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 GSW
    February 22, 2012

    @Jonas
    ;)

    Apologies Jonas, its been very exciting around and about hasn’t it! I missed your posts on this thread (too many distractions) , I was hoping you would show up, you’ve always had a good eye for the truth behind these things. Let me grab a cup of coffee then respond.

  2. #2 GSW
    February 22, 2012

    “My comments have been disappearing, or ‘making it through’ days later it seems. Ie. the usual tactics at climate-scare blogs.”

    As you’ve no doubt realised, you being managed Jonas – quite a compliment in a way – let a few well chosen words from the rational thru and the whole CAGW edifice could fall apart, or least that’s how they think.

  3. #3 GSW
    February 22, 2012

    While I remember, I came across some of your earlier posts at the bish’s.

    Sorry, there was me telling you earlier in YOUR thread that you would be better off over there! Better class of poster, which is true, and all that. Do you still frequent the bishops? As you are aware, there is a lot activity there and practically everywhere, but I haven’t seen the “Jonas N”.

  4. #4 GSW
    February 22, 2012

    “It must be a strange world those activists populate. Their latest meme is a bogus ‘Heartland Strategy-memo’ which many hope constitutes the final blow to those ‘evil deniers’ .. and the wish so even after its status as fabricated fake has been established with extremely high certainty.

    They are just wishing and hoping so hard, and closing their eyes and covering their ears … ”

    Yes indeed, very much a siege mentality in play here. I don’t know if you’ve tried posting on the Legal Notice’d sites
    everything is going thru moderation at the moment – which I only find strange because I’ve posted freely at some of them before.

    Oh, BTW, once they go into moderation they Never appear. Its all being ‘managed’ very carefully, only ineffectual non party line comments allowed. Loads of ‘slap on the back’/’I admire your stance’ going thru – comfort messages.

    As for,

    “They are just wishing and hoping so hard, and closing their eyes and covering their ears … ”

    This seems to be a crisis moment, a test of faith. If they can block reality out at this critical time, their place in “climate science heaven” (along with all the little calculators, if that means anything to you) will be assured, or some such thing.

    Actually I prefer ..(along with all the little climate models).. If you’ve never seen “Red Dwarf” you’ll be very confused at this point.
    ;)

  5. #5 chek
    February 22, 2012

    And so with a fully navel-gazed Jonarsian conspiracy (and Judith Curry thinks so too! Probably…) GSW urges Jonarse to retire the the Bishop’s lounge, where no doubt he’ll be respected. Unlike here.

    It’s almost like a they’ve some sort of prediliction for denierdrivel blogs connected to phoney right-wing ‘charities’.

    And while Jonarse and the crew toddle off in their Black Knight fashion with nary a fleshwound, let’s take a moment to recall that Jonas came to bury AR4.

    But despite literally thousands of words from the … er … great man himself – all preserved here to be enjoyed – not one single piece of data or evidence was ever produced, and AR4 lived a long and happy life anticipating what the world may be like when AR5 was born.

    Bye bye, Jonarse and crew – don’t go swallowing too many protocols all at once now, y’hear!

  6. #6 GSW
    February 22, 2012

    “I will add some more thoughts to the Gleick-scandal, because pretty it isn’t, and I am quite certain we haven’t seen the end of it.

    Firstly, Gleick alleges that “At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail”. This is quite hard to swallow (and Judith Curry states flat out “hard to believe that he didn’t write this”). And even if he didn’t pen this himself, I would be surprised if he didn’t know who, or had a good hunch.

    Secondly, the fake Strategy-memo looks as if it was written after the other documents had been read and searched. It is crafted around tidbits found in the authentic ones. In a rather clumsy way trying to inflate common activist talking-points and conspiracies (and making gross errors about Koch-money). It is hard to believe that that creation of the fake memo preceded the reading of the authentic ones.

    Thirdly, as is somewhat indicated in Gleick’s confession, there seemed to be a wider group informed of (at least) the existence of those documents before. The immensely quick reaction from DeSmogBlog, only an hour after that (alleged first, and fake) strategy document ‘leaked’ to Gleick was scanned one final time?”

    Yes, others have commented on this also, the timing is suspicious all round.

    Your “Secondly…”, “St Peter of the Ethical task force” has a few more questions to answer here. Heartland are pushing the line that he is the mystery forger also and there is at least some circumstantial evidence that this is the case – Mosher did a lot of the leg work on this. As you point out JC, who is normally quite cautious, says “hard to believe that he didn’t write this”.

    St Peter has admitted “error’s of judgment” which seems to cover a multitude of, apparently forgivable, sins. Ordained CS priest to canonized saint thru thievery and deception, I ask you.

    As you point out, all that is needed to construct the forged document is the info in the other pdf’s that Gleick gained access to. It would be doing a disservice to Occam’s razor to require another ’3rd party’ to participate in order for the narrative to be complete. It’ll all come out in the wash no doubt, one way or another, in the meantime, order the popcorn, sit back and enjoy.
    ;)

  7. #7 GSW
    February 22, 2012

    I suspect at this point any replies you have may be held up in moderation. So I’ll continue in anticipation of them coming thru at some later date.
    ;)

  8. #8 GSW
    February 22, 2012

    “Moreover, I was somewhat surprised at how quickly both blogs, some journalists, but more importantly ‘The Team’ and other organizations had ready and condemning statements about Heartland prepared. Most noticeable, the Team in The Guardian (incidentally not penned by them, but by Aaron Huertas from one of the worse climatescare astroturf lobby groups, the misnamed ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’) and some [Climate and Health Council], both with many signatories from all over the world.”

    I’m not so sure about this. I think it is possible to mistake “being forewarned” with excessive eagerness and glee that at last there was some ‘good news’ on the beleaguered CAGW propaganda front. No rational person takes it that seriously anymore and they had found someone to blaim – The $4million/yr Heartland institute, all of a sudden the delusion made some kind of sense, even if the little numbers didn’t.

    Normal journalistic fact checking was thrown out of the window, a last ditch attempt to embrace the dying narrative was too good an opportunity to miss, reality could go on hold for awhile.

    “Union of concerned scientists”, Anthony Watts dog Kenji is one of them you know. ;) Their speedy response? It’s what the organization is for, some numpty qualified public administrator/advocacy specialist puts a few clumsily chosen words together in 10mins – 5 minutes later, after careful consideration, a dozen or so dubious concerned scientists say ok put my name to that. Done.

    Did you see Josh’s cartoon on the letter of condolance to Heartland? It actually read better than the original!
    ;)

  9. #9 GSW
    February 22, 2012

    “It is hard to rid oneself of the suspicion that these signatories had prior information of at least the upcoming ‘leak’. That this ‘strikeback’ was a ‘coordinated attack’ (incidentally, one of Michael Mann’s favorite phrases since 2009)”

    I do know where you are coming from on this, keeping it simple though, Occam works here, I wouldn’t underestimate the useful idiots/”use my name if it helps the cause” factor. I don’t think consipiracy is required where the facts can be adequately explained thru their stupidity.

  10. #10 chek
    February 22, 2012

    Ordained CS priest to canonized saint thru thievery and deception, I ask you.

    Yeah, like because who needs people like Julian Assange, or Daniel Ellsberg or Mordecai Vanunu exposing that which would much prefer to remain hidden away from the glare of public exposure – like undue and corrupt corporate influence in this case.

    As [John Mashey shows,](http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/fake_0.pdf) there’s nothing in the Strategy doc. not available elsewhere at Heartless, despite your ongoing futile tactical efforts to focus on the peripheral areas of non-interest. And so we see incompetent, unpaid shills thinking they’re ‘libertarians’ picking the wrong side of history and getting a sound thrashing on global MSM comments pages and those blogs outside their own echo chamber.

    But then Jonarse is guiding you.

  11. #11 GSW
    February 22, 2012

    “Finally, Peter Gleick is the chairman of f the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity. (And Lybia under Ghadaffi, chaired the UN Human Rights Commission)”

    “Climate and Health Council”

    I knew about the AGU task force on Scientific Integrity, Gleicks name was quickly removed on the day of his confession. I should probably be more concerned about this than I am, but Gleick never really came across as an appropriate sort of person to be included in the first place.
    His appointment must have pleased somebody I suppose.

