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 Wow
    September 16, 2011

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

    No, there you go again, saying stuff you KNOW you can’t know.

    How about this possibility (or did it never occur to you): we won’t agree with him because he’s wrong.

  2. #2 GSW
    September 16, 2011

    @wow

    You are a little late to the party wow. We’re discussing the claim of attribution, it’s not obvious you understand this.

    If so, your views are somewhat at odds with the IOP document referenced by others.

  3. #3 Wow
    September 16, 2011

    > We’re discussing the claim of attribution,

    Of what to what?

    “The TAR describes the level of uncertainty with statements such as “it is likely” …”

    Is talking about uncertainty and the description and definition of it. Which can be assigned objectively by hindcasting for individual models and ensembles for models too new for hindcasting to prove themselves.

    It’s obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  4. #4 GSW
    September 16, 2011

    @wow

    “Of what to what”

    Like I said, you are late to the party, if you are using a browser you can scroll up to see what is being discussed.

    As a help (again), we are talking about claims of ‘attribution’.

    Also your reading abilities don’t seem to be able to get past the first line of anything written. I’ll repeat it anyway for you, it may take you some time, but try to make it thru to the end;

    “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.”

    ;)

  5. #5 Jonas N
    September 16, 2011

    Wow #198 – No! Just plain: No! And there is no meaning in discussing this with you either … now scurry away, and play with the others.

  6. #6 Stu
    September 17, 2011

    No! Just plain: No!

    Jonas, did you stomp your little feetsies before you wrote this? Sure sounds like it.

    And there is no meaning in discussing this with you either

    That’s what I’ve been telling you, sweetheart! Pearls before swine! Go publish your insights for smart people (just like you) to see! Why bother with plebes like us, who demand “evidence”, and “actual arguments”, and even “a point”!

  7. #7 GSW
    September 17, 2011

    @Jonas

    Over 200 comments on your thread! the boy done good ;)

    Do you think the ‘locals’ actually learned anything? Going by the last comment

    “Why bother with plebes like us, who demand “evidence”, and “actual arguments”, and even “a point”!

    It would appear not, they have the same attention span as a goldfish, that or they survive in a permanent state of bemusement. On reflection, bemusement is more in keeping with the befuddled comments they post.

    Very contradictory here all round don’t you think?

    Here, they claim to “follow the science”.

    > but they don’t read/understand the papers, they admit this openly. I suspect a deficiency of math in their diet is the cause.

    Here, they claim to be on the “side of the scientists”.

    > but every scientist who “comes out” against the “concensus”, such as it is, is met with a flurry of ad hom attacks.

    Questioning/inquisitive/”where’s the evidence” behaviour

    > is percieved as being anti-science.

    “Take nobodys word for it” is one of the oldest guiding principles of science.

    > but unable to draw any rational conclusions of their own, they defer with respect to the dubious eco warriors at the IPCC.

    One of Tim’s posts/articles was about Monckton (The Dark Lord) and some unfortunate comparisons he drew between Hitler and Garnaut. The Dark Lord was rightly castigated in the comments.

    > but, I don’t know how long you have been hanging out here, the ‘deniers’ as they call them frequently get this sort of abuse thrown at them, unchallenged by the supposedly moral few.

    They are nothing if not inconsistent, or at least they are consistently inconsistent about almost everything.

    I think we can say Gore is past his “sell by date” when not even those here take his reality day seriously, judging by the comments, or lack of, on the other thread.

    Not only did you have your thread, but it was the most active thread of the current batch, as far as I can tell.

    So I think you’ve done well Jonas. You made your point and it still stands, v good.

    I don’t know if you ever venture over to ‘Bishop Hill’, they’re good bunch over there, rational, informed, witty etc.

    Worth a look if you’ve never been, you’d be sure to be welcomed.

    Anyway, Good Thread and who knows, maybe it aint over yet!

    ;)

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    September 17, 2011

    Usually I wouldn’t go quite this far, but as this is the basement of a troll thread…

    GSW.

    Your sychophantic coprophilia is driving you to obsequious sodomy of Jonas N.

    Quite gynastically clever, considering the autoproctological location of your cranium.

    Such is your enthusiasm for shit.

  9. #9 Michael
    September 17, 2011

    A monkey jumping up and down on a keyboard would produce less incoherent posts than Jonas.

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    September 17, 2011

    “Gynastically”?

    A rather unfortunate typo, indeed.

    Gymnastically…

  11. #11 Jonas N
    September 17, 2011

    GSW #205

    I actually think that some people have learnt something, maybe grudginly, but what I’ve actually been saying is not extremely controversial. Not wrt the warming, its possible attribution, or the lack of science behind the AR4 claim.

    As you (and I thereafter) linked, not even the IPCC claims (in its SPM-report) that the given probabilities are science. Only ‘expert’ opinions. In the actual assessment reports, the same statements resurface, but now this detail is hidden behind a lot of armawiving phrases, figures, their captions, awkward forumlations, appendices, supplementary material, and references in between. But nowhere whith tha explicitly stated claim.

    And I think that this has sunk in among the smarter ones here (not everyone can be so clueless as those who cannot control their temper and usage of ad homs). But I think the quitely went away, admitting this or just conceding a point to someone the so desperatly want to label as an ‘imbecill’ must be tough for a bloated and fragile ego. The smarter ones just leave the issue, and may conveniently ‘forget’ in the future.

    I also agree with you that most of them (high and low) most likely are not very trained in neither physics nor even mathematics. Most of them seem very unfamilar with what the scientific method actually entails. As I’ve said before, if there are indeed any ‘real’ scientists here, they generally come from the softer varieties. And it wouldn’t suprise me if the lot of them are somehow ‘environmentally’ motivated.

    This would explain why they have such a hard time reading real science. ANd I too beleive that many only read the words, not check and actually understand the methods used.

    That there is a predominance of anti-market emotions is prwtty clear. And many cannot keep their lefty leening emotions apart from observations. It all has a very familiar ring to it. (Usually heard from the younger lefty loons and ativists). I am sure there is a considerable part of those too.

    But I find it pretty pathetic that Tim L will ban be because of the crowd’s vote. Poor arguments are abundant here …

    (And gien what the comments actually say, no one should be surprised)

  12. #12 GSW
    September 17, 2011

    @Jonas,

    You are a true New Age philosopher and a Gentleman. Not a bad word spoke and banned, v odd IMO. There aren’t many sites would put with the language of Bernard & Co – probably how they ended up here.

    Your better than this Jonas, find somewhere more fulfilling where your views will be appreciated.

    Good Luck!

    ;)

  13. #13 Stu
    September 17, 2011

    Your better than this Jonas, find somewhere more fulfilling where your views will be appreciated.

    He doesn’t need your infantile fawning to know that. We’ve been telling him that for weeks.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    September 17, 2011

    GSW is living in fantasy land. Jonas repeatedly tells us here, “I know what I am talking about”, but then says he can’t remember a single peer-reviewed article on climate change he’s ever read. We ask him, as is our right, to go through some of the 200-300 articles cited in AR4 and to specify exactly where the scientists got it wrong, and why the estimates of human influence on climate are vastly exaggerated. To this, Jonas replies that its up to us to show him proof in these studies that they got it right. And so on and so on and so on.

    In other words, Jonas has been caught with his pants down, and doesn’t like it, so he’s retreated into demanding that we prove the IPCC has got it right. But since the conclusions of the IPCC were based on an overview of the papers in question, and this involves hundreds of scientists, then I do not believe that the onus should be on contributors to a weblog to prove anything. If Jonas is so uppity, then, as I have repeatedly said, why doesn’t he write his won rebuttal or write to some of the authors and go to some of the conferences? Again, reasonable questions and all deflected with the usual evasive bluff and bluster meaning that Jonas has no intention of doing any of these things. I have admitted that, as someone with expertise in another field, I rely on the credibility of the people doing the research to come up with the proper and accurate predictions. I don’t read much climate-related literature because I simply don’t have the time.

    But Jonas and his enthusiastic puppy dog supporter don’t think that’s fair. So I am called a cretin, a clown, angry, bitter, uninformed etc. etc. etc. My qualifications in science are smeared, and then the whole circus starts over again.

    I think that the bulk of the contributors to this thread know exactly who has painted themselves into an idealogical and intellectual corner. GSW, who seems even wackier than Jonas (partly due to his adulation of him) constantly boasts how many replies there are on Jonas’ own personal thread, when half or more come from these two and the rest are from exasperated people who think that JonasN is living in his own deluded world. Yes, I expect hi to boast again, “I know what I am talking about”, but to add this caveat, “But I won’t tell anyone else but readers of general blogs because if I expose my ideas to a broader specialist scientific community they will be shot down and consigned to the rubbish bin where they belong”.

  15. #15 GSW
    September 17, 2011

    @Jeff

    “I have admitted that, as someone with expertise in another field, I rely on the credibility of the people doing the research to come up with the proper and accurate predictions. I don’t read much climate-related literature because I simply don’t have the time.”

    It’s not because math isn’t your thing then? Oh and in your list of defects you left out boring. Jonas said you were boring.

    Perceptive chap Jonas.

  16. #16 chek
    September 17, 2011

    Well quite, GSW.

    But thanks for drawing attention to the daftness of this week’s denier flash-in-the-pan, although sadly soon to be as forgotten as every other denier two day wonder.

    These supposedly monumental denier PR events have a shelf life shorter than warm oysters, don’t they.

  17. #17 chek
    September 17, 2011

    Sorry all, wrong tab and wrong thread AGAIN this week!

  18. #18 luminous beauty
    September 17, 2011

    I’ve found a [video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qro7oBzUBos&NR=1) of Jonas, ‘Super Mind of the Universe’.

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    September 18, 2011

    *Perceptive chap Jonas*

    I think lb’s posting at @218 sums up GSW as well… He’s another of Ed Wood’s ‘Eros’-type characters who thinks all those who disagree with the childish musings of our resident troll are ‘idiots’. As I said, these two deserve each other.

