    And so you are hoisted by your own, [stinky little petard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard#Etymology)…

    I have no respect for you, nor for your babblings, precisely because you have conclusively shown yourself to have neither knowledge of the field of climatology, nor to have read the relevant references, pertinent to the part of the field which you are counterclaimimg.

    >Unfortunately, this practice is quite common even when one paper references another saying ‘it has been shown by XX&YY that .. see [ref]‘ while it only was surmised tentatively in the dioscussion [sic], or valid under specific restrictions.

    See, this is where Dunningly-Krugered lay folk often come a cropper, when pretending that they can swan around playing at science.

    Real, actual science involves really, actually reading the literature in a field. Professionals do this all the time, right from the moment of starting the exploration of an hypothesis, through to writing up the experimental results of a subsequent investigation. Ask any PhD student how many hours weeks of their lives they’ll have spent trawling through the references of papers, and photocopying shopping-trollies worth of journal volumes, both for their own work and for their supervisors: and if they started more than about a decade ago, it would have all been done without the magic of convenient web links…

    These papers are painstakingly found and read, and their contents understood. It’s simply a part of the process of acquiring expertise. The material contained therein is not repeated holus-bolus in subsequent papers, as you appear to think should happen, because that’s the whole point of publishing the original articles, and of having reference sections in papers, and in having libaries, and reprints, and photocopiers, and post-grad students…

    That you seem to have no awareness of any of this indicates how far removed you are from possessing any scientific competence with which to credibly comment on matters climatological.

    A working knowledge of a discipline requires more than a few minutes with a web search engine. It’s no different to studying for 10 years to be a surgeon, compared with googling ‘astrocytoma’ and thinking that you’re suddenly equipped to perform a neurosurgical procedure.

    Sadly, as the anti-vaccine and anti-HIV movements indicate, such arm-chair science is all too prevalent in the lay population…

    >You shouldn’t need to dig deep into numerous publications which nowehere [sic] indicate that this is to be found there. This is the reason people write papers, cite them, and use references.

    FFS, your own second sentence contradicts your first, and puts the lie to it.

    No, “[p]eople write papers, cite them, and use references” to document their original work, and to guide readers to previous relevant work. In a new paper the methodologies from previous work are rarely repeated verbatim except where discussion of such is germane to the paper; for example when describing methodological variations. And even then, when parts of methodologies have simply been replicated, they are simply referred to and only the varied components are detailed – otherwise the already expansive stacks in instituional libaries would be even more voluminous than they already are.

    Such is the case with the IPCC’s AR4. Remember, the IPCC is a body established to summarise the science, and not to perform it all over again or to dump all the literature lock, stock and barrel into a single source. This is exactly what Chapter 9 does – it summarises the literature, and tells the informed reader what the original sources were.

    Get it? It’s a document prepared by professionals to summarise the state of play for non-professionals. Other professionals and informed non-professionals are able to further their understanding by doing what any professional would do, and tracking down supplementary material. That you are – by your own words – incapabable of doing this with any degree of competence is simply an indictment of your lack of qualification to engage in the process at all.

    Just because your ideology doesn’t mesh with the science doesn’t mean that you get to perform a revision from your soap-box. Sorry buster, but if you have a point, prove it scientifically, or get out of the way and let the experts do their job.

    >And I have not libelled the IPCC, or any specific (namned) climate scientists.

    ?!

    Go over some of your previous comments and think carefully about their content, petal. You might then want to reconsider this statement.

    >But I can’t (ever) prove a negative

    Your “negative” is the claim to the effect that “the IPCC and the body of professional climatologists have not performed the calculations that establish 90% ranges for temperature projections in the future”. It only remains unproven for you as long as you don’t actually read any of the referenced material, just as not conducting an experiment renders just about any otherwise-testable hypothesis unproven.

    If you had the guts to tell us what you’ve read, it could quickly be established whether your claim is correct or not. Of course, I could review the references myself, but I refuse to do your work for you, at least in the short term (I might perhaps revisit it down the track, as I sometimes do with other trolls – [Tim Curtin's potable seawater notion was one such](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/open_thread_62.php#comment-4893935), and [factoid's Sydney August 2011 temperature idiocy is another](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/the_australians_war_on_science_71.php#comment-5087748)).

    >and those few among you who something [sic] about science, of course know that

    I know enough science to know that you are either completely ignorant of it, or are deliberately misrepresenting it for your own vested interest.

    Either way, you’re full of the brown sticky stuff.

  3. #3 Jonas N
    September 14, 2011

    Jeff H – If you have a real objection, then go ahead and claim the opposites, ie argue your case of:

    1. it is preferable to use up *more* resources (oil, coal, forrest)

    2. realistically the effects on ‘the climate’ *are detectable* even if you both manage (the Kyoto protocol) and the model predictions are true

    3. you *don’t* need to be aware of the magnitudes discussed and compared

    4. soot reduction is desirable for *only* the reason of ‘controlling the climate’ (or at least the *main* reason)

    Well, go ahead an argue those cases, Jeff. If you can. Or just stop your brainless rambling here .. everybody already knows you’re upset and angry .. an incapable of controlling it.

    4. Humanitly is *very close* to stopping the using of coal

  4. #4 itsyourself
    September 14, 2011

    Mm, thoughtful post. You’re a bit of of an unsung philosopher aren’t you? Would Jonas pass the Turing test? Is he a test version of an AI? He has gone a long way with no content.

  5. #5 Jonas N
    September 14, 2011

    That last point should have been in the with the others:

    5. Humanitly is very close to stopping the using of coal

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    September 14, 2011

    >@Jonas 93,

    >Mm, thoughtful post. You’re a bit of of an unsung philosopher aren’t you?

    In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

  7. #7 chek
    September 14, 2011

    “You’re a bit of of an unsung philosopher pointless windbag like me, aren’t you?

    There, corrected that for you GSW.

  8. #8 chris
    September 14, 2011

    Have to agree with GSW that this thread is fascinating – a perfect portrayl of denialism with its essential precept: “the denialist must at all cost avoid engagement with the evidence”. The three denialists on this thread can feel proud of themselves by conforming beautifully to stereotype each in their own way:

    Jonas simply disregards the existence of the science (he calls it “science”, and for example asserts that the IPCC only “pretend” to present this!). He pursues this theme through post after post after post – we won’t learn anything from Jonas and he’s not going to let you forget it!

    Jonas’ cheerleader GSW has coined a nice phrase for his particular strategy – he “operates purely on prejudice”. He wants to trash the science but lacks the evidence – so he simply makes it up! In classic denialist fashion this is accompanied with industrial scale hypocrisy.

    Shub adopts the approach of the bully. Finding himself in the surprising position of being able to interact with someone knowledgeable and productive he doesn’t pass up the opportunity for puny insult. Without bothering to try to engage maturely with the subject he attempts to belittle it as “mumbo-jumbo”. Excellent! One might wonder why he bothers, but of course the denialist (especially the bully sort), is proud of the fact that he’s disgusted by those hi-falutin people that try to explain stuff.

    textbook stuff and very illuminating!

  9. #9 Jonas N
    September 14, 2011

    Bernard J

    It is quite amazing how demonstably some individuals here need to misrepresent even the simplest things (in order to score some empty rhetorical point)

    Your post contains so much nonsense and emotional rants, there is no need to bother with any of that. It’s all bunk.

    But you actually bring up two points which pertain to the topic:

    1. You tell me I must “read the relevant references, pertinent to the part of the field which [I am] counterclaimimg”, and

    2. “It only remains unproven for you as long as you don’t actually read” them

    Both points rely on the actual existence of what I have been asking for. But you have now spent two (or more?) weeks telling me you don’t know which they are, or if they indeed exist. Everybody else here has had the same time. I am definitely not the first to question that number. And the IPCC made that claim 4+ years ago, all this purported majority of, those 90% even 95% of the ‘scientific community’ who support the general message have known of the claim as long.

    And nobody can produce the support! Nobdody Bernard!

    It’s still very simple:

    Produce the darn referencens, the ones you label the relevant references (and read them before you invent facts again) .. and just show them!

    Until you haven’t done that, you are just, like everybody else, only guessing about their possible existence. And all bellowing won’t conceal it ..

  10. #10 Michael
    September 14, 2011

    BJ @ 103 “These papers are painstakingly found and read, and their contents understood…”

    It’s that last word that trips up the denialists, Jonas just being the lastest in a long line trying to get by with just a facade of understanding.

  11. #11 Andy S
    September 14, 2011
  12. #12 Jonas N
    September 14, 2011

    Andy S – You tried the exact same link already in comment #3, and several times before. And repetition of a claim is somehow (amongst many here) assumed to strengthen that claim.

    Well, in the real world, it’s not ..

  13. #13 Michael
    September 14, 2011

    Huh?

    Where is that? I can’t see it. Someone show me where it is.
    Where’s my arse? Someone get me a flashlight….

  14. #14 Jonas N
    September 14, 2011

    Mikem, I think you are making several mistakes here.

