By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
I don’t think that you have ever even attempted to bring some substance to the table. Whatever is your own contribution to #3284 certainly is exactly that:
>Another substance free tirade from Jo[hn]
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?
Sweet tapdancing jeebus you are a moron. YOUR education Jonas, YOUR education. And are you still persisting that there is no such thing as a dependent variable? You do realize people can scroll up, right?
You’d better call back GSW to tell you how smart you are, precious.
*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*
Really now? I recall you spouting on about the demographics of polar bears, an area where you clearly were way, way out of your depth. Ever hear of the extinction debt? Temporal lags? Tipping points? Ever read any relevant science in the area?
Moreover, at least I have a CV to wave; you apparently don’t. My CV was obtained on the basis of producing actual science: a BSc degree followed by a PhD in turn followed by three post-docs, a tenure as Nature editor and then 12 plus years as a senior scientist. Your CV appears to lack anything scientific whatsoever. And its you claiming to know more than anybody else here; that borders on the psychopathic. The only ones in Deltoid who support your drivel are Olaus (who relies for his world view on WUWT and similar bilge), GSW and PentaxZ. A pretty small small sample size to be honest. And the simple reason these clowns support you is because they all share your right wing anti-government views, combined with the ludicrous notion that those arguing in favor of the huge (and growing) evidence for AGW are communists promoting some kind of world government. The bottom line is that the debate about climate change isn’t based on science from your side but on advocating a political ideology. All you and your ilk do is wrap it up and camouflage it as science.
Moreover, I don’t have to call myself a scientist. I am one, 100% and bonafide. Just ask thousands of my colleagues around the world who are also scientists. Which is more than can be said for you. You instead rely on the adulation of a few twits here and there on right wing blogs. If the extent of your fan club lies at the feet of Olaus, GSW and PentaxZ, then you are a sad, little man. Confined to your own pathetic thread on Deltoid. A storm in a teacup.
Lookie, lookie…Jeffie is here – again – shouting about his…drum-whirl…. CV (demanding attention)! Hilarious.
Jeffie, you are confusing not waving with a CV with not having a CV. What a surprise…not.
Another error of yours is that self-obsessed drivel becomes scientific if you wave a CV in front of you. I’m sure you can learn us a lot about mating bugs and bananas, but your understanding of climate science doesn’t go beyond political standpoints about an evil right wing multi-billion denial machine obstructing climate science.
So you are a legend in you own mind, and have tried to beat me over the head with your own imagination and fantasies for half a year running …
… and failed every single time!
That’s what I said. Once more a magnificent own goal from Jeff.
And yes, in every single meaning of the word I am more scientific then you on every issue I have brought up here. Every one of them. And you in almost every single post prove that you are incapable of following even the simples principles of the scientific method …
Your arguments here, Jeff, are a total joke!
“political standpoints about an evil right wing multi-billion denial machine obstructing climate science.”
I thought there was universal agreement that there is no “right wing multi-billion denial machine”, at least no one had any evidence for it.
It doesn’t seem to be channelled thru Heartland at any rate as many had suspected. They’ve gone a bit quiet on the “well funded” denial machine bit of late.
I wonder how long it will be before the goldfish forget this ever happened and return to their old faux argument.
I wonder how long it will be before the goldfish forget this ever happened and return to their old faux argument.
…aaaand another irony meter bites the dust. Dangit, I knew I should’ve gone for the heavy-duty ones.
I’m afraid you are correct GSW. When Nemo (aka Jeffie H) admires his CV again, and that have probably already happened, he will see see the robust proofs of a multi-billion right wing denial machine take shape.
By the way, the latest version of the Summary for policy makers seems to harbor a new definition of climate change – both natural and human caused is included. Wonder if i90% of the scientists agree…
“the latest version of the Summary for policy makers”
Which version is that Olaus? not the 2007 SPM?
GSW, its called a special report with a SPM:
By the way, the latest version of the Summary for policy makers seems to harbor a new definition of climate change – both natural and human caused is included.
Thus proving – probably for all time – why engaging with morons like Petri is so unproductive. Essentially they have understood nothing so far, and likely never will.
Would you call what(ever?) you have produced here **’to engage’**? I certainly wouldn’t. Idi0tic blathering at most.
And what would constitute ‘not unproductive’ in your view? Somebody accepting your blathering at face value? Even being convinced by it? Seriously?
I have seen some (very very few) attempts (from the Deltoid side) at actually discussing any of the issues seriously. The level of this has been (to put it mildly) quite shallow. Things like
’90% is less than 100%, thus … ‘, or
Pointing out some arithmetric error I’ve made.
And (admittedly) a little more, in the early stages.
But you, you have never been close to anything that in my book qualifies as ‘engaging’ or ‘productive’ ..
And judging from your performance here, there is very very very little you have actually understood about the topics.
I think you are still in denial of that nobody here (or elsewhere) has ever seen the alleged science underpinning (and properly demonstrating) this infamous AR4-claim you all know about, and want to believe in so desperately ..
No Jonarse it is you, once again, doing the ineffectual blathering.
If you knew anything at all, you would’ve corrected your stooge Petri – but you didn’t. Instead you did your helicopter-impersonating exercise in handwaving – again.
Let’s remind you and your tame cretin, shall we?
[IPCC AR4 SPM, Page 1, Paragraph 1, first sentence:](www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf) “The Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report describes progress in understanding of the human and natural drivers of climate change, observed climate change, climate processes and attribution, and estimates of projected future climate change.
As I said, and you so promptly confirm, morons will never learn.
You sure are an angry Chihuahua Chek, I was referring to footnote 2, hence no need for the rabid behavior of yours, as always.
Now, scurry away to your favorite activity, mounting the legs of Jeffie.
“mounting the legs of Jeffie.”
Once again a lying liar from climate scam se, Petri in this particular instance, has been caught out with another of his lies and what does he do?
Be thankful for the correction? No.
Instead he projects his worthless ‘feelings’, and another of his and GSW’s homoerotic fantasies.
Good Grief, given the bed-wetting adulation Olaus and GSW have for Jonas, its amazing how they can write the crap they do. This is the same Joans who writes,
*My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me*.
Talk about self-worship!!!! But this is fine with the right wing-nut deniers here. They of course are also idol worshippers and fantasize endlessly about Jonarse. Heck, my view has always been to let others determine where my standing is in science. Hence why my research papers and grants are all peer-reviewed. But the only supporting ‘peer-review’ for Jonarse here is by a guy with an arts degree (Olaus) and a few third raters (GSW and PentaxZ). Wow. What esteemed company. And what are Jonarse’s qualifications? He won’t tell us. He refuses outright. He hides behind his self-righteous ‘wisdom’. Where are the publications? The lectures? The research grants?
Jonarse, given your complete anonymity in science, for once in your miserable life, tell us what your day job is. Or is it too embarrrassing to tell us all the truth? What are you hiding?
Sorry Jeffie, you are barking up the wrong tree. Indeed your CV is pure crap. Just because you have butt-plugged it (on yourself I reckon) doesn’t bring explanatory value of any kind regarding the right wing well-coordinated mullti-billion denial machine. And you know what Jeff? Nor does it help you explain the science behind the 90% figure.
And what is that waggling little hairy thing on your left ankle Jeff? It looks like chek, so go easy on him – with your CV.
My CV is “pure crap”: according to who? YOU????? Olaus putrid, an arts major? You think I take your sh*@ seriously? Get real, idiot!!!!!
While you are stewing in your own pitiful ignorance, take your head out of your large butt and do a bit of searching for who funds PR firms, think tanks, astroturf lobbying groups and other anti-environmental organizations. Its certainly a multi-billion dollar industry. Why? Because polluting industries see regulations as a threat to the way they do business. Just because you read nix on the subject does not mean it ain’t so.
And please don’t tell us any more of your fawning admiration for all things Jonarse. If anyone has a homoerotic fixation its you, Olaus.
Ah, now it gets interesting.
Olaus, are you saying that Jeff is lying about his CV, or that his education and publications are worthless?
Yes Jeff …
>My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me.
That is exactly what I am saying. And with regard to polar bears, I think there were two points I made:
1. The reason they are used so featured so prominently from the climate scare lobby, is because they make great pictures, because the cubs are cute, and because such pictures are useful for indoctrinating kids and swaying other naïve and gullible suckers with appealing to their emotions. And
2. That among whatever threatens the population(s) of polar bears, the possible anthropogenic signal of any global warming/climate change is pretty far down the list.
Now the first point is not a scientific one, it is about the PR-strategies of the warmists. But the second is an estimation of the orders of magnitude among the various possible/conceivable threats. It is not very scientific, but whatever real science you want to discuss, you need to have a grasp of the magnitudes involved. Otherwise you are just chanting emotions again: ‘Everything is so bad and there is so much that is bad, so it’s even worse …. Bla bla ‘
I think I made a third point too, also about quantitative assessment (but more in relation to your threatened glaciers). I asked you:
If you now believe that there is a real problem (with glaciers, or polar bears) caused specifically by the A of AGW, by the possible anthropogenic signal in the warming, what are the means and methods, and at what costs (generally speaking, not only $) to achieve something. Something you urged was necessary, as you said ‘to do something about it’?