  20. #20 chris
    September 18, 2011

    I wonder whether GSW might not be being ironic in his expressions of Jonas-adulation. But since irony can be difficult to identify on message boards (if only we had access to a versatile set of emoticons!), we can’t be certain…

    Anyway Jonas (@ 109) is an excellent example of why he’s been banned methinks! I can’t think of anything of interest in dreary comments about “anti-market emotions”, “lefty leaning emotions”, “bloated and fragile egos”, even if they help us to undestand his motives. [That’s not to say that I don’t find Bernard’s effort above rather unenlightening too!]. Imagine if thoughtful and rational posters had to put up with self-satisfied bone-headedness in every thread (let alone real life!).

    Still we’ve learned something about obsessive pursuit of ignorance. Jonas is so pleased with his unwillingness to engage maturely with the evidence and thinks it’s a great debating tool; GSW just makes stuff up. This induces frustration (at least GSW is brave enough to present his fabrications so they can be properly stamped on!) and the thread descends into unproductive stonewalling and bitching. Since our inate sense of fairness and decency compels us to reject the puny strategies of those that act in bad faith, we can be pleased that this rubbish is consigned to a garbage thread, just as we’re pleased that bad faith rubbish from the likes of Drs Spencer and Wegman and etc. is similarly highlighted and consigned to “science”-style trash receptacles…

  21. #21 Jonas N
    September 18, 2011

    Jeffrey, you still don’t know what it’s about, do you? And you still need to make up your own ‘facts’? And as long as you have to do that, nobody need to ‘smear you as a scientist’.

    Yo still dont get it, do you?

    If there is a scientific basis for that AR4 posterchild claim, then I would like to see it. So I can read it! Nobody said you have to prove anything, that it is indeed correct. I would do that myself. If it indeed existed.

    But you now claim that this isn’t ordinary science, that it instead is the result of an ‘overview’ of science, and that I should read some of 200-300 references (which **don’t** make that claim) and say what’s wrong in them!?

    What kind of an argument is that? How can anybody using the word ‘intellectual’ get it so twisted?

    And Are you really not aware of whose side thinks using the word ‘idiot’ is an argument, and how often? (Well, for somebody who can’t even determine what is supposed to be ” half or more come” I guess that is to be expected)

    But please Jeff, be at least a little grown up about it: Stop blaiming your insufficiency on others. As I said: As long as you have to do that, nobody need to ‘smear you as a scientist’ …

  22. #22 Jonas N
    September 18, 2011

    chris, quit whining!

    I could give you ample of examples about what I meant and you knopw that.

    And if you cared the least about what posters “had to put up with self-satisfied bone-headedness in every thread (let alone real life!)” regarding “dreary comments” or ” unwillingness to engage maturely” ..

    .. this site provides and abundandce of perfect examples, and

    Now, you case preciously was:

    1. You considered yourself the arbitrator of facts regarding the factual issues refarding how clouds function in Dessler vs Specner, and

    2. You mad cliams that one side knowlingly and dishonestly submitted falshoods and substandard science för a malicious purpose.

    When asked how you possibly could make such claims, you started to waffle about Christy and Spencer, how incompetent they supposedly were, how hoplessly wrong they got it etc (you called them ‘objective facts’) instead (although you later denied that this was in support of your first claims). There you linked a number of references which nowhere contained your obverblown claims, rather quite normal practice of scientific progress. I ask you again: Have you read them yourself?

    If yes, why were you lying about their contents, esp since you pretend to make a posturing point about other’s ‘bad faith’?

    Just wondering, chris …

  23. #23 chris
    September 18, 2011

    Course I’ve read the papers Jonas. How else do we understand the science? It’s fascinating that Christy/Spencer got their analysis so repeatedly wrong while continually asserting that they were correct! In 1997 Spencer/Christy were asserting, in response to Trenberth’s Nature paper identifying spurious cooling in MSU data [see full references in my post above], that their analysis was correct and the troposphere wasn’t warming [see Christy. Spencer, Braswell Nature 389, 342 (2007)]. They were wrong again. Shortly afterwards Wentz and Schabel (W-S (1998) [see full references in my post linked to above] pointed out that the UAH anaysis contained a huge spurious cooling trend (failure to properly account for orbital decay). Spencer/Christy had little option but to incorporate this [though they seem never to have referenced Wentz paper correcting their analysis in any subsequent papers}.

    In the 1998 paper, Wentz stated “The MSU data set needs to be more closely examined, and a more rigorous error analysis should be done.”. Sadly it was left to others to do this culminating in yet another embarrassing uncovering of a further spurious cooling trend whereby Spencer/Christy adopted the wrong sign in a flawed correction for diurnal effects, As Wentzl said in his response to the Christy/Spencer climbdown, [see Science 310, 972-3 (2005)]:

    “Once we realized that the diurnal correction being used by Christy and Spencer for the lower troposphere had the opposite sign from their correction for the middle troposphere sign, we knew that something was amiss. Clearly, the lower troposphere does not warm at night and cool in the middle of the day. We question why Christy and Spencer adopted an obviously wrong diurnal correction in the first place. They first implemented it in 1998 in response to Wentz and Schabel (1), which found a previous error in their methodology: neglecting the effects of orbit decay.”

    As I said previously we can give Spencer/Christy the benefit of the doubt with respect to good faith; their analyses were incompetent and they seemed lacking in the self-peer-review standards of most scientists that lend them to ask probing questions about their own work when this conflicts with others. Note that I explained very carefully earlier that I haven’t made accusations of “dishonesty” but that more recently these scientists display bad faith in their misrepresentation of scientific information. It would help if you were to read what people say, rather than misrepresent it to suit your own arguments – it’s one of the dismal habits that has relegated you to a trash thread.

    More recently Spencer has attempted to do “science” by blogging. He’s published a scientifically-disgraceful book in which he attempts to sell the notion that he’s right and everyone else is wrong. He publishes a dribble of papers that attempt to cast doubt on mainstream science, and these are repeatedly found to be fundamentally flawed. Like Dr Lindzen he takes a pre-conceived position that climate sensitivity is low, and attempts to shoehorn theoretical analyses into that prejudice. Rather than allowing this work to live (or in fact die) in the normal run of scientific progression, he supports astonishing misrepresentations in press releases and on the seedier elements of the blogosphere.

    These aren’t matters of opinion Jason. If we have some basic understanding and are willing to make honest assessments of the science, it’s not difficult to identify bad faith attempts at misrepresentation for what they are. Considering the appalling effects agenda-led misrepresentations of science have had in the past, it’s difficult to understand your enthusiasm for contemporary ones!

  24. #24 GSW
    September 18, 2011

    @chris

    I’m sure Jonas will answer you, but reading thru I picked up a couple of points on what you said.

    “but that more recently these scientists display bad faith in their misrepresentation of scientific information”

    Curious as to what “misrepresentation” you are talking about?

    Also,

    “He’s published a scientifically-disgraceful book in which he attempts to sell the notion that he’s right and everyone else is wrong”

    I thought that was the whole point of writing your own book, “selling the notion” you’re right and everyone else wrong.

    Bradley’s latest book “Global Warming and Political Intimidation” describes the Hockey stick as “Robust” – well it is his book.

    I think you need to get a bit more balance in your perspective. The situation with CAGW is not entirely new, if you have a scientific bent you could reacquaint yourself with the ‘Big Bang’ todo, plenty of belittling of others’ views and theories there, all worked out in the end though.

    ;)

  25. #25 Jonas N
    September 18, 2011

    chris, if you had read the papers, why did you need to grossly overstate their contents?

    You seriously seem to conflate ‘improvements’ with ‘repeatedly got it so repeatedly hoplessly wrong’

    As I said, I’d expect an activist to describe it that way, and an incompetent activist at that to claim ‘this is objective fact proven in the peer reviewed literature’

    And you need (and I mean really really need) to remember that qhat you are comparing to is ‘climate science’. Where things need to be ‘corrected’ or ‘improved’ (and previous versions played down) essentially all the time. Especially when it comes to those temperature records. Don’t even get me started there, with all the ‘enhanced’ products that come out of GISS or CRU. You definitely cannot use “lacking in the self-peer-review standards” as an argument, and even less so the proper attribution to those who found the errors.

    But that is not the point here, you seem to acknowledge that UHA record has adressed and corrected the issues, both those pointed out by others and issues they found themselves. Exactly as proper science and engineering should be carried out.

    I don’t think you are claiming today that UHA (or RSS) are misrepresenting the temperature record, and that record (together with others from ground stations) shows that the trend hasn’t been what the alarmist side needs. But that isn’t the point either.

    The Dessler vs Spencer questsion deals with how clouds function in the ‘climate system’, and you have taken sides (but cannot argue the case, merely hope)

    Possibly you are aware that Dessler will make revisions to his latest (already ‘published’) paper because it ‘misrepresented’ Spencers position.

    The other point is that you claimed repeatedly that Spencer knowlingly supmits science and publications he (according to you) knows to be sub standard). With a dishonests purpose on top of that. You’ve tried to backpedal a bit (wrt Christy&Spencer and UHA temps, although you brought that in to reinforce your claim). But you have still not presented one single piece of evidence of knowing dishonesty. And as I said, I suggest you are very very careful with such accusations. Meaning: Take that back if you dont have definitive proof!

    And you are missing the point whenever you are using the word ‘we’ to represent science. There exists no understanding of the climate system which can be labelled so certain that it cannot be challenged or at least questioned. The constant revisions on the AGW-side alone demonstrate that. That the predictions/projections don’t come true do it again. The lack of understanding of eg clouds do the same onece more.

    You just have to accept that the matter, not any of the relevent detalis really, is nowhere close to be settled.

    And the urge to shut down dissent, if only bty banning commenters who point out obvious facts, once more demonstrate how weak the case is.

    And as you so amply demonstrate, the fact that the attacks so fervently focus on person rather than issues or topic underpins that observation once more.

    So if you have no evidence of dishonest motive on the behalf of Spencer, I urge you once more to take that back. And leave it with your hoping that Dessler’s points (which you don’t seem to understand) indeed prove him wrong.

    I can accept that people believe or support different positions. The relgious parts of such beliefs, however, have no place in such discussions.