    The others, Gadaffi and Human rights? are you sure? Also “Climate and Health Council” did Gleick ever have an involvement with them? Quick look couldn’t find any reference to Gleick there, has his name been removed, Ministry of Truth style there as well?

    Look forward to hearing from you Jonas! Glad you are still participating, albeit as a citizen with percieved lesser rights, Rosa Parks would be proud of you, as am I!

    (I’ll check back tomorrow)
    ;)

  12. #12 Jonas N
    February 23, 2012

    Yes GSW

    I am reading your posts. But they weren’t visible yesterday evening yet. And I commented at BH in the Gleick Confesses thread.

    Maybe you misread my thoughts above: Gleick ‘confesses’ that he had the forged document for quite a while, and claims to subsequently have received the others.

    If we for a moment accept that (implausible) timeline, my question is:

    Given Gleick’s compulsiveness to (even in public) spout his feelings about his ‘enemies’, do you think he managed to keep quite about this for weeks even among his closer friends and network? To have done all this alone in furtive seclusiveness?

    I was not implying an orchestrated ‘coordinated attack’, my question Rather(!) was:

    Were there rumors making the rounds among the inner CAGW circles that something ‘juicy’ about Heartland was about to appear, that people should keep their eyes open?

    Gleick said he mailed the files (including the fake) from that anonymous account to 15 persons. I also really would like to know who all the others were. And if they didn’t use it, even suspected it to be faked, why they don’t come forward

    PS Don’t you find it ironic even hilarious that Gleick’s confession most certainly is not at all is penned by him, but his high profile criminal lawyer?

  13. #13 Jonas N
    February 23, 2012

    chek …

    Still, after half a year, nobody has ever seen and read any science behind that most prominent AR4 claim. Nobody who can read science, and understand it ..

    That of course doesn’t include you, so you are still only one of the faithers, always have been. Like so many others here ..

    I think the wisest (smarter, wiser) ones among the readers kept their mouth shut. Didn’t make stupid claims, bonheadedly arguing their faith ..

    It’s only difficult to determine if there were that many of them ..

  14. #14 GSW
    February 23, 2012

    @Jonas

    Some interesting points Jonas, I expect nothing less of course. Can’t respond fully now, will give it some thought throughout the day and get back to you this evening. How does the trick of your posts not appearing in the recent comments list work I wonder?
    ;)

  15. #15 chek
    February 23, 2012

    Still, after half a year, nobody has ever seen and read any science behind that most prominent AR4 claim.

    But Jonarse, that’s just your meaningless little meme that you use to groom idiots like Petri and GSW & Co. It means nothing in the real world.

    Nobody who can read science, and understand it .

    Well that’s you excluded.
    Jonarse, you forget that we have witnessed your interactions with real, professional scientists and you get dismissed within minutes because of your clumsy idiocy.

    Of course you and your clique fondly imagine to yourselves that it’s because of your own towering genius. But of course, it’s not.

  16. #16 GSW
    February 23, 2012

    Jonas,

    “Given Gleick’s compulsiveness to (even in public) spout his feelings about his ‘enemies’, do you think he managed to keep quite about this for weeks even among his closer friends and network? To have done all this alone in furtive seclusiveness?”

    If I’m honest, I don’t know a lot about the man personally, I have a view though based on;

    His run in with barry woods circa 24th-26th of January this year. Interesting dates, slap bang in the middle the dialogue with Jim Blakely at Heartland over the speaker invitation and just prior to his “lapse in judgment”.

    http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/

    Short summary: Gleick blocked BW from his twitter, citing harrassment and being sent ‘incredibly offensive’ tweets. Now as we know, barry is nothing if not a gentleman and a few of the more UK moderate climate scientists jumped to his defense. Read thru all of it to get a view of the man.

    My take: Surprisingly, very much like your own. This guy is a ‘Hot head’, a self percieved martyr, makes rash statements he can’t back up and sees ‘Evil doers’ everywhere. He’s not the kind of guy who takes his time to make well thought thru rational judgments, spur of the moment emotional actions are the order of the day.

    So, do I think this guy quietly sat on a ‘damaging’ document for weeks on end carefully thinking about what to do about? No, I don’t. Which is the point you are making.

    So we are thinking along the same lines so far.

  17. #17 Stu
    February 23, 2012

    Sorry to interrupt the circle jerk, but do any of you clowns care to address the substantive issues in the documents the Heartland institute has acknowledged are genuine?

  18. #18 GSW
    February 23, 2012

    Moving on Jonas,

    “closer friends and network? To have done all this alone in furtive seclusiveness?”

    I’ll re-state this as “who else knew?”.

    I don’t buy widespread conspiracy theories. A few individuals with a cunning plan maybe. The CAGW blogosphere can be pretty much relied on to react in a predetermined way given the right, often rather tenuous, input. So there is no need for everyone to be “in the know” to make it happen.

    I’ve not seen a consolidated list of the 15(?) “outlets” that the documents were sent to. Desmog seems to be the most ardent/cited/vociferous in all this. Are there any long standing ties/relationships between the Desmog guys and Gleick that would mark them out as being the “natural” sounding board? I don’t know.

    As you say, surely Gleick would take council from some other party before embarking on this? and even if he did, the extent to which they needed to be informed of the full provenance the documents is likely limited. The point you made before, Desmog did turn the story around very quickly (~1hr was it?) which I think would make them a potential candidate zero.

    I’d be prepared to accept one close “confidant” in the know. The other 14 postings could just be to defocus attempts to identify the source, “Hey we were sent this anonymously, just like everybody else” as well as make sure the story went viral as soon as possible.

    All just speculation of course, but I think a widespread conspiracy is very unlikely.

  19. #19 Stu
    February 23, 2012

    So that would be a “no” from GSW. Anyone else?

  20. #20 GSW
    February 23, 2012

    “PS Don’t you find it ironic even hilarious that Gleick’s confession most certainly is not at all is penned by him, but his high profile criminal lawyer?”

    Is this the case? It would indeed be ironic if the only thing in all this he didn’t author was his confession. ;)

    Anthony’s trying to get people to have a go at running JGAAP (Java Graphical Authorship Attribution Program) on various documents, I don’t think anyone has even suggested trying the confession. I think it’s assumed that, as you say, it’ll will have been well rehearsed with his legal guy – all Gleickisms removed.

    PS I’d be amazed if JGAAP proved useful here, in the main, the fake document is a cut and paste of other heartland stuff and carry over a strong heartland signature. Will that be enough to out match the juicy, contentious newly authored pieces? We’ll see.
    ;)

  21. #21 Stu
    February 23, 2012

    Just to make sure, GSW: let’s for the moment assume that Gleick is a adulterous baby-raping tax-dodging murderer. What does that have to do with the content of the documents the Heartland institute has acknowledged as being genuine?

  22. #22 GSW
    February 23, 2012

    Apologies Jonas,

    I’m always suggesting things to you- have you seen this? and you always have ;)

    Just in case you haven’t on this one occasion, Joe Bast’s appearance on the WSJ Opinion page today/yesterday was very good.

    http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9D5-4213-4DC0-AE0D-5A3D171EB260.html

    I think it is ‘Opinion’ in that it is very much a ‘soft’ interview. I assume Gleick has/was offered a similar opportunity, in any event it’s unlikely he would accept without his lawyer pretty much sitting on his lap. ;)

    I’ve seen Joe speak once before, he introduced one of the guests during their 2011 “International Climate Change Conference”. It seems that last year will be the last time they stage the event, the cost $400,000 means they can no longer continue. So much for the well funded denier machine that is tearing the CAGWers apart. ;)

    I assume you’re in moderation, I’ll check back tomorrow, Enjoy!

    Still curious about the Gadaffi, Human rights, “Climate and Health Council” thing.

  23. #23 Jonas N
    February 24, 2012

    Stu

    The real documents showed that Heartland does exactly what it states as its mission, and on its website.

    There is no beef there. The only ‘beef’ found by the alarmists were the contortded words by the forger ..

    Only the faithers are obsessed with Heartland, I have never brought them up, and I have not seen any critics of the climate hysteria citing them as primary source for anything. As I said, the are hardly ever mentioned. Except by the increasingly desperate activists and climate scare groupies …

  24. #24 Jonas N
    February 24, 2012

    Chek #3201

    So you claim that the lack of any real science properly demonstrating that most prominent AR4 claim is a:

    > meaningless little meme … It means nothing in the real world

    Well, that is probably a correct description of **your** world. But in the **real** real world, and particularly when it comes to science (the real variety, that is) it means everything.