I again brought up the magnitudes of the topics you brought up. I even asked several times. And as far as I remember, you never came back even attempting an answer, or giving any hint that you even understood why these are relevant factors. Instead, you returned with your drivel about yourself.
And yes, there have been other topics pf relevance, where Deltoid regulars engaged in at least some substantial discussion or at least tried, or pretended to (as opposed to you who only managed self adulatory CV drivel and angry emotional rants). And since you have no method at all judging this, I can inform you that those discussions mostly where on a very simple and basic level, like curve fitting, or simpler statistics, laws of motion etc. Most often making mistakes and errors revealing their shallow understanding. But at least ‘on topic’ if only superficially.
The usual MO would be to throw in some sciency sounding terms, possibly picked up at Skeptical Science (a favorite source among many here, I noticed) and even occasionally an opened paper in their browser, copy pasting some phrases. But usually that was it! When the actual content was discussed, what had actually been done, and what it may have been worth etc, they often were at a loss. First repeating their original claims a bit shriller, followed by name calling and worse (like you). Signifying that they couldn’t go beyond repeating phrases and memes, couldn’t assess and quantitatively (or at all) evaluate the contents, the arguments the substance. (And consistently, you would side with those who were wrong, badly wrong sometimes, and the ones spouting pure stupidities. And that’s because you have no method, Jeff. You have no means to approach a scientific, or even simpler science question, you let yourself be lead astray by your angry emotions. And consistently so. Here at least)
And since this was what happened every time there actually was some debate over a relevant topic, I can easily claim that:
> My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me.
I dearly hope that some of the shouters and haters here, do possess skills exceeding mine in other fields. But wrt to what I have pointed out here and was challenged for. No!
> And its you claiming to know more than anybody else here
is just your usual idi0tic drivel. I nowhere have claimed anything like that. These are the pathetic strawmen you must construct, and you have been doing this in essentially every post for halg a year. As if you just couldn’t help yourself. As if your Pavlovian reflexes made you bark nonsense, everytime your ‘greatness’ wasn’t accepted, and accepted as an argument. You still do!
You can’t even get my name right … you still need to distort everything you only get close to. And you call yourself a scientist!? Gimme a break!Well, here your performance has been totally laughable (and that is the flattering description. If you can’t do better when contradicted or not agreed with, you are a case for different kind of institution Jeff. Or are you telling me that you are much much better, more honest, more rigorous, less activistic and blindly guessing, when I can’t see you? Are you not yourself here, Jeff?)
Dear Stu #3306
I think I can help you there. What is claimed by me, and others still in possession of their mental capacities is that Jeff’s CV, won’t help him when arguing
1. A multi billion dollar fossil fuel funded denial machine/industry
2. The existence of (so far never seen, by anyone) published (real) science underpinning that prominent AR4 claim
3. Pushing around boxes while violating fundamental laws of physics and scientific principles
4. And much more. Actually almost anything discussed by me.
His CV, whatever it contains, is no argument in any of these instances. And still he brings it up, every second time. His argument is pure crap, and his CV is his ‘argument’.
Wrt to his education: Yes it has failed badly on many counts. His publications I haven’t read, but I would not take one statement, one number, one conclusion from him at face value. I have read his hate-speech ‘review’ of Lomborg, and the guy comes off like an unbalanced, angry, spoilt rotten kid, first time somebody refuses to hand him his candy .. It was a disgrace. For him, and for Nature. Nazi-allegations … classes from hell, where he would like to fail everybody. Pathetic. A guy who in half a year cannot muster one balanced argument for his own stance ..
>You think I take your sh*@ seriously? Get real, idiot!!!!!
Seriously. If you were asked yourself: What of everything you have delivered here .. Of all that, what would you want that anybody not blindly sharing your beliefs would take seriously?
What has been your most ‘to be taken seriously’ argument here the last six months? Do you even know?
Pssst: ‘Idiot’, is still not an argument.
Those two posts, Jonas, will stand the test of time as epic displays of arrogance, delusion, straw-manning and internal contradictions.
No more is needed, you’ve laid it all out.
Jonarse, Until you’ve read population ecology in any way shape or form my advice is to stick at whatever it is you do for a day job. What is that? Postal delivery man? Chimney sweep? Refuse collector? Moreover, the only ones who take you seriously on this thread are the three inane idiots that have been referred to earlier. A far larger sample size thinks you and your three fawning puppies are clowns. Last thing I read was that in a democracy the majority vote holds sway. You lose. Besides, why do you think three of you have been banished by Tim to your own measly personal thread? Because your arguments were so profoundly deep? Olaus humiliated himself with his comedy act suggesting that the Nazi Party was somehow ‘left wing’.
The thing is, you can’t debate your way out of an old, wet paper bag. You make the Freudian slip of trying to engage in debate about the demographics of polar bears. Since you probably can’t tell a mole cricket from a giraffe, that’s mighty brave of you. So go ahead. Let rip with your immense wisdom. Please tell about the extinction debt and how this applies more to iteroparous organisms than semelparous organisms. Go on to define why species at the terminal end of the food chain – k selected species in other words – are far more susceptible to even minor perturbations in their habits than more r-selected species further down the food chain. Please expand upon the interplay between biotic and abiotic constraints on the population ecology of species and species interactions. Explain the concept of trophic cascades and how this is integrally linked with the conservation biology of a species under investigation. Place your arguments also within the context of population genetics. Enlighten me as to your immense wisdom on entropy and tipping points in deterministic systems. And then put all of this together and tell me why the rapid loss of Arctic ice does – or does not – represent a profound short-term threat to the survival of polar bears. When doing this. please refer to other examples where habitat loss or fragmentation has or has not negatively impacted the abundance of a certain species. Please tell us all here – we wait with baited breath – examples of species that have been harmed by even small losses of habitat, and those that have not or have even benefitted, then place these findings in a broader ecophysiological and life-history related framework. Tell us why climate change will not be a major driver of extinctions.
OK smarty pants. Let’s see how much you know. You claim to know more than me on just about everything in science. So go ahead. By the way, when you are done, I’d be delighted if you could discuss the relative merits and downsides of the neutral hypothesis in biodiversity. How do you think this stacks up against the theory of island biogeography in explaining global and local patterns of species richness?
Dear Jeff (and Stu), like I said, your CV is crap when it comes to explain (and understand) the climate science behind the 90% figure, and its crap when it comes to find proof of the multi-billion right denial machine orchestrated by right wing illuminati.
It doesn’t matter how many times you say you are scientist when you can’t handle a scientific discussion. Only waving a CV doesn’t cut it, OK? The only thing you bring to the table is a dung pile of self idolatrine and an entourage of smelly minions.
Oh, sorry Jeffie, I forgot, your CV isn’t an argument for that nazism/fascism is right wing either.
Valid, contextualized, well reasoned facts and non-anachronistic perspectives are, which I served you guys on silver platters – in a polite manner.
Like always you showed up with noting to add except emotional shoutings and smearing.
the multi-billion right denial machine orchestrated by right wing illuminati
What. The. Hell. Are. You. Talking. About.
If you’re going to build a strawman, could you at least TRY to sound plausible?
And please, before you post another comment, check yourself. Think to yourself “would any of the imagery and batshit-insane analogies in this missive be perceived as loony, creepy or otherwise indicative of serious sexual issues and/or mental instability”?
No, reality is. You lose the argument on corporatism alone.
Oh, wait… I sense tone-trolling ahead…
Like always you showed up with noting to add except emotional shoutings and smearing.
Ayup. We’re just meanies! The WATB award for the day goes to our resident sexually repressed cheerleader.
Sweetheart, you don’t win an argument because people are rude to you. Have you considered the possibility that people are rude to you because your “arguments” amount to nothing more than vile, oft-debunked reconstructionist tripe?
Note to self: when bored, create the Olaus Using Creepy Metaphors Omnibus.
By the way, Jonas, who knows more about science than anyone here, has been directly asked
By the way, when you are done, I’d be delighted if you could discuss the relative merits and downsides of the neutral hypothesis in biodiversity.
If he does not address this directly in his next comment, he will have conceded the point that he is not as well versed in science and specifically the scientific method as he has been proclaiming, and has, in fact, been lying his behind off for most of this thread.
As I said, Olaus, go back to your artsy sandbox. You don’t discuss science because you don’t know any, except to rehash the garbage spewed out by non-scientists on the right wing web sites you so much love. But I didn’t expect anything more from you, as you’ve never been near a science class or a lab in your life, much less attended a scientific conference. Your sole function on this site has been to worship anything Jonas says. I have yet to see you take on anything dealing remotely with science here critically. So put up or shut up.
Jonas, to his credit, issued a scientific challenge and I answered it. See if you can. What do you know about ecological tipping points, critical demographic thresholds, genetic viability, and relaxation times towards or beyond stable equilibria? How do you think climate change in higher latitudes might affect species along different trajectories of the r- and K selection continuum? How might different stressors affect the fitness of polar bear populations and how might we interpret declines in ice sea extent as fragmenting existing populations? What previous studies are scientists using as proxies for habitat loss effects on biota in the Arctic and tundra regions? How might warming affect trophic inter-relationships and thus lead to bottom-up versus top-down cascades thus affecting network interaction webs? I am sure that you and Jonas are well up on the literature of May, McCann, Polis, Hubbell, Boscampte, Naeem and others in projecting how habitat fragmentation – caused through a range of anthropogenic threats including climate change – will impact the strength and viability of food webs.