    (and your hope to dispel me as a heretic are nothing more than such)

  26. #26 clippo UK
    September 18, 2011

    I am convinced that you are a statistics waffler Jonas N.
    With your ‘stationary’ and ‘non-stationary’ processes it is quite obvious you are spouting from the wrong orifice and you have never done any serious Statistics. You don’t seem to understand the difference between dependent and non-dependent variables in an equation – vital for ‘prediction’.

    Here’s a real life example (only one independent variable so as not to confuse you):- The yield of a chemical process may be dependent on the temperature that you carry out the reaction. So, in practice one would carry out the reaction at different temperatures to determine yield changes. Then, one would analyse the data to see if there is a correlation and regression,. The Regression should give you a best fit equation. From the equation, one can ‘predict’ what range the yield should be for temperatures outside the ones of the dataset. Got you !!!

    Secondly, you didn’t answer my earlier question – just tried to slide away from it.

    In an earlier post you claimed the IPCC probability estimates weren’t made on the basis of science. So, I asked you what they were based on.

    This was your reply (post (#189):-

    Well, the claim certainly has been that it (and everything the IPCC presents) is based on climate science. ,

    Yes – tell us something new

    But nobody I’ve ever asked has seen that science. ,

    Who have you asked? Name names. Perhaps your circle of AGW denier friends are afraid to see the science. Perhaps you don’t get about much in intellectual / scientific circles.

    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. ,

    Irrelevant waffle unrelated to the question

    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.

    So you can’t actually define what it is based on except your opinion that it isn’t science based. Yet you blithely say it isn’t science based. May fool some – but not many here, (Just GSW probably – he has an astonishing similarity to Dick Dastardly’s dog, Muttley – ).

    My understanding of the IPCC process is that several thousand scientists read and review peer-reviewed scientific papers,of any discipline related to climate change, and from other sources, both environmental and business groups and summarize the findings into language that world governments can understand. Why, to allow those governments to plan policies to combat AGW.

    So, on the face of it you’re claiming they don’t do, or haven’t done this so …….

    PUT UP EVIDENCE – OR SHUT UP.

  27. #27 Jonas N
    September 18, 2011

    Clippo

    Of course I know I know about dependent and independet variables. But why are you chaning the subject? Or weren’t you even aware of that your previous arguments referred to stationary processes?

    Because when you now try with chemical procesesses, and their dependency on temperature, you are exactly describing what I told you in the first place:

    You make the (quite reasonable) assumption, ie hypothesis, that a process depends on temperature. You then model that dependence with a (eg linear) term, which you fit to some experimental data, and then you ‘predict’ that if you increase the temperature even further, the observed (and fitted) effect) will be visible even outside that previously observed range.

    What I’ve been saying from the first comment is that you need an underlying assumption, an attempt at explanation, and a linear dependence on temperature is such an assumption, ie a model.

    Now, you know perfectly well that this kind of extrapolation might work well if you do not venture to far from you robservations, and that the fitted descriptions aren’t true (or even good approximations) once other mechanisms intervene.

    So certainly: Got you! But you bit your own tail, since what you say is what I’ve said all along!

    Furhter:

    I have not seen any ‘science’ supporting that IPCC AR4 claim, so there is no way I can tell you what is possibly can be based on. But I do surmise that such science doesn’t exist (which is a falsifiable statement), which would imply that the claim is just handwaving waffle ..

    Who have I asked, you wonder? Well essentially every pro-AGW site there exists (where I know the language) and everybody here the last weeks.

    And no, you will never (in any forseeable future) hear an unecivocal explanation for that claim. Although there already have been links provided (here) which give the truth away ..

    As you say, if several thousands of scientists stand behind that claim, at least some of them should know where that claim really came from. After more than four years. Yet, none of them is prepared to come forward …

    And exactly as you said (to everybody repeating that claim):

    Show me that frikking science, or shut up!

  28. #28 GSW
    September 18, 2011

    @clippo

    Difficult to know where to start.

    I’ll keep it simple – In the ‘world of science’ peoples opinion is worth diddley squat. As an example, Einstein, 200 scientists, “Yeah but it only takes one paper to prove me wrong” – I assume you know the story it’s trotted out often enough.

    I don’t think anyone who has been following this thread is in any doubt that the 90% attribution claim is opinion, albeit expert opinion.

    Do you have a reference for your chemistry example?

  29. #29 chris
    September 18, 2011

    sorry Jonas, but there isn’t anything of interest in your post. I pointed out your problem with false precis before (and just above) – it’s one of the things that make you a troll. Try reading my post carefully and look at the links. Then try answering on the terms of my post.

    Incidentally your irrelevant comments about the CRU and Giss temperature records are dumb. To my knowledge the essential elements of these records have hardly changed during the period of their existence, despite a truly astonishing effort to insinuate flaws from non-science sources. Good-faith efforts to maintain improvements obviously continue (efforts to establish improved sea surface records in the mid 20th century, for example, may improve these further). But these “in house” adjustments are of an entirely different order to the Spencer and Christy’s flawed analyses. Their major flaws weren’t identified “in house”, and the corrections of competent scientists turned the MSU analysis from one that asserted a negative tropospheric temperature trend (Spencer/Christy) to one that gave temperature trends broadly consistent with surface measures and theoretical expectations.

    …and it would be nice if just once you would give some supporting evidence for your assertive opinions…it’s another of the things that makes you a troll.

  30. #30 GSW
    September 18, 2011

    @chris

    I think Jonas may have been referring to the GISS ‘Y2K’ problem.

  31. #31 chris
    September 18, 2011

    “I thought that was the whole point of writing your own book, “selling the notion” you’re right and everyone else wrong.”

    Astonishing. Do you really lack a concept of good faith in science GSW? I’ve read dozens of books by scientists and I can think of only two of these that do as you suggest (Spencer’s and a dreary book by Svensmark – Calder I think was a coauthor).

    GSW the vast majority of scientists (that write books) establish that they’ve made useful and validated discoveries before writing books about their work. It’s what makes their books interesting since it gives us insight into the origins of real and successful science. Spencer’s (and Svensmark’s) book is dismal since it comes across as a self-serving effort to push entirely unsupported (Spencer) or poorly-supported(Svensmark) interpretations.

    An example of bad faith misrepresentation is Spencer’s UAH press release, which (like Spencer’s book) makes assertions that bear no relation to the rather underwhelming conclusions of Spencer’s work. I don’t link to trash, but you can find it by googling. The pathetic misrepresentation of the significance of the work is part of the reason the Editor of Remore Sensing resigned .

  32. #32 Jonas N
    September 18, 2011

    chris ..

    You have been telling me about your beliefs, and I can accept those, although not your allegations of gross misconduct.

    Regarding the latter, you have provided no support at all. And I dont expect you to have any either …

    You’ve claimed ‘hoplessly wrong’ about UHA MSU and are not aware of the size of what has been discussed. I take it you are neither familiar with the size of errors of ground station data. Or just hte adjustments.

    Your only straw seems to be that if there is an improvment of the UHA MSU data, it must have been due to malicious hiding of facts, and the opposite when comes to all other corrections or improvements.

    Well, if you honestly hold that belief, I cannot challenge this belief. Only note that it is terribly loopsided.

    And if you really think that temperature records (regardless of satellite or ground station based) are ‘broadly’ in agreement with predictions from models, your live in the realm ‘furthest out on the error bars, of those models with the least descrepancy wrt observations’ ..

    And that’s OK, just be aware of that is what you are doing. Both Dessler and Trenberth are arguing the same thing now …

    And (you’re probably not aware of this), the main point with Spencer and Braswell, now and last year, is another. Not adressed by the futile attempts of rebuttal, both in the litterature and more loudly on blogs ..

    I reckon most of you don’t have a clue. And that is why I just have to be a complete imbecill stupid moron, who never has read anythin … to keep up the narrative ..

    But as I’ve told you many times: Reality doesn’t rely on opinion or consensus … It just is!

  33. #33 Jonas N
    September 18, 2011

    chris

    That you used the Wagner resignations as a ‘proof’ for the errors just once more underlines how poor the factual argument is. Wagner’s argument is a repition of the kind of handwaving hear from ‘one over the null hypthseis’ Trenberth. Who is not adressing the issues. Either.

    It is still: Belief doesn’t substitute facts and observations.

    But that’s just too had to handle for what passes as climate science ..

  34. #34 chris
    September 18, 2011

    Well yes, GSW, I wondered if that’s what he had in mind.. But the tiny adjustments resulting from the GISS Y2K error had effectively zero implications for the temperature record and its implications with respect to climate science.

    The corrections to the UAH record resulting from huge errors in the Christy/Spencer analyses turned a negative temperature trend that was completely confusing with respect to the wider evidence base, to a positive trend that was broadly consistent with the wider knowledge.

  35. #35 GSW
    September 18, 2011

    @chris 231

    Yeah I know the story. Don’t read it the way you do though. It’s just occurred to me (the GISS bit helped) you don’t actually know what you are talking about do you.

    Where you the one that suggested you shouldn’t release a paper until you’ve had poster sessions etc. Bernard thought that was a joke, I agree, the community doesn’t and couldn’t operate that like that on every paper.

    And Spencer and Christy release stuff that is wrong, oh boo hoo. Jonas ‘Y2K’ GISS is an example of stuff being released that is wrong.

    I assume you will condemn GISS with the same pejorative language you deem fit to use on others.

    Also, have a guess who pointed out the problem to GISS? You’ll cry!

  36. #36 chris
    September 18, 2011

    That you used the Wagner resignations as a ‘proof’…”

    Poor Jonas. You really are unable to comprehend the meaning of straightforward sentences… pretty sad. I’m not going to keep correcting your misrepresentations of my posts.

  37. #37 Jonas N
    September 18, 2011

    chris ..

    You brought up the ‘resignation’ …
    It did not contain any sybstance. I you want to play word games, that’s what you are doing.

    You still have no support for you major claim! (I guess that’s why you are marking words)

    Do you have any spport for the dishonesty you implied, or is this just an outcome of your imagination?