    Do you get that? It means **everything**! Unless there is published science, to be checked and scrutinized by **everybody** who is not being convinced by words only, or accepting those on blind faith of others, there is nothing behind that claim worth calling science. Nobody can claim that it is based on science! Nobdoy! (Blind belief is still possible, but not the issue)

    By now it is five years old, and as (the more educated among) you very well know, the IPCC does not carry out any research by its own. It is a political body, its reports are written by politically selected and appointed authors. Particularly, the SPM (summary for policymakers) where infamous claim was first stated, is written by an even smaller circle and must be approved by the government bureaucrats.

    Before release of the actual AR4 reports, it was necessary to make changes in them to concur with the (already released )SPM. This (presumably) also is the reason for the contortions in the text, the footnotes, the appendices, the figure captions (and among the more educated AGW-followers)

    But my initial point (here) is still as valid as when I first pointed it out:

    None of you who want to believe in that AR4-claim has ever seen the science. (Most of you are not even capable of reading real science, and that goes for more than just a few who after all have a PhD-degree here. Jeff Harvey maybe being the most obvious)

    And no check, the ‘dismissal’ by all those who haven’t seen, read, understood, and are capable of pointing out this alleged science, has no value at all (Regardless of how much you wish for the opposite to be true). On the contrary, those who want to dismiss without knowing prove themselves to avoid the issue (quite understandable, since they have nothing to offer).

    And the shouting and spouting by characters like you!?

    Do you really really think that anything you’ve performed here impresses any other than chanting kids, and blind faithers and others making equally stupid empty comments? Is that what you try to convince yourself of, chek? Really? Do you even believe that yourself?

    C’mon … Don’t insult you own intelligence with such crap …

  25. #25 Jonas N
    February 24, 2012

    GSW

    Thanks for your comments. It seems we see eye to eye on t his. Yes, I hade seen the WSJ intervju. I also read the mail conversation where Gleick very cordially was invited to talk at Heartland, all expenses covered, and $5000 to a charity of his choice. The guys is really something else, and (unfortunately for the rest of his family) deserves what’s coming for him, and the disgrace suffered.

    But his behavior is strangely similar to many of the commenters here. Because I stll (in spite of what they write) believe that they are adults, some even with an education (but very unlikely in physics ;-). He (Gleick) seems to be as angry as Jeff H, and chek, and others at the world for not sharing his/their faith. And constructing not only strawmen, but entire straw-worlds populated by straw-bogeymen who are after their imagined alternate version of reality. It is really strange and quite sad too ..

    Libya chairing the UN-Human-Rights-Comission was just a parallel. And the ‘Climate and Health Council’ was just another organization (I had never heard of) jumping in condemning Heartland, and sign by a long and curious looking list of figures … James Hansen among them. There was no more point than pointing this out …

  26. #26 GSW
    February 24, 2012

    Are you back interacting in real-time now Jonas? or is there still a noticable moderation delay?

  27. #27 Stu
    February 24, 2012

    Only the faithers are obsessed with Heartland, I have never brought them up

    Obvious and stupid lies.

    Jeff, obliquely, in #624;

    Wow, factually, in #801;

    Wow, factually, in #999;

    Oh, look! Jonas, whining about a fake memo in #3184;

    Jonas, whining some more in #3185;

    GSW, whining about perceived moderation in #3190;

    GSW, whining about Gleick in #3192;

    GSW, blabbering on in #3194;

    GSW, beginning to tinfoil in #3195;

    chek, pointing out that you’re lying in #3196;

    GSW, tinfoil and more Jonas-worship in #3197;

    Jonas, adding another layer of tinfoil in #3198;

    GSW, unable to contain himself in #3202;

    Me, trying to get any of you clowns to say anything substantial in #3203;

    GSW, not saying anything substantial in #3204;

    GSW, becoming completely incoherent in #3205;

    Me, trying again for anything of substance in #3207;

    GSW, now in full-on what-the-hell-are-you-talking-about in #3208.

  28. #28 Jonas N
    February 24, 2012

    GSW. My recent comments have made it through (without delay). I wouldn’t count on consistency though … even before, my correction #3186 was let trough one day before they let the original through. And months after the fact, Tim deleted comments so that references to earlier ones became all screwed up. But this is how it is at every pro-AGW-site. And they can’t even state what they’re afraid of. Further it does reflect badly on what they think of their readership (and I think that is one of the reasons)

    Stu – As I said, Heartland (and tobacco lobby and all the oterh stupid stuff) is only brought up by the faithers as an argument. It signals the same insecure and ignorant lack of substance as all those ‘denial’ or ‘denialists/iati’, the uninformed attempts to ‘name drop’ Dunning Kruger (and what else you haven’t tried), so many of you hope and feel would you’d strengthen our stance with.

    Stu, people who don’t know what they’re talking about, don’t know more after they repeat that 10 or 100 times. Look at chek, or Wow, or you.

    > Me, trying again for anything of substance

    Laughable Stu! The laws of Newton, and pushing boxes on surfaces with friction was where you had to throw in the towel. And many more with you. ‘Luminous’ tried at least, but just made it worse. (Has anybody seen him since?)

  29. #29 Stu
    February 24, 2012

    As I said, Heartland (and tobacco lobby and all the oterh stupid stuff) is only brought up by the faithers as an argument.

    And as I said, that’s an obvious and stupid lie. You and GSW have been hyperventilating over the Heartland leak for over a hundred comments now.

    But thank you for admitting you have nothing of substance to add. Again. That you cannot help yourself lying. Again. That you have nothing to add about the contents of the Heartland documents. Again. That you’re delusional, paranoid and sociopathically unable to follow the simplest rules. Again.

    You can re-start the circle jerk with GSW again now. Just making sure you’re still as pathetic and nutty as ever.

  30. #30 GSW
    February 24, 2012

    Jonas #3212,

    “But his behavior is strangely similar to many of the commenters here….He (Gleick) seems to be as angry as Jeff H, and chek, and others at the world for not sharing his/their faith.”

    Yes it does appear to be a characteistic of the breed. All very angry, all the time. It isn’t clear whether Gleick’s confession was an act of conscience, or with all the intuitive fingering pointing going on, the heat being turned up etc, he felt he had no choice. He’s quite contrite, the difference between doing right and wrong are only too real for him now. I don’t think Jeff and chek are likely to encounter their own ‘epiphanys’ in the near term, they have other, deeper, psychological problems to contend with as well.

    chek is very ‘odd’. Do you remember his earlier post where he was fantasizing about how jeff would be spending his evenings?

    Perhaps he might pen another award winning paper? walk the dog? what colour underwear would he be wearing? that sort of thing.

    The man’s a mess. Do you think that holding all these, in some cases, contradictory, in others manifestly incorrect beliefs in their head at one time could ultimately cause long term mental illness? a bit like asking the computer on Star Trek (original series) the square root of minus one, if you know what I mean.

    Yes, all very angry, over not very much.

  31. #31 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    GSW, I believe you are correct. Chek is something extra, even for a deltoid. I also remember the cold chills and the goose bumps I got from reading his semi-erotic fantasies about Jeffies evening activities.

    Scary guy.

  32. #32 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    Ah, suddenly it came to me why I find chek more than creepy. He reminds me of Robin William’s character in the movie One Hour Photo:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QspevZYkNbw&feature=related

    I hope Jeffie knows how to handle himself. For all we know chek could be lurking outside his house this very minute.

  33. #33 chek
    February 24, 2012

    You’re right Stu – time to leave these boys alone with each other, their projections and their creepy, homoerotic fantasies.

    Oh and boys – one day when Jonarse isn’t looking, look up ‘detection and attribution’. You’ll find he’s been lying to you all this time. You of course were dumb enough to believe him.

  34. #34 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    Chek, what about looking up the phrase “”time to leave these boys alone”. You sure don’t seem to understand the meaning of these words. :-)

    By the way chek, what’s Jeffie up to now? If he’s in the proximity of the the bathroom or bedroom, please don’t answer.

  35. #35 GSW
    February 24, 2012

    Olaus,

    #3221 Ha! and the video in #3219, that’s the chappy to a T.

