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
    March 10, 2012

    Bye Jeff!

    ;)

  2. #2 Nelthon
    March 10, 2012

    I’ve been following this thread for a while. Jonas, Olaus et al. make my head physically hurt. It really is impossible to distinguish between them being trolls or just plain stupid.

    The novelty of seeing them snap around the ankles of smarter people does wear after a while though…

  3. #3 Jonas N
    March 10, 2012

    I notice that Jeff Harvey [tries to convince himself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6240419) of ‘sanity’ being the state where he is not contradicted and does not have his misconceptions, falsehoods, many contradictions, own goals and other errors pointed out to him.

    And still, this loopy loon links to a recent [talk by James Hansen](http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html) exactly confirming what I said about Hansen above (in #3379):

    Hansen tells us not only what he ‘knows’ about the future, but also what dramatic and horrific changes will happen in it. He just knows the existence, location and severity of future ‘tipping points’.

    He ‘knows’ that sea level rise which has been a benign ~3mm/year, will accelerate immensely and on average(!) more than(!) triple in the next hundred years. And that’t his lower estimate. A 15-fold increase in sea level rise rates is possible, Hansen claims.

    He said that a number of recent weather events were caused by global warming.

    And that’s just a starter, in his mostly political radical urge that others get as crazed as him … to alarm the ‘world leaders’ to compel them to mandate various ‘rain dances’ to conjure the climate ..

    Another remarkable thing I noticed was that he claimed such nonsense as:

    >”Infrared radiation .. is heat” (!)

    From a layman, such a misconception would be forgivable. But from somebody who has this as i central filed of claimed expertise!?

  4. #4 Jonas N
    March 10, 2012

    Nelthon (a completely new signature to this thread/issue)

    So you claim that you can detect the ‘smartness’ of people here. Especially of those who get it spectacularly wrong? Not onlye once, but time and time again?

    You know, I doubt that you can. And I don’t think you even can fault me with anything less mundane than spelling and syntax errors.

    Sorry to hear about your pain and headaches, though. I know the nonsense promulgated here is hard to cope with. (Or if you’ve bought in to it, the awakening process)

  5. #5 Andy S
    March 10, 2012

    Shorter Jonas N:

    “Please somebody, take my bait!”

  6. #6 Olaus Petri
    March 10, 2012

    Dear Nelthon, sharing your feelings aren’t arguments. Please elaborate, but don’t do it Jeffie style, ergo battling pure fantasies while speaking in tourette tongue. We have already heard plenty of that kind of nonsense talk.

    I’m sure you are aware of Jeffie’s latest pathetic attempts to safe face in the Open thread. The little worm and ant collector can’t handle the fact that he is/was out of his depth, and now he tries to hide the fact that the only thing he brings/brought to climate science is/was pure hate and pure faith.

  7. #7 Jonas N
    March 10, 2012

    Andy S,

    Your most valid point was in August 2011 when you (correctly) noted that 90% is less than 100% ..

    Since then you’ve been spouting sheer nonsense. Unprovoked …

    And I think you were one of the smarter (ie less stupid) Deltoids. I still think that. And I think that your latest contributions have been extremely stupid!

  8. #8 GSW
    March 10, 2012

    @Jonas, Olaus,

    I’m somewhat speechless. I’ve just had a comment on RC un-boreholed. It went into the borehole for a couple of hours, then came out with in-line comments from eric. By RC standards, the in-line comment was pretty reasonable too.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/comment-page-6/#comment-230413

    We live in strange times.

  9. #9 Nelthon
    March 10, 2012

    ‘Please elaborate': no, I won’t, thanks. Feel free to keep playing in your own special sandpit. Alone. :-)

  10. #10 MikeH
    March 10, 2012

    Jonas’s resident sychophant, GS Weasel rushes back from RC to inform his fellow trolls that he has been noticed at the big house
    and
    and
    and what’s more someone responded to him. Wow. This is obviously what passes for excitement in the life of a troll.

    Of course he omits to mention that the thread is about Lindzen being caught lying with graphs.

    BTW this is just a drive-by. I am out of here so fume and rant to your heart’s content.

  11. #11 Olaus Petri
    March 11, 2012

    Dear Nelthon, you won’t because you can’t. Very simple. Keep on watching in silencium.

  12. #12 GSW
    March 11, 2012

    @Jonas,

    I think you are going to have some difficulty getting anyone to take you on now Jonas. Your ‘analysis’ of Jeff has left him a jibbering wreck by all accounts. You do have a knack of seeing thru to the truth of an issue.

    The Undefeated Swede fights on!

  13. #13 Jonas N
    March 11, 2012

    Nelthon – I didn’t think you’d have anything ‘smarter’ to say …

    MikeH – You and many more here use the word ‘lying’ in the way little kids use it. About almost anything you don’t want to hear ..

    And you think RC is a big house? Well, Jeff goes to Joe Romm for his pepping, others to SkSc .. and the result is thereafter.

    GSW – RC deletes comments they can’t handle. As does SkSc, and every other known pro climate scare forum. With the kiddie-speech used here, they are ‘lying’ whenever they try to tell a story .. And now, apparently, they want to fault Lindzen with the stuff they’d been at since their conception.

    But I noticed that the activity at RC is very low, the level of what they try to post about is petty … but who can blame them?

  14. #14 tmcm
    March 11, 2012

    This thread is without a doubt correctly called the Jonas thread. 627 posts out of 3399 are from Jonas N.

    Other main offenders in this thread of despair are:

    Posted by: Stu
    294 occurences found

    Posted by: Chek
    291 occurences found

    Posted by: PentaxZ
    290 occurences found

    Posted by: Olaus Petri
    236 occurences found

    Posted by: GSW
    232 occurences found

    Posted by: Jeff Harvey
    171 occurences found

    Nelthon’s post in 3388 would have been an appropriate final post for this, before this Jersey Shore version of a discussion about science could be closed, sealed and never referred to again. Alas, a missed opportunity.

  15. #15 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 11, 2012

    The Undefeated Swede fights on!

    Thanks for the laugh, precious.

  16. #16 GSW
    March 11, 2012

    Jonas,

    “GSW – RC deletes comments they can’t handle. As does SkSc, and every other known pro climate scare forum. With the kiddie-speech used here, they are ‘lying’ whenever they try to tell a story .. And now, apparently, they want to fault Lindzen with the stuff they’d been at since their conception.”

    Yes, it does have a “ministry of truth” feel about. It is worrying that the same guys who police “the borehole” are also part of the peer review “cabal”.

    As I’m writing this I have one comment in moderation for ~12hrs and just posted another.

    In true “minstry of truth” style they describe “The borehole” as

    “A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.”

    The sensible conversation at the moment includes someone that has “cut and paste” multiple definitions of dishonest, truthful, true, honest etc. You can’t get a much more sensible conversation than that, unless of course you happen to be over the age of 10. The general point being does Lindzen fit the criteria?

    My second post is about the Lindzen apology. Others have requested that the apology to GISS be posted as an update. It hasn’t appeared yet.

    It has however been posted on the RepealTheAct.org.uk website. The apology appears sincere, but they are suggesting it was a result of wrongly labelled filenames on the GISS server. I’ve asked RC/GISS to comment.

    My comment is in moderation at the moment, but it’s really a question of whether it will be boreholed or deleted altogether. Mustn’t judge too early though, ever the optimist!

    Have you has similar experiences Jonas?

  17. #18 Jonas N
    March 12, 2012

    GSW

    You need only to look at the commenters RC lets through, in combination with their declared ‘moderation policy’ and being aware that perfectly sensible comments don’t make it or are held up for many hours, to conclude what they are about.

    That the story, the message is product. Not ever science or discussion of such, but the IPCC party line version of it.

    Usually they would allow a sceptic thorugh if it was innocent, if it was easily rebuffed, and would make him look a bit stupid or ignorant (Gavin is good at that). Follow-up comments, or even pointing out that their argument/logic fails, are never let trough. It is all about telling a story.