    THis would be a good moment for some real substande (if there is one=

  38. #38 Jeff Harvey
    September 18, 2011

    *Show me that frikking science, or shut up!*

    Sigh. This is exactly what we’ve been repeatedly asking you Jonas. Its up to you to show us where the science of AGW is wrong, not for us – contributors to a blog for heaven’s sake – to prove its correct. We’ve asked you to critique the peer-reviewed studies, which you claim either not to have read or to have forgotten. And for asking this I get labeled a ‘bore’ by GSW. I guess relevant questions hurt, eh gumbo?

    I’ve asked you many times to write a rebuttal for submission to a peer-reviewed journal and then to post it here for all of us to read. But you refuse to do that. For now you’re just a prisoner of the blogs. Nobody gives a rat’s ass about anything you say – except GSW of course. And he’s also an anonymous scientific minion. You see, the big guys – the one’s who are doing the climate science – don’t spend much time reading blogs.

    The fact is, whether you or your one-man fan club like to hear it, science isn’t done in blogs. It’s done in academic institutions and published in scientific journals. You clearly believe that you are correct, but every time I suggest that you put your ideas on a forum where they will be scrutinized by experts, you and GSW reply saying that I am angry, frustrated, boring, you name it (Actually I am none of those things _ I had a great week at work and have invitations to write several reviews in journals with high impact factors). So go ahead – see what your ideas are made of.

  39. #39 chris
    September 18, 2011

    Yes I think I know who identified the GISS Y2K error, GSW. That’s great. We’d like our analyses to be perfect but as in all of life “good enough” is usually good enough. Spencer/Christy-style hopeless misanalyses obviously ain’t “good enough”; don’t think we could disagree with that…yes? It was fine that the Y2K error was found, but it’s incorporation made no eseential difference to the global temp record nor its implications with respect to the science; we only have to look at the pre-/post- record to see that.

    I don’t really have much interest in how you “read it”. Since it makes hardly any difference, it doesn’t have much to say about our understanding of the 20th century temperature rise and its implications for understanding the science.

    Of course if you’re less interested in the science and more interested in “gotchas” then that’s great for you.

  40. #40 GSW
    September 18, 2011

    @Jeff

    I think we can add pompous to the list as well, don’t you?

    ;)

  41. #41 chris
    September 18, 2011

    Yes GSW, I do agree re “pompous”. The problem seems to be Jonas’s inability to extract valid meaning from written text, combined with a presumption that whatever he thinks must be right – your right that it comes across as pomposity..so quite perceptive of you…

  42. #42 GSW
    September 18, 2011

    @chris

    I won’t correct you chris, I’m curious to see whether you can work it out for yourself. Your ‘bias’ maybe getting in the way of reality again?

    ;)

  43. #43 Michael
    September 18, 2011

    “Reality doesn’t rely on opinion or consensus … It just is!”

    Which is why the denialists will just be a sociological curiosity in the histoty of climate science.

  44. #44 Alan
    September 18, 2011

    Jonas was invited at comment #181 to demonstrate that he has some understanding of the basics of climate science.

    So far, he hasn’t answered any of the questions.

  45. #45 Jonas N
    September 19, 2011

    Jeff

    OK, I’ll tell you: The IPCC is wrong in claiming that there is science behind their AR4 posterchild claim. Exactly there!

    They made such a claim, and there is **no** science behind it! It is not that the science behind it is wrong, it just doesn’t exist!

    Did you get it this time?

    And no, commenters on a climate junk blog have no obligation to find that non-existing science for me. I merely pointed out to them, when they brought up that claim, that it was empty and it was them taking it on faith.

    And no, finding (claimed) scientific results usually is not that difficult. That’s what you have references, journals and and databases for. Not that difficult **if it exists**, that is!

    ‘Nobody gives a rat’s ass”, not “the big guys” nor anyone else, you proclaim. Well, it was you who brought it up, and some of the ‘big guys’ made that claim, and many more of them stand behind it, and even more are said to endorse it. And yet, it doesn’t exist. If there were anything ‘sciency’ with you (or those big guys) you (they) wouldn’t call such handwaiving science. And as yuou (possibly?) have noticed, there is no name behind that claim first found in the AR4 SPM. And in the actual Wg1 ch9 it is even more vague and woven into the running text accompanied by more armwaiving.

    Yes, you repeatedly talk about submitting my observations, to be ‘scritinized’ by experts, so that they can shoot it down. But thats utter nonsense: There is no scrutiny, no shooting down necessary. My claim, and a rebuttal are much simpler than that: **Just show me the frikking science**

    You have tried to explain this incapability with just being blog commenters, but completely seem to miss that you (you, and others) repeatedly make claims about having the science behind you, that you actually do read the peer reviewed publications. Signature chris even labels AGW claims as ‘we’ behind those.

    Jeff, it’s OK t choose to remain ignorant, but less so to repeatedly make unsubstantiated false claims .. especially when they need to be bolstered with the kind of language frequently used here.

    PS You don’t need to write the same comment again and again, your not-knowing is acknowledged, and your views about plenty of other things are noted. They are completely irrelevant wrt anything about the climate, or the science around it.

  46. #46 Jonas N
    September 19, 2011

    Alan – Gimme a break, if you want to demonstrate anything, it would be the level of understanding among many of the commenters here. Jeff is already making excuses for them.

    BTW, the answers to your ‘questions’ are not what is the problem with the AGW-scare .. and if they were sincerely meant, you’d already know that.

  47. #47 Craig Thomas
    September 19, 2011

    So – we have 97% of the relevant scientific experts either in agreement with the IPCC round-up, or saying it is too conservative in its estimates.

    And we have one lawyer who says “there is no science behind it”.

    As a person – like most others I imagine – who has to make analyses and risk assessments on a daily basis, it doesn’t take me more than about 2 seconds to decide who is more likely to be correct, seeing as *I* am not an expert on climate science myself.

  48. #48 Craig Thomas
    September 19, 2011

    Jonas @246:

    > Alan – Gimme a break

    Can I just ask – as a fully paid-up member of the Murdoch Tea-Party, are you required to give up your Australian nationality altogether, or will peppering your vacuous screeds with Americanisms suffice?

  49. #49 clippo uk
    September 19, 2011

    Earlier Jonas N., you said the IPCC’s probability claims weren’t based on science.

    I then asked you to suggest what those claims were based on.

    You still haven’t answered that question – even amongst all your waffle.

    You have changed the ‘question’ to put the onus onto others to prove the science – as Jeff Harvey said – and to avoid being pinned down on a statement that shows you are incapable of accepting the truth.

    The IPCC studies and statements are based on scientific truth. Get used to it or …

    PUT UP an alternative explanation or SHUT UP.

  50. #50 Jeff Harvey
    September 19, 2011

    Jonas, You must be even thicker than even I supposed earlier. And that is saying one helluva lot.

    You are repeately screaming: *Just show me the frikking science!!!!!*

    So answer me this, and will you and stop evading the relevant question:

    HAVE YOU ASKED ANY OF THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE IPCC THIS SAME QUESTION? AND DID YOU RECEIVE A REPLY FROM ANY OF THEM?

    You seem to think that you are scoring brownie points on Deltoid repeating the same dumb question over and over and over again, while never answering our questions. GSW says I am pompous which is a laugh, when you keep saying, “I know what I am talking about”. Yet you’ve never told us what secret intellectual formula you have taken, since its clear you’ve never done any climate science research – heck ANY scientific research – in your life.

    And to repeat: most of us contributing here are professionals, but not in climate science. What we do is to respect the views of the braod community in the field of climate science resesrch who do the research, write the papers, publish their results in rigid journals, and attend the relevant conferences. You clearly do not respect these people, based on your own self-righteous views. So what’s your secret, smartie pants?

    I think that you are a brazen coward. Writing onto general blogs demanding answers from people not working is a particular field is pure bluff. Its like you writing to a general blog demanding answers to questions of brain surgery techniques that go against the consensus when nobody contributing to the thread is a brain surgeon. Instead, we defer to the opinions of 95% of brain surgeons with respect to a particular method.

    You haven’t got the guts to put your money where your mouth is and to challenge a bonafide climate scientist with your gibberish. And until you do, you are wasting everyone’s time. I have asked you the same question at least a dozen times (see above). When the heck are you going to answer it? You haven’t ever told us what your day job is (if any). But the other question should be easy. Yes or no. Which is it?

  51. #51 Jonas N
    September 19, 2011

    Craig … the topic is old. More than four years actually. But feel free to join in: If you have ever seen that purported science and actually read (and preferably even understood) it, just tell me and all the others.

    And no, science is nowhere opinion, nor is it numbers of coinciding opinions. And neither is it guessing how ‘credible’ the guesses of those opining are

    Further, both the 97% and the ‘relevant experts’ are quite imprecise definitions, especially if it comes down to very specific statements. But you are right, there are many believing in what they have been told, by others, and this blog is a good example ..

  52. #52 Jonas N
    September 19, 2011

    Jeff H

    Science is not presented by responding to email queries, you of all should know that. Get that into your head! Will you please!

    Further, I dont give rat’s derriere about your opinions of me. You have shown beyond any doubt that you cannot have a measured discussion, not even control your fantasies. Instead: A compulsive urge to make up your own ‘facts’.

    But I have replied to plenty questions which I find relevant to the topic. (And ignored the skunk-pissing-contest ones, a practice I don’t respect, that is correct)

    And I don’t know why you write the same thing over and over again.

    I accept the fact that you don’t know where that claim is supposed to be shown with proper science. Even that you believe that ‘the big guys’ could point it out. But I don’t share that belief, and science doesn’t work that way: That the major results are so well hidden that only the ‘trusted’ can find it, and possibly have been allowed a peek at it. Science does not work this way!

    And no, neither you nor ‘the big guys’ get to make up your own ‘statistics’ and probability definitions/calculations only because you are dealing with ‘climate’ .. Get that into your head too!

    What is it you are so afraid of? Why are you so angry when this quite simple detail is pointed out to you? What is it you are defending? The non-existing science? The claim that it is still there? The practice to hide that fact among armwaiving phrases, footnotes, figures, appendices etc? Or that a wider public becoes aware of the fact? Or possibly that you’ve been had? What is it you are afraid of, ‘scientist’ Jeff H? The truth?