    Do you recognize yourself there chek? It’s how you come across at least.
    ;)

  36. #36 Jonas N
    February 24, 2012

    Stu,

    It sure is not easy for you, regardless of what you attempt ..

    If you remember, in the latest brouhaha it was DeSmogBlog who **brought up** (look up that phrase too) Heartland. And the hyperventilating started in the open thread by quite a of you few here. Still goes on, piling up more and more fantasies. (The latest was that Joe Bast concocted up that fake memo, sent it to victimized Pavlovian dog Gleick, who then just couldn’t help himself)

    Those fantasy figures you are up against, sure aren’t nice to you. No, they are very very evil and sinister, and really do exist. Because you can sense them so intensly, just beyond that computer screen or whatever is the horizon of your perception. Pure and concentrated evil, burning away there right in the middle of your suffering but pure and nobel minds …

    So intensly, that six hard years of physics studied, disappear without a trace, never to be seen again. That even you slip up to occasinally belive that ‘idiot’ or ‘arse’ are strong arguments for it’s existance ..

    Yes, it’s a wicked evil world out there. And reality is its accomplice, lauging at and mocking you. I fully understand why you prefer to lurk here and demand protection from it …

  37. #37 Jonas N
    February 24, 2012

    chek …

    Are you seriously trying to pretend that you have found, read and understood that science that nobody dares to even utter? That everybody shuns looking for? You of all people?

    Or are you still, five years after the fact, hoping that it is to be found in there, under that heading which kinda suggests it deals with the topic?

    And six months after I told you to your face that you were taking such claims on blind faith!

    You surely are one self delusional faither in utter denial …

  38. #38 Stu
    February 24, 2012

    If you remember, in the latest brouhaha it was DeSmogBlog who brought up (look up that phrase too) Heartland.

    Who was talking about DeSmog?

    Moving the goalposts. Misplaced condescension. Continued evidence of D-K. Red herring.

    And the hyperventilating started in the open thread by quite a of you few here.

    - GSW is the only one hyperventilating.
    - Not me.
    - Who is talking about the open thread?
    - Why were you in the open thread?

    Projection. Red herring. Inability to follow the single-sentence direction on top of this thread. I still don’t know what you and GSW are trying to accomplish with the “gee why would the comments of the all-knowing Jonas be moderated” circle-jerk. It’s a single sentence, moron.

    The latest was that Joe Bast concocted up that fake memo, sent it to victimized Pavlovian dog Gleick, who then just couldn’t help himself)

    Setting aside the serial pathological lack of self-awareness with this serial sad-sack “wow, it worked on Dan Rather” series of pure, unadulterated ad hominem claptrap… could you please, for the love of Jeebus, address what this has to do with the content of the Heartland documents they have acknowledged to be genuine? That they are funding stooges to actively work against science?

    Those fantasy figures you are up against, sure aren’t nice to you.

    Could you at least try to be coherent for more than a few sentences in a row?

    No, they are very very evil and sinister, and really do exist.

    Wait, hold on. Are you saying that Exxon and the Koch brothers are imaginary now?

    What is your point, Jonas? Are you drinking again?

    So intensly, that six hard years of physics studied, disappear without a trace, never to be seen again.

    For crying out loud, precious, we KNOW you are insecure about your education. But how about we put aside physics for a second and talk about someone who says things like “intensly”, “nobel”, “intensly”, “occasinally”, “belive”, “it’s”, “existance”, “its” and “lauging”. Did you take more than one year of English? If you didn’t, that’s quite alright. There are tools to prevent you from looking like a complete moron by misspelling every other word. They are called spell-checkers.

    Oh, wait. Those are obviously not in your universe either. Did you take more than one semester in typing, precious? I’ve told you SPECIFICALLY over a half-dozen times how not to do this. Do you enjoy looking like a moron, or were my instructions too complex?

  39. #39 Jonas N
    February 25, 2012

    >Who was talking about DeSmog?

    I was talking about **’bringing up’**
    You may want to check who *’brought it up’* here too ..

    Please try to read you own posts, and think about what you are actually trying to say **before** you post them. Otherwise Pid, you just make yourself look so Stu …

  40. #40 Jonas N
    February 25, 2012

    For instance, your reply:

    >Wait, hold on. Are you saying that Exxon and the Koch brothers are imaginary now?

    to my:

    >piling up more and more fantasies. (The latest was that Joe Bast concocted up that fake memo, sent it to victimized Pavlovian dog Gleick, who then just couldn’t help himself)
    Those fantasy figures you are up against, sure aren’t nice to you. No, they are very very evil and sinister, and really do exist.

    So Stu, I can inform you that both Exxon and the Koch brothers exist. As does Joe Bast. Now, do you want to have another go at it?

    Or did you just perfectly well and once more demonstrate what I was pointing out?
    ;-)

  41. #41 GSW
    February 25, 2012

    Jonas,

    Apologies for interrupting your “bashing of the troll” but I am interested in exploring the CAGW “Anger” issue and the potential long term effect on their mental health.

    It occurs to me that Gleick’s “lapse in Judgment” could be interpreted as the early stages of some kind of nervous breakdown. It would better explain his self destructive actions than the “St Peter the Martyr” line that they are pushing at the moment.

    The conflict between tenets of faith and discovered fact must be causing some increase in stress levels.

    Shoestring budget Heartland as (a well-funded) Voldemort.

    Himalaya’s dying as a result of lack of glacier ice loss.

    IPCC/Greenpeace/WWF ‘opinion’ as numerical scientific fact (your thread) ;)

    A few inches (100yrs) of sea level rise i.e. of “Biblical proportions”.

    The “Travesty” of living on a planet that is incapable of replicating even the most simple of climate models.

    Somehow they manage to hold both tenet and fact in their heads at the same time. Espousing one, whilst the other sits in the back of their minds repeating “Does not Compute”, “Does not Compute”, over and over. Emotional exhaustion must surely follow.

    You could imagine surviving like this for a brief period, but it has being going on for years! Some long term damage must be occuring. Interactions with other people/family members (the anger) will be suffering – I don’t know if you’ve noticed the marked deterioration in stu over the last few weeks – Not quite the full blown wow, but competing with chek for second place.

    Olaus has said they will write books about this condition in years to come, perhaps they will. The transition from CAGW theory to CAGW Syndrome is not too far off I fear.

    Your thoughts, as always, greatly valued.
    ;)

  42. #42 GSW
    February 25, 2012

    Jonas,

    How’s it going over here? moderation still in play?
    ;)

  43. #43 Jonas N
    February 25, 2012

    GSW

    I don’t think there is a background script running, saying ‘Does not compute’ causing emotional stress and eventually exhaustion. Definitely not i general.

    I think emotional anxiety (*’the world is not as it should be’*) is the set-out for their personalities. And the inability to calculate things, to assess (or estimate) proportions and comparing them, to not notice (ignore, even deny?) the gaping differences of (many) orders of magnitudes among what the do argue etc ..

    .. I think all these are prerequisites among many of them. Navigating by their feelings and emotional preferences, rather. Replacing inquiry and gathering of facts, data, information by consensus among the like-minded, by heartfelt conviction, by ‘knowing’ because ‘you just know anyway’ …

    But I am reluctant to generalize too far or broadly. I think the above description is captures the more emotional and those who navigate by following their perceived leaders and authority. And who are guided by their emotions when deciding what should be seen as ‘authority’.

    There are of course many others types, reckless immoral opportunists, politicians driven by the urge to ‘represent and lead’ something (whatever), activists, power brokers, criminals, rent seekers, and countless incompetents merely driven by the urge to ‘belong to and being accepted by’ a larger group for some greater good and cause.

    We have seen similar movements before, and all the same mechanisms and effects as then are in play. And if it hadn’t been for the internet, who knows where it would have ended this time.

    How it will end, and how the today ‘hooked’ or ‘pushing’ will cope with it when it finally blows over and deflates to amusing joke reference at parties or more pointed reminder/parallel in political debate .. I don’t know.

    I would assume it’ll happen in the same way as when previous highly pushed ‘-isms’ finally collapsed. This means I don’t agree with Olaus, that the distancing will be public, general, and formal. That sanity will pick up the remnants and sort out the details and how, when, where and why it all went so wrong.

    A few will try, and pass unnoticed by the broader public (who will be mostly occupied by the next looming disaster or hysteria and its reincarnated activists .. as every time before)

  44. #44 Jonas N
    February 25, 2012

    Presently no moderation ..