    But giving a similar shouting crowd of haters and scientific illiterates as here (same names and characters too) a free pass was a PR-mistake in my opinion. Because it gives it a way almost immediately, I think.

    As long as they could maintain the notion of:

    ‘There is no debate, here is how you should report and understand it ..’

    a gullible churnolist might read their postings and buy into that. But the moment, one becomes aware of that consensus is only claimed, and vigorously so, from one side (as a shut-up-argumnet), the moment it is obvious that there is a debate and interpretations are disputed, and someone reads the comments, it becomes very obvious, what they are about.

    But as I said, it worked as intended for a few years. Nowadays, their traffic is very low, and their postings are more about damage control, covering up for shifting and regrouping positions. And keeping the pretense up.

    It is a bit ironic that they go on about Lindzen making (what seems to be an honest and corrected) mistake, when all what they do is everything else but honestly representing their opponents versions. And when indeed GISS has a very poor record of data integrity … and has been caught out more than once in
    more than dubious ‘adjustments’

    And you are correct, the same guys, when acting as ‘scientists’ and reviewing other’s manuscripts, are doing the very same thing. Only, now, totally behind the scenes. And by now we know how dirty they play .. And wee too know how shoddy some of the ‘science’ they’re trying to peddle is.

    Have you btw read about Michael Mann’s new book? How it is soaring on Amazon sales (not!), how accurately he describes what has gone on with and about his hockey stick?

    But I’d say most reasonable climate scientists would want to distance themselves from Mann, from RC and the team. You just won’t read that in the Guardian or hear it from MSM.

  18. #19 GSW
    March 12, 2012

    Jonas,

    “You need only to look at the commenters RC lets through, in combination with their declared ‘moderation policy’ and being aware that perfectly sensible comments don’t make it or are held up for many hours, to conclude what they are about.

    That the story, the message is product. Not ever science or discussion of such, but the IPCC party line version of it.”

    The commenters they let thru are ‘odd’, more activist than someone interested in the science. A few years ago, there did actualy seem to be some relatively clued up people posting there (at least that was the impression I had), but I think only the “loons” are left.

    You’re right, the moderation policy, snarky putdowns, intolerance and general ‘Outrage'(about not very much), I’m sure must turn people off rather than bring them to the “cause”. I wonder if they see it like that. It’s all very stressed at an rate.

    If you compare the behaviour on WUWT with sks and RC, you can see why they’re losing the ‘people’ argument.

    I assume you’ve noticed, but it always gives me a laugh, on WUWT on the right handside, there is a blog roll. Headings; “Pro Agw views”, “Skeptic views”, and a special category of “Unreliable” just for sks. The simple pleasures are the best.

    “But giving a similar shouting crowd of haters and scientific illiterates as here (same names and characters too) a free pass was a PR-mistake in my opinion. Because it gives it a way almost immediately”

    Agreed. If your best argument is shouting, everyone stops listening.

    ;)

  19. #20 Jonas N
    March 12, 2012

    GSW

    Here, the angry shouters and haters are all the rage. Introduce one scientific point, and they (almost?) all go bonkers .. and the hating and insults go through the roof. And they lose it, making it even worse.

    I have a really hard time seeing that anybody who went through collage (in a relevant/related field) understanding what (s)he was taught, can be impressed with what the faithers here come up with.

    But I never believed that (C)AGW was for the ones who learnt something .. it was directed at the ignorant, the swayable, the activist, and the shouters and haters. We’ve seen this here in the last months:

    Not even one single argument did the try to challenge. Only angry shouting. They are still at it, only in another thread.

  20. #21 GSW
    March 12, 2012

    Jonas,

    If you mean Jeff, he hasn’t learnt anything has he?

    Can you see anything in Jeff’s post that actually addresses what “Out of ammo” says?

    OOA’s points are water record, temp record and cyclone records.

    Jeff having descended into “indulgent greenie wank” (OOA’s phrase) and being asked refrain from “indulgent greenie wank”, follows up with a post that is even more “indulgent greenie wank”.

    As far as the greenie w*nk goes, Jeff is shooting for quantity rather than quality.

    ;)

    OOA doesn’t seem the kind of chap that will be swayed by talk of foodwebs or the fact that jeff thinks himself a scientist.

    If you rummage thru what jeff is saying, it doesn’t actually say anything – quite remarkable.

    If you had to sum up in one sentence jeffs argument what would it be?

    ;)

  21. #22 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 13, 2012

    I am genuinely curious: how do you guys think this back-and-forth over the last few comments looks to outsiders? You are aware of the existence of that new-fangled thing called “e-mail”, right?

  22. #23 Claes L
    March 16, 2012

    To calm your curiosity I guess I can fill the role as the outsider.

    Looking back at your 300 comments covering all from box moving hands, merits such as 6 years of physics studies, one infantile posting where you were pretending to be the father of an 8 year child(thrust me.., no one can imagine you older than 18) + some 200 posting with incoherend nonsense mixed with insults.. Those latest postings come out as pure poetry in comparison.

  23. #24 Jonas N
    March 17, 2012

    GSW #3407

    No, I meant all of them. But yes, watching Jeff is fun. Although he doesn’t dare to post here anymore, he still wants to spew his insults in this direction.

    I also noted that he has upped the level of spouting scientific absolute nonsense (*).

    It is almost as if he is now letting out what he (under severe self restraint) accumulated and kept within, since there was some scientific literacy in the room, which constantly pointed out how bad he got things, and where his facts and logic failed him. He took a beating also for most of whatever else he tried here. Proclaiming that he could ‘crush’ his enemies, or that they indeed had been ‘crushed’. If it (he) weren’t so funny, it would be rather tragic ..

    (*) That decadal variationas are caused by AGW. That Hansen’s nonsense claims (about the future) must be true (because his so ‘respected’). That the number of keyword hits in his searches somehow establish the AGW component and even causation etc. And that his fear for being contradicted, or just having to explain his stance, its support, and argue his case .. that that somehow is what makes **him** the scientist. He ineed is a tragic case. (Unfortunately not the only one)

    PS Claes, I think Stu might be over 18. His mental maturity however, still seems prevent him from the realization that people less clueless than him can read what he has actually said and tried. And draw their conclusions. So far, I’m pretty confident that we can rue out any ‘genuine curiosity’ about almost anything discussed. Confirmation of his prejudices (often confused with ‘thinking’), and feeble such attempts at that, is the main motivator.

  24. #25 GSW
    March 18, 2012

    Jonas,

    “Although he [jeff] doesn’t dare to post here anymore”

    I know, every time he does, he ends up making a complete arse of himself. Your name in the recent comments list will be enough to give him a panic attack. ;)

    “That Hansen’s nonsense claims (about the future) must be true (because his so ‘respected’)”

    Like Flannery, he just can’t help making ridiculous over-statements (without context) about what ‘could’ happen in the future- 2 to 4 degrees warming (over the last decade,Ha!), 75m sea level rise from warming this century! – I guess the more ‘respected’ you are, the more bizarre you’re expected to make your claims.

    It’s a sort of competition, who can say the most alarming thing that someone will believe whilst keeping a straight face.

    Deltoids try to “out gullible” each other. The less real evidence there is the better (an act of faith). They percieve themselves as somehow holier, and therefore more worthy, the more they can switch off their brains and ignore reality.

    “That the number of keyword hits in his [jeff] searches somehow establish the AGW component and even causation etc”

    Yes jeff does this a lot. As long as there are thousands of papers about something, whether relevant to the discussion or not, irrespective of what they actually say, jeff takes it as some sort of ‘proof’ that he is right.

    Do you think he even realised that OOA was taking the michael out of him with his 7 million and 27 million google search hits?

    [OOA's google search](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6242010)

    At least OOA’s search was on topic, i.e jeff.

    “Proclaiming that he could ‘crush’ his enemies”

    Yes, made me laugh that, try this youtube clip.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1uDpVeG8Cw

    Nice to end on a bit of metal. Enjoy!