    Why are you so obsessed with avoiding the facts (and making up your own)?

    PS Of course I have asked this and related questions at RC, but as you might know, only ‘stupid’ sceptical questions make it through there, and only the 1st one, for which there is a ready made reply of Skeptical Science level. Relevant discussions are not possible there …

  53. #53 Wow
    September 19, 2011

    > But I have replied to plenty questions

    You haven’t answered them, though, have you.

    > And I don’t know why you write the same thing over and over again.

    Because you’ve never answered a question, so it gets asked again.

    > Why are you so obsessed with avoiding the facts (and making up your own)?

    Why do you complain of what you alone are doing? E.g.

    > 205

    > Wow #198 – No! Just plain: No!

    This isn’t an answer to the question in 197:

    > 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?

    Because if you don’t know about the climate models, what is it you know?

  54. #54 Wow
    September 19, 2011

    > 204

    > @wow

    > “Of what to what”

    > Like I said, you are late to the party, if you are using a browser you can scroll up to see what is being discussed.

    > We’re discussing the claim of attribution

    But attribution of what to what?

    Like I said, your initialism seems to mean “Git Says What?”.

    You quote

    > These estimates are based on expert judgement but as ensemble climate prediction develops we expect to have more objective criteria.

    But they DO have objective criteria. Models are hindcasted to see how well they match data they are not tested against in development. I even gave you a link to examples of such.

    But you’re determined, just like Jonarse here not to say a damn thing.

  55. #55 chek
    September 19, 2011

    I can’t believe this circus is still continuing.

    I suggest that Jonas begin his next post: “IPCC AR4 makes the claim …….” and shows the exact wording as used in AR4.

    Then Jonas you follow that with: “The issues I have with that claim are …..” This will ensure no goalposts are moved.

    So Jonas, not another exhibition of your advanced D-K syndrome, not another of your incoherent rants, no more claims to expertise you plainly don’t possess, no more risible anecdotes, no more fanciful ideas about how you think science should work, and no more sorry tales of persecution by those bad man over at RC. Just the IPCC claim in their own words, and your dispute with that.

    I’d ask everybody not to respond to Jonas unless his next post follows the format I’ve suggested.

  56. #56 Jonas N
    September 19, 2011

    Clippo – If it were based on science, that science would be published somewhere, available to read for anybody interested. That is how science is supposed to work.

    As I said, if that ‘science’ doesn’t exist, this claim is just self proclaimed ‘experts’ opining. And that is what it is. Unfortunately, GSW, kind of gave it away (and I linked to it too)

    (You will of course never hear the real story from any official source .. but there is a real story too behind that claim, and it would be really interesting to know the details)

    And clippo, forget Jeff H, he has zip to say in this matter. And please don’t talk about the ‘scientific truth’ .. expecially not when it comes to the IPCC (which is a political bureaucratic body)

  57. #57 GSW
    September 19, 2011

    @Jonas

    “Unfortunately, GSW, kind of gave it away”

    Apologies Jonas. I knew what you were getting at, I thought it would help the others. Elevating them from this state of ignorance is harder than I ever believed it could be.

    ;)

  58. #58 Jonas N
    September 19, 2011

    Wow – The “No! Just plain: No!” was in reply to #203. Sorry if that was my mistake. And no, I don’t engage with everybody here. But try to answer all whom I deem serious and capable of behaving like grown ups (replying to Jeff is a little ‘bonus treat’, an offer which I cannot extend to all, sorry :-)

  59. #59 Jonas N
    September 19, 2011

    GSW, no problem. There was actually a slight difference in nuance between the TAR and AR4 phrasings.

    I think that by now, all (grown ups) here are aware of the fact, it says so in plain language in the SPM footnote. But more remarkable is how they’ve woven it in to the actual AR4 assessment reports to give the impression that there is much more to it. It is quite cleverly crafted, as I said. And this is a strong candidate for what needed to be amended with the actual AR4 after the SPM was released in march 2007.

  60. #60 Bernard J.
    September 19, 2011

    [Chek](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5239706).

    It’s incredible isn’t it, just how much Jonas has avoided finding or providing actual evidence to support his claims, and how he has avoided trying to understand the processes of science itself?

    By my own reckoning I myself have asked him at least six times to [explain why ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-4965302) [John Mashey](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-4978988) [is wrong](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-5003179), [or otherwise](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-5003686) [non-credible in](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-5066931) [scrutinising Wegman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-5071335). That’s not including similar requests by others.

    No answer from Jonas N.

    I have asked him at least seven times to [substantiate his](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5169667) [claims by](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5171860) [demonstrating that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5183521) [the IPCC’s](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5194941) [work is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-4944825) [not backed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-4965302) [by science](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-5103081) – and again, that’s not accounting for the numerous times others have asked the same thing of him. Jonas N’s reply? “[Erm, I haven’t found them](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5169998) (the references)”.

    I’ve explained to him [at least](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5182999) [three times](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-5130929) [how science works](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-5130929), and even afterward [he still mashes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5231470) [up the process](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5240489).

    Jonas N.

    Understand this.

    1. The IPCC was set up by governments of the international community in order that the Panel summarise climatological science, and report back.
    2. The IPCC summarises climatological science, and reports its results to the international community.
    3. The IPCC does not reproduce holus-bolus all of the climatological literature in its reportings. This is not in its remit.
    4. The IPCC does list the work that it references, and it does so in clever attachments to its documents; attachments imaginatively called “References” .
    5. These references are easily found by anyone properly experienced in scientific methodology, and objectively motivated to find said material.
    6. You have not demonstrated any understanding of this situation.
    7. Jonas N.

      I have been waiting for you to tell us which IPCC references you have read, and that by doing so have permitted you to make the claim that the organisation makes up its estimation on future temperature ranges. You claim that you can’t find them.

      I am now going to ask you whether you have looked anywhere in the professional climatological literature for explanation of procedures to assess modelled future temperature ranges?

      So, have you?

      To make it easier, I will also ask you if you have read and discounted each of the papers below:

      – Allen, M. R. & Ingram, W. J. Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrological cycle. Nature 419, 224-232 (2002).

      Allen, M. R., Stott, P. A.,Mitchell, J. F. B., Schnur, R. & Delworth, T. L. Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Nature 417, 617-620 (2000).

      – Allen, M. R. & Stainforth, D. A. Towards objective probabilistic climate forecasting. Nature 419, 228 (2002).

      – Allen, M. R. Do-it-yourself climate prediction. Nature 401, 627 (1999).

      – Andronova, N. G. & Schlesinger, M. E. Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 22605-22612 (2001).

      – Collins, M. & Allen, M. R. Assessing the relative roles of initial and boundary conditions in inter-annual to decadal climate predictability. J. Clim. 15, 3104-3109 (2002).

      – Covey, C. et al. An overview of results from the coupled model intercomparison project. Glob. Planet. Change 37( 1-2), 103-133 (2003).

      – Forest, C. E. et al. Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent climate observations. Science 295, 113-117 (2002).

      – Giorgi, F. & Francisco, R. Evaluating uncertainties in the prediction of regional climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 1295-1298 (2000).

      – Gregory, J. M. et al. An observationally-based estimate of the climate sensitivity. J. Clim. 15, 3117-3121 (2002).

      – Hansen, J. A. et al/. Casino-21: Climate simulation of the 21st century. World Res. Rev. 13, 187-189 (2001).

      – Kennedy, M. C. & O’Hagan, A. Bayesian calibration of computer models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 63, 425-450 (2001).

      – Knutti, R., Stocker, T. F., Joos, F. & Plattner, G. K. Constraints on radiative forcing and future climate change from observations and climate model ensembles. Nature 416, 719-723 (2002).

      – Morgan, M. G. & Keith, D. W. Climate-change – subjective judgments by climate experts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29, 468-476 (1995).

      – Murphy, J. M. et al. Quantifying uncertainties in climate change from a large ensemble of general circulation model predictions. Nature 430, 768-772 (2004).

      – Palmer, T. N. Predicting uncertainty in forecasts of weather and climate. Rep. Prog. Phys. 63, 71-116 (2000).

      – Pope, V. D., Gallani, M., Rowntree, P. R. & Stratton, R. A. The impact of new physical parameterisations in the Hadley Centre climate model – HadAM3. Clim. Dyn. 16, 123-146 (2000).

      – Reilly, J. et al. Uncertainty in climate change assessments. Science 293, 430-433 (2001).

      – Smith, L. A. in Disentangling Uncertainty and Error: On the Predictability of Nonlinear Systems (ed. Mees, A. I.) Ch. 2 (Birkhauser, Boston, 2000).

      – Smith, L. What might we learn from climate forecasts? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 2487-2492 (2002).

      – Stainforth, D. A. et al. Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature 433, 403-406 (2005).

      – Stott, P. A. & Kettleborough, J. A. Origins and estimates of uncertainty in predictions of twenty-first century temperature rise. Nature 416, 723-726 (2002).

      – Wigley, T. M. L. & Raper, S. L. Interpretation of high projections for global mean warming. Science 293, 451-454 (2001).

      Some of these touch upon the questions that you claim are not answered. Some don’t. Do you know which ones do, and which ones don’t?

      These are just a random start. There are plenty more references that can be put to you, and I can play this game for weeks or months yet.

      And remember, this is for posterity, so be honest.

  61. #61 Wow
    September 19, 2011

    > And no, I don’t engage with everybody here

    It’s rather ironic that a troll denialist comes on here and says “I’ll engage with people who appear serious”.

    You’re serious, all right.

    Get help fast.

  62. #62 Jeff Harvey
    September 19, 2011

    Jonas,

    First answer Bernard’s outstanding post. I dare you to respond to it with any kind of content. Have you read any of the studies Beranrd has listed? A single one? Do you understand any of them?