Heck, you wanted science? Jonas appears to claim that he knows more than I do in any scientific field. Having done BSc and PhD degrees as well as having more than 20 years experience in population ecology in your and Jonas’ opinion means nothing? I never said I was a climate expert, unlike Jonas who appears to reinvent the wheel with every post. I said that I defer to the vast majority of trained experts in the field who are in broad agreement that humans are the main forcing agent behind the current warming. That every Academy of Science in every nation on on Earth supports this position. So who are the outliers?
What you both appear to be saying is that anyone can pick up a couple of books or surf the internet and presto! Instant expertise! I just wonder why universities are so filled with people who have PhD degrees and long pedigrees in the fields in which they work. You and Jonas appear to think that a relevant education doesn’t matter. I am saying that it does. I am also saying that I can wipe the floor with both of you or GSW in any field related to population, systems or evolutionary ecology. It isn’t hard. But in climate science I stick with the experts. Not you. Not Jonas, Not GSW. You are all Dunning-Kruger wannabes. That is why you are tucked away in your little safe corner of the blogosphere where nobody who is a somebody knows who the hell you are and the real researchers are out there in universities and scientific institutes and bodies. Not in think tanks or in astroturf lobbying groups. And those people are the ones generating the data and publishing it in peer-reviewed journals. Not on right wing anti-science sites that you clearly glean your worldview from.
The problem with being a clumsy, offensive troll, an easily exposed liar and an anti-intellectual moron (and in your case an unfortunate combination of all three qualities are amazingly on display and quite easily verifiable within the previous dozen posts on this thread alone), is that it all adds up to showing beyond all doubt that you’re an unintelligent fool Petri.
Some were courteous enough to respond to your *ahem* arguments on the other thread, but as you already know, your assertions were found to be vacuous and easily disproved, as are the arguments of all fools. If anything Petri, what that episode exposed was your cloying need to distance your whacko right-wing beliefs from their most obvious neighbour which induced an embarrassing cognitive dissonance within you. After that, nobody would be surprised if your hard drive weren’t full of pictures of yourself in full chocolate soldier regalia, just like crazy mad Anders. Stupid is as stupid does.
I’d surmise that’s how your Jonarse cult works – a form of horse whispering that appeals to the narcissism that those like you, GSW and Pentax end up believing you’re as smart as anybody – probably more so. The abundant self-damning evidence to the contrary however shows that’s most definitely not the case.
You people are pathetic, all of you.
Jeffie, glad you brought up your credentials again. I’m sure you know plenty about worms and plants, they are very un-valuable in real climate science.
@ Stu, back to singularities are we? And Engels was right wing because he was a capitalist?
Olaus, The only reason I ever mentioned my CV was because Jonas repeatedly said that I wasn’t a scientist. So as soon as I proved that I am, he accused me of waving my CV in his face. Bait and switch. And you swallow it hook, line and sinker.
As for ‘worms and plants’ being ‘un-valuable’ in climate science, try again. Biotic responses are some of the most important indicators of rapid warming. There are countless examples of poleward and elevational shifts in temperate species that is proof positive of the recent warming.
I also challenged you to comment with some scientific input on the effects of warming on polar bears, citing ecophysiological aspects that are key to the discussion. Trust you to avoid this.
Ianam: I would agree with you but I am tired of being smeared here relentlessly by a bunch of Dunning-Kruger acolytes. I am being constantly baited by this sordid lot of pseudo-intellectuals, so for once I have asked that they put up or shut up. As expected, Olaus took the evasive route, as I would expect from someone who hasn’t been in a science class or lab in his life.
Dear Jeffie, your knowledge about bugs isn’t disputed. That’s something your vulnerable but massive ego has invented all by itself. What’s been disputed is the real climate science behind the 90% figure. Like your CV no maggotology will be of any use regarding that topic. Scientific arguments are.
Your effort so far boils down to:
1. CV waving
4. Fantasies about right-wing conspiracies (and about the people not taking your gibberish for granted)
And sorry to tell you this Jeffie, but a thermometer is a much better device to detect rapid global warming than bugs. So far the former hasn’t revealed any rapid increase in global warming, not to mention a tipping point.
I’m sure though, that there would be a biotic response to a rapid warming.
Jeff … revising history again?
>The only reason I ever mentioned my CV was because Jonas repeatedly said that I wasn’t a scientist
Utter BS! On two counts. You brought it up long before, and as an argument. I even think your opening line here (in the Rick Perry thread) was:
> I am a senior scientist, and …
And secondly, what I have told you that you aren’t **a real** scientist, and I have detailed what that means, what that would entail. And what you compulsively are unable to do.
I even have acknowledged that you have a academic position, and that you go through notions, similar to those that real scientists also do. You write and publish papers, you go to conferences, workshops, you are invited to give talks and seminars, and you have discussions with others in your lunchroom .. etc.
Non of this makes you a real scientist per se. Your actions need to demonstrate that. And they don’t. Here, almost in every single comment!
Jeff, I’m sure there will be a biotic response on this rapid change of climate regime:
*And sorry to tell you this Jeffie, but a thermometer is a much better device to detect rapid global warming than bugs*
What a ridiculous remark. Where to begin dismantling it? First of all, there are thousands of biotic indicators that involve plants, invertebrates and vertebrates… these are vastly superior proxies for responses to warming than thermometers. Biotic responses include range shifts and changes in phenological traits. Biotic responses are vitally important in detecting changes in abiotic processes. That you do not tells me the level of your understanding of environmental science is virtually nil.
I am sure that Jonas, anxious to defend his small coterie of admirers, will agree with Olaus on this absurd point as well. To dismiss biotic responses so flippantly as Olaus does is the epitome of ignorance. To be honest, I don’t even think most of the small band of deniers in the scientific community would go this far. That’s why ‘real scientists’ should not waste their time with this thread as I am doing. Ianam: point taken.
Jonas: you are in NO position to define what a ‘real’ scientist is, since you aren’t one yourself. In fact, you clearly aren’t any kind of scientist. I have provided important questions above re: climate change, life-histroy traits, polar bear demographics and, as expected, you and Olaus have run scared. This is typical of you: attack others relentlessly, then when you are challenged, return to the usual ad homs. Moreover, telling you that I am a senior scientist is ‘not waving my CV’. To do that I’d need to tell you as helluva lot more about my career. The term ‘real scientist’ is childish anyway. Kid’s stuff. The fact that my 110+ research papers and 10+ grants have been successfully peer-reviewed is proof enough of my scientific credentials. I don’t need you or Olaus who lack any formal training in any field of science to be able to tell me whether or not I qualify as a scientist. Of course I do. Your beef with me is that I don’t bow down to your contrarian views or self-righteous ‘wisdom’.
Ianam is right, though: you aren’t worth a fart in the wind.
I don’t see how some assorted anonymous liars and morons’ fantasy ideas of what a ‘real’ scientist is has any bearing on anything or is of any interest to anyone.
What we do know is that Jonarse’s idea according to his often demonstrated method relies on assertion (preferably with lots of exclamation marks) rather than citation.
Treating Jonarse and his travelling circus with the contempt they’ve earned is counted as another negative sign by them, but that’s merely how they justify their own ignorance.
Jeff, what is it in the sentence “I’m sure though, that there would be a biotic response to a rapid warming” you don’t understand?
I can assure that no-one thinks that inserting a thermometer into a biological orifice reveals much about the biotic response to rapid global warming.
If you weren’t so bundled up in narcissism and conspiracy theories you would have seen that I said that a thermometer is way better to detect rapid global warming than bugs. Are you really challenging that?
In sum your beef with me is that your self idolatry and crazy fantasies don’t count as valid scientific arguments. Deal with it.
> I am tired of being smeared here relentlessly by a bunch of Dunning-Kruger acolytes
That, and your actions here, thus really read:
>I wanna do the smearing all by myself. And not being contradicted! No, I want recognition even praise for my insults and fabrication of ‘facts’.
That utter stupidity has been your ‘argument’ almost from the start. And there has been almost no comment from you, whose punch line and main message has been utterly stupid insults.
Olaus, you write to Jeff:
> your knowledge about bugs isn’t disputed
I think that is a bit strong. I would leave it at *‘I am not qualified to question his knowledge about bugs’*, and I don’t think you are either. However, as I stated before, I would never take one single statement of fact, any calculation, or any quantification, not one inferred conclusion, not (the alleged contents of) one single cited reference, not one presented result etc, at face value from the guy!
He is a notorious compulsive serial liar/inventor of ‘facts’ to support and ‘confirm’ a (since long) predetermined narrative and desperate beliefs of almost religious kind. This kid is so obsessed and possessed by his anger and unbalanced emotions, he just can’t help himself. To assume that this guy, is a totally and completely different persona once he goes about his day job, than what he (at daytime, from his job) delivers here, is a speculation I would never make.
And yes, Jeff:
I am very much in a position to define what a **real** scientist is. And even more so, what a real scientist is **not**, what (s)he doesn’t do. I have defined that many times by now. And (if you really didn’t know this yet, I’ll repeat it once more:) academia is littered with fields, disciplines, institutions, characters etc that call them self science/scientists and who pretend to ‘do science’ (going through similar motions) but whose outcome is not ‘real science’.