  25. #26 Jonas N
    March 20, 2012

    I see Jeff Harvey dares to mouth off again, but only from within his protected asylum. And he gets it really wrong again too. As so often when he tries to bolster his misdirected attempts of sounding cocky:

    He still uses words as ‘**denier**’ or ‘**idiot**’ or pretends to speak for a ‘**scientific community**'(!?). He still thinks that the **numbers** here (!) in various threads confirm that his beliefs somehow also have any bearing on reality.

    He then goes on to again(!) bring up **number of keyword-search-hits**, as an argument for what he believs that those references contain. In the same breath he even thinks that ‘**causation**’ (a concept, and what it entails he is alarmingly ignorant of) is demonstrated by the ‘**acceptance**’ of others and their number (again, he speculates about the beliefs of others. In the ‘scientific community’). He even brings up how ‘**respected**’ his search enginge is as and ‘argument’.

    And he doesn’t stop there. He claims (beleives) that the climate change attribution, to its many various causative drivers and variations is over. That ‘the science’ (!) had moved on. Moved ‘well on’ for a vast majority of ‘the scientific community’.

    Probably he refers to him self, and others who have no clue about climate, or climate science. Because climate science most definitely has not moved on, or claims that the issues are settled, magnitudes determined, uncertainties removed etc. Only in an ecoa zealot’s narrow minded and confined little world, such beliefs are possibly held.

    He also goes on about local variations, and repeats that they confirm his aboive belief. Apparently still not being aware of (or capable of undestanding that) local variations and changes are far far harder to attribute to any causation than globally recorded averages. The guy is a mess …

    In a flollowing post, he expresses hop that march 2012 somehow will give him confirmation (or the revision of the HAD-Cru3 dataset), ‘**Evidence**’ he calls it. But then again, he would call everything evidence if it only agrees with his beliefs.

    The guy is a joke. A messy joke, that is

  26. #27 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2012

    Hehe…Looks like Jeffie can’t let go after all. :-) And his MO is surely over the top even for a guy as megalomanic as he is? What a paragon of science! Instead of facing up to his adversary he now stomps his feet and barks behind the barbed wired fence that was put up to save his pathetic giga-ego. Truly a spectacular win – not. :-)

  27. #28 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2012

    Ah, hardly surprisingly Paris Hilton’s dog chek keeps on mounting Jeffie’s ankles. Can’t he leave the poor sod alone with his demons? In t/his time of despair I’m sure Jeff doesn’t need that kind of support. A beaten man should be left alone, me thinks.

    More to the point: The glue that keeps the CAGW-cult together isn’t science, its anger, faith and hate.

  28. #29 GSW
    March 20, 2012

    @Jonas, Olaus

    Olaus, you’re back! I missed the dry (hopefully) humping cracks – chek the yappy little dog going about his business, while jeff talks about how special and important jeff is.

    Have either of you been following the “warm March” in the US stories? via a link on the open thread, someone has claimed that [Jeff Masters](http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2056) has been trying to pass it off as CO2/Global warming phenomenom. I don’t know if he’s backtracked on that, but his latest explanation is just an unusual “blocking event”, go figure.

    “Why the record early-season warmth?

    The unusual warmth is due to a loop in the jet stream that has created a large upper-level ridge of high pressure that is stuck in place over the Eastern U.S.–a phenomenon known as a “blocking pattern.” Since the jet stream acts as the boundary between cold air to the north and warm air to the south, and the large loop in the jet places its axis far to the north of the eastern U.S., summer-like warmth has developed over the eastern half of the U.S. Conversely, colder than average temperatures have developed over the western third of the U.S. behind the southwards-dipping loop of the jet stream.”

    I thought we’d got past all this, a patch of a few cold/warm weeks in a region has no import at all. Global temperatures are unimpressive either way.

    Surely the CAGW lot can’t be that desparate, or stupid (what am I saying), to get their hopes up over this. Some wet themselves with excitement every time they hear the words “unprecedented” or “incredible” associated with a bit of weather – The Gods have spoken, It’s a sign!

    Jonas, Olaus, either of you seen any equally daft things out and about?

    ;)

  29. #30 Jonas N
    March 20, 2012

    Jeffie once more is trying to counter punch from afar, while pretending to ignore. Probably trying to convince himself that he has won decisive arguments and crushed his opponents.
    It’s all quite comical. As is chek ranting about making fact-free comments, Bernard is once more pleading for a total ban, as has Jeff, repeatedly.

    But let’s get back to Jeff umpteenth attempt to score an intellectual point (Pssst: it didn’t work this time either). Here we go:

    >He’s really bitter now to learn that thousands of scientists working on climate-related effects on biodiversity take AGW as a ‘given’.

    On the contrary, Jeff. That was what I pointed out. That these 1000s of references don’t do squat to establish any causation, or any magnitude of any possible A-signal in GW.

    >The authors are investigating the potential consequences on AGW, and not its causes

    As I just said: Not the causes of AGW (sic!)

    >Because as far as the vast majority of scientists are concerned (me included), science has moved on.

    As I just said. You don’t know, you think you know, you believe and want to believe. Conveniently (for the time being) you assume, ie hope, somebody else ‘knows’ what you only believe.

    >Humans are the primary culprit. Just as we are the pirmary culprit for a range of processes affecting ecological communities and ecosystems across the biosphere

    The primare culprit for AGW, yes. By definition. And you still don’t know how large that signal is. If it even is detectable above natural noise. We are talking about the climate, particularly the A in GW, attribution, detection, signal, strength of it. But notice the shift in focus? Jeffie seems to rather want to reframe it to something else.

    >Only in the mindset of a very small subset of the scientific community is there any controversy whatsoever with respect to the causes of the current warming

    Firstly, once more he pretends to speak for ‘the scientific community’, although he is incapable of communicating with almost anyone not agreeing with him. How, can this guy possibly make any such assessment reliably. He who still invents his own ‘facts’ to support his belief system. Secondly he seems to suggest that all of the GW-warming is A. Not even the IPCC and the more dogmatic ‘climate scientists’ make such claims scientifically. Some (Hanses etc) sure wanna believe that. But their belief is definitely not science. Often it is pure gibberish as we saw in one of Jeff’s loopy I-know-the-future-cause-I-ve-seen-it-videos.

    > I challenged the moron-who-must-not-be-named to discuss and debate ecophysiological aspects in space and time as this relates to declining biodiversity, with emphasis on polar bear demographics

    Firstly “moron” is still not an argument for anything. It just makes you look stupid. Besides being so obviously inappropriate here, where real scientifically literate people are present in the room. Secondly the claim is factually wrong, I told you that: Locally, it is even more difficult to identify any A-signal in GW. And that this possible signal (if detectable) is pretty far down the list of threats to polar bears.

    >GSW and you-know-you write as if the Arctic is in stasis

    >For them the world is static

    Pure invention. Once more a good example of Jeff inventing-strawmen-strategy, or even worse: lack of cognitive capabilities. Arctic ice has been varying all the time. Has been both more and less. As have been temperatures. Only during this interglacial.

    Then little Jeffie goes off telling us how bad the future will be-boo! Especially if all the ifs and buts he dreams about are far mor true than his other inventions. But there is nothing about any A of any GW in there. Still he concludes:

    >This is what the deniers conveniently leave out

    He gets that thing totally wrong too. It is the sceptics who constantly remind people of change being the natural state of things. And non of them needs to debunk any of Jeffs future-fantasies to argue their points. Jeff, just doesn’t understand what the debate is about. Still not. Still rantning completely different and unrelated things.

    His conclusion is quite funny (and revealing) too:

    > The final point is that I know I am on the right track when I am verbally abused by the likes

    He ‘knows’ his rantings must be right! Because of the verbal abuse! Little angry shouting insult-spewing insecure Jeff. Knows! He is Right! Because of the insults! Jeffie-style logic in his arguments all over again!

    He cannot address one single argument correctly, probably doesn’t even understand them, neither the factual objections nor why these are relevant.