    >Have you not read the rants and raves against Mann on “sceptic” blogs? Have you not read the synthesis of the allegations sent into Penn State in an email bombardment? They mostly involve allegations of systemic fraud and allegations of a criminal nature. Heck, even prominent conservative politicians want him in jail!

    you said!

    1. You cannot take individual anonymous blog comments and make general statements about people not agreeing with a certain position. (Just look at what can be found here, at RC, at Tamino, Rabet, DC etc. The lowest level is low, by definition, regardless of side. Further, if you compare ‘lowest level’ )

    2. When addressing what is being said by named people with official positions, like journalists, politicians, scientists and academics, government and GONGO employees etc, you need to make relevant comparisons. There have been plenty of hard words and threats from official AGW-proponents. Some worse than others, and would very much doubt that the balance is flattering to the AGW-side.

    3. Policy is politics. You cannot propose what you hold to be policy relevant arguments, and claim that no political opposition is allowed. Expecting politics without oppostion, without being questioned, without other conflicting interests and issues would only be naive.

    Some more roundup:

    Signatures: Alan, Scribe, Andrew S, Harald K, itsyourself addressed me about things not realy central to anything here. If there was a serious question, could you please specify.

    Further, signatures Stu and Vince had absolutely nothing to say (and their rambling may well be included among the rest here only venting frustrated wishful beliefs).

  15. #15 chris
    September 14, 2011

    “Either way, you’re full of the brown sticky stuff.”

    Bernard, are you suggesting Jonas is full of sticks?

  16. #16 Jeff Harvey
    September 14, 2011

    Jonas, apparently without a smirk on his face, writes about me, saying, “everybody already knows you’re upset and angry”.

    Sheesh, where did you come up with that little gem? Angry? Certainly not; you don’t have that power over me, pal. Perhaps exasperated is a more appropriate word. Bernard’s excellent post @103 sums it up perfectly. There was once a Star Trek episode, “Spock’s Brain” where Captain Kirk and Mr. Scott questioned a primitive tribesman on a planet dominated by women. The tribesman, not understanding the meaning of the words “women” or “mate” replies to the crewmen: “Your words – say nothing”. That quote perfectly sums up the musings of JonasN.

    I won’t comment at length on Jonas’ ‘humanitly’ point. He has repeated this three times, and I assume he means ‘humanity’, but the point is still lost in translation. His other points are equally badly written but understandable. What I meant is that his first point is silly because of course it is desirable to use less resources (unless of course you are a corporate CEO and your aim is short-term profit maximization – try amking your point to the ACI or API). By soot I presume he means aerosols? But of course there is now evidence that aerosols can mask the effects of greenhouse gases, hence the effects of reducing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols has amplified the warming effects of greenhouse gases. But two wrongs don’t make a right in this instance.

    At the end of the day the costs of burning fossil fuels are externalized in economic price-cost scenarios (as are the costs of a range of anthropogenic processes on natural and managed ecosystems). If they were fully internalized, a point made by a number of economists and ecologists, then we would be paying a lot more for energy and for fuel, driving technological innovation for sustainable and environmentally friendlier and cheaper alternatives. Problem is, we’ve relied on economic models of costs formulated by neoclassical economists (e.g. Nordhaus) that either downplay the negative effects of fossil fuel use and attendant climate changes on ecosystems and their services, or else greatly underestimate the amount of technological innovation and investment were the prices to accurately reflect these externalities.

    I agree that weaning us off of our addiction to fossil fuels in time to make notable impacts on climate is an almost impossible task, given the immense power of the lobbies that are protecting and profiting from them. However, nature is not so easily forgiving. We are pushing natural systems towards a point beyond which they will be unable to sustain themselves (see World Scientist’s Warning to Humanity, 1992, which says that ‘Humans and the Natural World are on a Collision Course’). Like it ot not, humans are conducting a one-off experiment on systems that are truly complex, if all of the biotic and abiotic processes are factored in. You, GSW and others appear to think its just fine to continue along the current trajectory. What else is there to say?

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    September 14, 2011

    >Your post contains so much nonsense and emotional rants, there is no need to bother with any of that. It’s all bunk.

    Fine.

    Then deconstruct it and show everyone just what is “bunk”.

    You know, all scientificational-like. If you can be bothered, that is…

    There’s no point trying to turn your responsibilities on to other people just to avoid the embarrassment of having to face your own ineptitude.

    And my original challenge stands – if you want to claim that there is no process for determining future temperature ranges in the literature, show us your review. If you can’t show any such review, you can’t make your claims.

    At least, you can’t make them in any scientific way. Ideological vested interest as a motivation is a different matter, but if that’s your impetus then you’re in the wrong place… Avez-vous compris?

    Oo, that’s right… that’s why you’ve been put in your own cage – so that we can peer in and watch the troll smear shit all over itself, without having everyone else’s subjects covered in the stuff too…

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    September 14, 2011

    >Bernard, are you suggesting Jonas is full of sticks?

    :-)

  19. #19 GSW
    September 14, 2011

    @Harvey

    Your usual drivel.

    When Jonas says soot he means soot, don’t you read any of the primary literature? One of Hansen’s papers

    “Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos” (2004)

    Hard to read through your tripe, but I’ll point out just one thing;

    LIFE IS A ONE OFF EXPERIMENT

    Presummably, in light of this fact, you will be spending your time hiding under the stairs because of all the big unknowns! Clown.

    ;)

  20. #20 Jonas N
    September 14, 2011

    Jeff H

    You have never seen that particular science purportedly presenting the analysis for tham 90% certainty claim (and if you had seen it, you couldn’t read it, because you don’t master that topic)

    The exact same is true for Bernard J, for Andy S, for Marco, for those few others who actually have a slight grasp of what is required. Nobody else I’ve asked has seen it (but my questioning rendered as much puffing and smoke)

    And Martin Vermeer has not seen it. But he is the only one who actually gave a reference (which addressed something different). Bernard J can start there, although he rather fantasizes about ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ (and calls it ‘summarizing my confessions’).

    Re: That Start Trek quote:

    *”Your words – say nothing”*

    Well, I can say it again:

    *’That science is nowhere to be found, and none of you has seen it’*

    And now, wweks later with three (four) threads of comments thrown at be about almost anything (else), I can honestly say wrt to my original statement:

    *”Your words – say nothing”*

    And the cute thing about it is that many among you know by now. Because you just have not found it, are aware of not haveing seen it, notice that nobody even tries (exept Martin V once), and I reckon that some have been searching quitetly, but in vain. (And yes, you do sound angry and frustrated)

    Further, if you agreed with the general tenor of my suggestion not to misuse resources, your reply was even more strange ..

    Re your final paragraph:

    No, it is not the lobbies, it is the strivings of mankind all over the world that sets the needs for energy and how much is consumed. I already told you what it requires to make a real (measurable) impact on our CO2 emissions.

    (which BTW are not particularly dangerous to neither the climate, nor to ecology or its diversity, but desirable to reduce for many other reasons)

  21. #21 Jonas N
    September 14, 2011

    GSW

    Actually I was not really making the distinction, because the point is valid either way.

    Reducing soot, sulphurs, NOx and other emissions is desirable, as is using less oil, coal, and rainforrest etc.

    But ‘the climate’ is (at best) one of the lesser reasons for that. Pretty far down the line, I’d say ..

  22. #22 Jonas N
    September 14, 2011

    Bernard J #116

    One detail suffices:

    Show me that or those reference(s) you claimed were the relevant ones. You know, where that claim actually is demonstrated to be based on proper science!

    Simple as that

    … or go and play with your sticky-sticks ..

  23. #23 Wow
    September 14, 2011

    > But ‘the climate’ is (at best) one of the lesser reasons for that.

    Why?

  24. #24 GSW
    September 14, 2011

    @Jonas 120,

    Fair enough ;) Every now and then Jeff let’s slip that he doesn’t really read the Journals. He quotes copious references for this that or the other, but if it’s not on the little list he’s made for himself, well, he seems to struggle, curious.

  25. #25 Stu
    September 14, 2011

    Jonas! We get it! You’ve punched a monstrous hole in the armor of those alarmist “scientists” in the IPCC! No need to waste any more time on us knuckleheads, go publish!

    Also, get rich!

  26. #26 John Mashey
    September 14, 2011

    re: #102
    Michael: thanks for the set of examples. I’d quoted:
    “John Mashey is a repugnant individual. He is one of the most repulsive compulsively dishonest people around”

    but had not done a thorough catalog. That’s a fine list.
    Some Bad Lists are good to be on, although that one is rather lower-rated than some others I’m on

  27. #27 Jeff Harvey
    September 14, 2011

    GSW,

    Come on you scientifically illiterate neophyte, you can do better than that. Defending the indefensible I would say. The last part of Jonas’ post I responded to was a load of childish crapola. That you defend it shows that you’d stand behind anyone who spews out trash that gels with your own idealogical stupidity.