And no, Jeffie, you have not waved your CV here for real. Never! The phrase is a metaphor for your repeated referral to whatever your CV contains, as a substitute for arguing any of the real and relevant issues. Did you not even know that? (Earlier on, at least you seemed to understand what I/we meant by ‘you waiving your CV’ .. is that comprehension gone too now?)
Olaus, I also reacted when Jeffie seemed to claim that biotic indicators are better at recording temperature and temp changes, than thermometers. In true Mannian fashion of proxy-science, Jeffie seems to argue that whenever a biotic indicator change is observed, he can extract the temperature (change) signal from that. And at the same time discard (or filter out) any other conceivable cause and change that also might have an effect on such indicators. The guy is a real tool … Even in his own field it seems
Being constructive for a moment; Jonas point as to what constitutes a “real scientist” is quite well expressed by Feynman also.
It’s hard to watch this and not think of you jeff. Being a scientist is not attitude, which you have in abundance, and the ability to reel off lists of “names of things”.
Forgive me jeff, but you haven’t demonstrated that you actually have an understanding of anything. Your “names of things” argument isn’t actually an argument, neither is your “other people know” for the AR4 attibution claim, it’s not an argument. If anything you’re more librarian than scientist.
One more from Feynman,
The value of knowing the “name of something”.
What should be remembered here is that Jonarse et al’s ‘arguments’ are worthless and ill informed trolling and nothing more.
Consider this. If Jonarse was so offended by Jeff Harvey’s ‘attack’ on Lomborg – and let’s not forget the completely independent Danish panel’s judgement, he could – if he had the ability – have mounted a scientific defence of Lomborg.
But Jonarse didn’t, most likely because he doesn’t have the knowledge or ability to even know how or where to start. Therefore Jonarse is a blowhard with nothing. All he has are his layman fantasies of what he believes science should be.
QED and goodnight.
Sorry Che(k), the only thing rememberable here is that you guys can’t present the science behind the 90% figure in AR4.
And please don’t share if you use the out door thermometer Jeffie style.
Any comments on (or bionic reaction to) the new climate regime of the NSW?
No Petri, the only totally unremarkable thing here is that your clique of ignoramuses and liars can’t understand Chapter 9. You can only lead horses to water, the rest they have to do for themselves.
You and the gang are merely incapable, just as Jonarse is also incapable of making a valid defence of Lomborg that would overturn the DCSD decision.
C’mon Chek, please explain why its raining all over the place in NSW?
C’mon Petri, why are you under the mistaken impression that you would have to ability to understand anything at all?
No chek, I’m under the impression that you are a hysterical guy that doesn’t know what he’s mouthing off about.
Please come up with a better bionic response.
If seen you (occasionally) commenting in other threads. You do not always sound so completely stupid as you do here.
It is quite amazing, you still maintain that there is a (or some) reference(s) in ch 9 to any science underpinning that claim. Although you have never seen nor read it. You even seem to argue that ch 9 in it self should suffice!? That it doesn’t even require any real published science?
chek, has no clue. Writes so. And maintains he knows it anyway ..
None of you guys has even contradicted what I said about you all:
**You have not seen, read and understood any such science (for that prominent AR4 claim)** (*)
And still you dimwits jump up and down, stamping your little feet, hoping that somebody else knows and has seen it. You pin your entire ‘argument’ on blind and desperate faith, and in vain.
(*) Most of you mouthing off here, aren’t even capable of reading science, just reading the words, copying or repeating them, and hoping they are the science.
Jonas, GSW, Olaus,
Your responses are all predictable. Basically it comes down to this: “We know bugger all (= nothing) about biotic responses to climate change: in spite of thousands of published papers which are examining this behaviorally, ecologically and physiologically across a very wide range of taxa. So we will do what we do best: ridicule the message and the messenger”. Its actually a huge field of research, both theroetically and empirically. I posed for you dumbasses a series of relevant questions and criteria that are integrally involved in this large field. Many ecological and evolutionary parameters are currently being explored. Of course I expected you all to respond with smears, innuendo, and obfuscation. You don’t disappoint.
Q: How many of you have read a single published paper on climate change, phenology, trophic interactions and local adapation? Several of these studies are published in the pages of Nature and Science. Let’s start there. My guess: you have read none. So, in true D-K fashion, the field will be ridiculed and I can expect sarcastic ripostes about worms, bugs and weed (ignoring the fact that earthworms are important ecosystem engineers).
Finally, what unique qualifications do any of you schmucks have for being able to tell a ‘real’ scientist from one who is not? Amongst hundreds or thousands of my peers – actual working scientists – across the world I am certainly the former. Amongst a few non-scientist contrarians and right wing pundits I am not. I can live with that.
Finally, GSW, Feynman would turn over in his grave if he were to read the way his views are being soiled and distorted by idiots like you. Were he alive, he would most certainly be opposed to the contrarian drivel you, Jonas and Olaus spew out.
You clowns can stay here in your own little thread of ignorance. Your maxim: don’t know something? Ridicule it and the messenger.
Is there any comment you have written that is **not** only empty blathering and wishful thinking about how you’d rather want reality to be?
Any at all that has had any substance, of any kind? Your fantasies are on Jeffie level:
>Jonas … will have conceded the point that he is not as well versed in science and specifically the scientific method as he has been proclaiming, and has, in fact, been lying his behind off for most of this thread.
You really really really wish and hope for an alternate universe, don’t you Stu? I guess that also explains why you are so completely off in virtually every comment. Because it’s all about and only about your fantasies. No wonder you never learnt any science or physics in school ..
You telling me about ‘the scientific method’!? Pah! What a joke
Every scientific academy accepts the fact of the ‘A’ in AGW, as do almost all working climate scientists. Most reasonable people accept that the scientists are correct.
One Swedish cretin and his moronic libertarian travelling circus don’t.
Your ever self-aggrandising, incoherent, lamebrain rants don’t even withstand the simplest test of Occam’s razor, Jonarse.
Buh-bye Jonas, Olaus and the D-K comedy act.
And watch as the science vanquishes you. Slowly but surely, as it is and will continue doing. And sadly so, as our species continues blindly along its path towards an abyss of its own making.
“Buh-bye Jonas, Olaus and the D-K comedy act.”
Is that it Jeff? you off?. A few pompous claims about how “sciencey” you are and you’re gone, fair enough.
Remember, you’re welcome back on the Science thread Anytime.
Early on you clown pretended to speak for ‘the scientific community’, which of course also was untrue. Now you pretend to speak for Feynman too? Only that you even bring this up shows that you didn’t understand what it is he was saying.
> what unique qualifications do any of you schmucks have for being able to tell a ‘real’ scientist from one who is not?
I have answered that questions many many times. But your learning curve flat lined long ago it seems. Firstly, these are not so very unique. Any kid will realize that a real scientist doesn’t get to make up his own ‘facts’ so they fit the story he wants to tell. They’d certainly also realize that you cannot look at a dataset, or change of an indicator and from that observation also determine what caused that change. There are of course higher levels too, maybe not every kid will realize or understand. But wrt you, those simplest ones will suffice. Since you are patently incapable of even formulating your stance, let alone correctly reading what others say, you simply cannot be a real scientist. Oh yes, you are a sorry ass excuse for an employed academic, and there are many more than only you. But that’s something very different. And in almost every comment you write, you fantasize up your own ‘facts’.
You who can’t get one single thing right. You cannot read even shorter comments here correctly. You regularly side with the most moronic incompetents here, and guided only by your emotions, hoping they got it right and me wrong. This is utterly pathetic, Jeff.
There is not even any proof needed. I could randomly pick any of your comments, select a few sentences, and ask you to demonstrate how you arrived at these claims. And your only answer (if honest) must be, cannot be anything else but:
>I don’t know, I just made that up. Because I wanted it to be true!
But honest, you are not Jeff. Instead you make up new stupidities, and repeat old ones. Hoping that repetition will lend them some authority (together with your CV waiving, I presume). Once again demonstrating that you simply are incapable of being a real scientist. Heck, I have both told you and asked you many times. It seems that you are even unaware of what ‘the scientific method’ is.
Yeah, me too.
We’ll know when Jonarse & Co.have something other than hot air and a meme when their paper refuting Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) is published, and when their gigantic, more übersciencey than you can shake a stick at defence of Lomborg sees his rehabilitation.
Which will of course be never.
Chek .. don’t bring up Occams razor if you have no clue what it means …
But you seem to hope that those academies have read that science you haven’t, and nobody else has read. Is that what you believe now? Is that why you bring them up? Is that what you are pinning your hopes to?
And have you forgotten what this was about? Although this has been going on for six+ months? It certainly is not about the A in AGW, it is about that AR4 claim of 90% confidence of it being responsible for at least (maybe more) than half the warming in the past 50 years. And that this supposedly is a scientific result. But one where ‘the science’ is nowhere to be found, which no one has seen.
Must I repeat everything, everytime I bring something up chek?
Or is the reason you are so incoherent the same as with Jeffie? That you all are so emotional about it, that everything is just one huge boiling kettle of wishes, hopes, beliefs, faith, and religion .. and you have no clue about what is what, since it is all is only one big clot of tangled hot emotions?