    And this sorry-ass joke of an (pseudo-)scientist, goes on about ” D-K intellectual wannabes”!? What a joke

    100 own goals just isn’t enough for him. He still tries exactly the same method as in August last year. No wonder the kid never has not learnt anything …

  30. #31 Jonas N
    March 20, 2012

    GSW

    Yes, I noted that someone (was it Jeffie?) hinged his hopes on march 2012 to finally prove that it was man all along. And threw in the latest HADCru revision/adjustment too.

    How can anybody be so utterly inept about what science is? It’s just flabbergasting.

    But to be honest, sites like this one, and everywhere are not really getting any traction or hits any more. Only the blind, raving and committed faithers sound like this nowadays.

    In Sweden, the most propped-up climate scare blogg hardly posts anything relevant anymore, and also there only attracts a few, and half the comments are from its own devote members. And we’ve seen some of them here too. Making … well … not so bright comments.

    Michael Mann, albeit quite some media support, is hardly selling any books, and among the the few copies sold, I would be very surprised if there were any larger percentage being paid with people’s own money.

    It’s all a conspiracy, you know. It’s them evil fossil industries making people so poor, in order to prevent them from buying and reading the scientific truth!

    PS Jeffie, if you are reading this (which I know you are), I put in one more piece of irony in the last sentence than you realize just now. It is directed especially at you. I think it is extra difficult for you to note it, given your poor scientific acumen. Can you spot it?

  31. #32 Jonas N
    March 21, 2012

    After once more having been taken to the laundromat and gotten a proper tumbling for his incoherent ramblings, Jeffie now grasps at straws (remnants from his many shattered strawmen): He thinks I misrepresented his position! And calls it a strwaman!

    Did you get that!? This clown fabulist (after half a years fantasizing up his won ‘facts’) laments about someone else not properly expressing his stance. What an absolute farce.

    The guy is so full of incoherent BS claims, he does not need anybody else to misrepresent him. Just let him ramble on his own for a while, and he will have ensnared him self in mutually inconsistent statements. Many of them! Throw in a few pointed interjections, and the results will be spectacular!

    But stil, he gets it wrong also this time. What I said about him was:

    >he **seems to suggest** that all of the GW-warming is A

    Firstly, the statement is about how Jeffie’s position **seems** to look. Secondly, the ‘all of the warming’-meme (even more than all), certainly has been on the table here. Don’t remember if Jeffie endorsed exactly that, but he certainly endorsed essentially every position opposing me, even elevating them to ‘wisdom and knowledge’ (the Jeffie version, that is).

    And after that desperate nit picking at and overlooking of individual words, he goes on to make definite claims about arctic sea ice for the entire interglacial.

    The guy just can’t get one single thing right. Not even if you hold his hand and spoonfeed him with the bits in the right order …

    And he has another go with the CV-waiving, poor thing.

    And as so many other incompetent lefties, he demands that daddy/state force/TimL shut his opponents up and throw them out.

    One wonders why there are still people who don’t understand why things go down the drain when you leave the loopy left ideologues in charge of things in the real world.

    But those are of course the same people who always have demanded that somebody else pays for whatever they do and happen to ruin. Blaming others for not providing an even better world for them. And the ideologues are of course the worst among them. The demand being paid for the ruining and for their endless insults ..

  32. #33 Jonas N
    March 21, 2012

    [Marco](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#c6246196) (in the thread where Jeffie still dares to post) tries at least a fairly balanced comment, [linking something](http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/public-review-draft/sap1-2-prd-ch8.pdf) what he means **supports** Jeffies wild eyed assertions about former arctic sea ice extent.

    He points at figure 8.13 which shows that since the little ice age, arctic ice apparently has shrunk. Quite possible …

    But in the preceding figures 8.10 and 8.12, ice extent proxies for the present holocene (which was the topic at hand) are shown, both clearly indicating that the amount of ice has been increasing since the early holocene. Ie having been notably lower earlier, which was suggested by me and GSW.

    So Marco, no: On the contrary, your link shows that there is good support (which you provided) that Jeffie once more was making wild unsupported (very likely very false) claims just because he so desperately wanted them to be true.

    And your snide remark to GSW came right back at you. Sorry ..

  33. #34 Jonas N
    March 21, 2012

    And in comes chek, the sideline cheerer for sideline faither Jeffie, and jumps right down the hole that Marco (inadvertently) dug for both of them.

    Isn’t it quite wonderful how predictable Deltoids can be?

    :-)

    Now we only wait for Jeffie, making the same jump (before having seen what it actually means)

  34. #35 Jonas N
    March 21, 2012

    And in comes Jeff …

    And what does he do/say? It’s not quite conclusive (is it ever with this guy?). I can see two possibilities:

    1. He shouts and blusters and openly claims that he refuses to take in any information that could harm his deranged view and understanding of the physical world (we know that this method he has practiced generously through his ‘career’, landing him completely without orientation, method and knowledge to cope with reality, or with others who do). Or

    2. He has actually gone here, seen that Marco’s link conclusively underpins what I/GSW said, and makes Jeff once more looking like the butt end of an ass (or at least that I have, and now point out the figures which do). If so, he is trying to prevent his fellow faither-Deltoid-travelers to go here and see that once more he has been taken to the cleaners. And looks a like a fool with all his own eggs in his face again. If so, he is now trying to deceive his own supporters too. And he really really does not want anybody to see it: *“WARNING GSW’s link takes you to the asylum: the Jonas thread. Nobody in his right mind wants to go there”* he shouts, in advance insulting possibly less rabid, and more balanced and interested parties.

    Which one it is? Can’t say for sure. But I would expect Jeff to lie about exactly everything before admitting that he got it wrong. Before publicly correcting one single wrong statement or invented ‘fact’ he has tried.

    One more think about the arctic ice, a point I didn’t specify clearly enough before. Jeff claimed about arctic ice cover (during the present intergacial):

    > But it hasn’t changed at the rate it is doing now. Not even close. The loss of Arctic ice in the space of less than a century is unprecedented.

    That too is once more an utter BS statement. Again it claims to know details about ice cover with a time resolution of single decades, for a time span covering 12 millennia. No real scientists would pull such claims out of his hat. Only the nutcase version that has spent months inventing ‘much needed‘(!) ‘facts’ like this ..

    But all sensible intelligent readers already know this. And among the remainder, even Jeffie’s devote supporters seem faltering ..

  35. #36 Jonas N
    March 21, 2012

    Jeff both tries to tell himself that he ignores whatever adverse facts are pointed out to him, or the many flaws in his reasoning, not to mention the endless fabrications of ‘facts’ he would need. He says that anybody who does ‘can’t be in their right mind’. But he still claims that he has ‘engaged’ but now is ‘too important’ to continue. Today at least. Hard to imagine what he may mean by ‘engage’. He has been constantly running away from essentially everything (trying to shift focus things completely unrelated to establishing any A-signal in GW, even ignoring questions what methods “to do something about it” he considers feasible for GW-mitigation).

    And although he does ‘engage’ while claiming the opposite, he is scared sh*tless to do so face to face, but choses(!) to do so from behind a fence (he demanded) making two threads difficult to follow. (Well, if it was a sign of intelligence, that he doesn’t want others to see him, to follow his incoherent constantly shifting and new fabricated ‘arguments’, that would at least be understandable). But cheating his own supporters and/or havocing the blogs of others does not seem to bother him. Instead he (and quite some more) accuse others of exactly what they are guilty of themselves. Again and again.

    And, in case anybody had forgotten: The guy is patently incapable of arguing anything resembling real science!

  36. #37 Jonas N
    March 21, 2012

    Jeff just can’t help himself scoring more and more own goals. And seems to be complete devoud of any selfawarness. He writes:

    >FYI: check out the one who is begging his readers to believe him, who is making all the insults, false innuendoes, whilst claining that somehow the vast majority of contributors to Deltoid actually support him. One guess, people. He’s nuts. Hence why I won’t go there again.