    And please perchance tell me what gives you the impression that I have not been reading the scientific literature? I certainly DO read the literature in my own field (which is more than can be said for poor Jonas, who demonstrated that he doesn’t read ANY scientific literature, except ‘what his pro-AGW friends gave him’). And he claims not to remember any of it, the right wing troll (I suppose you are a right wing trolling idiot too, so you are in fine company). But on climate science I defer to the work those who are trained in the field. Unlike dupes like you and Jonas, who apparently don’t read a jot of anything in any scientific fields, I have research to do, so I stick to my area of expertise. Last time I noticed I had 9 articles published this year in the peer-reviewed literature; I am on the editorial boards of two journals; I have three Master’s and two PhD students to supervise and I have a lot of deadlines to meet. In all of those areas my guess is that you and Jonas have nil, nil, nil, nil nil and nil responsibilities. So, unlike you dorks I do not brazenly venture into fields where I have no specialist training and attempt to appear as if this is not a pre-requisite for one to be an expert. Gee, whose views to I trust in deciding if climate change is real and largely mediated by human activities… hundreds of scientists with years of training and thousands of published articles or a couple of numbskull trolls on Deltoid? Gee, that’s a toughie…

    To both you and Jonas: if you Dunning-Kruger acolytes want to debate me on ANYTHING I wrote in my last post, or to deconstruct my arguments, go ahead and try. You never do: just the usual vacuous remarks and quips.

  28. #28 Jeff Harvey
    September 14, 2011

    *But ‘the climate’ is (at best) one of the lesser reasons for that. Pretty far down the line, I’d say ..*

    Which is to say that, since your opinion is worthless, it is to be ignored.

  29. #29 GSW
    September 14, 2011

    @Jeff,

    So you are perfectly open about the fact you don’t read the climate ‘science’ papers?

    Could I just ask, how do you know you are not being had?

    The math is not complicated (though often vaguely described), the claims frequently outrageous based on the results, assumptions and methodology presented.

    Is this why when Jonas asks for the papers you consider relevant you haven’t a clue?

    Guess what Jeff, you been duped.

  30. #30 chris
    September 14, 2011

    GSW @ 128, I suspect Jeff Harvey knows that the vast majority of scientists are honest and forthcoming about the research in their fields and are generally excellent sources of expert knowledge.

    GSW, pukka scientists don’t “operate on prejudice” to the extent of fabricating lies in order to pursue their prejudices, in the manner that you seem quite comfortable doing. I suspect that’s sadly something you simply don’t get…

    As for this waffle:

    “The math is not complicated (though often vaguely described), the claims frequently outrageous based on the results, assumptions and methodology presented.”

    I’m afraid that’s just noise. You make up “outrageous” lies, but it’s a sad hypocrisy to think that because you lack scientific integrity, others do too. We had the discussion on the other thread about “good faith” and “bad faith” in science. Don’t project your “bad faith” onto your betters GSW ;-)

  31. #31 chek
    September 14, 2011

    Perhaps GSW can show Jonas and the rest of us the “math” he finds “uncomplicated” and specify the “outrageous claims” made upon the “results”. I’m sure we’d all like to see something of substance from him for once.

    But alas I strongly suspect that’s nothing but more shubby-style puffery from someone whose every statement so far has been at marked variance with reality.

  32. #32 chris
    September 14, 2011

    “Fair enough ;) Every now and then Jeff let’s slip that he doesn’t really read the Journals. He quotes copious references for this that or the other, but if it’s not on the little list he’s made for himself, well, he seems to struggle, curious.

    Wow, now that is hypocrisy GSW – industrial scale I would say :-). Judging from Jeff’s posts he is not-surprisingly well informed about his own particular aspects of climate-related research. As he attends climate conferences, and (you may not understand this too well) like all scientists generally works within a broad community that informs about the wider aspects of science, I expect he’s far better informed about the science than you.

    In fact I have seen zero evidence of any knowledge of climate science from you whatsoever [perhaps you consider your role here solely as a cheerleader for the Jonas? have to say it is curious! ;-) ]. But since your single attempt at referral to the scientific literature turns out to be a boring fabrication, it does rather highlight a rather shameless hypocrisy.

  33. #33 Jonas N
    September 14, 2011

    Jeff – You are the one being childish, pouting, emotional, angry, upset, illogical, making up ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ as you go along.

    GSW is perfectly right questioning if you at all read what is written.

    I think you tried three times with “your singular obsession with MBH98″ before it finally sunk in that that not at all was what was being discussed. And many of your posts have the appearance that they more are premeditated harangues loaded with your prejudices. Because most often they not even relate to the topic, and they are usually riddled with sheer nonsense you need to make up about those you cannot have a civil measured debate with.

    You may get some comfort from not being alone in that respect, and you have several times expressed appreciation for ‘support’ from the absolute bottom scapings available here. And on quite a few pro AGW-sites it looks very similar. I am fully aware of that the hang arounds at places like this aren’t exactly the brightest minds ..

    But you have been boasting about your little CV, about how many times you’ve been referenced, that you meet ‘the big guys’, even talk to them, and that some even listen to you giving keynote speeches. You yourself, described it as a pissing contest …

    Generally, you should be proud of being an accomplished academic. But what you deliver here is absolutely ridiculous and pathetic.

    The main issue is still the centerpiece claim of the IPCC AR4, and the fact that still, more than four years later, when asked where that actually came from, people like you (and you say other scientists too) start cringing, and demand that I procide the reference that there is none!?

    Amazing in its desperate and empty logic. The largest and ‘fines’t assembly of the worlds ‘finest scientists’ in the field, bring together the ‘best’ knowledge about the climate, and publish it in their reports, undergoing the most meticulous extensive ‘review’ process for any comparable review the world has ever seen ..

    And none of you guys can find the refererence for the most bolstered claim!

    That’s where you are! Still. After several weeks. And four + years after it was presented.

    Yes, it ereally sucks to have been the sucker ..

    ;-)

  34. #34 Jonas N
    September 14, 2011

    chris

    To start with, you had some measured comments about what was being debated. But when you started to pretend to know whom of Dessler and Spencer was not only right about the what they are proposing, about how the clouds and the LWR varies after warming events ..

    .. but also who of them was honest, and who knowlingly suppmitted untruths to make a case for underminig the science, you lost me.

    Not for one second do I believe that you are capable of judging the first. And your second claim is just outrageous. I strongly suggest you take that accusation back (actually, I already did, but that comment got ‘moderated’)

    But, that aside, if you think ther is any “evidence of any knowledge of climate science from you whatsoever”, you are of course free to contribute to what all others have been fussing about but desperatly trying to avoid ..

  35. #35 chek
    September 14, 2011

    Jonas, perhaps you should explain, in detail, what your obviosly unique brain is telling you is “the centrepiece claim” of AR4. You should appreciate that mere human beings may not perceive the world (or reports) in the same special way you apparently do.

    Of course I believe you’re just an empty-headed troll with a half-wit support act and mates in tow, but others may (perhaps) be interested still in your great revelation.

  36. #36 Stu
    September 14, 2011

    Chek, apparently it is the term “very likely” in the AR4 that has Jonas so hot and bothered. He cannot find it in the references (that he has never read) and demands someone show him a literal quote.

    Or something like that. Either that, or he’s just a sad little whiner too incompentent for even Exxon to sponsor.

  37. #37 chris
    September 14, 2011

    Not really Jonas (@ 133). As someone who deals quite a bit with scientific publishing and reviewing, I can assure you that reviewers and editors of papers assume “good faith” on the part of authors that submit papers. It would be impossible to do otherwise and in the vast majority of cases this attitude is merited. The vast majority of scientists do their damnest to get the stuff they submit right.

    Unfortunately a tiny, tiny set of individuals that wish to misrepresent the science attempt to sneak papers into the scientific literature that contrive to support some dreary agend. This can occasionally succeed by taking advantage of the “good faith” of editors and reviewers, and in Spencer’s recent case (other recent thread) by sending the paper to a new and rather inappropriate journal where the peer-review system was “duped”. Dr. Wagner, the editor, became aware of this and he resigned. Not really a big deal, but that’s undeniably what happened.

    Now how do we know science-wise that Spencer is broadly wrong (again) and Dessler is broadly correct?

    ONE: We can make an objective assessment of the paper and identify non-subjective logical errors in Spencer’s methodology that render the interpretations objectively false. Remember that Spencer was (amongst other things) (i) attempting to assert that empirical data was inherently incompatible with models, and (ii) that this apparent discrepency meant that the models over-estimated climate sensitivity and (iii) that relationship between cloud time series and surface temperature meant that clouds initiate the surface temperature response.

    Dessler simply pointed out that (i) Spencer’s apparent discrepency between models and observations was only significant when Spencer omitted those models that in fact do rather a good job of reproducing (“ENSO”-related) temperature-cloud relationships over very short times and (ii) so that Spencer’s presentation has nothing to say about the accuracy or not of models with respect to climate sensitivity (which in any case can only be assessed on relevant timescales by considering slow feedbacks that aren’t captured in Spencer’s analysis), and (iii) that models where the cloud response is absolutely known to follow surface temperature produced the same relationship as those that Spencer supposed (without any theoretical justification) specified that clouds lead the surface temperature response.