  45. #45 GSW
    February 25, 2012

    Jonas,

    Yes, it is possible that it is personality driven as you suggest. They behave oddly and irrationally because they have always behaved so. The conflict between what they ‘know’ and how things actually ‘are’ may never have been reconciled fully on anything.

    It is difficult to tell. I see the various deltoid ‘types’ as being a progression towards mental disfunction/collapse. You simply argue a spectrum of personalities, which there must be some basis of truth to, but is it only that?

    I don’t know if you follow the other Deltoid threads, but recently wow had a bit of a run-in with ianam i think it was.

    wow was arguing that the best way to win an argument was to post something stupid. This I think thru ianam a bit, the logic of this course of action didn’t make any sense him (or anybody else). ianam said he didn’t think that would work, to which wow replied in words to the effect

    (paraphrasing) “That is because he had never tried it”

    Which you have to admit there is some basis in logic, albeit of slightly perverted kind. It does certainly explain wow’s contribution. Worrying nevertheless.

    As for numeracy, what I consider to be the early stages of a hypothesized CAGW Syndrome starts with a complete loss of perspective; eg the Wegman hunt and Heartland finances, before developing into a complete inability to quantify scale, or assess numbers in any objective way at all.

    Wegman and Heartland will be fine by the way. But let’s say their “dream scenario” comes true; Wegman losses his job and Heartland their tax exempt status.

    What difference does that make to anything?

    While they congregate around this trivia, the real world moves on regardless.

    Your,

    “This means I don’t agree with Olaus, that the distancing will be public, general, and formal. That sanity will pick up the remnants and sort out the details and how, when, where and why it all went so wrong.”

    I agree with. The problem will morph into something else, a bit like the scare over the hole in the ozone layer. Having fixed the problem once, thru changing our deodorants, the hole is now expanding again due to guess what?

    Twas ever thus.

    As usual, Enjoy Jonas!

    (Saw the no moderation, excellent!)

  46. #46 Jonas N
    February 25, 2012

    GWS

    You have to distinguish between the ‘smart money’, and the stupid money.

    The smart money realized a long time ago, that ‘this was it’! This was the question capable of harnessing politics, taxation, regulation, and control beyond national democracy and all its limited power.

    I’m not saying that it created the hype (I don’t think so), but early recognized it and latched on and furthered it. They also had a fairly good idea about what buttons to push and strings to play to get the (more gullible part of the) public, the media in general, and the ‘useful’ part of the political spectrum to run along.

    In short: ~100 years ago, it was the situation of ‘the workers’, ~50 years ago it was ‘social justice’ and ‘social engineering’ of the ‘great society’, after that it was ‘the environment’ which now has morphed into ‘one global environment’ ie ‘the climate’

    Those players never were the front figures, they saw what was happening, was working in the public space and adjusted.

    Which brings me to Mann, McIntyre, Gore, Wegmann and now Heartland.

    Mann is/was a minor player, but was pushed forward by pulling smart strings, behind the curtains. And it worked! For a while. And once the hockey stick had become an threatening issue ~2004/5, a new campaign was required, and two things happened (and were bankrolled) simultaneously 2006:

    Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (I think Al was just at hand, useful, the right kinda guy, not realizing why this happened). And secondly the launching of RealClimate. Which was explicitly to counter the attacks och the hockeystick.

    Both quite clever moves. And they worked. Really well! the 2007 year’s Nobel prize! (Peace price! But what would the gullible know, why would the journalists and activists care?)

    But the pressure had already been building, and the shortcomings of AIT and its claims as well as the Hockestick couldn’t be swept under the carpet without some (vocal) voices noticing.

    Both the Wegmann- and the NRC reports were consequences of that kerfuffle, and the realistic side winning small incremental victories all along the way. And albeit ‘friendly’, not even the NRC report could quite ignore how bad Mann’s ‘reconstructions’ were and their many methodological flaws and overstated claims. The leaks in the edifice were becoming many now, and needing more and more attention and ‘handling’.

    The IPCC AR3 yielded short (but well needed) relief. Once more the threat, the calamity and the certainty were echoed all over the world, and caught the politicians attention (pushing back skeptical voices over the entire field). But once again it was a short term regain of the initiative, based on poor science and overstated claims. And once more sexed up with more activist propaganda. But it worked for a while.

    The Wegmann-report, and also Mann’s continued blabbering and string of shoddy published reconstructions, was a problem though. And it needed to be countered, and attacking Wegmann’s person I think was the method of choice. It is both vile and quite effective, driving the accused on the defensive for quite a while, and without ever really getting back the initiative.

    Especially not in the eye of the public (that part that is susceptible the good side/evil side narrative).

    But, and this was what I was getting at: The commenters here, esseltnially none of them were material in the Wegmann witch hunt. They have no clue of what the issues were, and what was of any consequence and what wasn’t. (The same goes for the crowd believing in resurrected hockey sticks).

    What you see here (wrt Wegmann) is just the mouth frothing crowd. The ones who got them there, we probably never saw (or heard of).

    Finally, the Heartland institute: Yes, it has been a vocal but very minor player countering climate alarmism and indoctrination. Why they went after it (if Gleick is to be considered as part of ‘they’) I don’t know?

    They have suffered two more major blow backs through ClimateGate 1 & 2. And have been on the defensive since. And without any obvious possibilities to regain initiative.

    They really needed some juicy ClimateGate-like scandal hitting their opposition. And many may even have thought that Heartland was their command center. They have tried smear them for many years. Mostly for the benefit of the faithfuls.

    How this Gleick scandal came about, I don’t know. But God, that didn’t work out well either. This time, it just lasted 2-3 days ..

    BTW quite a few more than me, nourish the suspicion that the Gleick-lone-wolf-story just sounds too implausible …

  47. #47 GSW
    February 25, 2012

    Jonas,

    Haven’t had a chance to read thru your post properly, but looks interesting ;) Need to dash off to the cinema, will have a look when I get back, otherwise it will be tomorrow.

    Appreciate you spending the time on this.

    Cheers!

  48. #48 Jonas N
    February 25, 2012

    For some reason, this youtube-vidoe (about Heartland) was just uploaded:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9DjPo0ewuCw

    What a coincidence, a professionally made video, involving minors attacking, smearing Heartland, appearing just one week after the alleged leak.

    What those alarmist lack in intellectual integrity and prowess, the sure make up with ferocious legwork, don’t they?

  49. #49 Olaus Petri
    February 25, 2012

    Hold on guys, I don’t necessarily believe that the collapse of CAGW will be public, but that it will be studied and written about by academics – a lot. Formal yes but in the sense that CAGW will be fair game for sociologist, psychologist, etc.

    Media-wise this turnover will be rather marginalized, at least that’s very likely.

    Peace?

  50. #50 GSW
    February 26, 2012

    Jonas,

    Taking the last points first. The video tagged “Heartland Department of Education” is quite sinister. It’s posted by ClimateReality which is the Gore ‘communications’ thing?

    As you say, kids relating various memes. Starts off with some “climatey” things then,

    Germs aren’t real if you can’t see them?

    the Sun goes round the Earth?

    The Earth is flat?

    It’s not exactly sophisticated is it. I noticed as well the didn’t recite the “Intelligent design” meme, I’m guessing because, it being US focused, there are a lot of christians in their target audience.

    Really quite sinister. Can you imagine how it would have gone down if say Heartland had tried a similar pitch?

    I can hear the screams now, SCANDALOUS distortion, misrepresentation, Anti-Science!

    It seems to be alright though, if you come from the right side.

    A side note: I don’t think Gore’s quite the figure he was. He’s done more to turn people off CAGW with his “over statement” of bizzare factoids than Heartland could ever hope to do. Take some comfort from the fact he is on their side, and still going!
    ;)

  51. #51 GSW
    February 26, 2012

    “BTW quite a few more than me, nourish the suspicion that the Gleick-lone-wolf-story just sounds too implausible … ”

    I am sure others are happy speculating on that too, so you’re definitely not on your own ;)

    As I think I said it’s an overembellishment of what is otherwise a fairly straight forward story.

    Your original point was that the story was put around very quickly – which requires some forward planning/involvement of others.