    Apart from his claims ‘never to go there again or not to engage any more’ obviously have been untrue every previous time, it is just amazing that Jeff who has pouring insults from day one, making fals claims fabricating ‘facts’ and endless innuendo for seven months running …

    .. has the gall to whine about when people to his face tell him how abysmally poor his behaviour and his arguments are.

    A guy who has been waving his CV for months exactly to ‘convince’ others to side with him. He now even explicitly writes about arguing the merits of a position

    >But that doesn’t count. Letters and titles after your name do. And these guys don’t have any.

    Can this joke make himself more spectacular?

    And Marco now goes into either denial of what his own link showed. Or participates in trying to deceive those he wants to help.

    Poor state of things …

  37. #38 Jonas N
    March 21, 2012

    And another of [Jeff's own goals](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6246355).

    GSW, says, quite flatteringly:

    >Jonas, get’s to the “core” of issue immediately

    probably referring to that I identify the core hypothsis and claims, that I understand what is needed for (and under what preconditions) such a claim can be supported. That I am aware of what the proffered arguments imply wrt the needed support support. And also that I quickly identify the weak parts, the omitted links, and when faulty logic is used as ‘evidence’ for the offered conclusion.

    Especially, I do this when I see that the propsed claim is cannot be argued on the basis of the presented facts, arguments, logic, and observations. When the **core** of the issue doesn’t hold water.

    To this, Jeff replies:

    >Yeh, too bad the core is rotten

    As if he once more missed the meaning of what was said. Because, for once I tend to agree with Jeff. When I question, or point out poor support or basis, or faulty logic, I say almost the same thing:

    ‘Rotten’ is more Jeff’s kind of language, but *’poor, insufficient, not good enough, not logical’* are descriptions that often fit what I criticise.

    But Jeff, almost every time is unaware of what is being discussed. So you may forgive him for saying (in even stronger language) what I have been saying to him (and others) the moment before .. He just is a very angry guy!

  38. #39 Olaus Petri
    March 21, 2012

    Dear lord, there seems to be no bottom in the Deltoid pit of pseudoscience. Now some of the altar boys are accusing GSW for doing forbidden things, ergo referring to the real Science thread. :-) And all this while Jeffradamus tries to patch up his bleeding ego with lies, more lies and hate speeches about what Jonas is writing in the very same thread. On top of it they invokes Tim to help them out of their misery.

    Well, it can’t get more absurd can it? :-)

  39. #40 GSW
    March 21, 2012

    @Jonas,

    When did this thread become verboten (as Ianam claims), Jonas? I think they are pretending that they obey some higher authority, but in reality it’s just an excuse to hide. How can so much ideological fear be generated with a few truthful words?

    ;)

    @Olaus,

    “Jeffradamus”

    Has anyone looked to see if Nostradamus made any prophecies that could be misinterpreted as impending CO2 biodiversity armageddon? Perhaps they could have a whole chapter in AR5 dedicated to it.

    That’s a joke obviously, but a WG2 does read a little like that.

    ;)

  40. #41 Jonas N
    March 21, 2012

    Guys

    When did you last see one sensible comment. Addressing the facts, as they are presented. Or the stated position of and what is offered in support for it?

    Just calmly reading what is said, and trying to formulate what they accept and what they disagree with?

    Marco (~7 months back) had some reasonable points and comments. But now seemingly, he officially declares denial: *’I don’t want to see it, look at it. Not even if it was my own point/link’*

    Jeff in spite of his length posts just seems incapable of connecting to the real side of the debate. And ianam, Bernard, bill, chek, Stu, Andy S and Wow .. they never even understood which program they weren’t with.

    Funnily, in retrospect, I must give some credit to luminous, who after all tried for a while there in the middle. Although both after and before trying to bluff himself through with sciency words he didn’t master.

    In the end they all felt compelled to start lying when the edges of their belief system started to crackle and give in. Either openly to all, or to themselves ..

    But it’t true as Jeff also thinks: Among them, a majority is still on his side. He must do **something** right if he gets so much so spectacularly so wrong and they don’t mind nor care.

  41. #42 GSW
    March 21, 2012

    @Jonas

    I know what you mean, they are universally disappointing. Some behave quite reasonably at times, give the impression of sifting thru the evidence objectively, more for show than anything else I’ve concluded, or for those few with some science background a distantly remembered obligation that that is what you are supposed to do.

    There is an abrubt change however when the realisation dawns that CAGW theory is all smoke and mirrors, little if any substance. Take your example here, the 90%-95% attribution claim, I think it came as a bit of shock to some, if not all, that there was no science to this, opinion is not science. Science is Numbers and those numbers came from nowhere, more a quantification of how some people felt about something.

    The whole thing is very much cargo cult, the external trappings of science, but non of the required rigour. Jeff’s the poster child for this, “Of course I’m a real scientist, I go to conferences and everything” – Going to conferences in Jeffs eyes is being a scientist, it’s what scientists do – he must have seen a film about one once. Nothing in there about it being a way of thinking, an approach to a problem, a caution about what you can and cannot say based on evidence.

    Luminous, yes I had high hopes for Luminous – he did get things wrong, but he was making progress working it out for himself (can’t argue with that), and he did achieve an “understanding” in the end I think. so worth the effort ;)

    The others, well, shouters, abusers, ideologues, push a little bit and they all degenerate into the same unpleasant persona, eyes closed, hands over their ears, and shouting at the tops of their voices “I can’t Hear You”.

    ;)

    Take care Jonas!

  42. #43 Stu
    March 21, 2012

    Keep going, guys! Very impressed with the substantive discourse here.

  43. #44 Jonas N
    March 22, 2012

    Stu there is another thread for those afraid of debate, afraid of real science, afraid of discussing such, afraid of reading what it actually done in the publications, what it shows, even in the ones they link.

    Instead there is a lot (proclaimed) ‘expertise’ in CV-waiving, in repeating various signal-terms such as ‘denialists’ ‘Dunning Kruger’ ‘morons’ ‘idiots’ and a lot more of the same stuff.

    You’d probably find it ‘substantive’, Stu .. But then again, compared to you, almost anything is.

  44. #45 Jonas N
    March 22, 2012

    I see that Jeffie is **demanding** ‘answers’ to his ill posed challenge, and tries to declare victory and even **proof** of his fantasies if his demands aren’t met.

    He is doing this in another thread, complaining about answers not being given here. Where he often has promised never to go again (even chastised those who do).

    Again, a very good example of what mess Jeffie-style-science-logic is. Being only a little bit consistent, even if only about the simplest things is just overwhelmingly hard for some …

    Well, as usual he desperately tries to get away from the only core issue ever really on the table: The possible A-signal in any GW.

    And although this has been pointed out to him time and again (dozens), and to keep his eyes on that ball, he avoids it like poison. He so desperately wants to talk about something else.

    To get away from the (possible, and if so detectable) A-signal in GW, he employs the following tactics(*):

    1. Conflate all warming with anthropogenically caused warming

    2. Do so even with changes in temperature, variations

    3. Bring up something that is affected by a temperature change. Or just may be in the future. Or can be constructed to be. Possibly at least. Pound it as ‘proof’ for AGW or alarm

    4. Bring up anything else that also may affect it. Anything. Possibly. Or in the future, or if the ‘ifs’ are true. Throw in an ‘has been projected’. Pound the ‘its much worse’-meme. Repeat till ’causes’ are exhausted.

    5. Throw in ‘human’ and ’caused by’ in as many of the other factors too. Again extrapolate! As far as possible.

    6. Play the non-linear card: If all ‘ifs’, possibilities, future projections, causes, stresses, etc are combined, it may be much worse still. Here: bring up ‘tipping points’, ‘escalate’. Use extingction, even extinction rate. Also ‘accelerate’ is useful. Ie ‘Much worse worse than we ever thought’.