    So Spencer is absolutely wrong and Dessler is absolutely right on these points of methodology, interpretation and logic. At some point we have to be willing to recognise the obvious.

    TWO: We can look at the science record of Spencer and Dessler. Dessler has a 20-odd year history of outstanding, highly-cited research on the atmosphere, especially involving water vapour detection and analysis, and his work has stood the test of time. He get’s it right by and large. Spencer has a 15 or more year record of getting satellite MSU tropospheric temperature measures hopelessly wrong [references available on request], while at the same time insisting that he was right and everyone else is wrong.

    At some point we do have to accept what we see in front of us Jonas and recognise that there a few individuals that choose not to conform to the rules of scientific good faith. It’s not a big deal. Spencer’s flawed work has little effect on the progress of science but it is helpful to highlight straightforwardly bad work (specially when there are apparently like minded individuals like GSW around who choose to fabricate rubbish to suit their particular agendas).

  38. #38 Jonas N
    September 14, 2011

    chris ..

    You repeat your accusation, and still the only ‘argument’ you offer is your hunch. You say that the journal was ‘inappropriate’.

    Now you claim that Wolfgang Wegner (editor of that ‘inappropriate journal’) had more understanding of the topic discussed!? That sounds like a contradiction, or a stretch at least.

    And you repeat your claim that you are capable acting as an arbitrator between Dessler and Spencer. (I make no such claim, but find yours quite bold)

    You say that there are logical faults to Spencer. But what I can see Dessler confirms his main findings, just wants to downplay them. That the difference was less significant. Dessler did not manage to show, nor claim, that there was no difference.

    And examining claims, and showing when observations don’t match them is a central part of science. Even when people don’t agree on every detail. On the contrary, that’s part of the process.

    And Spencer does not claim to make statements about ‘slow feedbacks’ which nowhere are the topic or included in what generally is called the climate sensitivity.

    I would rather say that you misrepresent his work in every instance (maybe because you haven’t read it, and picked up your opinions from sites like this one, I don’t know)

    So still, you haven’t made the case that you can be the arbitrer, or that you can determine that Spencer must have been dishonest. I cannot even see that you’ve made the case that he is wrong. Only that Dessler wants to view it differently.

    Regarding who of them is more accomplished, I’d say that you you are way out here. What you say about “has a 15 or more year record of getting satellite MSU tropospheric temperature measures hopelessly wrong” is pure BS. The kind you can read at activist sites. And even there is so badly argued that it is immedeately seen as only ridicululous.

    So:
    You argument about publishing it in ‘the right journals’ is backwards and irrelevant and really bad (given what we know about the practices), as is the one of ‘accomplished’ and citeted scientist. You had absolutely no support for your accusation of dishonesty. And wrt to the actual science, I don’t think you have the insight or knowledge to be the judge. Your arguments certanly didn’t sound like you possessed the knowledge.

    So again, I would urge you to take that accusation back, and accept that this particular questions is not resolved. (Particularly since Dessler’s GRL publication nowhere even gets close to such a claim)

    One more thing: What I or GSW write in the matter, here or elsewhere, has absolutely no bearing on your ‘dishonesty’ claim. I am surpised you tried to bolster that with comments from him/us.

    Really poor logic ..

  39. #39 Vince Whirlwind
    September 14, 2011

    Dessler didn’t “confirm” Spencer’s findings at all – what Dessler did was expose Spencer’s inaccurate comparison between models and observations.

    Spencer was caught out in a very straightforward cherry-pick: he picked one observational data set that diverged the most from the models, and he picked the 6 models that diverged the most from the observational data set.

    Spencer’s work was thus shown to have been at best worthless.

    Interesting to see Jonas supporting a Creationist, though. So much for respect for rational analysis.

  40. #40 chek
    September 14, 2011

    Jonas said: “What I or GSW write in the matter, here or elsewhere, has absolutely no bearing on your ‘dishonesty’ claim”.

    So you say, but as anyone can attest, you and GSW are two of the most fundamentally dishonest trolls to grace this blog since Tim Curtin’s epic dollop of stupid. Your tedious, serial, evidence-free declarations don’t even make the grade of being half-baked, and your sly avoidance of questions is comical.

    Time to return to the shelter of Montford’s seedy enclave where some morons acclaim you as a “philosopher”. Of the Jay Cadbury flavour, no doubt.

  41. #41 Shub
    September 14, 2011

    Jeff H

    Your generalized hypothesis-stringing is perhaps soothing to you. But it did not answer my question. Which paper of Nepstad shows the change of ‘evapotranspiration regimes in heavily deforested tropical biomes’?

    Thanks.

  42. #42 chek
    September 14, 2011

    You seem to conveniently forget that you have outstanding questions that require answering at comments #81 and #89, shubby.

    It would only be good manners to answer them in good faith before demanding the same of others.

  43. #43 chris
    September 14, 2011

    wow Jonas, you really are unable to comprehend simple logic. Not sure there’s much point in re-addressing this.

    As for Spencer (and Christy) getting MSU satellite temperatures hopelessly wrong, again that’s simply apparent from inspection of the scientific literature. If they asserted for 15 years that their analysis indicated that the tropospheric temperature was cooling or hardly changing in response to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, and other scientists identified methodological flaws in their analyses that gave rise to a series of cooling biases, which Spencer and Christy were finally forced to admit to, I don’t see how you can deny this – it’s all there in the scientific literature (see below). You’ve indicated here that you choose not to look at scientific papers, but I don’t really see how you can address this otherwise! Spencer and Christy were objectively incorrect and the scientists that addressed these analyses correctly were objectively correct.

    In fact S & C spent the better part of half a career getting this stuff wrong. Already in 1991 it was pointed out [1] that their analyses were inadequate to distinguish the cooling they would soon try to sell from warming that would be consistent with surface measurements and models. And it was repeatedly left to others to sort out the various messes in the analysis of MSU data: that the method of averaging different satellite records introduces a spurious cooling trend [2], that disregard of orbital decay introduced another spurious cooling trend [3]; that MSU-2 showed a spurious cooling trend due to spillover of stratospheric cooling into the tropospheric temperature signal [4], and later still that the diurnal correction applied by Christy and Spencer was of the wrong sign and gave yet another spurious cooling trend [5].

    [1] B.L. Gary and S. J. Keihm (1991) Microwave Sounding Units and Global Warming Science 251, 316 (1991)

    [2] J. W. Hurrell & .K E. Trenberth (1997) Spurious trends in satellite MSU temperatures from merging different satellite record. Nature 386, 164 – 167.

    [3] F. J. Wentz and M. Schabel (1998) Effects of orbital decay on satellite-derived lower-tropospheric temperature trends. Nature 394, 661-664

    [4] Q. Fu et al. (2004) Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends Nature 429, 55-58.

    [5] C. A. Mears and F. J. Wentz (2005) The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature, Science 1548-1551.

    Jonas, if Spencer and Christy make the fundamental error of applying the wrong sign to the diurnal correction and thus grossly misrepresent the true tropospheric temperature, and at the same time insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong, then that’s simply a fact. It’s not being mean to Spencer; but this long history of rather astonishing error does lend us to question why Spencer and Christy make such an effort to cast doubt on other scientisits work. It’s worth highlighting these misrepresentations, especially as they are broadcast all over the blogosphere and some of the less reputable parts of the media as insinuating flaws in the pukka science. Likewise it is worth highlighting GSW’s dismal falsehood re Briffa and Osborn’s assessment of the early paleoreconstructions. It’s a sad fact that there are some individuals that consider their particular agendas justify science misrepresentation, and there isn’t any reason we should give this nonsense a free pass! It would be remiss of those that are knowledgeable of the science (i.e. willing to address it honestly and maturely) not to highlight misrepresentations – that’s surely obvious, yes?

  44. #44 Shub
    September 14, 2011

    check

    Wait your turn. I asked a question of Jeff Harvey first. Let him show to me, what you are asking of me, first. Then I’ll answer your question.

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    September 15, 2011

    Shub,

    I am referring to a large body of work explicitly *linking* different types of research in tropical biomes. Shukla’s work projected effects of deforestation on precipitation regimes in the Amazon on the basis that trees there release huge amounts of water through their foliage to the atmosphere. The effect of widespread deforestation should be obvious, given the link between forest cover and regional climate. Nepstad’s work is important because it reports the effects of changes in climate on forest extent, health and vitality. The two are inexorably linked. Its been known for a long time that their are profoundly strong feedbacks between vegetation and regional climate patterns that are particularly strong in the tropics. Or for some inexplicable reason, Shubbie, do you deny this? On what basis?

  46. #46 GSW
    September 15, 2011

    @chris

    “(specially when there are apparently like minded individuals like GSW around who choose to fabricate rubbish to suit their particular agendas)”

    I think you’ve got your wires crossed here. I was not referring to the Briffa and Osborn paper as you suggest.