    I think a perfectly adequate explanation is that the various blogs,Guardian etc, were so desparate to believe they had found their own ‘Climategate’ that no thought whatsoever went into questioning the apparent ‘truth’ of what they were being shown. Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread. It’s not pretty, but it has the ring of truth about it.

    Anyway, for all I know you may be right, but I would like to see something ‘tangible’ along those lines, before I start relying on a conspiratorial string of events explanation.

    It’s no big deal honestly, more will be revealed over time. :)

  52. #52 GSW
    February 26, 2012

    Olaus,

    Peace ;)

    You seem to be kicking up quite a stir on the open thread. Not my field I’m afraid. Do you have a background in politics/history?

  53. #53 GSW
    February 26, 2012

    Jonas,

    “Which brings me to Mann, McIntyre, Gore, Wegmann and now Heartland.”

    I’ll leave Gore and Heartland out as I’ve already dealt with them to a certain extent. McIntyre was a big part player in the Mann & Wegmann stories, but the story is now mainly about the latter two gentleman.

    Actually don’t have too much to say ;) the interest in Mann & Wegman is largely historical, not that relevant now. It’s difficult to see the processes they are going thru as being anything more than trophy/scalp hunting for percieved past misdeeds.

  54. #54 GSW
    February 26, 2012

    Jonas,

    “The smart money realized a long time ago, that ‘this was it’! This was the question capable of harnessing politics, taxation, regulation, and control beyond national democracy and all its limited power.”

    Have you been watching Lindzen’s “Deconstructing Global Warming” Video?
    ;)

  55. #55 GSW
    February 27, 2012

    Jonas,

    Were you pleased with “The Bloggies”? I ‘m not sure what significance to attach to the jaw dropping successes, other than perhaps it is a sign that the on-line sceptical community is very, very healthy!

    A link to Lindzen’s video, there are others, sound is good on this one though and the slides are shown full screen.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw

    I’m sure you’ve seen it. The words from your post,

    “This was the question capable of harnessing politics, taxation, regulation, and control beyond national democracy and all its limited power.”

    made me think of Lindzen’s quotes from Mike Hulmes book. I know you are aware of it, worth watching again though, Lindzen’s a brilliant speaker!

    Your commentary appreciated, Enjoy!

  56. #56 Jonas N
    February 29, 2012

    Back after a few days in the mountains. See there is some catching and up to do on the Gleick story. Will comment later …

  57. #57 Stu
    February 29, 2012

    Unintentional, meter-exploding irony (and a future doctorate on projection and progressive pathological delusion, I bet):

    Navigating by their feelings and emotional preferences, rather. Replacing inquiry and gathering of facts, data, information by consensus among the like-minded, by heartfelt conviction, by ‘knowing’ because ‘you just know anyway’ …

    and

    Yes, it is possible that it is personality driven as you suggest. They behave oddly and irrationally because they have always behaved so. The conflict between what they ‘know’ and how things actually ‘are’ may never have been reconciled fully on anything. It is difficult to tell. I see the various deltoid ‘types’ as being a progression towards mental disfunction/collapse.

    Thanks for the laughs, guys.

    By the way, where’s our favorite registered sex offender? Shouldn’t he be gracing this thread with his cutting insights on fascism being a leftist phenomenon?

  58. #58 Olaus Petri
    February 29, 2012

    Dear Stu, insinuating that I’m a rapist is indeed a very strong argument for that fascism is right wing. Quite impressive stuff, yet it’s all you got plus a volcano of emotions and foul language. Anyone reading the open thread can see for themselves that you guys had to rely on Tim to save face (and probably to save Jeffie from a coronary).

    Sorry chaps, when you can explain how Mussolini was able to STEAL “anti-capitislism, anti-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie” from socialism when he in fact was one of the leading socialists in Italy, then you might have a point.

    But like I have said all along, I’m perfectly content being fed with evidence regarding the evil right wing multi-billion denial machine fighting climate science.

  59. #59 chek
    February 29, 2012

    Your pathological self-hatred of your own fascist, Breivikian tendencies, tempered only by your crass, almost GSW-like idolatry of Jonarse’s arrogant cretinism is duly noted, Petri.

    And has been for some considerable time.

  60. #60 Jonas N
    February 29, 2012

    Stu,

    I see that you (and quite some more) are in denial also over national socialism and (other versions of) fascism beinge socialist movements.

    Where production of goods is subordinated to the ‘good of the society’, which in turn is interpreted and defined by ‘people’s leader’. Where the also the individual, his ambitions and needs are subordinated to the collective, it’s good and once more interpreted by the (self apointed collective) leader of ‘the people’ ..

    But I didn’t expect anything else from (many of) you. Reading the denial, and wiggling in the Open thread was really hilarious. And the ‘arguments’ are on the same level as wrt what you guys know and understand about the climate.

    It is precisely as I said:

    >by heartfelt conviction, by ‘knowing’ because ‘you just know anyway’

    You (many) guys are so detached from reality, so sucked up to believing your own delusions its almost only comical.

    It took Olaus one push on the ‘right’ button. And once more, the lot of you went off the deep end. Collectively .. As if that was an ‘argument’ by it self.

  61. #61 bill
    February 29, 2012

    Ah, and so two of the most diseased organisms I’ve yet to encounter on the Internet are finally safely quarantined together.

    It gives me great pleasure to know that I won’t have to encounter the lunar-Right ramblings of either of you again!

    I, for one, won’t be wasting my time debating two such complete victims of reactionary Epistemic Closure.

    So, I wish you no success, gentlemen.

    Or, alternatively, I wish you all the happiness you so richly deserve.

  62. #62 Olaus Petri
    March 1, 2012

    Yet you are here bill, with your empty arguments and strong feelings. :-)

  63. #63 Jonas N
    March 1, 2012

    bill, I am sure you feel much better among the knowledgable intellectual giants such as chek, Stu, Wow, and Jeff Harvey, won’t you?

    But seriously? Have you been debating? Anything? I must have missed that … Me thinks you sound more like your ‘friends’ who are equally afraid of both debating, facts and the truth …

  64. #64 chek
    March 1, 2012

    Well, when you have fake libertarian Scandinavian oafs coming here claiming they sees no science in probably the most studied and contested subject in modern times, while the support crew attempts to redefine words outside their own language, then ‘facts’ and ‘truth’ don’t stand much chance.

    Your irrelevancy knows no bounds.

  65. #65 Olaus Petri
    March 1, 2012

    As always the heated naked cheeks of chek hit the very bottom. Cute. :-)

    By the way Chek, your therapists owe me big money. :-)

  66. #66 John
    March 1, 2012

    Good to see Napoleon and Snowball keeping each other company. Climategate good, Heartland leak baaaaad.
    ;)

    Seriously though, GSW makes an excellent point:

    >The conflict between tenets of faith and discovered fact must be causing some increase in stress levels.

    The Heartland leak has had a profound effect on Olaus, who immediately started drawing comparisons between climate science and fascism. Rational in his own mind, I’m sure. I know he accidentally posted his annoyance at Heartland’s political manipulation of science for financial gain, but luckily the usual blogs came through and gave him some talking points he could spread here without any danger of thinking for himself. Phew! Close call! He was almost making sense for a second.

    Jonas, meanwhile, has jumped right off the paranoid conspiracy theory deep end:

    >The smart money realized a long time ago, that ‘this was it’! This was the question capable of harnessing politics, taxation, regulation, and control beyond national democracy and all its limited power.

    Here I was thinking that a long established theory was currently supported by thousands of lines of emperival evidence. No! It turns out it’s all a Nazi scam!

    And, lo, the evidence of the scam? Why, if it isn’t the usual obsession with personality over science! Do you know who else valued personality over substance?

    In fact, Jonas sounds strangely like his fellow far-right-fringe buddy:

    >You might know them as environmentalists, enviro-communists, eco-Marxists, neo-Communists or eco-fanatics. They all claim they want to save the world from global warming but their true agenda is to contribute to create a world government lead by the UN or in other ways increase the transfer of resources (redistribute resources) from the developed Western world to the third world. They hope to accomplish this through the distribution of misinformation (propaganda) which they hope will lead to increased taxation of already excessively taxed Europeans and US citizens.

    But that guy was bad. Must be left wing! Shucks!
    ;)

    In other news, did anyone here that Heartland emailed their financial records to a climate scientist and journalist and revealed that they were paying off out-of-field scientists to spread disinformation, “undermine” real science, stop teaching real science and silence their critics in order to protect the political and financial interests of their donors? Fascinating stuff!