    6. Return to temperatures (implying the possible A in GW, and particularly, local temperatures, but its changes!). Imply this is what might set it all off. Start the boulder rolling, the escalating chain of events. Use ‘inevitable’, irreversible, permanent etc.

    7. Rounding up: Planet is so fragile, every part of it, everywhere. In so many ways. Changes causes other changes. Stresses exist and together there might be consequences, worse than taken separately. Ergo: Changes are bad! Temperatures have changed. Now too. Bad! Say Climate change and AGW again, a couple of times. Got it no? It is all connected. Climate change affects everything. Is part of every consequence, everywhere. Somehow. Probably worse than we know.

    8. Finally, the desired conclusion: ‘We must do **something** about it. Yes! Lets try to control the global climate. Lets try to do that by singling out one possible minor factor. Yes, start creating enormous bureaucracies. And fake markets. And yes! Lets levy taxes! At everything! Especially at those everything which is bad and we dislike anyway. Yes, we’ll need that money to save the world. And we have ti have careers too. Where we don’t have to earn our salaries. Yes, lets stifle free speech too. It is dangerous and only delays urgent and necessary action. Does any of this even has a chance to abate temperature changes? Don’t know. Doesn’t matter really. It has so many other desirable effects too. Saving the planet is our major concern. From what? Well, almost anything. We make that up as we go. Heck we are learning more and more about all threats all the time! Just as we projected.

    Well, that was more generic, but Jeff fits right in the middle of it!

  45. #46 chek
    March 22, 2012

    Shorter Jonas: Don’t regulate the corporations! I says there ain’t no science so there ain’t, and you can’t prove nuttin’!

  46. #47 Jonas N
    March 22, 2012

    Chek

    Actually, I was saying something very different. I was describing how quite a few of those who have absolutely nothing to say/contribute to the issue go about making ‘climate change’ somehow their vehicle for whatever they believe in and want. Possibly the ‘regulate corporations’ is in there among the desired ‘outcome’ of the exercise. To accomplish … well, yes taxation and regulation, and support for whatever charitable cause (themselves usually) they might harbor. Not very interested in what is accomplished in the physical world, in reality.

    That no science is needed to support those ‘desired concusions’ and what/if they migh accomplish anything at all, has been very amply demonstrated here. Not one single comment has even gone close to what might be accomplished, or even how, and at what costs, and side effects. Complete disinterest. In spite of the over emotional, mouth frothing anger tantrums and rants from so many during so many months now.

    Q: Problem?
    A: Yes, yes **Yes!!** Very much! Vey many! Countless problems! Absolute certainty!

    Q: Solving them? How?
    A: Shut the f*ck up. Science says we’re right. That there is a huge problem. In the future! Don’t ruin our day!

  47. #48 Olaus Petri
    March 22, 2012

    It looks like Jeffie has improved his game, now taking down Watts while working under pseudonym:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/22/letters-i-get-letters/#more-59917

    :-)

  48. #49 A Lurker
    March 23, 2012

    Are you Scandinavian deadshits still here? Get a life boys.

  49. #50 Jonas N
    March 23, 2012

    As noted many times before: Jeff Harvey (who pretends to be, or rather really really badly wants to be (seen as) a **real** scientist) cannot help himself. So eager to ‘crush’ anybody not sharing his faith, he scores own goal after own goal, for everybody (interested) to see. Among his recent posts (last two days), four fall in the category:

    **Weather is Not Climate**

    In his [latest](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6247467) comment, he tried the *‘weather is not climate’*-meme, to do away with the fact that **global** temperatures haven’t risen for 10 to 15 years, and that this is a real problem (increasing further for each year, widening the gap) both for the doomsayers, the predictions, the models, and those who claimed high confidence in attribution. To this Jeff responds:

    > This is kindergarten-level science … this ignores short term perterbations that can transiently mask the longer term effects. Its akin to saying that one week in one year is warmer in **March** than in May

    Which is funny, because this ‘weather’ (that isn’t climate) is the **global** averaged(**!**) weather, that hasn’t played along for well over a decade. Funny too is that he brings up a warm March in his ‘debunking’. Because in three earlier posts, it is the very **local** and warm March (weather) that is his core argument for AGW: In [comment 283](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6245640). He wites:

    > March 2012 is going to go down in the history books as an incredibly exceptional month. There has been a prolonged heat wave over the entire mid-west that is, by any standards, incredible and unprecedented … its been a devastating week for the deniers. The **evidence** is swamping them, and they are now resorting to desperate smears

    He reiterates that in [# 330](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6246853), saying and predicting the future (again):

    > and to top if off is the heatwave across the midwestern USA that is now reaching the east. Its **unbelieveable** by any stretch of the **imagination** … This is certainly a sign of things to come.

    And boy do we know how strechable Jeff’s imagination can be.

    And to the observation, that there are cold spells and snowstorms in other parts of the US, he first tries to deride one site (WUWT) where these observations **too** mentioned(!?), and repeats [in #336](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6247402), again making predictions about the future:

    >Check the ratio of warm-cold weather records in the US. More than 3500 of the former against 18 of the latter. And warm records are not only being broken, but .. smashed to pieces. Like it or not, these conditions are well outside of any normal variance. … Like the heat wave that hammered Russia in 2010, we are seeing a broader pattern of exceptional conditions occurring over more of the globe that are probably unprecedented in a long, long time. And its almsot certain to get worse.

    All these are weather events, and they are local. He is both arguing **extremely unlikely** events (occurring somwhere, locally) **and** that they are going to be not only common, but worse! And his last point is that bringing up ‘weather’ (even if its averaged, and over a decade) *“This is kindergarten-level science. To be ignored”*!, and once more ‘concluding’ (=fantasizing) desperately about his opponents lack of education and training.

    He is just spectacular, this Jeff Harvey, ain’t he not? Everytime, and in almost every comment he tries, he reveals how exceptionally poor a ‘scientist’ he is, how he is patently incapable of even getting even his own arguments right. How he within hours blows gigantic holes in his own (just delivered) assertions about both AGW (again, conflating GW-warmth with any possible A-component) and not using local, and shorter term observations to make that case. And of course riddled with his usual insults (all blowing up in his own face)

    **Just spectacular !**

    PS I had another comment earlier (before the warm March own goal) that didn’t make it through, a little bit more detailed. I might repost it later. And there are some interesting points to be made about Hasis (#339) and his calculation with both sigma and probabilities. Way over Jeffie’s little head. I might get back to them too.

  50. #51 Joans N
    March 23, 2012

    Two comments now, held up!?

    But maybe this was automated? Since I linked to the Jeff’s comments who nowadys is too afraid to comment here where his assertions are actually read. And can get a scientific answer.

    Sign ‘A Lurker’ – You are a good example of the commenters who thrive and seem to be welcome here. I guess you can call that ‘a life’ …

  51. #52 GSW
    March 23, 2012

    @Jonas

    I assumed “A Lurker” was jeff!

    ;)

  52. #53 Stu
    March 23, 2012

    First:

    Two comments now, held up!? But maybe this was automated?

    Yes, it is automated. As has been explained to you and your cohorts a dozen times already.

    Anyway.

    Okay, I’ll really have to dig in to address all those substantive issues you set forth there, Jonas. But let me try:

    1. Strawman.
    2. Strawman.
    3. Strawman.
    4. Strawman.
    5. Strawman.
    6. Strawman.
    7. Strawman.
    8. Strawman.
    9. Strawman.

    Man, that was tiring. I’ll have to go lie down now.

  53. #54 Jonas N
    March 23, 2012

    Stu, you never were that bright were you? My comments have been dissapearing and held up manually too.

    Regarding your strawmen:

    It is the easiest thing to pick (from various threads/forums on AGW) countless examples for every one of those practices of in the AGW-proxy-support tactics(*), I won’t even bother. But you seem in denial there too?

    In response I would simply note:

    1-9 Own goal

    Every one of them. And it didn’t take any effort at all.