Jonas, if you are so ‘up on science’ then answer my two posts about climate change and population ecology… I laid it all out for you in relevant scientific terms. But of course you won’t because you have not got a clue. End of story.
You are a waste of useful space.
Jeff, are you telling me you made some normal, relevant comments, asking relevant polite questions, and without adding you bizarre cocktail of concocted ‘facts’?
Sorry, I must have missed that. Which where these? I have certainly not brought up ‘population ecology’ as relevant for determining if, and if so, how much that A in AGW might amount to. I’d say that this would be approaching that question from the wrong end.
Really, Jonas? You and your cronies never whined about polar bears?
Again, you are aware that people can scroll up, right?
Yes, what I have said about polar bears is still legible above. What was your point? Do you not remember what I said? Or did you not understand it? I even summarized it just a day ago, in #3307 ..
And I asked you in #3337 if you have made any comment contributing anything else but empty stupid remarks and silly wordplay? Anything that would even require me to think if or whether you had a valid point? (Your opinions and beliefs, I already know.)
Well, Stu .. anything?
That among whatever threatens the population(s) of polar bears, the possible anthropogenic signal of any global warming/climate change is pretty far down the list.
I have certainly not brought up ‘population ecology’ as relevant for determining if, and if so, how much that A in AGW might amount to.
Oh yes, semantics, Jonas. You are SO clever. NOBODY could EVER figure out that by reversing the implication, you were still implying the same damned thing but reserved the right to weasel out of it by “coming at it from the wrong end”.
Did people laugh at you in debate club, too? Jonas, it’s okay. You can tell us. We all know you have major hangups about your education in science in general, and physics and biology specifically. Did they laugh at you, sweetheart? Is that why you are so, so angry?
Oh, by the way, if anyone needs me: after reading
And I asked you in #3337 if you have made any comment contributing anything else but empty stupid remarks and silly wordplay?
I’ll be off to the hardware store to purchase those heavy-duty irony meters, psychotic gibbering of “AR4″! “90″! “REAL science”! in my head all the way.
Kiss kiss, Jonas.
So Stu .. did you ever have a point? Or are those stupid comments all you ever managed?
Semantics? You really don’t have the slightest, do you?
As I asked chek too: Is all just a tangled clot of emotions and contradictions you can’t resolve in your head for you?
I still don’t see that you even are trying to make a point (just like your weeks of hand moving boxes gibberish). No content at all ..
And it was the AR4 SPM which made that claim. I understand that too i a sore spot. People have been trying to get away from that issue since I pointed out to them that they were taking it on pure faith. Angrily so. You too, Stu ..
Projection seems to be all you ever manage
Ianam: I would agree with you but I am tired of being smeared here relentlessly by a bunch of Dunning-Kruger acolytes.
Can’t you get it through your head that there’s nothing you can do about it? If you’re tired of it, then stop reading it.
I am being constantly baited by this sordid lot of pseudo-intellectuals, so for once I have asked that they put up or shut up.
For once? No, you have done so before, with the same lack of results. They will not put up and they will not shut up. Try to get that through your thick head … you are powerless against people who have no scruples.
As expected, Olaus took the evasive route, as I would expect from someone who hasn’t been in a science class or lab in his life.
Yes, it’s expected. Duh.
Ianam, be gentle with Jeffie’s gargantuan ego. He can’t help himself. Like you said, he gets like this whenever someone sees through his pompous semi-religious faith or questions his illuminati delusions.
What if a character like that got into office? Scary thoughts. All that evil to bring down for the benefit of the good.
I find it comical that ianam (of all the commenters here) tries to present himself as the more rational among the crowd here.
Jeff has tried repeatedly waiving his CV, follows by insults and fabricated ‘facts’ for half a year, never tauching upon any relevant issues.
I think ianam, has only tried the insult-road, lacking as much substance as Jeff and the others.
That now, in an awkward way, makes him seem the more rational (in his mind) … maybe more scrupulous too(using his own words)?
But ianam, you are correct in one way (but it has nothing to do with scrupulous or not): The methods you have tried here (almost all of you) don’t work. Repeating your beliefs, and that the should be accepted because many of you believe in the same/similar things, will not convince anybody of anything.
And even less so will the repeated frustrated use of insults and what else you come up with next, when your beliefs aren’t accepted.
It’s like Jeff said: This is a little enclosure, protected from the outside world, reality, observations, and scientific reasoning. For the remaining hard-line faithers to pat each other’s backs and comfort each other when nothing out there is going according to the script anymore. Where you can cling to conspiracy theories, about your ‘evil enemies’ that are just heartbreaking in their naivete.
I feel a little bit sorry for Tim. But only very little. His blog has been completely disrupted by the fact that one or a few persons point out some areas where your arguments are ‘lacking’. The response to that was (mostly) a massive kindergarten attack of outrage and insults. And he let his crowd dig that hole really wide and deep too ..
This is where he’s at now. And as ianam says, the best strategy now probably really is to pretend it isn’t there, pretend it never happened, hope that others won’t notice. (Which of course is a given among the real faithers)
Olaus, I don’t think Jeff’s ego is that large. He wants it to appear larger (hence the constant CV waiving) and he wants to fit in that larger suit he so desperately tries to depict ..
But we have only his word for him ‘being respected’ among his peers (as I said: I would not trust one single assertion from the man).
People who behave like this, who constantly must bloat and float their own importance, usually are quite small and insecure minds ..
Similar with Michael Mann, even his peers are aware of Mann’s fragile ego and that he (in certain aspects) is beyond help. And wrong on the issues ..
I can imagine that there are some loony lefties like Jeff among his peers, who agree with him and reaffirm his views. But all of them? Even a majority? That would be truly sad.
As you are aware, we had a similar case i Sweden, who determined the ‘evilness of the deniers’ by looking at their postal address. (And Jeff even claims to have gotten a ‘reaffirming’ mail from a Swedish ecologist. Maybe a coincidence?)
But really, looking back at all that Jeff has written here; Can you extract a tangible stance from it wrt to AGW and pertinent questions? The closest I can get is:
>We (everybody?) should believe whatever he believes, because he believes that this is what the ones he believes to be the authorities, also believe and actually claim. And that he believes there is ‘science’ supporting that ..
>Although he seems unaware of the difference between real science and just ‘words found in some publication’ …
This is the best I can make of the guy and what he has said (wrt to climate). Essentially nothing. But his rambling about everything else, are entertaining at least, wouldn’t you say?
*People who behave like this, who constantly must bloat and float their own importance, usually are quite small and insecure minds*
Jonas, you are one sad, pathetic little man. Who is the one who has said several times here that they know more than anybody else? It’s not me. Take a look in the mirror pal. Your arrogance is breathtaking. But it belies your own insecurity. The fact that you are still writing lengthy rants (aimed at who, may I add? Olaus? GSW? Your tiny fan club?) says a lot about you. Desperation.
Am I insecure? Not on your life. I have a good career and I am well respected in the ecological science community. Your comments and those of a couple of other idiots on your own lousy little thread of a weblog only make me more confident – if I am offending worthless right wing trash like you, then I must be doing something right.
Jeff, you just can’t help yourself, can you?
>Who is the one who has said several times here that they know more than anybody else?
(Can’t really figure out if ‘the one’ and ‘they’ refer to the same person, but lets assume you meant me the second time)
The person repeatedly (and erroneously) ascribing such and similar claims to me would be you, Jeff (and I think sometimes echoed by the stupo-support crowd)
I certainly have never claimed anything even close to that. What I did claim though was:
1. I know what I am talking about, and
2. My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me
You know, Jeff … when you are secure and confident, when you know what you are talking about, when you actually have done the work, and learnt the lessons, you don’t need to make up stuff, fabricate your own ‘facts’ to support your views. Or to denigrate others …
That’s the difference between you and me. That’s why I know what real science is, and can argue such. And you can’t ..
when you are secure and confident, when you know what you are talking about, when you actually have done the work, and learnt the lessons, you don’t need to make up stuff, fabricate your own ‘facts’ to support your views. Or to denigrate others …
BOOOM! Dangit, that was a heavy-duty irony meter, too. Anyone know if they make ones that are strong enough to withstand that?
Just let it go.
Because there is only one thing one needs to know about J0nas: **He is a pathological liar!**
Whatever you say, he is going to lie about it. Because that’s all he can do. That’s all he has ever done, and all he will ever do. That is all he is.
And behind his mask of lies, he is an empty and substanceless nothing in a void.
If you really want to hurt him: **ignore him!**
End his little moment in this tiny and feeble limelight!
This thread is the greatest intellectual achievement of his life. And it is all about telling lies.
Let him shout and bray here with his little flock of lobotomized sheep, but just ignore him.
Jonas, your last point supports what I said entirely. You THINK you know more than others, but you singularly fail to point out where on Earth you gleaned your wisdom. Are you a professional scientist? Have you been educated to degree level at any university in a scientific field? Have you published your ‘brilliant’ ideas anywhere in the scientific literature?
We ALL know the answers to these simple questions. No, No, and No. Your supposed ‘brilliance’ comes from your own illusions and the fawning support of a few people on this thread. Note that none of them are bonafide scientists, either, and that they all share your right wing libertarian views. What a coincidence, eh?