    My statement:

    “Even non sceptics have expressed concern over his work. The CRU guys, Briffa + Osborne was it? (from memory as I don’t have the reference to hand) thought his conclusions could not be supported and it is likely that it was as warm 1000yrs ago as it is today.”

    This was based on the private emails disclosed from the UEA. In one email Briffa stated (this is a direct quote):

    “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate.”

    So please don’t go around accusing people of “fabricating rubbish to suit their particular agendas”.

    This touches on another point mentioned here Bad and Good faith.

    If an individual (Briffa) holds views privately, but participates publicly in the publishing of papers against those views, can they be said to be working in “Good Faith”?

  47. #47 GSW
    September 15, 2011

    @chris 142

    “Likewise it is worth highlighting GSW’s dismal falsehood re Briffa and Osborn’s assessment of the early paleoreconstructions”

    There you go again.

    ;)

  48. #48 Jonas N
    September 15, 2011

    cris #142

    >Spencer (and Christy) getting MSU satellite temperatures hopelessly wrong ..

    and

    >some individuals that consider their particular agendas justify science misrepresentation, and there isn’t any reason we should give this nonsense a free pass

    That sounds more like activist rehash found on climate scare blogs. And is completely wrong. They have improved their methodology continuously for over 20 years. What you are referring to is the ordinary process of science in a new field.

    The idea that somebody whose work can (and will) be imroved further, where there exist different views about how to go about that, or who has made mistakes (and corrected them)..

    .. that therefor all that work should be not only labelled as nonsense, but purposeful and dishonest misrepresentation ..

    .. that idea is laughable (to put it **very** mildly)

    You seem to forget that this is ‘climate science’, and with your ‘logic’ exactly everybody must be dismissed on 1) (not giving a free pass to) nonsense, and 2) dishonesty.

    And chris, you are **not** in a position to make those calls. Not wrt to the science, and not wrt their motives. (I’d be more interested in the motives of those who so repeatedly and badly need to misrepresent others, fully aware that they’d never reveal them)

    And speaking of good faith, chris, you have here repeatedly displayed that your own faith isn’t all that good. That you rather smear individuals badly, whose opinions you don’t share (or which contradict your beliefs) than fairly representing a professional disagreement. And that you do so without basis.

    I certainly hope that this (now serial) behavior is an ‘accident’ and not part of your professional conduct. (And no, I have nowhere ‘indicated that I don’t read papers’. I pretty much said the exact opposite)

  49. #49 chek
    September 15, 2011

    GSW perfectly illustrates the pitfalls of inferring from stolen emails. The carefully selected quotes being mined also serve the agenda he denies having. If you go foraging around in dustbins, you’ll invariably end up covered in rubbish. But then AJ Weberman and Montford have made ephemeral careers out of that pursuit.

    What immediately precedes your mined quote is: “For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades”. And what immediately follows it is: “I think the Venice meeting will be a good place to air these issues”. GSW and M

    Bear in mind that the private email this ‘revelation’ has been extracted from dates back to Sept. 1999, which is also several years of research and discussion prior to the 2007 paper.

    It seems to me again a perfect illustration that dyed-in-the-wool ideologues cannot comprehend that science is advanced by discussion and not by rigid, unbending adherence to an agenda.

  50. #50 chris
    September 15, 2011

    oh dear GSW. In an attempt to smear Dr Mann and his science you insinuate that there’s some published research from Briffa and Osborn that casts doubt on the validity and interpretations of Manns early paleoproxy reconstructions.

    Turns out you referring to something Dr. Briffa wrote in an email in 1999 (it wasn’t a “reference” after all).

    I suspect you simply don’t get it GSW but I have pointed out several times now that scientists do their damnest to ensure the stuff they publish is right (not Spencer sadly, but he’s in a tiny minority). What one says as part of discussions in emails or over lunch or at meetings is part of the “self peer review” process that undepins all good faith scientific research. It’s not surprising that what Dr. Briffa ponders in an email in 1999 may not be what he subsequently considers the evidence directs us to in 2007.

    Bottom line GSW. Let’s say an individual that wishes in good faith to know about what subsequent research has to say about the early Mann et al research, and (more specifically) what Osborn and Briffa’s published work concludes. The good faith individual (we’ll call him “chris”), does an appropriate literature search, reads a few papers and comes to the straightforward conclusion that Osborn and Briffa’s research broadly validates the early work of Mann et al and the IPCC intepretations. We know this objectively since Osborn and Briffa state it explicitly in their paper.

    Sadly the bad faith individual who “operates solely on prejudice” (we’ll call him GSW), isn’t interested in what the evidence say’s either generally or specifically with respect to Briffa and Osborn. He wants to smear Mann by insinuation and hunts around for what he considers might be a kind of “gotcha” (except it isn’t really is it) in the form of what someone wrote in an email 12 years ago… pretty creepy, ‘though interesting nevertheless!

    Anyway, I understand where you’re coming from … and you’ve learned some straightforward facts
    about Osborn and Briffa’s science and how this bears on very early paleoreconstructions. which no doubt you’ll use to bring your prejudices more in line with scientific reality. Like the vast majority of scientists (and me!) it’s important to try your hardest to ensure that what you publish is properly done and consistent with the evidence.

  51. #51 chris
    September 15, 2011

    jeesh Jonas, if Spencer (and Christy) got MSU satellite temperatures hopelessly wrong as is simply obvious by inspection of the large body of research that corrected their mistakes, why do you have such a problem accepting this objective fact? Spncer and Christy did get their analyses of MSU data hopelessly wrong. That’s not a statement informed by “activist blogs” but by the peer reviewed scientific literature. If you have to make such an effort to avert your eyes from scientific publications because these don’t suit your particular prejudices, perhaps it’s time for you to examine those prejudices!

    Incidentally you’ve juxtaposed two incompatible statements from my post in yours. As I said on the other thread (my post @78 on the “Dessler shows thread”), “we can give Spencer and Christy’s long history of incompetence in analyzing MSU temperature data the benefit of the doubt with respect to “good faith…”. So I’m not not insinuating bad faith in that particular series of badly flawed analyses…we don’t know why Spencer and Christy chose not to address the serious discrepencies between their analyses and the broader evidence base – if they’d done so they’d most likely have uncovered the errors in their work. They chose not to and it was left to others to get this right. too bad…

  52. #52 Jonas N
    September 15, 2011

    chris

    The only error by C&S was a sign in one term, in the biurnal correction, pointed out by Wentz, and promptly corrected and acknowledged.

    All the other improvments where various effects and sources of errors, discovered and adressed as the technology and methodology progressed. Due their efforts, and those of others. Exactly as it should be. If you think differently, you have absolutely no clue of engineering sciences.

    Your terms ‘nonsense’ ‘incompetent’ ‘hopelessly wrong’ ‘objective fact’ ‘series of badly flawed analyses’ etc are all wrong and inappropriate.

    The satellite datasets are today used and preferred to the ground station based versions (and I don’t even need to go there, and all the problems which by choice **not** were adressed by the people there, to show how ridiculous your ‘logic’ is)

    I repeat: You are in no position to judge the scientific issue of Dessler vs Spencer, and even worse when it comes to Spencers (dis)honesty.

    I still (and strongly) suggest you’d take that back, and without any reservations.

    And if you say, that you’d give Spencer and Christy (what you call) ‘the benifit of the doubt’ wrt their satellite temperatures, your argument that their ‘hopelessly wrong analyses’ support your present claim of Spencers dishonesty, becomes even more illogical. Because that is what you brought up when I pointed out your moral high ground posturing …

    As I said, I hope you do far far better when you engage professionally.

  53. #53 Mack
    September 15, 2011

    Burnard J, Comment 103,
    Pity, I think Nasif Nahle over on Jennifer Marohasy’s site has flushed your whole lifes work down the toilet.

  54. #54 Jeff Harvey
    September 15, 2011

    Jonas writes, *And chris, you are not in a position to make those calls. Not wrt to the science, and not wrt their motives*

    …and you are?

  55. #55 chris
    September 15, 2011

    Jeesh Jonas, you have a gift for false precis! If you read my post @136 rather more carefully (avoiding jumping to false conclusions based on prejudice) you’ll see that my description of Spencer and Christy’s astonishing misanalysis of the MSU data was not to support some claim of dishonesty in Spencer, but to illustrate some of the evidence base that might lend us to consider that Dessler’s work is likely to be more reliable than Spencer’s.

    Of course one has to be careful to address scientific arguments on their merits and a long history of getting stuff wrong is no necessary indication that a particular analyses may be flawed. However inspection of Spencer’s (and let’s not forget poor old Braswell!) paper does highlight fatal flaws in the relationship between data presented and interpretations (and especially the awesomely overblown interpretations he’s promoted outside of the scientific sphere), so perhaps we’re not too surprised (given the MSU analysis debacle), that he’s got stuff quite seriously wrong again. Not a big deal, but if we wish to understand the science (and the politics of course!) we’d be foolish not to recognise this…

  56. #56 Jonas N
    September 15, 2011

    Jeff H

    Sorry, maybe you didn’t notice the difference here: I am **not** claiming that one side (of Dessler vs Spencer) must be right and the other wrong (and dishonest too).