    No scandal there, of course!

  67. #67 John
    March 1, 2012

    Breaking: an anonymous insider from The Climate Scam has leaked me some footage of Olaus.

  68. #68 Olaus Petri
    March 1, 2012

    You are flattering me John. My six pack isn’t Rainer Wolfacastle quality. ;-)

  69. #69 John
    March 1, 2012

    >My six pack isn’t Rainer Wolfacastle quality. ;-)

    Don’t worry, the six packs of angry right-wing conspiracy theorists who inhabit the internet never are.

  70. #70 Olaus Petri
    March 1, 2012

    Hehe…well John, first we need to find one who sponsors the right-wing denial machine. Until then we can’t say for sure, can we? ;-)

  71. #71 John
    March 1, 2012

    Mine was funnier.

  72. #72 Jonas N
    March 1, 2012

    John

    >Heartland’s political manipulation of science for financial gain

    You never struck me as particularly smart, or knowledgable. And your

    >Jonas, meanwhile, has jumped right off the paranoid conspiracy theory deep end:
    >
    >>The smart money realized a long time ago, that ‘this was it’! This was the question capable of harnessing politics, taxation, regulation, and control beyond national democracy and all its limited power.

    Seems to be in denial of the facts that monies indeed change hands, that policies are drafted, that regulations are imposed, that taxes are levied, that careers are built, and whole institutions, and that a whole industry now relies on this kind of support and that it is upheld ..

    Not to mention the fact that politics are something different than any possible scientific support.

    But I’m afraid I am putting to much strain on your thinking process if several issues are adressed, John.

    PS And I should have mentioned you together with the others above, of course you belong among them. And bill, and quite a few others, no offens to all I’ve missed. You all really really belong here … Tim thinks so too!

  73. #73 Jonas N
    March 1, 2012

    Olaus

    Tim Lambert believes he has been more than patient with you!

    But it seems that you have been even more pation with his cabal of followers and hangarounds.

    And my patience here has brought (a tiny fraction) of them to the realization that thhis infamous AR4 claim about 90% certainty is not based on any real science …

    But Doh! That took some time. And a majority (perhaps as much as, or more than 90%) still remain in denial. And cling to blind almost desperate faith or wishful thinking that somebody else has seen that (non existing) science … that it just hasn’t been discovered yet!

    Chek still reafrims himself that it is indeed in there, and Wow, once more links the IPCC AR4 list of references, and sputters: It’s all there … Trust me!

  74. #74 Olaus Petri
    March 1, 2012

    Jonas, one cannot make a career in deprogramming if not being a very patient and philanthropic guy. :-)

    Wonder how the shaking tent will react on Svensmark’s latest? Is he final proof of the right wing multi-billion denial machine?

    http://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/yet-another-trick-of-cosmic-rays/
    :-)

  75. #75 John
    March 1, 2012

    I see Jonas’ reading comprehension is as poor as his scientific abilities.

    Are we now in denial that donors fund Heartland to help protect their financial and political interests by the spreading of scientific disinformation? Not even Olaus disputes this.

    However, I do enjoy the moment when deniers drop the pretense of scientific integrity and reveal the entirely unshocking fact that their scientific beliefs are driven by extremist ideology and paranoid conspiracies. From now on I will call it Duff’s Folly.

    I see exactly the same attitudes Jonas displays here on websites like Stormfront, 9/11 trutherism and moon landing conspiracy theories – they are always convinced of a vast government conspiracy, that they alone know The Truth and everyone else is simply too stoopid to realise.

  76. #76 Stu
    March 1, 2012

    Correction, John: it’s not the government, it’s Greenpeace, the WWF and 99.9943% of climate scientists (I hear Judith Curry is the sole exception).

  77. #78 Jonas N
    March 2, 2012

    John

    Are you losing it completely? You, who cannot argue even the simplest things pretend to talk about illiteracy, and scientific understanding? You whose entire comprehension of any of the topics here is based solely on faith? Is your thinking really so restricted as your many comments indicate?

    What a joke ..

    As I said, you belong here with the Stus, the Wows and Jeffies …

  78. #79 John
    March 2, 2012

    Anyone else notice that the more wrong Jonas is, the higher the percentage of insults he issues?

  79. #80 Jonas N
    March 2, 2012

    John

    Sorry for that snide comment, but yours was just too stupid and every thing you tried ended up as another own goal …

    Let me detail it for you:

    >I see Jonas’ reading comprehension is as poor as his scientific abilities.

    I don’t even know what you mean. My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me. You certainly have not even attempted to address any pertinent issues. And wrt your reading comprehension, you are the one mixing up stuff, seeing things that aren’t here etc.

    >Are we now in denial that donors fund Heartland to help protect their financial and political interests

    Heartland has a political stance, so far you are correct. But you were the one starting out with

    >Heartland’s political manipulation of science for financial gain

    which is bunk of course (and probably why you tried moving the goalposts).

    >by the spreading of scientific disinformation?

    You need to understand this John: Somebody not saying what you desperately believe in does not make it wrong, false, dishonest or disinformation. Not even if others say what you do want to hear. I haven’t even seen you addressing any ‘disinformation’, you are probably just repeating the stupid talking points frequently repeated among the climate groupies about Heartland (which I pointed out seems quite a bit obsessive)

    >However, I do enjoy the moment when deniers drop the pretense of scientific integrity and reveal the entirely unshocking fact that their scientific beliefs are driven by extremist ideology and paranoid conspiracies.

    Utter nonsense. There isn’t even a tangible statement in there,
    just your beliefs. (And you brought up the conspiracy, see above: “political manipulation of science for financial gain”)

    >I see exactly the same attitudes Jonas displays here on websites like Stormfront, 9/11 trutherism and moon landing conspiracy theories

    Same nonsense once more

    >they are always convinced of a vast government conspiracy, that they alone know The Truth and everyone else is simply too stoopid to realise.

    What is it with your guys, and you lack of proper reading. Nobody talks about a ‘government conspiracy’. But politics are, by definition, driven by agendas. And I pointed out that many other agendas latched on too. Which you seemed to be in denial of.

    So John, once more you came up with exactly nothing. Just regurgitating that you so badly believe what you want to believe. And demonstrated once more that you can’t even read what is stated or what is the topic. And I think that its no coincidence that you are a climate scare groupie too ..

  80. #81 Jonas N
    March 2, 2012

    John, I really like your Deltoid-style logic:

    >Anyone else notice that the more wrong Jonas is, the higher the percentage of insults he issues?

    It never ceases to amaze me how onesided your (plural) reasoning is, how you fail to apply or just think about how your ‘logic’ or ‘arguments’ work if they indeed were valid and applied in both directions.

    Are you really completely unaware of all those here who just couldn’t help themselves piling up insults and invectives ..

    Is it their poor or lack of (real) arguments you are pointing out?

    Because, they sure have tried to compensate lack of substance with many many words like ‘denier’ ‘idiot’ ‘Dunning Kruger’ ‘filthy liar’ ‘pile of ….’ and many more.

    And when I pointed out that those are not convincing arguments, some even tried to counter me .. Poor things

  81. #82 chek
    March 2, 2012

    John, time to leave Jonas to his comforting delusions of superiority.

    Suffice to say that it is punishment enough that his attraction is limited to those like Oluas/Olaus, GSW and their ilk and always will be.

    It’s enough that he knows he hasn’t made any impact whatsoever on any detection or attribution research. Even Curry has the sense to play fast and loose on the all-too human psychology that ‘uncertainty’ means ‘it’ll never happen’, rather than its true meaning.

  82. #83 Jonas N
    March 2, 2012

    chek

    >he hasn’t made any impact whatsoever on any detection or attribution research.

    Still, after half a year you get it wrong. The topic was and is that the claimed **detection or attribution research** supporting that proiment AR4 claim in its SPM are nowehere to be found. None of the followers has ever seen it, not even claimed to have seen (& read & understood) it.

    The lack of understanding of ‘uncertainty’ of ‘confidence levels and -intervals’ and statistics in general is on the faither’s side ..

    But I must commend you for this time spelling my name correctly. Was that an accident? Or promted by John’s notion about insults when you have no substance? Or is it your general learing curve, the rate of improving your knowledge?