In any scientific field, it is up to others to decide on the abilities and qualifications of their peers. This is generally a very slow process that is accrued on the basis of tenure. Over years, as scientists do more research, publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals, present lectures or seminars at universities, and interact with colleagues at conferences and workshops, their standing generally increases. Over time, they get invitations to present guest lectures at universities, or at conferences, and later still to present keystone lectures or even plenary lectures. At the same time journals may write to them and ask them to edit a special issue of a journal along a specific theme or else contribute as an author. Moreover, they may be invited to act as an Associate Editor of a journal in their field or a related one. I went through all of these steps slowly and over time. The more I gained experience, the more I was able to gauge my abilities and those of others, and to think critically. I also knew when I was stepping over the line into other fields – even in ecology – that are not in my area of expertise. I am an Associate Editor of a well-respected journal at the moment, and I am often asked to oversee articles that do not fit in with my academic background. When this happens, I decline the invitation, and suggest someone else for the assignment.
You, on the other hand are someone akin to a speeding car without brakes. You clearly have no special expertise in climate or any other scientific field or else you would have told us all a million times by now. Why else would you say repeatedly that you ‘know what you are talking about’ and that your ‘level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me’? I cannot recall encountering anyone with such utter hubris. If I went to a conference and disagreed with colleagues in a session by repeating your mantra, I would be jeered and laughed out of the hall. As you should be. The reason I brought up my academic qualifications was not, as your simple little mind thinks, to suggest that having a PhD in a different field gives me intellectual superiority in climate science over you. Heck, I admire your interest in the field. The reason I did so was because my education has taught me to be cautious when stepping into other fields well removed from my own. The more one gains scientific expertise in one specialized field, the more they realize how little they know in others. I accept that completely. That is why – as I have said dozens of times – I defer to the opinions of the vast majority of my peers in climate science who are experts and who are doing the actual research. And the vast majority of these ‘real’ scientists as you call them will disagree with you. The A in AGW is largely settled now on the basis of their tireless research. What we don’t yet understand is how significant this warming is likely to be, or its realized effects on natural and managed ecosystems. As Bill Nordhaus said, last week, its time to move on and to deal with the effects that might, in the medium to long-term, be severe.
As I said earlier, there are countless biological indicators that the planet is warming and warming rapidly. We are seeing large scale changes in growing seasons, earlier flowering times amongst plants, large scale latitudinal and elevational range shifts amongst a wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate fauna. Also occurring are changes in the dynamics of critical interactions amongst primary producers and consumers. Nature responds. You might be right to question the extent of the A in AGW. But to suggest, as Olaus does, that it isn’t warming and that thermometers are better indicators of climate change than plants and animals? That is just plainly ridiculous. Not worthy of a serious response.
I am fed up with being misrepresented on this thread by you and few others. I never said that I knew more than you – that is pure fiction. I did say that you fit the D-K model well. I stick with that. You lack trained expertise in any scientific field and therefore you think you know more than you probably do. I realize what my limitations are and in that regard I go with the prevailing majority of scientists in the field of climate research. I suggest you read the D-K paper. It fits you to a tee.
Don’t worry Jeffie, I have called an ambulance. Soon your lost strap-suit will keep you together again. When safely secured, you can ponder on the magnificent delusions your megalomaniac mind creates when on the loose:
“You might be right to question the extent of the A in AGW. But to suggest, as Olaus does, that it isn’t warming and that thermometers are better indicators of climate change than plants and animals? That is just plainly ridiculous. Not worthy of a serious response.”
This is hilarious Jeffie. Where on earth did you come up with the idea that I deny that the world has been warming? Like Jonas said: fueled by your blind hate you make stuff up as you go along. Amazing.
Equally false is your claim about my stand regarding climate change and the biosphere. What I really said, in the real world, was:
“that a thermometer is way better to detect rapid global warming than bugs. Are you really challenging that?”
Read it slowly, and then read it again Jeff. I’m sure, when reality kicks in, that your errors will materialize before you.
And when they do Jeff, no need to apologize. You are already forgiven.
whose highest accomplishments here have been detecting typos and occasional sytnax errors. Who has been bringing up ‘denying dependent variables’ or ‘hands moving boxes at different speeds’ all by his own without anybody ever provoking him (to cover up his poor understanding of the simplest physics) …
The same Stu still trolls in the thread as if he ever has had one valid point.
You couldn’t make these things (or characters) up if you wanted to. Stu has been one of the best proxies available for what stupidity abounds among the climate scare believers (at this site, at least), and some of the (self professed) ‘scientists’ here even have sided with him, drawn support from his ramblings, when the sod has been absoulutely and manifestally wrong …
As I said: You couldn’t make these things up, And still they exist … at least her at Deltoid!
You should recognize that I was actually commending you for being one of the few who has had vadid points about the topics discussed. Your best one was when you pointed out that
>90% is less than 100%, and that therefore 90% error bars not necessarily must overlap (for different reconstructions of the same metric)
But that point was moot, and I explained in detail why this was so, and what it indeed was worth. And this was long long ago.
Since then you have essentially lost it. If you ask me, what you have come up with since has been sheer stupidity. Dishonest stupidity. You accuse me of lying, although you know that this is a lie in it self. Now you even claim that:
>Whatever you say, he is going to lie about it. Because that’s all he can do. That’s all he has ever done, and all he will ever do. That is all he is.
Which is so obvious BS, not even the most moronic faither here can truly subscribe to this. Personally, I think this is among the most idiotic things you could have tried. It is fantasizing Jeffie-style, and the only ‘reason’ I can figure is that you too are so emotionally entrenched in this question, that you just can’t help yourself but need to invent utter nonsense to support your narrative and beliefs. Jeffie-style …
So Andy S, let me hand it to you:
Since your best objection here (90% < 100%) you have not been having any valid points whatsoever. And most of what you’ve tried since has been utter garbage. And now you have reached a point where you knwoingly have to concoct up the worst lies, so stupid not even you can believe it, and just to stick with your already totally failed narrative.
Truly and utterly pathetic, Andy … and pathetic on a level which seems to be the norm here.
Jonas, your delusions are spinning out of control. Up your meds.
whose highest accomplishments here have been detecting typos and occasional sytnax errors.
Wait, you’re too stupid do use a spell-checker and get mad at me? What a sad little passive-aggressive jackwagon you are.
And a moron, too.
Who has been bringing up ‘denying dependent variables’ or ‘hands moving boxes at different speeds’ all by his own without anybody ever provoking him
Obvious and stupid lie. GSW brought it up. You know this.
Which makes your epic whine at 3362 even more deliciously ironic.
The only moron ever to b ring up ‘dependent variables’ as an argument was you, Stu. And it was an utterly stupid attempt too ..
If you think otherwise, you are delusional! And you can go up thread, and search for who first brought up ‘dependent variable’ in connection with pushing a box, if you (or others) don’t take my word for it!
Once more, fabricated nonsense from the CAGW-faithers .. Why am I so surprised?
Let me once more repeat my comment, the one Stu thought he’d counter, while inadvertently confirming it:
>whose highest accomplishments here have been detecting typos and occasional sytnax errors. Who has been bringing up ‘denying dependent variables’ or ‘hands moving boxes at different speeds’ all by his own without anybody ever provoking him (to cover up his poor understanding of the simplest physics) …
>The same Stu still trolls in the thread as if he ever has had one valid point.
>You couldn’t make these things (or characters) up if you wanted to.
If you’ve finished “prodding the proles”
There is rampant ‘rabid’ behaviour around on many of the blogs at the moment. I don’t know if you’ve been following the Lindzen story over at rc.
If you read thru the comments, I think the CAGW mob have finally gone over the edge, lost the plot. One in particular, Martin Lack with an MA in Environmental Politics, oh dear
is working himself up into real frenzy over an error in one of Lindzen’s slides. It’s quite uncomfortable watching him grapple with the obvious insanity of what he’s doing, yet being driven to keep alive some remnant of the “cause”.
Do you think they’ve all finally lost it? given up even pretending to be part of the real world?
It has a sort of “Sean of Dead” feel to it all. As they said in the movie, – Best plan, sit down, nice cup of tea and wait for it all to blow over.
PS. I think you could have pushed the proles too far, they may not want to play anymore, their egos won’t take it.
You’re spot on, but I’m afraid that, in their own way, Jeff, stu, and chek are as deranged as the Swedes. (Be sure to run the mouse pointer over that iconic comic for the “alt text”.) And as they are so deranged, we’re wasting our time trying to talk some sense into them … adios, bozos.
GSW, you are probably right. Ianam is even throwing his former pals (Jeff, stu and chek) under the bus.
It’s very understandable though. Anyone reading Jeffie’s hate-saturated walls of text (or Stu’s and chek’s hate speeches) can see that he is fighting sheer fantasies.
I’m sure a lot more deltoids are ashamed of Jeff’s lies and poor understanding of what real climate science is.
* Jeffie’s hate-saturated walls of text*
My last post was ‘hate-saturated’? Olaus, you really are a loon. Read your own posts and tell me that they aren’t ‘hate-staturated’. And please tell me where I have ‘ lied’…. amongst you Swedish crazies I am the only one who has been honest and forthright.