    I am open for the possibility that both have valid points, and that the last thing isn’t said yet.

    If you can appreciate the difference …

  57. #57 John
    September 15, 2011

    >I am open for the possibility that both have valid points, and that the last thing isn’t said yet.

    i.e. backing down

  58. #58 Wow
    September 15, 2011

    > If you read my post @136 rather more carefully (avoiding jumping to false conclusions based on prejudice)

    He can’t do that! It would ruin his case!

  59. #59 Rick Bradford
    September 15, 2011

    @100 Mike,

    _Of course_ the campaign against Mann is ideologically and politically driven. So is Mann’s own hockey stick, Plimer’s volcanoes and Guldberg’s Barrier Reef.

    So is virtually _everything_ in the climate debate — why, today is the Gore-a-thon, and you can’t get much more ideologically and politically driven than Gore, with a bad case of rampant greed thrown in.

    People just need to admit it, rather than strutting around and pretending they are trying to save the planet.

    Comrade Gillard, for example, might not be so finished if she had the guts to stand up and say straight out that she hates big business and wants to tax it until it squeaks, in the name of equality and fairness.

    But no, she has to come out with the grandiose rhetoric of planetary emergency, which the Australian people are far too level-headed to fall for.

  60. #60 chris
    September 15, 2011

    Jonas @ 154

    It’s helpful to address this: “Sorry, maybe you didn’t notice the difference here: I am not claiming that one side (of Dessler vs Spencer) must be right and the other wrong (and dishonest too).”

    I think you’ll find that I haven’t claimed that any scientist is “dishonest” but that a very tiny number of scientists act in “bad faith” (perhaps you or GSW might want to hunt through my posts and see if I’ve used the “d” word!). It’s an interesting question whether one considers there is a fundamental difference between acting in “bad faith” and acting “dishonestly”, but I prefer the first term since in my opinion “good faith” is a better description of the general philosophy in which science is done and the results disseminated.

    The vast majority of scientists act in good faith and endeavour to ensure the work they submit is correct. If discrepancies between their interpretations and the broader science are observed they take particular care to ensure that their interpretations are justified before asserting that they’ve uncovered fundamental flaws in others work. Spencer and Christy unfortunately have chosen not to follow the essential elements of scientific good faith. We know this is true since their work wouldn’t be repeatedly objectively flawed while they simultaneously attempt to misrepresent the work of other scientists.

    That’s not to say that a tiny number of scientists aren’t genuinely dishonest. A dribble of papers are retracted as a result of rare instances of downright fraud. In the climate research field one might characterize the efforts of Wegman to trash Dr Mann that involved a couple of dubious (!) analyses some of which lead to a retraction of a paper due to plagiarism (which as you know is an act of fraud, especially if perpetrated by a senior scientist).

  61. #61 Wow
    September 15, 2011

    > Of course the campaign against Mann is ideologically and politically driven.

    Well done for realising.

    > So is Mann’s own hockey stick

    Nope. I knew it was too good to last.

    > So is virtually everything in the climate debate

    Nope. You don’t vote on whether CO2 absorbs 15um wavelength light.

    > People just need to admit it

    Why should they admit a falsity? To make you feel better?

    > But no, she has to come out with the grandiose rhetoric of planetary emergency

    So, just for purposes of referencing: what would the rhetoric be if there IS a planetary emergency?

  62. #62 Jonas N
    September 15, 2011

    chris ..

    Even worse. Now you hope to elevate Dessler’s ‘likely credibility’ by pointing to how the methodology of satellite temperature sets has evovled. Puh ..

    And add your phrases:

    *’astonishing misanalysis’ ‘long history’ ‘getting stuff wrong’ ‘fatal flaws’ and ‘awesomely overblown’ ‘analysis debacle’ ‘he’s got stuff quite seriously wrong again’*

    to the empty rhetoric bin, please. You still are in no position to make any of those calls. And your attempt to argue the ‘credibility’ and ‘motive’ instead of the facts underpins that impression.

    Further:
    I just read one of the articles your mentioned in #142. Have you read them yourself? Because, none of your statements about ‘objective facts how hopelessly wrong they are’ are supported by that one.

    Instead, it was a quite normal paper arguing a different interpretation of MSU data, and an ad hoc method to estimate the coefficients necessary for that.

    And still, the most amazing thing is that you seem completely unaware of how devastating your ‘logic’ (or attribution of ‘likely credibility’) would be if taken seriously and applied to various fields of ‘climate science’

    I still, and strongly, suggest that you tak back the accusation of dishonesty, chris.

  63. #63 Jeff Harvey
    September 15, 2011

    *Of course the campaign against Mann is ideologically and politically driven. So is Mann’s own hockey stick, Plimer’s volcanoes and Guldberg’s Barrier Reef*

    What utter nonsense. This is the kind of argument that the do-nothing denial lobby would want the public and policymakers to believe, because if climate science is seen to be deadlocked in a gargantuan scientific or idealogical battle, then nothing at all will be done about it. This has been the strategy of the business-as-usual lobby for the past two decades. They know they’ll never win with respect to the science, which very few of them do anyway (and those that do spend most of their time trying to debunk the work of bonafide climate scientists rather than coming up with anything new themselves. They share this dubious distinction with creationists).

    The bottom line is that the huge bulk of climate science in terms of publications, professional academic affiliations, and number are those who agree with the view that humans are the primary culprit behind the recent warming. The so-called sceptics are generally much fewer in number, publish little in the relevant journals and are commonly retired Professors, often in completely unrelated fields. They get a disproportionate amount of attention because various corporate lobbies invest huge amounts of money ensuring that they are heard, and because the corporate MSM courts controversy. At the same time, the MSM is often owned by the same corporations or else receives large amounts of advertising revenue from polluting industries with an axe to grind. Why else would some of the sceptics become household names when their scientific qualifications are mediocre or even worse? Some of these people – I won’t mention names but its easy to find them – have < 20 papers and < 500 academic citations over more than 30 years of research. In other words, a pittance. Yet they become veritable celebrities on the basis of their contrarian views on climate change.

  64. #64 chek
    September 15, 2011

    The continually amazing thing about your comments Rick Bradford is your seemingly complete faith that everybody else must be as close-minded and short sighted as you yourself are.

    Now that really is arrogance.

  65. #65 Bernard J.
    September 15, 2011

    >I still, and strongly, suggest that you tak back the accusation of dishonesty, chris.

    Why stop at Chris?

    I too think that you are dishonest. Or stupid.

    Or both.

    Now, when are you going to stump up with some actual substance to back up your anti-scientific claims?

  66. #66 Jonas N
    September 15, 2011

    Bernard J .. if you hurry, you might still be able to see a comment directed at you in the Climate Reality thread

    And you still haven’t found what you claimed only and idiot couldn’t .. and thereby making a quite sweeping statement about quite many here …

    ;-)

  67. #67 GSW
    September 15, 2011

    @Tim

    Has Jonas served his time on the naughty step (#30) yet? is it ok for him to rejoin the rest of the community?

    ;)

  68. #68 Shub
    September 15, 2011

    Jeff,
    I am not denying or accepting anything. I just asked for a specific citation.

    Right up there in post #14, you said that Shukla and Nepstad have shown that human-caused deforestation has changed evapotranspiration regimes. Now, you say that Shukla’s work has projected such changes to occur.

    These are two different things.

    Why do you ecologists keep doing these types of things? You first project something, then you turn around and claim that it has already been shown to occur.

    In this case, I am on your side. It is pretty obvious that if you chop off all the trees in large contigious swathes of the Amazon, there is a good possibility that you will see effects on precipitation at some point. But I cannot understand the need to make the kind of claims that you do.

  69. #69 Tim Lambert
    September 15, 2011

    Dear Jonas, if you ever post to any thread other than this one, you will be banned.

  70. #70 Jonas N
    September 15, 2011

    Dear Tim, just ban me. I don’t mind. It is obvious that people here have a really hard time arguing their facts or only their positions in a civil manner.

    Many have asked you to ban me before, and vented their frustrations in the most ‘charming’ ways imaginable while you didn’t …

    :-)

    I am certain their ‘arguments’ will improve immedeately after I disappear … or at least their self confidence.

  71. #71 GSW
    September 15, 2011

    @Jonas 168,

    “I am certain their ‘arguments’ will improve immedeately after I disappear … or at least their self confidence.”

    ;)

  72. #72 Michael
    September 15, 2011

    Still nothing but waffle from Jonas?

  73. #73 elspi
    September 15, 2011

    Tim@167

    I believe in repentance. I think if Jonas can post 10 honest posts, he should be released from this purgatory. By this I mean no Gish, on topic, addressing criticism honestly, etc.

    Basically something that Feynman could approve of. http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

  74. #74 Wow
    September 15, 2011

    There you go, Jonas doesn’t mind being stopped from shitting in the public baths, since he can then go around going how he was “done for” by those horrible climate scientists.