    Second, stop being so bloody evasive. It makes you look even more stupid than you already do. Most importantly, why can you not answer a simple question? Why are you hounding the people who contribute to Deltoid? I have simply asked if you have written to climate scientists with your queries. You refuse to answer this simple question. It is not a hard question; a yes or no would suffice. But instead, I get this kind of irrelevant rant:

    *What is it you are so afraid of? Why are you so angry when this quite simple detail is pointed out to you? What is it you are defending? The non-existing science? The claim that it is still there? The practice to hide that fact among armwaiving phrases, footnotes, figures, appendices etc? Or that a wider public becoes aware of the fact? Or possibly that you’ve been had? What is it you are afraid of, ‘scientist’ Jeff H? The truth?*

    What has this got to do with my question? I am not afraid of the truth. I want you to tell it to me: have you written to climate scientists outlining your complaints with AR4/IPCC? If so, who? And what was their response? There’s no armwaving there. Just curiosity. Like anybody working in another field, I want to hear what answer you got from a climate scientist, if indeed you wrote to one.

    But my guess is that you’re merely a blog troll. A time-wasting jerk who clogs up web sites but when push comes to shove has to resort to railing on when your nonsense is caught out. Of course you haven’t written to any climate scientists. You are afraid to. A coward. If not, let’s see if you are up to it, little man. Please tell me if you’ve sent your rants anywhere other than on a few blog sites.

  63. #63 Jonas N
    September 19, 2011

    Jeff H – If you are not afraid of the truth, why are you constantly making things up then? Why do you need to make factual statements which are either untrue or you cannot possibly know (ie guessing blindly)? Why!?

    After three weeks, you can hardly justify that compulsive practice to a ‘slip of the fingers’ or a badly phrased comment.

    Re: Bernard’s comment: Did you not even notice that he is talkning about something completely different than I have been nagging about? (He certainly didn’t)

    And yes, you (and many others) are constantly trying to witch the topic, and it’s getting really ridiculous. As you very well know, there is no name to that claim I have been questioning. It just surfaces in a SPM footnote.

    There is no reference claiming to present the science behind it, ie no autors to ask. You are asking if I have randomly fired away emails to people not making that claim, to ask them about it!? What kind of twisted logic is that?

    As I already told you, at Real Climate this question disappears, they are deleting much simpler points than that. As I said, most replies by Gavin (usually) have been low level dismissals (pretending to, or actually not understanding its substance)

    But this is not the point Jeff. If there is science behind it, it is presented in one of the references, maybe building on a som few others. Named references Jeff .. All you are doing is trying to escape the fact that none of you have any clue.

    And let me make one thing perfectly clear, Jeff:. Among the two of us (and many more firing their ad homs) I am not the troll.

    I neither need to make things up, nor do I constantly need to throw insults and profanities at others (although, some deserve replies in kind)

  64. #64 Wow
    September 19, 2011

    > Jeff H – If you are not afraid of the truth, why are you constantly making things up then?

    Please provide an example.

  65. #65 Wow
    September 19, 2011

    > There is no reference claiming to present the science behind it

    What “it”?

    > or actually not understanding its substance

    Consider that it could be you’re posts are gibberish to rational minds uncluttered by your fantasies.

    > If there is science behind it

    What “it”?

    > Among the two of us (and many more firing their ad homs) I am not the troll.

    OK, you’re just an incomprehensible gibbering idiot.

    This is not an ad hom, since this is not being used to refute your points (wherever they are). They are a description of your actions and posts.

  66. #66 Jonas N
    September 19, 2011

    Bernard J –

    Yet another empty post: Of course I know what the IPCC is and how it came about.

    It is also strange that you ask about ‘modelled **future** temperatures’, because this is **not at all** what I have been talking about!? Had you really missed that too?

    But yes, some of them *touch upon* the issue **I** addressed. But the IPCC claim was very specific, there is no wiggle room wrt what it is supposed to mean. Some of you here were even trying to interpret that statement even stronger (pointing to the **most of** and the **>**90%).

    re: The references
    From the titles, one can confidently determine that quite some will not contain what I have been asking for. Some others, as you say (although unaware of the topic) may *touch upon* the issue.

    And (although you completely have missed what I have been talking about for some three weeks now), have you read any of them? Are you making the statement that what I am looking for (a quite specific AR4 claim) is to be found in one of them?

    Becaues it shure doesn’t sound (read) lika that. It looks much more as a random selection of references, followd by the usual ‘there are many more’ .. in order to switch the topic.

    But seriously: Have you read any of them, any you believe (because that is the method you seem to use) contain that claim?

    That claim you had misunderstood until now!? (You can find it on top of page 10in red, in the SPM, link in #195)

    Because if you had read them, and thought you’ve understood them, and you could articulate that understanding, and if you could do so (completely without the ‘normal’ behaviour of insults and rants about ‘sticky stuff’ you seem so obsessed with), then there could be a reason to actually discussits content.

    But judging from your rants here, statistics is not your field of expertise …

  67. #67 Wow
    September 19, 2011

    > It is also strange that you ask about ‘modelled future temperatures’, because this is not at all what I have been talking about!?

    So what IS it you’re talking about?

    You’re like that girl in the pop song: They call me Babe. That’s not my name. That’s not my name. That’s not my name.

    That’s YOU, that is.

    The confidence limits in English is defined. They are the lower end of the confidence limit, since there’s uncertainty in the uncertainty.

    But those figures ARE objectively analyzed.

    Then politics waters those down.

    You see, there is NOTHING that indicates that anything other than human production of CO2 has been the biggest cause of temperature change in the last 50 years.

    But that’s given a “Very likely (>95%)” because otherwise you’d spout some nonsense about how you can’t KNOW 100% something.

  68. #68 Jonas N
    September 19, 2011

    Wow – In my experience, commenters who like using terms like ‘denialist’ almost never have anything of substance to say. Whatever they possibly can say that is not wrong, has been said and understood better by others before.

    And quite often they have no clue how to determine anything, the read things and memorize them, repeat them and throw in random nonsense terms. And believe they are making an argument. Sorry, I’ll leave you to your self …

    You may call me whatever makes you feel better, I neither mind nor care …

  69. #69 Wow
    September 19, 2011

    That would false, Jonas. What would be more accurate is that anyone who calls you a denialist has never said anything you liked hearing.

    > Whatever they possibly can say that is not wrong

    Got any examples of what I’ve said that is wrong? No, you haven’t. All you have is lies and denial.

    > has been said and understood better by others before.

    Well, yes. It’s been said and understood by others before that you’re a denier, Jonas. That you’re a blithering idiot who can’t make a single coherent statement without going all woo-mancer on it.

    So, instead of actually SAYING what you’re talking about, you go all non-sequitor.

    You can’t even answer the statement made:

    > You see, there is NOTHING that indicates that anything other than human production of CO2 has been the biggest cause of temperature change in the last 50 years.

    So rather than deal with it, you waffle and make your avoidance of any argument you can’t meet a “moral choice” when in fact it’s merely your inability to carry logical thought without having it in disagreement with your preconceived notions. And instead refuse to acknowledge any information you can’t handle.

    Or, in other words, a denier.

  70. #70 Stu
    September 19, 2011

    Among the two of us (and many more firing their ad homs) I am not the troll.

    Unsurprisingly, Jonas has no idea about the definition of ad hominem. We’ll just add that to the list, next to “science”, “argument”, “point”, “relevant” and “reference”.

    Jonas, you’re a moron. And no, that’s not an ad hominem either. It’s an insult based upon plentiful facts.

  71. #71 Clippo
    September 20, 2011

    Wow, nice post in 253 – summarizes Jonas N’s performance spot on,

    Now, Jonas N, in #256 you wrote:-

    Clippo – If it were based on science, that science would be published somewhere, available to read for anybody interested. That is how science is supposed to work.

    Yes! – the science is published in the many thousands of peer-reviewed papers that the IPCC consults. Obviously you don’t read them because of your AGW denial. Okay, perhaps they are too tough for you to understand. In that case, the accepted behaviour is to consult ‘summary’ journals like say, New Scientist or Scientific American and no doubt many others. Go see what they say about AGW. Or even you could consult online sources like Wikipedia or Encyclo. Brittanica and again many others.

    &

    And clippo, forget Jeff H, he has zip to say in this matter. And please don’t talk about the ‘scientific truth’ .. expecially not when it comes to the IPCC (which is a political bureaucratic body)

    I don’t think I’ll forget Jeff H – he’s out-debated you so many times that I enjoy seeing him make you squirm. But, your second sentence exposes you clearly …

    you’re a Libertarian/right-wing conspiracy theorist (smile) – enough said.

    Finally, by saying that the IPCC doesn’t base it’s statements on science, you imply there is another reason –
    Own up and tell us what it is, so we can all go home and ignore your tedious trolling.

    (NB – I apologise to others if they have made these point above – I’ve not had time to read every recent post in detail and, due to more important committments I won’t be able to post for a few weeks. )

  72. #72 Clippo UK
    September 20, 2011

    Just had chance to read some recent posts – and I agree with Jeff H about Bernard J’s excellent post #260

    Answer it in detail Jonas N.

  73. #73 Jonas N
    September 20, 2011

    Clippo

    No, there is no such science published, and major results (such as the claimed posterchild) are not hidden among ‘thousands of papers’). You are also wrong about who is reading them. Because I have asked about the paper(s) that is(are) the base fot that IPCC claim. And nobody I’ve asked has ever seen it. You are also wrong about Bernard J, he hasen’t read the posted references. He didn’t even know what was disussed.

    And you are totally wrong about Jeff, he introduced himself as a ‘senior scientist’ weeks ago, and said therefor people should trust his claims, and others. That is pure nonsense. He hasn’t even debated anuthing. Just repeated his nonsens.

    So clippo, first you tried to score some minor points about how statistics are used. You even kept trying that after you revealed your rudimentary understanding for a while. And now you have now sunk to the exceedingly low level as the rest of them. Cannot read what is discussed, miss even the most central parts, start to make up your own truths, using ad homs .

    It’s truly amazing, because this is the level at which essentially every AGW-believer is capable of adressing the issues. An awful lot of empty words, and once this becomes obvious, they rever to insults and simply make stuff up.

    It’s pretty disgraceful.

    YMan don’t even bother to read what I say, and insted listen to each others made up nonsense. No wonder you get it so wrong so often.