Lastly, I’d like you and Jonas to list a few names of ‘real climate scientists’. Is Gavin Schmidt one? James Hansen? Kevin Trenbarth? The vast majority of others who defend the A in AGW? And where do you and Jonas fit into the mold? Are you both ‘real scientists’?
As for your derisive comment about ‘bugs’, you ought to know that without ‘bugs’ (I assume you are referring to insects) humans would head rapidly for extinction. Their pollination services alone sustain agricultural productivity; other services they generate- seed dispersal, pest control etc. – are worth billions of dollars to the global economy. And, to answer your stupid point, they are also outstanding indicators of a warming climate. Given that they are ectotherms, they also respond to warmer conditions. And there are countless examples of range shifts, increased voltinism, and earlier emergence in the spring that are being recorded across a very wide range of insect taxa. If you bothered to read any of the empirical data you’d realize this.
But Ianam’s point is taken. He didn’t throw us under any metaphoric bus; he just thinks we are crazy for persisting against such profound scientific ignorance as that promulgated by the likes of you and Jonas. And he is right. That is why he has a point. You two epitomize ignorance. If Jonas was as up on the science as he says he is, he’d see that your comments about ‘bugs’ are totally inane and would ‘put you in your place’. But, since you are one of his lone allies on this pathetic little thread, you can spew out whatever crap you like and he will go along with it.
>We ALL know the answers to these simple questions. No, No, and No.
A perfect example of why and how you cannot be a real scientist: Once more again, you know things because you just know them already! Knowing without knowing, that is your melody Jeff.
>The more I gained experience, the more I was able to gauge my abilities and those of others, and to think critically.
Utter BS, you can’t even read simple comments on a blog, without losing it. Without misrepresenting, without making up stuff etc to tell the story you so desperately want to replace the truth with.
>I cannot recall encountering anyone with such utter hubris
Well, I can remember one pompously ranting character here, claiming to speak for ‘the scientific community’, and when challenged to that, revising it to ‘speak for some 95% of the scientific community’ (whatever that would be). And no, Jeff, that was not me. That was some other mythomaniac severely disconnected from reality, who thought that his little severely limited and ego-centered perspective of the world was the entire universe.
>If I went to a conference and disagreed with colleagues in a session by repeating your mantra
I have asked you time and time again what that supposedly is, what, as you said, my ‘earth shattering views’ actually would constitute. And you could never even formulate what supposedly would be viewed as so controversial. Do you even know?
What I have said (with some emphasis) is that I have never seen any real science underpinning that (in)famous AR4 attribution claim, and that nobody I have ever asked/challenged has seen such either. Not even claimed (after some follow-up questions) to have seen it, or to know anybody else who has. That observation still holds. I don’t know if this is what you refer to when you (once more, out of the blue) claim that:
>I would be jeered and laughed out of the hall. As you should be.
Among scientists? I very much doubt it. Because it’s the easiest thing to challenge: Have you seen it? OK, put up and show it! If you can’t, then I was right! And Jeff, I was right here. Everybody who tried to avoid that central issue, confirmed I was.
So Jeff, in an audience of faithers your fantasies what could possibly happen, but that would only show that they aren’t interested in the science. And you have your example right here: The behavior you wish for has been amply demonstrated by quite a few, and with some PhD:s among them.
>my education has taught me to be cautious when stepping into other fields well removed from my own
Well, I think you have tried exactly that: Being an ‘experert’, a remote expert even on almost everything. Particularly, you have pretended to know what those who don’t share the climate anxiety or scare, are about. You have even said that you give ‘classes’ about ‘deniers’ and their motives, financing etc. WHile obviously you don’t have the slightest clue about what the issues are. You can’t even read and understand them correctly when put to you in plain language here, repeatedly.
All of this makes you an activist (and a poor one at that), which is the opposite of a scientist. Olaus is quite correct about your anger and even hatred of others with views you don’t like (or know, or understand).
Scientific discourse is not about screaming and hating, name calling and all that you’ve tried. It is not about authority, or consensus, or voting. or supporting or organisations declaring this and that. Unfortunately, very very much of what is presented as arguments for climate anxiety is argued in this way. And every real scientist must instinctively shudder at these ‘arguments’, even more so now that we know more about what goes on behind the scenes, the practices there. Not to speak of what reality does meanwhile.
And really Jeff!? Why do you bring up Bill Nordhouse as an argument? For what?
Or why would write something so utterly stupid as:
>But to suggest, as Olaus does, that it isn’t warming
Or that temperatures are better measured with bugs?
And yes JEff, I read that D-K paper long ago. I think it says more about them who constantly bring it up believing it is an ‘argument’ for something, something they often cannot even formulate!
And it is no coincidence that the same people also incessantly shout: ‘Denier, denier!’. And youv’ve been doing plenty of both, Jeff! And so far you haven’t even had an argument!
Turning into quite a good dissection of Jeff’s personality, and his use of emotional outpourings as a substitute for rational argument, this Jonas. Intriguing to watch.
Get this through your thick head. I know that you don’t understand a thing about the link between abiotic stresses and biotic responses, but let me give you a primer. There are more than 2 million species of insects on Earth – ecologist Terry L. Irwin, based on his working in the neotropics, estimates that there may be many as 30 million species in the tropical regions of the planet alone. I assume that by his infantile and derisive use of the word ‘bugs’ Olaus was, infact referring to INSECTS. Bugs – in the Order Hemiptera – constitute only one of 30 Orders are are certainly not the most species-rich. By any accounts, insects dominate terrestrial ecosystems across the planet. They are also vitally important in sustaining the health of both natural and managed ecosystems through the services they provide: pollination, pest control and nutrient cycling. As ecologist Edward O. Wilson has pointed out, if insects were to disappear then human extinction would soon follow. Through the critical ecosystem services they generate, insects help to ensure the health and viability of ecosystems. Without them primary production would collapse.
Insects are also very susceptible to changes in the abiotic environment because they are ectotherms and rely on external heat for metabolism. There is a large and growing body of studies showing that insects across a range of taxa and with quite different phylogenies are responding to recent warming. Thermophilic species are being discovered in areas far to the north (or south in the southern hemisphere) of their normal ranges, and there is lttle doubt that the ranges of well-studied groups such as butterflies are showing polewards advances. However, a major problem for these insects is that many are specialized feeders, and rely for food on plants producing specific allelochemicals. Therefore, specialist insect herbivores are appearing to decline as their co-evolved food plants are (not suprisingly) not expanding their ranges as fast as the insects. On the other hand, generalist herbivores are moving polewards, as well as generalist insect predators. Here in Holland we have recently recorded – for the first time – populations of argiope spiders, aculeate wasps and ground beetles that were formerly only found well to the south. In Europe, a highly injurious moth, Spodoptera littoralis, has moved from its native African range into Italy and Spain, and it is continuing to survive further north. There is no doubt whatsoever that these species are advancing north as a result of milder winters and warmer summers. Populations of a wide diversity of insects in northern Europe are emrging earlier in the spring than they did just 20 years ago. This is all proof of warmer springs, more frost-free days and longer growing seasons.
So yes, ‘bugs’ – or more specifically, insects – are excellent indicators of warming. On the Web of Science if you type the words ‘insect’ and ‘climate change’ you get 1691 hits. Last year these studies were cited more than 7,000 times.
If you claim to be interested in science and that I have not put up an argument, then you are full of it. The comment that Olaus made was profoundly ignorant, as in keeping with someone whose worldview comes from WUWT. And trust you to defend his ignorance to the end. You want to talk science, then stop the bullshit and do so.
Really GSW? Please enlighten me as to where you, Jonas or Olaus have addressed a single recent scientific argument that I have made re: biotic indicators of climate change. It’s a major area of contemporary research. Yet what crap do I get? Olaus calls insects, ‘bugs’. That’s the extent of it. Then he and Jonas, who clearly have never read anything on the field of invertebrate physiology in their lives, ridicule their use as proxies in measuring recent climate warming. I guess I can understand why the three of you are thereby forced into making tireless rants about my ‘mental state’. If the science is inconvenient and out of your depth, then obfuscate, avoid, and smear.
Lastly, my guess is that only you and Olaus find anything Jonas says remotely ‘intriguing’. Perhaps that says more about your mental state.
The only moron ever to b ring up ‘dependent variables’ as an argument was you, Stu.
Awesome. You still don’t know what it means, then. No wonder you’re so insecure about your education.
So Stu, now you are trying to convince yourself of that I don’t know what a dependent variable is?
Is that the delusion you are feeding yourself? Just laughable, kid ..
I repeat what I said, it is still true to every letter:
>The only moron ever to bring up ‘dependent variables’ as an argument was you, Stu.
And I explain it in even more detail:
You made the claim that GSW was arguing different speeds between hand/box. He wasn’t! And since this was obvious to about everybody (except obvioulsy you) who had read what he said (even specifically responding to you), you started to blather about ‘dependet variables’ to defend your utterly laughable claim. Hence:
Did you get it this time?
Jeff, what is wrong with you!? I mean seriously, what the f*ck is wrong with you?
Why do you keep repeating that the biosphere responds to changes? Why! And why do you feel the need to pound on about that ‘insects are important’!?
I mean really, do you think this is some divine insight you have, that nobody else knew of?
Both Olaus and I have separately, and many times said that such responses to changing conditions are to be expected, not the least controversial!