    Nothing pleases the religious like being persecuted.

    Ban him.

    He doesn’t mind, and we don’t care to listen to his pathetic whining.

  75. #75 Clippo UK
    September 15, 2011

    Are Jonas N, (& maybe GSW), schoolboys? – certainly their logic about Statistics & Statistical analysis is puerile to say the least.

    Jonas @93 wrote:-

    The data is one thing,
    Fitting a line (or a curve, an equation) to it is another
    A model, a guiding theory, an attempt at an explanation is yet another,
    Such a proposed model, may be fitted to observational or experimental data, especially when some factor/parameter of the hypothesis needs to be be determined (estimated, fitted) through that procedure
    Predictions (projections) from that model into new (uncharted) territory is yet anotherthing.
    The fitting, and the (explanatory) model are two seperate things. Fitting a straight line to dataset doesn’t make that line a predictor. I have already mentioned the stockmarket as an example. The same is true for a data series you get when rolling a dice or the roulette wheel a number of times .. You may fit a nice line to it, and not much more.
    For predictions you need an attempt at an explanation, a model.

    What the hell sort of rambling drivel is this? It seems you have a ‘thing’ about things. It also shows you are unlikely to have ever done a Statistical operation beyond the most very basic level – lots of theoretical, but incorrect, Statistical ‘philosophy’.

    And what practical use is generation of data from a roulette wheel or dice ? This should be random data – with NO scientific need to analyse. Indeed, unless there is bias in either of these systems, it is pretty easy to calculate the ‘probability’ of a future result , – i.e predict future data.

    …………..

    Of course, the fundamental problem AGW deniers have is they don’t like Statistics in Climate Science do you because it always shows up their fraudulent ‘doubt’.

    As others here have said, NO science produced by well-known sceptics, allied to US right-wing/Libertarian Institutes, has ever stood the test of peer-review validation – (by that I mean when it has been studied openly in the scientific literature).

    Data is as data is – a collection of measurements, usually numerical. It means NOTHING until it is analysed for explanatory features. Even ‘descriptive’ statistics is ‘analysed’ for factors to explain the data and/or data differences. But science is a long, long way past descriptive statistics.

    In my original version of this post, which I prepared on MS word, I was going to do an introduction to practical statistical investigations in the real scientific world but I’ve now decided against because your denial just won’t allow you to accept it – and I realise I’m pandering to your trollish egos.

    I could go on but I do realise now your problems. Somebody said (apologies to whom – can’t find it now), that Jonas has Libertarian tendencies, so obviously he is allowing his worldly unreal political ideas to override scientific commonsense. In a nutshell, he can’t accept the high probability of Statisitical Climate Science analyses, which, to the vast majority of even slightly rational people, convinces them that a serious problem for mankind is rapidly emerging.

    If a Statistical analysis says, for example, an equation describing a data set has >95% fit, then you can be pretty sure it will predict future results pretty reasonably.

    Furthermore, as Jeff Harvey has said I think, if the IPCC says they are > 95% certain, (very likely), that GW is AGW, that’s as good as certain for most people.

    If, for example, your local crime statistics suggest that walking alone down a certain street in your nearest big town/ city after dark will mean that you are 95% likely to get mugged, or raped or worse, would you doubt that?

  76. #76 Jonas N
    September 15, 2011

    Clippo, once mor you are wrong in your guesses. And I already told you that I know what I’m talking about.

    It seems that you now understand that data and fitting a curve to it (if it is rolling of a dice, or a roulette wheel) won’t provide you with any predictive powers.

    And that’s what I told you in the first place. You also write the ‘explanatory features’ are needed. Which is exactly what I told you from the start.

    But then you give it all away, when you say that a 95% statistical fit has predicitive powers for the future (because of the 95%). Because then every stock analyst would only grow richer. He only had to wait for that fit, and then bet on it.

    And clippo, nothing I said to you has anything to do with politics. People who cannot keep science and politics apart cannot be scientists.

    And you are wron about one more thing: I was the one questioning that that 90% certainty claimed by the IPCC SR4 (it wasn’t 95%) was based on science.

    It caused quite a stirr here, but nobody offered any argument to the contrary (only their beliefs)

    You are (proably) correct in that an IPCC claim is good enough for a majority of the people. But again, taking polls is irrelevant when it comes to science. And that is why the whole ‘consensus chatter’ is irrelevant too!

    In your crime riddled neighborhood, you are implicitly making the assumption that the same (criminal) individuals lurk around at night time also the next night, and base your estimate on that ‘model’ of explanation. There is no conflict there with what I said.

    But if we can leave the absolute basics of modelling and descriptions of physical processes, and data collection for a moment, and get back to the climate:

    If you want to make predictions about the temperature of a body (eg the atmosphere) your null hypothesis had to be ‘unchanged’, meaning: unless you have a continuing ‘imbalance’ in your energy supply, the bodys heat (ie inertia) will prescribe ‘same as yesterday’ for its temperature.

    Its not different than a cars velocity: It will remain constant unless you either gain or lose energy.

    If you extrapolate: It has been accelerating, ie gaining speed for the previous 20 seconds, and thus it will continue to do so, you are speculating that the driving force will continue to increase, and faster that linear, not only to maintain the imbalance but also to overcome the increasing negative feedbacks due to drag, friction and engine efficiency.

    What I am saying is that your curve fit is useless, unless you understand the system it measures.

    And I am just so surprised that you even challenge me on such trivial stuff …

    (But i think your use of terms such as ‘denier’ or ‘libertarian’ or ‘right wing’ indicate why you stray so much from simple and obvious meanings of the words)

  77. #77 GSW
    September 15, 2011

    @Clippo

    “Data is as data is – a collection of measurements, usually numerical.”

    Thanks Clippo. Your entertaining if nothing else.

  78. #78 elspi
    September 15, 2011

    Jonas at the bat:

    “unless you have a continuing ‘imbalance’ in your energy supply”

    Which we know that we do have RIGHT NOW. The amount of energy coming in from the sun is more than the amount radiating out (as measured by satellites and other ways)

    This would be an example of dishonestly.

    Go ahead Tim

    Ban his lying ass.

  79. #79 chek
    September 15, 2011

    A ban confers too much dignity on deniers.

    I admit to being mildly horrified when seeing this thread charting on sciebceblog’s panel to the left. Best just to let GSW simper away admiringly at Jonas’ high school logic a couple of more times, and then the thread will wither and die with no martyrdom required.

  80. #80 Michael
    September 15, 2011

    Jonas is a fine example of the pitfalls of the google-as-you-go approach of the keyboard warrior.

    Step 1 – get involved in a topic of which you know little.

    Step 2 – google terms as they come up. Throw in random statements about the term. Try to sound confident.

    Step 3 – fall into the massive chasms of ignorance created by such a scattergun approach to attaining knowledge.

    Step 4 – be unembarrassed by such falls, as you are so clueless you don’t know how clueless you are.

  81. #81 Alan
    September 15, 2011

    Jonas

    Questions for you:
    – When rain from high level clouds reaches ground level, does the RH in a Stevenson screen go up, down or remain the same?
    – Why does CO2 absorb radiation in the near IR more than does O2?
    – Why is there usually more frost on the roof of a car than on the doors?

    You could intrerpret this as a chance to demonstrate to the fear-mongering warmies here that you know what you are talking about.

  82. #82 Jonas N
    September 16, 2011

    Alan – Feel free to demonstrate what you feel, many here need help with the simplest things …

  83. #83 John
    September 16, 2011

    Shorter Jonas: I will make a snarky comment to distract from the fact I don’t know what Alan is talking about.

  84. #84 ianam
    September 16, 2011

    In a way it is quite flattering, to get my own thread here.

    This moron is flattered to be on the level of people like Brent and Sunspot.

  85. #85 Rick Bradford
    September 16, 2011

    > The continually amazing thing about your comments Rick Bradford is your seemingly complete faith that everybody else must be as close-minded and short sighted as you yourself are.

    > Now that really is arrogance.

    Wrong. Arrogance would be thinking that people are _more_ close-minded and short sighted than I myself am.

    I believe in equality, fairness and multicultural diversity of close-mindedness and short sightedness.

  86. #86 Clippo UK
    September 16, 2011

    Jonas wrote:-

    And I already told you that I know what I’m talking about.

    Of course you would say that wouldn’t you (smile) – trouble is all your other offerings on this subject show observers here that in fact you DON’T know what your talking about.

    & re:

    But then you give it all away, when you say that a 95% statistical fit has predicitive powers for the future (because of the 95%). Because then every stock analyst would only grow richer. He only had to wait for that fit, and then bet on it.

    I didn’t say that – I said, or implied, that statistically derived equations have probability limits associated with them – so one can be assured that a predicted result will lie in between those 90% or 95% boundary limits.

    re:-

    And you are wron about one more thing: I was the one questioning that that 90% certainty claimed by the IPCC SR4 (it wasn’t 95%) was based on science.

    What is it based on then ?