  83. #84 Jeff Harvey
    March 2, 2012

    *My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me*

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!

    Jonarse is a legend in his own mind. An arrogant little pri**.

  84. #85 chek
    March 2, 2012

    The topic was and is that the claimed detection or attribution research supporting that proiment AR4 claim in its SPM are nowehere to be found.

    That’s because it’s a summary, idiot. However lest it be thought that goalpost moving is what all this amounts to, let’s remember you were referred to the science in Chapter 9 of AR4, which you refused to recognise.

    So for the benefit of your knuckle-dragging crew (they know who they are) let’s do a little experiment.

    As we know when you ventured into Tamino’s, he stomached about three paragraphs of your unfocussed, waffling drivel before cutting you off at the knees. What we didn’t know at the time was that Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 was due to be published, specifically addressing the ‘A’ component of AGW. However, Foster is obviously a warmist lackey in your and your crew’s view. So I propose this:
    email Judith Curry with your insight.

    My predicted result will be she’ll tell you to go take a flying one. She may be happy to acquire a questionable reputation in pursuit of playing her outsider game, but she will point blank refuse to be written off as an idiot who knows nothing, like you.

    You won’t do this of course. But hopefully the seed of doubt as to why not will nevertheless be planted in the minds of your support circus.

  85. #86 Olaus Petri
    March 2, 2012

    Chek, you sure are very good at leaving Jonas alone. :-)

    Your yearnings are heart-breaking Chek, not to mention your complete lack of arguments. :-)

  86. #87 Stu
    March 2, 2012

    Your yearnings are heart-breaking Chek, not to mention your complete lack of arguments.

    …aaaand there goes another irony meter.

  87. #88 Jonas N
    March 2, 2012

    Yes, Jeff Harvey

    I was particularly thinking of you.

    You who after all calls himself a scientist. I have a far better understanding of science than you have, in every single matter where you have been trying to mouth of at me. Fact is that you have avoided discussing/addressing any single topic where I have stated my position. You have tried endless ad homs and spent months making up fantasy claims about me, in order to get away from what is substance. And not only that: You have actively sided with many here who have made the most stupid claims about the simplest things concerning physics and math etc.

    Point is that you have done this all by yourself. Invented facts, sputtered nonsense, and taking sides with the many who are incompetent even at high school level.

  88. #89 Jonas N
    March 2, 2012

    Jeff H (contd)

    Nobody but yourself made you behave and look like an utter fool.

    Now, semi hysterical (written) laughter

    >HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!

    may be you way of coping with this, I don’t know. Your many previous methods sure haven’t worked better.

    But let me rub in one more magnificent own goal here:

    >… is a legend in his own mind. An arrogant little pri**.

    Because I only remember one commenter here, constantly waiving his CV, telling us what a legend he is, how seriously he is taken, telling us we should take his word for what the science says (incidentally never addressing the science). And who told what big-boys he gets to mingle with, even that he considers himself to speak for the entire scientific community. And who has tried to make all that (pompousness) his foremost ‘argument’ in the debate!

    Don’t you remember that Jeff? Or who that was?

  89. #90 Stu
    March 2, 2012

    Jonas, are you seriously going to sit there and pretend that you didn’t just say

    My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me.

    Your lack of self-awareness is a wondrous thing to behold.

  90. #91 Jonas N
    March 2, 2012

    Stu

    It seems that you (with your alleged six years of studied physics) comment as if you in any way were capable of judging anybody else’s level of scientific understanding. And on top of that you go on about “Derangement”

    You are a priceless gem here indeed, Stu …

  91. #92 GSW
    March 2, 2012

    Olaus,

    You seem to be a victim of another “Toys out of the pram” moment from Tim. It is surprising just how insecure these guys are.

    How can it be an offence to try and resolve once and for all the “billion dollar denial machine” question? Another “Pillar”, that the faith is based on, bites the dust. It’s not obvious what they have left.

    Jonas, asks about the science behind the AR4 attribution claim – BANNED.

    Olaus, asks about the evidence for the big oil conspiracy – BANNED.

    So much for the debate that Gleick belatedly claims is needed. He’s had an epiphany!, he didn’t used to, the science was settled if I remember him correctly.

    Jonas, Olaus, Good Men! Amazing how much consternation you can create amongst the faithful with only a few well chosen words – incredible really, and you don’t appear to be finished yet.
    ;)

  92. #93 Jonas N
    March 2, 2012

    GSW

    Yes, I agree, and if I was a regular (but supportive) at Deltoid, I would be annoyed at the notion that Tim thinks I couldn’t handle dissenting voices or arguments. It looks like Tim doesn’t think think too highly of the regulars. Or is just overly protective … (which amounts to the same)

    Another thing I noticed is that there has been almost none who objected to (or tried to defer from) the absolutely staggering amount of abuse and insults people here have tried (as a substitute for factual arguments). Very early, I think one commenter pointed out that calling people ‘asshole’ and the like, was not going to be conductive to their cause(!) or ambitions. And I think one more agreed. But that’s all.

    All the rest, both those who practice it, and those who chip in on their side seem to think that invectives are a better method than refraining from those ..

    No wonder, that these people mostly stay among each other, and hardly dare to face the ‘ugly reality’ outside their protected enclosures …

  93. #94 Jonas N
    March 2, 2012

    Sorry Stu, I see I bungled a copy-paste before in #3277. Here it is again, corrected:

    It seems that you (with your alleged six years of studied physics) comment as if you in any way were capable of judging anybody else’s level of scientific understanding. And on top of that you go on about “Your lack of self-awareness”

    You are a priceless gem here indeed, Stu …

  94. #95 chek
    March 2, 2012

    Typical lying lies from mega-liar GSW, who’s dishonestly agreed with by the premier liar himself.

    As is quite plain to anyone without a martyr complex wondering what that URL above’s playing at, nobody here is ‘banned’.

    Confining your tedious, crackerbarrel, evidence-free, run-of-the-mill denial however is a public service.

  95. #96 Stu
    March 2, 2012

    Jonas, sweetheart, again with the insecurity about your education. What’s wrong, precious? Did you not get to go to the school you wanted? Did people make fun of you?

    You can tell us, it’s okay.

  96. #97 Jonas N
    March 2, 2012

    Stu – are you telling me about “the insecurity about your education”

    Which part are you insecure about? The six? The years? The physics? Or the studying? Or a combination thereof?

    I have no clue why you made that claim. But you did .. And here you are posturing, pretending that you know something about science.

    As I said, you are gem. Here ..

  97. #98 John
    March 2, 2012

    Another substance free tirade from Jonas boasting of his own genius and telling me, without reference, I am wrong. I am shocked, shocked!

    You entirely miss the point. Sorry kid. It sure is not easy for you, regardless of what you attempt.

    Still goes on, piling up more and more fantasies. Once more you came up with exactly nothing. Just regurgitating that you so badly believe what you want to believe. And demonstrated once more that you can’t even read what is stated or what is the topic.

    But after the latest blow (magnificant own goal) from the denial-crowd dishonestly trying to smear those who promote open debate.

    But I’m afraid I am putting to much strain on your thinking process if several issues are adressed, Jonas.

    The rest of you comment is only babble.

    You need to understand this Jonas – you are wrong, and no amount of boasting about your own genius is going to change that. History is littered with dopes like you, convinced that they alone knew The Truth. I understand one of them with similar views to you is now sitting in a Norwegian prison.

    I maintain my contention that you are no better than 9/11 Truthers, moon landing conspiracists or the clowns at Stormfront. Your views are nothing more a hodge-podge of bitter grudges based on a warped ideology and your posts are substance free grandstanding. You even have the identical victimisation complex.

  98. #99 John
    March 2, 2012

    >I have no clue why you made that claim.

    I would have thought it was obvious.

    He was making fun of you and suggesting you aren’t the genius you think you are.

    Jonas, I have read your posts closely I believe you possess an IQ of less than 90. Your lack of comprehension regarding Stu’s comment is astonishing.

  99. #100 Jonas N
    March 2, 2012

    John

    So you are telling me that you know why Stu claimed to have studied six years of physics while not being able to follow the simplest demonstration/example of the laws of Newton?

    I don’t know why he made that claim. If it indeed were true (which I very much doubt) it would reflect extremely poorly on his intelligence. And if it is not true, but he hoped to get away with it, it would reflect equally poorly on his intelligence.