The discussion here is about **climate change** (which it always does) and more specifically, how large **a possible anthropogenic signal** is in there. Once you start talking about regional climate, ie relevant for habitat, changes locally are both faster, with larger variation, and more erratic than global changes. And attribution of some specific regional change to the A in AGW is essentially impossible. And the IPCC does specifically not claim to be able to resolve climate predictions to the regional level!
You sound like you’ve read the latest tabloid headline, claiming that the latest storm or drought or whatever, is due to AGW. Citing some brainless ‘scientist’ saying that this is **consistent with** what the models say. Brrr …
Why are you so obsessed with telling us that climate (locally) does change, Jeff!? Do you think anybody ever questioned that?
But no, temperature changes are **recorded** using thermometer, not proxies dependent on a multitude of factors. Nobody ever doubted that also insect behavior/changes **indicate**, ie respond to temp changes.
The second relevant issue (partly discussed) here is what measures are feasible to accomplish certain goals. If say glacier shrinkage was decided to cause stress on […], what would be a method to address this, and with what likelihood of achieving anything, and with what other consequences, and at what costs? Every time such issues were up, you left Walk Over. And instead continued with your rants.
>If you claim to be interested in science and that I have not put up an argument, then you are full of it. The comment that Olaus made was profoundly ignorant, as in keeping with someone whose worldview comes from WUWT. And trust you to defend his ignorance to the end. You want to talk science, then stop the bullshit and do so.
As I said Jeff, what is it with you? I would say, that mouthing off at Olaus was profoundly ignorant! Your only excuse would (once more) be that you didn’t actually read what he said, and/or didn’t understand it. And just went off on one of your tangents again.
>my guess is that only you and Olaus find anything Jonas says remotely ‘intriguing’. Perhaps that says more about your mental state.
Here you seem to pretend to speak for (not only (maybe 95% of the) ‘scientific community’, but for) the entire world population, save three persons. Is that really what you want to claim, Jeff? That nobody except two more, thinks that I have anything worthwhile to contribute? Is this the kind of delusions you feed yourself with Jeff, to convince yourself? Is that really what ‘you guess’!? Or is it once more what you would want to be true (in a different universe)?
Yes, Jonas, the current discussion is about the extent of the anthropogenic signal and the vast majority of climate scientists (>95%) are in agreement that the A is very real. You are in the minority. The tiny minority. At most scientific conferences, either dealing with the causes of GW or the biotic responses, the human fingerprint is taken as GIVEN. Read any of the huge literature based I cited in my last post and pretty well every author talks about AGW. Not GW but AGW. And the responses I am talking about are NOT local. How do you define local? As a biologist, I would call a range expansion of a few hundred km in < 30 years as significant, and moreover these responses have been observed in locations across much of the biosphere. So they bloody well ARE NOT local.
Olaus derided ‘bugs’ when neither of you probably can tell a mole cricket from a giraffe. And he claimed that thermometers were better signals for warming than responses than ‘bugs’ (again derisively referring to insects). This is pure and utter crap. No scientist would agree with this: real or imagined.
You are an imbecile. No wonder you never studied science at a university. What must really irk you is that, because I have done the work, I get invites to conferences and workshops and I do speak to many scientists. You are stuck in your little anemic corner of the blogosphere. You are a big man is a very tiny cup. But out there? You, Jonas N, are a nothing.
Why do you waste so much time on these trolls? They don’t care about what you say, and hardly anybody else is going to read this thread.
Jeff, forgot to answer one of your questions:
Trenberth and Hansen are not real scientists. Al least not any longer (if they were in earlier life).
In Trenberth’s case, it suffices to point at his attempted ‘reversal of the null hypothesis’ and he can be written off.
In Hansen’s case, it is his prophecies about reaching future ‘tipping points’, his claim to know the location and degree of bifurcations in a dynamical, non-linear chaotic system, and that in uncharted territory! And that he even claims that we now are in ‘overshoot-mode’ that disqualifies him from being a real scientist.
Both these guys have abandoned real science and are now propagandists, activists for a cause and operate on the political arena!
(Unfortunately, I feel it is necessary to specifically point out to you that: This does **not** mean that everything they say about science is wrong, or untrue, or slanted. But you cannot switch back and forth between being an activist and a real scientist, and have expect people to take your word for the science and what it shows. Especially, not when you’ve already shown to often mix up those roles)
Gavin Schmidt? Harder to say, I think he is quite smart and knowledgeable (about IPPCstyle climate science). I know he is very careful to not be caught in outright falsehoods and lies. But the guy is slimy and a weasel. He comes across more like a used care salesman (and maybe that is an apt despcription of what he’s trying to peddle). Essentially everything he utters has an agenda, to further on very particular view. That’s why he moderates RC the way he does. To give a carefully tailored impression. I don’t think he is particularly interested in finding out true answers about the climate, feedbacks, clouds etc. But that is more an impression.
I’ll have to pass on Gavin. But an honest debater, he is not
I think my work is done here. I’ve trolled the troll off the deep end into complete insanity.
Indeed Stu, although the sheer, inane banality of [Jonarse @ 3379](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6239874) is a wonder to behold. Cutting edge, first class science is all about perceived personality traits as seen after mediation by septic blogs! Who knew?
Maybe the IPCC’s old traditional, but now superceded method of relying on published scientific papers should be disbanded and replaced by competing lead authors with good hair, teeth and winning personalities appearing on Climate Idol.
I expect Grima ‘Suckass’ Wormtongue and Petri Culture will happen along with some sickeningly obsequious supplementary agreement with Jonarse’ devastating critiques shortly.
Ok Jeffie, I think I understand the full gravity of my felony now. What you really wanted to tell me (while lying through your teeth about what I actually said and claimed) was that I was disrespectful to insects by calling them “bugs”. Well, guilty as charged.
But that’s all you got. Promise, I will never do it gain in your presence. But I have to join AndyS and Jonas in their wonderings: What the f*ck is wrong with you Jeff? How can anybody loose it so completely because someone calls insects “bugs”? Judging by your ferocious tirades death penalty wouldn’t suffice as punishment.
You seriously need to ask yourself why you hate so much and why you need to invent enemies and evil agendas. And, of course, why you can’t handle a scientific discussion. For some odd reason I believe these – the hate, the fantasies, and the scientific incompetence – are connected with one-another.
Stu, are you bragging about ‘your work’ here now? Similarly to how you’ve bragged about ‘your studies’ before? And bragged about what you’ve accomplished? Taken together, methinks it all makes sense ..
Pssst: Except you, nobody ever **ever** argued, about box and hand at different speeds … You however, got stuck there for months. Probably still are!
I agree, ‘your work’ here is done! You’ve accomplished exactly as much as you possibly can. And for that I am grateful. Especially for getting Jeff, chek and some more to side with you!
Hansen is not a ‘real scientist’ Neither is Trenberth. Schmidt is borderline. And I am certainly not. So says the self-proclaimed prophet of wisdom, who, though clearly not a scientist, is a REAL scientist.. Geddit? Make sense?
Ianan and Andy are correct. I AM crazy to persist here. I do need my head examined. You guys are right! This thread is insanity!!!!! Going…going… gone.
You don’t need to apologize. And you are wrong! You did **not** label insects as ‘bugs’. You made the perfectly correct observation (in #3320) that:
>a thermometer is a much better device to detect rapid global warming than bugs
Nowhere did you indicate that you meant all insects. And I think nobody (save some nutcases here, like Stu and Jeff) even would think of not understanding what you where trying to say. And that ‘bugs’ here was used a bit metaphorically and as an example of a biotic indicator ..
Further, I notice (had overlooked this before) that you were actually saying that:
>a thermometer is a much better device to detect rapid **global** warming than bugs
which makes Jeff’s objection even more laughable. Because he would need bugs (or even insects, if you want to generously give him a wider set of his temperature proxies) from all over the world (land, sea, tropics, polar regions etc) to monitor changes and from those back out a rapid **global** temperature signal. (Which I don’t think he can, BTW)
No Olaus, if Jeff wanted to nitpick futilities (at your perfectly reasonable and understandable observation) he should have pointed out that **a** (one) thermometer will not do it, you too need (many) thermometer**s** from all over world. (However you described it as ‘a device’, so even that futility would have been futile)
The guy really is something else …
Jeff … I didn’t expect you to understand my objections to the scientific(ally sounding, but indeed completely unscientific) statements made by Hansen and Trenberth ..
I specifically did not expect you to understand them, since you are patently not a real scientist, because those things that are paramount to, which are absolutely necessary to the conduct of real science ..
.. you are totally oblivious to. Because you don’t even know what the null hypothesis is nor understand its meaning (not even after having read the Wikipedia entry three times). Because you don’t know what the scientific method and adherence to it entails and mandates.
Once more I offer detailed explanation for what I say. And you have absolutely nothing to object there. Instead you claim the contrary, without any argument other than that your emotions are so inclined …
Specifically (and although you, once more erroneously claimed the opposite), I did not argue my position and base it on either of:
1. My superior wisdom
2. My self proclaimed prophethood
3. Me being a real scientist
Instead, I put forward the observable basis for my offered conclusion. As it also needs to be done i real science. And once more you guys lose it …
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Past time for more thread.