    And you avoided answering whether you would go to the dark crime-ridden street near where you live, (even in your unreal world these places will exist) if the Probability of you being ‘attacked’ is >90% or >95% – your choice. Would you ? or what is your ‘safety threshold’ ?

  87. #87 Wow
    September 16, 2011

    > Arrogance would be thinking that people are more close-minded and short sighted than I myself am.

    So you agree you’re arrogant, then.

    That’s cleared up at least.

  88. #88 Wow
    September 16, 2011

    > Alan – Feel free to demonstrate what you feel, many here need help with the simplest things …

    Captain Subtext translates: I don’t know a damn thing, so I’m gonna blame you.

    > A ban confers too much dignity on deniers.

    No ban confers too much dignity on deniers.

    Given this, the dignity assigning properties of banning are irrelevant.

    Jonas doesn’t mind, he’s already convinced he’s right and yah boo sucks, and he’s just giving gunshot here a reason to spew idiocies.

  89. #89 Jonas N
    September 16, 2011

    Sorry Clippo, I really do

    >all your other offerings on this subject show observers here that in fact you DON’T know what your talking about.

    Well, if all of my ‘offerings’ had been false, you would have contradicted them, I presume, and offered your own correction and explanaitions how and why it should be different. But you (and others) seem to have been mor keen on speculating about other things :-)

    And yes you did say:

    >If a Statistical analysis says, for example, an equation describing a data set has >95% fit, then you can be pretty sure it will predict future results pretty reasonably.

    And I think I know where the missunderstanding is. Because if you have a stationary proces (ie make the model assumption that whatever you observe does not change any relevant properties over time) you could actually ‘predict’ that even the following experiments/observations should possess the same statistical properties, and say that with eg 95% it should be in the same range as it has been before (in 95% of the observations)

    But (describing) a stationary process does not really qualify as ‘predicting the future’, clippo, and you can be pretty darn sure that climate *change* by its very definition is not a stationary process ..

    As I already said in #107, a prediction (using a model) means:

    >thereafter 2) try to explain more observations with that model/hypothesis you just fitted to some data, preferably outside that data

    The key word here is testing your explaination *outside* the realm where you observed it (and possibly fitted its description).

    We can go back to the dice or roulette wheel example, because they are both stationary processes. Testing them sufficiently many times will tell you that a certain outcome has a observed likelihood. And since it is stationary, you may assume that even the next ones will have the same probabilities.

    Same thing with your crime riddled neighborhood: Assuming it is stationary, you are allowed to draw certain conclusions.

    But what is discussed here, the climate, is something quite different than textbook examples with dice etc.

    Finally, about the IPCC AR4 90% certainty claim, you asked:

    >What is it based on then ?

    Well, the claim certainly has been that it (and everything the IPCC presents) is based on climate science. But nobody I’ve ever asked has seen that science. Although folks get pretty worked up if I just ask or point this out. Here, I will be banned shortly because I brought it up and upset so many of the regulars.

    What it really is based on, how it came about, you will never hear or read in an official IPCC statements or reports. Otherwise, they would of course have presented it … It is after all their latest posterchild claim.

  90. #90 Wow
    September 16, 2011

    > Well, if all of my ‘offerings’ had been false

    They’re also incoherent and gibberish.

    Usually containing a mixture of two or three of these features.

    > you would have contradicted them,

    They have been contradicted. E.g at #71.

    > And almost every single time, the supposed fact, settled truth, scientific result etc was overstated (sometimes widely) by them who referred to it.

    For example, what fact? The AIT flooding of florida? It’s fact. If the Greenland ice sheet and WAIS melt to the extent given, then there will be 20m of sea level rise. It’s a fact of mathematics and physics of liquid displacement.

    Or is this one fact you didn’t read?

    How about your first post?

    > And still, kiddo, fitting a curve is not ‘advanced statistics’. Interpreting data towards a theory might be.

    Though true, you seem to imply this is not the case with the IPCC science. This is false.

    Of course, if you meant to say “and this is what the IPCC are doing, not merely curve fitting”, feel free to say so here and now.

    How about this statement:

    > Because me thinks that without the force of the government, that is if you had to earn your money honestly, by offering others your services, at the rate they are prepared to pay you, you would not be as well off.

    Which is merely assertion based on no evidence whatsoever. A claim unsupported by data. And false.

    > And it was Exxon, and the right wing think tanks who manipulated Mann to include the Tiljande sediments upside down …

    This too is false.

    How about this?

    > Only one litte detail remains. You need to show me that you are not an idiot, that you (or any non-idiot) actually can find them ..

    Which is illogical, pointless and stupid at the same time.

    At #160:

    > You still are in no position to make any of those calls.

    Except he is, so this too is false.

    > Further: I just read one of the articles your mentioned in #142. Have you read them yourself? Because, none of your statements about ‘objective facts how hopelessly wrong they are’ are supported by that one.

    And this is false, still in #160.

    > Instead, it was a quite normal paper arguing a different interpretation of MSU data, and an ad hoc method to estimate the coefficients necessary for that.

    Which is the point that chris made. You ignored it, though, didn’t you. The paper chris pointed to you gave the evidence that the facts you believed in were hopelessly wrong.

    Finally to 173:

    > As I already said in #107, a prediction (using a model) means:

    > > thereafter 2) try to explain more observations with that model/hypothesis you just fitted to some data, preferably outside that data

    > The key word here is testing your explaination outside the realm where you observed it (and possibly fitted its description).

    Which is what Roy Spencer DID NOT do, and what the IPCC models DO do. It’s called “Hindcasting”. You can also look at this link for other examples where the IPCC models were tested against their explanation outside the realm where it was observed:

    [Realclimate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/)

  91. #91 Wow
    September 16, 2011

    Jonas: And I already told you that I know what I’m talking about.

    What is it you’re talking about?

    Are you saying you know about climate modeling?

    Then please be specific about the IPCC climate models and explain why they are wrong if, indeed, you believe them to be wrong.

    (NOTE: everyone, can we keep to this point, or agree on one single point so that we can stop Jonas here flailing around with an answer of “I know you are, but what am I” rhetoric).

  92. #92 GSW
    September 16, 2011

    @Jonas,

    Some vindication for you here I think. One of the CAGW crowd pointed me at an admittedly out of date IOP(2005) policy document. Quoting directly;

    “The TAR describes the level of uncertainty with statements such as “it is likely” or “it is very likely that…” where these words have a percentage of likelihood associated with them (66- 90% and 90-99% chance respectively). These estimates are based on expert judgement but as ensemble climate prediction develops we expect to have more objective criteria.”

    I think your point has always been that the assessment is not necessarily right or wrong, but that it remains someones opinion rather than an objective scientific conclusion.

    When you bare in mind that that soemone includes someone like steve schneider for example – you’d want a bit more than that.

    rgds.

  93. #93 chek
    September 16, 2011

    GSW said:“One of the CAGW crowd pointed me at an admittedly out of date IOP(2005) policy document”.

    Not updated? Check
    Not superceded? Check
    Still on the IOP Publications website? Check

    So still current and not out of date.
    Quite the master of the sly innuendo, aren’t you GSW.

  94. #94 Wow
    September 16, 2011

    It’s rather ironic that GSW who will continue to prattle on about the 1998 Mann paper and the M&M paper that was shortly after that, wilst ignoring the 2007 Mann update will complain about an “admittedly out of date” 2005 paper.

    But intellect and honest are just baggage to the ridiculous rhetoric of the denier.

  95. #95 Jonas N
    September 16, 2011

    GSW

    No vindication necessary, I know what I am talking about, that’s what many find so irritating.

    The AR4 SPM uses the same definitions (see footnote 6 on page 3)

  96. #96 Stu
    September 16, 2011

    I know what I am talking about, that’s what many find so irritating.

    Yes, Jonas, that’s exactly it. It is your boundless knowledge that is giving us a rash.

    I mean, if everyone that knows anything about the subject disagrees with you, it’s THEM that must be wrong, right?

    Ah, to live in Jonas-world…

  97. #97 Wow
    September 16, 2011

    > I know what I am talking about

    But you can’t say what it is you’re talking about.

    Are you talking about the climate models? Are you saying you know about climate models?

  98. #98 GSW
    September 16, 2011

    @chek

    Ok happy to agree it’s not of date. The quote refers to the TAR rather than AR4, but other than that I think it is still correct.

    ;)

  99. #99 GSW
    September 16, 2011

    @Jonas 193,

    I know, it is very irritating, what you are saying is not controversial, you even have the physicists on your side. ;)

    But, they won’t agree with you because they consider you a ‘denier’, or worse still, not a climate scientologist.

  100. #100 Wow
    September 16, 2011

    > I think your point has always been that the assessment is not necessarily right or wrong, but that it remains someones opinion rather than an objective scientific conclusion.

    Except that ensembles DO give an objective scientific quantitty of uncertainty.

    Hindcasting DOES give an objective scientific verification of a single model.

    Both of which means that Jonas’ assertion that you have interpreted here is wrong and that your support of that understanding is also incorrect.

Current ye@r *