    Here, in the past weeks, I’ve pointed out one detail: The AR4 posterchild claim, is not based on published science.

    Simple as that, and although this is obvious, even can be found in plain text, if one bothers to look, it sent many off the deep end. Behaving like gron ups was not longer possible …

    Fascinating! And this behaviour is abundant at all climate scare blogs … insults, lousy to complete absense of any logical capabilites and censoring

  74. #74 chek
    September 20, 2011

    “Posterchild” – lol.
    To add to Stu’s at comment #270 that should be windy, verbose, incoherent moron with a penchant for obfuscation and avoidance.

  75. #75 Jeff Harvey
    September 20, 2011

    Jonas writes, “*And you are totally wrong about Jeff, he introduced himself as a ‘senior scientist’ weeks ago, and said therefor people should trust his claims, and others. That is pure nonsense. He hasn’t even debated anuthing. Just repeated his nonsens*

    and then this:*Here, in the past weeks, I’ve pointed out one detail: The AR4 posterchild claim, is not based on published science*.

    Two points. First, we have repeatedly asked what science Jonas is referring to. He then claims that he can’t remember any climate-related papers he might have read. He’s only read the general summary of AR4. Ouch. Basically, he’s saying that as long as he doesn’t read or remember any of the articles from which the conclusions were derived, then it’s up to readers of blogs like Deltoid to prove to him that the aforementioned articles exist and that they bolster AR4.

    Second, Bernard goes to the trouble of listing 23 relevant peer-reviewed studies that Jonas should read and then to come back to us with his comments. That means that our resident troll should be away at least a week or so combing through this work in an effort to show where the scientific flaws lie. Does he do that? Of course not! He comes straight back here with his original claim, but with additional bellowing about being correct, on top of the subject,and lashing out at those who criticize him, etc.

    Let’s get one thing straight Jonas. If you want to debate an issue where there is broad scientific agreement its usually common practice for you – the contrarian – to point out major flaws in the studies on which the original conclusions were based. Have you done that? NOOOO! Never! You are camouflaging your profound ignorance by expecting us here to go through the studies to prove the conclusions re: human impact on the warming are correct. But, you silly nitwit, that has already been done. You are the one who claims that the scientists got it wrong. If so, go through the studies and show us where!

    The fact is Jonas that you couldn’t debate your way out of a wet paper bag. But congratulations anyway. You have become the new poster-boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect. In all of my years as a scientist I have never encountered anyone who knows so little about any scientific field but who thinks that they know so much. In my opinion you even make Lomborg look good, and that’s saying a lot.

  76. #76 GSW
    September 20, 2011

    @Jeff

    Sorry have to agree with Jonas on this. Jeff you are not a ‘scientist’ in any substantive meaning of the word.

    You are purely a mixture of emotions, rage & fear. I’ll add self importance to that as it is very much in evidence in what you have posted here . You seem unable to take an objective (dispassionate) view on anything.

    You may not agree with Jonas, but you cannot even understand the point he is making – which I find most peculiar.

    You can disagree, that’s Ok.
    Failure to comprehend, that’s, well, odd.

    Just continue with your self righteous torrents of abuse Jeff, you’ve shown you aren’t capable of much else.

  77. #77 Wow
    September 20, 2011

    > Sorry have to agree with Jonas on this.

    If you’re sorry, why do you ALWAYS do it?

    > Jeff you are not a ‘scientist’ in any substantive meaning of the word.

    What substantive meaning are you using?

    > You are purely a mixture of emotions, rage & fear.

    Unlikely, since pure emotions can’t type on a physical keyboard.

    > but you cannot even understand the point he is making

    That’s because he’s not making any points, just proclamations.

    > Failure to comprehend, that’s, well, odd.

    Not really, since not comprehending gibberish is completely normal for a normal functioning brain.

    > Just continue with your self righteous torrents of abuse Jeff

    See “You are purely a mixture of emotions, rage & fear. I’ll add self importance to that” above. Irony, to this whining little shitbag is “something like steely”.

  78. #78 Jonas N
    September 20, 2011

    Jeff H is still trying to turn the question upside down.

    I am the one asking which science supposedly is behind that claim. (Others are wishing/hoping for its existence, but mostly obsessing about completely irrelevant stuff)

    Bernard gave a random scattergun list of references (proably from a simple ISI or WoS search) and demanded I read those instead.

    Funny thing it that he 1) totally missed what my question was about, and 2) probably hasn’t read many of them himself. I am very confident that he is very unfamiliar the topic (attribution to and high confidence levels of a proposed hypothesis)

    As Jeff suggests, the purpose is to ‘keep me away’. Both are asking mw to review and criticize articles that don’t make the claim I am questuioning.

    This is utterly amazing: Jeff Harvey still pretends (or even worse: truly believes) that a very spefic quantified calim, purportedly based on science, is not presented as such always is: In the published literature, but instead is found diluted in hundreds of references, and confirmed by ‘broad agreement in the community’ ..

    This is such utter nonsense, it baffles the mind (mine, that is, and other real scientists)

    And equally funny is his stamping his feet, repeating:

    No! You must find what is wrong with what doesn’t exist!

    Really, how dense can one be?

    Finally Jeff Harvey, well if you are so capable of debating science related topics, why then are you only repeating such nonsense, and why must you invent your own ‘truths’ as you go?

    I mean really, I even pointed you (and others) to the passage where you can read that my claim is correct, and still you are flailing your arms …

  79. #79 Wow
    September 20, 2011

    > I am the one asking which science supposedly is behind that claim.

    What claim?

    Please show the claim “it” is and where “it” comes from.

    > Bernard gave a random scattergun list of references (proably from a simple ISI or WoS search)

    Nope from the reference of the AR4. The place where the IPCC document the science they refer to in the report.

    > I mean really, I even pointed you (and others) to the passage where you can read that my claim is correct

    Where? Please repeat your passage and the location. You’ve spouted so much rubbish finding “the passage where you can read that my claim is correct” is impossible. You haven’t even given the post number.

  80. #80 chek
    September 20, 2011

    Jonas, I gave you a clear format to follow at post #255.
    As it is you’re just becoming an ever more incoherent moron, if that were possible, and GSW’s Heepish support isn’t helping you either.

    I suggest you use the suggested format in #255 or continue to re-confirm your idiocy by not even understanding how to do that.

    Nobody but nobody is ever going to bother re-reading the mountains of sheerfuckwitted rubbish you’ve produced so far, and most have just lost interest when your tedious repetition stopped being amusing.

  81. #81 Bernard J.
    September 20, 2011

    Jonas N.

    I gave the references for papers that I have and have read, or that are immediately referenced by them. As Wow notes, many (if not all) appear in AR4.

    The substantive point here is that you are steadfastly and absolutely refusing to engage in an analysis of their content, just as you do with any request for specifics about John Mashey’s work that are put to you. I want to know why the contents of papers such as these are not relevant to your claim – your response will tell us a great deal about the nature of your assessment of the professional climatological analysis. We want to see your ‘working’.

    As for the focus of my questioning, I have been endeavouring to entice you to answers taking into account that you dismiss both the confidence in the temperature ranges attributed to human-induced warming to date, and that [you slipped in a mention of “projections” at one point in your blathering](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-5003159). Given that you started this whole nonsensical stream of fluff by criticising John Mashey, without ever giving any evidence for your claims, I was making sure that possible future, new changes in direction by you might be anticipated.

    So, yet again. Why is Mashey wrong? Which of the AR4 and other climtological papers have you actually read, to acertain that there is no science that backs the IPCC’s attribution of warming to humans?

    Why has it taken you weeks now to reach this point, and still not answer these very simple questions?

    Oh, that’s right, you’re an denialist shill with no scientific credibility, and a whole lot of pseudoscientific ideology. If you weren’t, you’d write up the case that proves your point. And no, it has nothing to do with proving a negative – all you have to do is review the IPCC references and demonstrate that they do not in fact contain the material that you claim is absent.

    So, in case you missed it the first one hundred times around, which of the AR4 and other climtological papers have you actually read, to acertain that there is no science that backs the IPCC’s attribution of warming to humans?

  82. #82 chek
    September 20, 2011

    GSW @ #276

    It’s a truism that fake blogscientists really, really hate real, professional scientists. Perhaps because real professional scientists won’t give the poor little poseurs the time of day, which totally offends the fake blogscientist’s sense of self importance. Only an observation, but your posts are if anything yet more confirmation.

    No doubt idiot trolls take comfort from your support though, for what little that’s worth for both parties.

  83. #83 Jonas N
    September 20, 2011

    Bernard, once again you are making your own ‘facts’ up.

    You say you have read some of them. That I believe. And you threw in some more (which was quite obvious).

    Now, of those you have read (and understood the statistical parts of), is there any that actually adresses the key question here?

    If so, which one?

    As I have stated many times (and you ‘deniers’ refuse to take in): All I have ever read, did not contain that any such science, and did not pretend to deliver such either.

    But very very often, did those who referred to a specific reference widely overstate its contents.

    “As for the focus of [your] questioning”!?

    Your focus has been sticky stuff, which you have been obsessing about. Inbetween feeble attempts at other insults. They don’t impress me.

    Its funny that you say:

    “you’d write up the case that proves your point”

    because, that is **exaclty** what I would have expected from those persons who make that claim about attribution and high confidence. **Exactly that!** Which you have no clue about where to find, if it at all exists. And why you demand I should read a lot of other stuff instead!

    Owngoal once again!

    Using your ‘logic’, you have no accused them of being : “denialist shill[s] with no scientific credibility, and a whole lot of pseudoscientific ideology”

    I wouldn’t go quite that far about the IPCC authors, but hey, inflated claims are abundant both here and there …

    So, since you have read some of your references, and are not claiming that the science for the AR4-posterchild-message was contained therein, we can agree on not looking furhter there. So which ones are left, Bernard J?

    Which of them have you not read, still pinning your hopes on?

    PS You are right, I do not take Mashey seriously. He/you may complain about the form of the Wegman report, I assume that this is the strongest argument he can come up with

  84. #84 Jonas N
    September 20, 2011

    Bernard J, I just read the link to my old comment. And if you don’t understand what is said there, that explains why you have such difficulties handling real science. If you don’t even understand the words … of what a measurement is, or a hypothesis ..