    (*)I forgot in the previous post (#3431) a caveat: The term ‘tactics’ implies some cognitive intelligence, a puprose or goal, and a thought-out means to get there. I didn’t really want to claim that such is present everytime, as eg here in the case of Jeff. It might very well be instinctive, emotional, and pure Pavlovian reflexes. Glad to mention these qualifying distinctions. But the end effect is ireespective of that, and often fits my points 1-9 quite well. Stu, isn’t even up there, trying to link two consecutive points by using logic. (Hands/boxes at different speed, tried the opposite)

  54. #55 Stu
    March 23, 2012

    My comments have been dissapearing and held up manually too.

    Liar.

    It is the easiest thing to pick (from various threads/forums on AGW) countless examples for every one of those practices of in the AGW-proxy-support tactics

    Show me one. Just one.

  55. #56 Olaus Petri
    March 23, 2012

    Precious Stu is as predictable as Jeffie and his little waggling dogs Chek and wow. At the glimpse of anything scientific (wrt climate change) they instantly pivot into fetus position mode. Fascinating behavior. Wonder what Sir David Attenborough would make of it. :-)

  56. #57 Stu
    March 23, 2012

    By the way, Jonas:

    Stu, isn’t even up there, trying to link two consecutive points by using logic. (Hands/boxes at different speed, tried the opposite)

    Posting drunk is not helping your cause. At least try to form complete sentences.

  57. #58 GSW
    March 23, 2012

    @stu,

    “Posting drunk is not helping your cause.”

    What’s your excuse stu?

    ;)

    @Jonas,

    I seem to be filling up the Bolehole over at RC all on my own today. I think this is an example of what stu was asking for in #3440. How can a few, very polite, simple words cause such offence? CAGW theory must be stronger than that surely? maybe not. Just pointing out the 100yrs cold event in china 2008 is apparently verboten over at the ministry for truth. I’m sure if it got out, the religion would crumble. Why don’t they put more faith in the goldfish?

    You having moderation issues yourself at the moment Jonas?

    ;)

  58. #59 GSW
    March 23, 2012

    @Jonas,

    Interested in your view, this is currently in moderation over at RC. It’s obviously not been written by a ‘Believer’, but is there anything there that should not be said or should be censored? Intellectual Orthodoxy has never been compatible with science.

    [RETRY - 2nd Time]
    @John,

    Thanks for the response again. I understand your point, but I think many here are overstating the significance of an anomaly lasting only a few weeks, context or not. The Weather is not Climate argument.

    If you present anomalous “Warm” events as “evidence”, then you must also accept anomalous “Cold” events as contrary to the same degree. Not to do so is simply “Special Pleading”.

    I’d argue that these short term anomalies are not good indicators either way. This current event is unlikely to make any perceptable difference to the Global temperature anomaly for the month, which will be unremarkable, let alone the year.

    An example of an anamolous “Cold” event in China, 2008. Special Pleading?

    [China 2008](http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/02/04/idUKPEK161570._CH_.242020080204)

  59. #60 GSW
    March 23, 2012

    @Jonas,

    Yup, boreholed.

    ;)

  60. #61 Jonas N
    March 23, 2012

    Stu …

    Wow above, said he couldn’t find one single instance where I told luminous he was wrong.

    You apparently tell me you can’t find (don’t know of) one single instance where my 9 points above, generically describe how various AGW-groupies go about arguing that AGW somehow also is extremely important for their cause or ideas.

    That would indeed be quite remarkable. Even coming from you ..

    But then again, you are a quite remarkable guy aren’t your. I mean:

    Six years of physics studied, and hand/box moving at different speeds while ranting ‘dependent variable, dependent variable’

    Quite remarkable, as I said!

    ;-)

  61. #62 Jonas N
    March 23, 2012

    GSW #3444

    Nah .. religions don’t crumble that easily. By definition!

    They are religions and based on faith. Every man of the cloth knows that the pure and unsoiled faith has to be accepted by divine insight, ie blindly. Whereupon follows salvation and the revelations of seeing the light. He also knows that the commoners have not reached that level and are torn between temptations, doubt and the word from the holy script.

    More importantly, he also knows that he too will be tempted and that the lord will test his faith by allowing him to harbor doubt. And also that Satan will try to sow and exploit any such doubt as best he can. And couple of cold spells in China, or a decade without warming are just the kind of tricks Satan would try to sway you with. I fact, his tricks are a confirmation of that your path is the righteous one, and not faltering is proof of that the lord is on your side.

    My question to you GSW: Why are you posting at RC? You know, that they will moderate you as they please, to maintain the narrative, and make you look uninformed. They will never let you get away with making them look foolish or uninformed. Regardless of how right or reasonable you and your posts are.

  62. #63 GSW
    March 23, 2012

    @Jonas,

    “My question to you GSW: Why are you posting at RC?”

    It’s a good question Jonas. There’s not much “Trade” on Deltoid, just the usual crowd with weak one line remarks, no imagination, and we’ve done jeff haven’t we ;)

    The think the biggest disappointment is that jeff doesn’t actually seem to be that “expert” in his own field, doesn’t know the stuff at any rate, can barely regurgitate the words properly, a cut, paste, and jumbler of wikipedia articles at best. A peddler of IGW, as OOA put it, to the proles – those without the intellect to comprehend what’s been discussed, but happy to cheer for the cause nonetheless.

    I do pop over to RC every now and then, gavin is probably the closest thing the alarmists have to an intellectual (IMO). gavin + eric(?) are better on the moderation policy, the chap today Jim(?) is an ideological moron. There were quite a few comments on the current US warm event, accompanied by a jubilant “dancing round the teepees” in relief at there being some “good news” at last.

    It’s all totally bogus of course, so I thought I’d try and get some comments from the climate scientists themselves on the relevance of the “event” – they were very quite, perhaps they do know better after all.

    ;)

  63. #64 Jonas N
    March 24, 2012

    It is just hilarious, isn’t it. Jeff once more brakes his own oft repeated promise to never go here again. He, by his own account, describes his own behavior as:

    > Nobody in his right mind wants to go there

    Or

    >Not a single person with any scientific credibility will go there

    Well, he goes here all the time. And his scared sh*tless to respond properly to anything here. And instead tries doing this from inside his (by Tim) protected asylum building entire armies of strawmen. He even uses ‘asylum’ to describe the outside world where he would need to face reality and people who are scientifically literate and way more capable than he his. Frantically waiving his CV, as if it somehow strengthens his points.

    One scientifically literate person in this thread alone here suffices to make him go bonkers ..

    He even and again sides with ÜberStu-pid’s nonsense commenting. Or look at this ‘argument:

    >[They] Make unsubstantiated comments off the tops of their heads

    Oh the irony! Jeff after fabricating claim after claim for half a year. But this one is even better:

    >Note that in 7 months since Jonas entered Deltoid, there have been no more than half a dozen people who have written to support his arguments. At the same time, 30 or more think he’s a loon

    Wow, he crushed’ me by 30 to 6! :-)

    I’d actually say the opposite: If anyone really thinks that I am just a loon, this guy, definitely belongs here. Not even Jeff thinks that I am one. He desperately wants to know, and tries whatever he can to find out. Because arguing the AGW case, he wants to avoid at all costs. Personal smear is what he tries. And then whines when he is not adored for it .. Pathetic!

    He has spent 7 months now arguing AGW and its severity, never getting close to any issue were the (C)AGW-position is criticized. But is still screeching that he should be ‘respected’ for it. Based on his .. well, total lack of self awareness. And his CV.

    By the way, have you noticed that he never boasts about any accomplishments. Science where he actually accomplished something? Only the length of his CV?

    Well well, in the end he as usual claimas to speak for ‘the scientific community’ (this little screeching guy, incapable of having a civil conversation or arguing anything when contradicted).

    And he tries the (same) appeal to authority once more:

    >every Academy of Science in every country on Earth agrees that humans are dangerously influencing climate patterns over the biosphere. These prestigious bodies **do not reach these conclusions lightly**. They are based on **input from a large sector of their membership** including experts in the field.