    And you subsequent comments there are just precious .. and revealing. And ‘pertinent’ according to your own judgement!

    Priceless! :-)

  85. #85 Wow
    September 20, 2011

    > is there any that actually adresses the key question here?

    Yes.

    > All I have ever read, did not contain that any such science

    We can believe that. And, given you haven’t read the science that the AR4 refers to, this leaves us the option of the IPCC AR4 being scientific.

    > Which you have no clue about where to find, if it at all exists.

    Because you refuse to say what the hell you’re talking about.

    It’s rather difficult to find information to counter your claims when you’ve made no concrete claims whatsoever.

  86. #86 chek
    September 20, 2011

    Jonas sprays yet more incoherence. No surpise there.

    Jonas, if you can’t formulate a simple question in the format suggested, you’re in no position to construct an argument, let alone a scientific critique.

    Of course what this is really all about is the noise machine in action, now that Lindzen and Christy are busted flushes and Pielke Snr. jumped aboard Spencer’s sinking ship, Wegman’s career is destroyed and McIntyre’s still dribbling on about Yamal a decade after the event. The warmest ever decade too.

    The backbone of the denial machine is broken and the likes of half-arsed footsoldiers and noise makers such as Jonas and his fan are pretty much all there is left.

  87. #87 chek
    September 20, 2011

    Troll Jonas said: “PS You are right, I do not take Mashey seriously. He/you may complain about the form of the Wegman report, I assume that this is the strongest argument he can come up”.

    Well peaches, Wegman has been under formal investigation for a year now. That’s some serious shit about more than ‘form’, although I appreciate morons like you have limited understanding and shut their eyes at what they prefer not to see.

  88. #88 chris
    September 20, 2011

    This is geting quite funny. The thread highlights the numbing impact a troll can have on sensible discussion. Everyone feels that it must be possible to get him to engage with some sort of semblance of reason – but no, it simply ain’t going to happen.

    Anyway, it shows why a garbage thread is sometimes necessary… and eventually everyone really will give up and that will be that..

  89. #89 Jonas N
    September 20, 2011

    chris, your contribution here has been the remote determination of other’s motives, honesty and competence. As far as I’ve seen all your claims have been ludicrous. Especially when compared to what passes as ‘climate science’

    Unfortunately, most of your claims have only been what you can read at the various activist blogs, very much more concerned with persons than with facts or science. And in stark contrast to any understanding how (real) science progresses ..

    But, if you have seen any realy science backing up the AR4-posterchild claim, why don’t you just say so. You did proud your self as someone in science, both publishing and reviewing.

    Maybe you too want to claim that the most spectacular scientific findings are not published as such, cannot be read, and are instead hidden among hundreds of references, dealing with other or only partly related questions, and that these findings instead exist as ‘a general agreement within a community’ (defining itself as ‘those who agree’)

    Because that is the ‘argument’ many of your ‘friends’ here are trying …

    So, chris, is that your belief too?

  90. #90 Stu
    September 20, 2011

    Hi, Jonas! Which of the references Bernard posted are not “realy science”, and why?

  91. #91 Jonas N
    September 20, 2011

    Which part of the question I asked chris was too difficult to grasp?

  92. #92 Stu
    September 20, 2011

    if you have seen any realy science backing up the AR4-posterchild claim

    That question?

    One of these is true:

    – The references are not “realy science”
    – They don’t back up the claim

    Which one is it? And why?

    Can you name one of the references for which this holds true?

  93. #93 Jeff Harvey
    September 20, 2011

    GSW, are you really all there when you write this nonsense?

    *Sorry have to agree with Jonas on this*

    Bloody hell, you’ve been agreeing with every bit of garbage that Jonas has been writing since he first showed up here! So why am I never surprised when you write this kind of crap?!?!

    Then you also write, *Jeff you are not a ‘scientist’ in any substantive meaning of the word*.

    According to you, you twit? And rage and fear? Perhaps a lot of exasperation at the bilge you and Jonas dish out in spades, but the combined intellect of you and Jonas couldn’t scare a mole cricket. Once you’ve actually done some scientific research, you can safely open your big mouth and make some noise. Until then, however, you should stick to whatever pithy thing it is that you do. You are in no position to judge me or any of the scientific research I have done.

  94. #94 luminous beauty
    September 20, 2011

    Jonas,

    >Maybe you too want to claim that the most spectacular scientific findings are not published as such, cannot be read, and are instead hidden among hundreds of references, dealing with other or only partly related questions, and that these findings instead exist as ‘a general agreement within a community’

    Well, yes. Very few scientific findings are ‘spectacular’. Most all scientific research is narrowly limited to very particular and specific questions that are only partially related to general conclusions such as the one you are questioning. Such general conclusions are not so much ‘hidden’ among those hundreds if not, in some cases, millions of references, but are the result of expert knowledge and the application of careful inductive reasoning upon comprehensive review of the relevant literature. Such a comprehensive review you are either too stupid or too lazy or, quite likely, both to undertake, but rather would have others do your homework for you.

    And, yes, scientific findings, no matter how ‘spectacular’, or not, only acquire standing when they have been broadly accepted within the relevant specialized scientific community, when sufficient other studies, preferably through orthogonal methods and approaches suggest consilient findings and corroborating evidence. There is no one single arbiter of scientific truth, least of all your not so humble self.

    Once again. The general conclusion you question __is__ referenced, quite plainly and particularly to Chap. 9 of the WGI, but also, if you follow those references, to Chaps. 2,3 and others. The supporting studies are cited by the lead author’s name and date of publication in those chapters and the complete references are made available in the Reference sections. (Thus ending your primary school lesson in bibliographical research.) I don’t need to have read them, though I have read several and looked at most, to know how to find them. I do, however assert those I have examined, either carefully or summarily, do provide quality scientific support for the general conclusion you are questioning. My assertion is ad hoc as good as yours.

    >If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

    >Isaac Newton

    Jonas, OTOH, sees little because he has been feeding on the feces of nits.

  95. #95 GSW
    September 20, 2011

    @Jeff 293

    “Jeff you are not a ‘scientist’ in any substantive meaning of the word.”

    I stand by that Jeff. The Pompous doomsaying you practice is not science, nor is your substitution of intellectual faculty, exasperated or not, with emotional rants and abuse.

    Jonas point is not complex, it has been explained to you many times.

    I can safely open my big mouth and make some noise Jeff, however in doing so I could not hope to improve on Feynman;

    “Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools-guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus-THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn’t a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!”

    @Jonas

    Think we can make the 300 mark?

    ;)

  96. #96 Stu
    September 20, 2011

    I stand by that Jeff.

    What a shock. I am floored.

    The Pompous doomsaying you practice

    Facts are neither pompous nor doomsaying just because you do not like them. And they most certainly are not from Pompo.

    with emotional rants and abuse.

    Oh sweetheart, go lay down for a minute or two. You’ll feel much better.

    Jonas point is not complex, it has been explained to you many times.

    And addressed fully at least seven times by my current count, lastly and eloquently by luminous beauty @294. Again, facts do not become untrue solely because you do not like them.

    You, like Jonas, seem to be unaware of the advanced features of these here modern computer thingies, such as “scrolling up”. It might not be a bad idea to try it every now and then to avoid making an even bigger fool of yourself.

    I can safely open my big mouth and make some noise Jeff

    I am sure you can, precious. Here’s a cookie.

    By the way, please grab a mirror and re-read

    “[…] An ordinary fool isn’t a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!”

    Oh, by the way:

    @Jonas
    Think we can make the 300 mark?
    ;)

    Always glad to help.

  97. #97 John Mashey
    September 20, 2011

    Well, just for fun, and a return top Wegman, where some of this started.

    Andrew Gelman is a serious well-published statistician.

    He doesn’t like plagiarists much here, or earlier.

    Here we have the fascinating situation in which a “peer-reviewed journal, edited by Wegman, Said and Scott (same trio as the Wegman Report):
    published Wegman&Said(2011) and Said&Wegman(2009).

    The first was plagiarized from various sources over years, covered a while back by DC, the second mostly hacked together from Wikipedia articles, but with math errors introduced. Put another way, 2n is not usually 2^n.

    Sadly, no grad students to blame this time.

  98. #98 Bernard J.
    September 20, 2011

    Jonas N:

    >[Blah blah blah]

    >…All I have ever read, did not contain that any such science…

    >[Blah blah blah]

    So, what have you read?

    Why is is so bloody hard to get any references from you?

    Eh?

    >…if you don’t understand what is said there…

    In spite of your incoherence, I understand perfectly well what you are claiming. I don’t understand why you refuse to tell us which papers you have read,and that led you to claim that there is no science behind the IPCC’s statements of attribution.

    Unless, of course, you haven’t read any at all – which fits in with your claim to not remember which papers you’ve checked…

    Which leads me to my next point. I’m trawling through more IPCC references Joans N, and I am going to ask you in the near future if you have read any of another batch of them – and then another, and another… Given your current refusal to admit that you’ve actually read any of the ones I have already put forward, I should be able to soon ascertain whether you’ve read anything at all, and certainly whether you’ve read sufficient of the IPCC’s referred literature to make the silly claims that you have.

    You’ve been yammering for weeks now about how you’re all scientific-like, and how the professionals are not, but never once have you coherently made your case, with references as scientists are wont to do. You resort to the “cannot prove a negative” gambit when pressed, but that is a red herring because your claim is eminently provable if you actually chose to do so.

    And if it’s not provable, how then can you possibly make such a claim in the first place?!

  99. #99 jakerman
    September 20, 2011

    >I stand by that Jeff.

    Does GSW really think anyone cares what he says he stands by? Why do I keep thinking the word “twat” when reading GSW.

    Jeff’s records speaks for itself.

  100. #100 jakerman
    September 20, 2011

    >@Jonas Think we can make the 300 mark? ;)

    GSW, you might rate yourself as a troll, but you’ll need to up your game to [match the fool](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1972484) who’s path you’re seeking to follow.

Current ye@r *