    I have asked him about exactly this before. Several times. How they go about it. No answer whatsoever. The little liar just has no clue! Instead (his own words) he:

    >Make[a] unsubstantiated comments off the tops of [his] heads

    Jeffie, scientists don’t lie to reach their results. The don’t even make up convenient ‘facts’ for that purpose when such are missing …

    Stop calling yourself a scientist before you manage to behave like one!

  64. #65 Olaus Petri
    March 27, 2012

    Fellas, will there be good news on the science is settled front this summer? A Nasa scientist believed not in 2007:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html

    :-)

  65. #66 Jonas N
    March 27, 2012

    How is it going?

    I see Jeff again tried to bolster his self esteem, or whatever that should be labeled, wrt to the A-signal in GW by writing unrelated and nonsensical stuff.
    And it is somewhat surprising that no one in his surrounding points out to him how badly he bungles his arguments most of the time. Or maybe they do, and Jeff doesn’t understand it. Or they tried, Jeff threw another temper tantrum and the ignored him. In any case, it’s remarkable that someone like this runs lose in any filed claiming to conduct science.

    The guy quotes a Wikipedia entry stating that (self selected) climate scientists **believe** that humans are causing the warming! Did everybody hear that! They really believe it! Wow!
    What an crushing takedown of all the skeptics, of which many are real scientists, and don’t believe in *‘believing what natures is like’*.

    Jeffie till goes on to pretend to talk for ‘the scientific community’. This time even ‘the **strongly united** scientific community’

    Further he once more tries the ‘all the academies’ appeal, flat out claiming that their statements are based on polling their membership. The argument this times seems to be ‘prestigious’, and he claims to know what everybody will attest to. I am absolutely certain, that Jeff has absolutely no clue how (if!) the membership was polled, and what questions they were asked. Jeffie probably doesn’t even know what questions those oft repeated 97% agreeing ‘climate scientists’ actually do agree on. He just fills his big black holes of utter ignorance with his fantasies. As we have seen here for half a year.

    He once more tells us about the length of his CV. And thinks others don’t have any!? I don’t even want to start thinking what that can possibly mean.

    By the way Jeff, have you yet managed to figure out what ‘something’ you wanted to do about the fact that glacier size changes? You were adamant about ‘doing something about it’ …

  66. #67 Olaus Petri
    March 27, 2012

    Hehe…little Jeffie keeps reading the Science thread to swagger off to safe ground playing tough guy. Taxi Driver and Vicky Pollard vibes for sure.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mpMEnxcVkA

    :-)

  67. #68 GSW
    March 27, 2012

    @Olaus

    ;)

    Do you watch “Little Britain” over in Sweden? Vicky’s all attitude and mouth, there’s definitely words in there too, but they never seem to amount to very much. mmm…….

    ;)

  68. #69 Olaus Petri
    March 27, 2012

    Little Britain is very popular in Sweden. And now it’s new shows every day here at Deltoid. What about “the only scientist in the village”? ;-)

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

  69. #70 GSW
    March 27, 2012

    @Olaus,

    Climate Models – [Computer says no!](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNRGCPKhJFE&feature=related)

    ;)

    PS In the middle of watching BBC Horizon – Global Weirding.

    ;)

  70. #71 GSW
    March 27, 2012

    @Olaus,

    Watched the Daffyd clip ;), ends with,

    “That’s exactly the kind anti-scientific attitude I’ve come to expect on this blog, Good Day!”

    You know he’ll be back though, quite a final riposte! (again)

    ;)

  71. #72 Olaus Petri
    March 28, 2012

    Little Britain got Daffyd, we got Jeffyd. :-)

    Computer says Yes! :-)

    What about “science fighters”?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmiH7pD3-Zs

  72. #73 Olaus Petri
    March 29, 2012

    More good news coming up, and this time dressed up as an IPCC-report. :-)

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.se/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html

  73. #74 Jonas N
    March 30, 2012

    I notice that Jeff Harvey calls me ‘shithead’ (after having used similar ohter labelling attempts for more than six months). And on top of that he whines about not beeing treated with (enough) respect! What a sissy!

    It is funny, because this guy really cannot argue one single point as a grown up. If I’m a ‘shithead’, what does that say about the contents of his?

    Recently he has tried Wikipedia and some Reuters article to bolster/reinforce his beliefs. And he has repeatedly brought up all these ‘national acadamies’ as ‘support’ for them. Although he neither knows how(if) they polled their constituency, nor what the indeed asked, or what their statements actually claim to support. He just thinks that somehow, his personal and twisted beliefs, which he can’t even formulate’, also are shared or even endorsed by a list of academies.

    Because he so much wants to believe this!

    And he tells us that he is unaware of any real scientists not sharing his beliefs (whatever they are?)?

    Well, he probably doesn’t even know what his own beliefs are. For six months he has not been capable of which of my views supposedly are so ‘earth shattering’ that nobody could agree with them or realize they are reasonable objections. And how could he? He lives in a fantasy land, where he makes up his own ‘facts’ and ‘explanations’ as he needs them. A guy who can’t argue any point scientifically, and instead thinks ‘shithead’ ‘idiot’ ‘DK aflictee’ etc are substitutes for knowledge and arguments.

    So let’s just focus on the IPCC claims and their purported ‘consensus’ …

    For six months he (and everybody else here) has been informed of that there is no real science behind the most prominent AR4-claim. Echoed all over the world.

    And Jeff believes that no real scientist has noted that? That they all just accept the IPCCs word for it. Or that any/all of the other overstated claims also are just accepted as ‘facts’? Or that real scientists accept simulations as confirmations for what the simulations are supposed to prove!? This guy really has no clue at all about what real science is. None!

    And he doesn’t know that there has been fierce oppopsition to the sweeping (C)AGW-endorsements from within many of those academies, particularly those involving real sience!? He doesn’t know any scientists who doesn’t share/accept the IPCC narrative, or thinks there aren’t any more other hypothesis to be investigated. He really does not know anything worth knowing, does he?

    No wonder, if he lives in a bubble shielded from the real outside world, where real scientists ask the real and relevant questions. All those are incomprehensible to Jeff residing there inside his bubble. Whithin which he even must run and hide (and seek ‘protection’ from Tim) for his infantile yapping, and where he can pretend that this is angry and scary barking from a heavy hitter. What a joke.

    What would be an appropriate labell for him? (I think ‘shithead’ is far too juvenile, and doesn’t really capture all what has flown by him, whithout him knowing what it was, or why he needs to understand it).

    He just is a bubble-dweller in hysteric denial of the real world outside. And he fills the inside of this bubble (which is the confinment of his own distorted fantasy) with all the shit he can conjure up ..

    Well, maybe ‘shithead’ wasn’t that bad after all.

    But civil as I always am, I will settle for Bubble-Dweller-Jeff!Where he lives with all the stupidities and nonsens he created for himself, and with which he tries to shield off the real world. Which is oh so frightening.

    It’s not a pretty sight. But it’s our bubble-dweller ..

  74. #75 Olaus Petri
    March 31, 2012

    Hehehe…again Jeff demonstrates that he can’t handle a civil debate regarding climate science. As soon as Jonas illuminates the many stupidities and lies that rules every inch of Jeffie’s understanding of reality, Jeff looses the control of his lower sphincters. However, that doesn’t stop him from sneaking over to the Real science thread and read – in silencium – to run off to his gated community starting major drama crying for help and support.

  75. #76 Jonas N
    April 1, 2012

    Olaus … didn’t you know? There is indeed a Wikipedia entry stating the ‘Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’ ..

    .. by those who do agree (believe)!

    In the world (ie bubble) of Jeffie-science that settles it! And more generally, he thinks that if gets printed, then it should be accepted, if it’s printed in a journal, then it’s science.

    And now he is again appealing to Tim! It seems his bubble still isn’t shielded well enough.

    What I find most amusing is that he really seems totally and completely unaware of how his ‘performance’ here has been. What he has tried, stated, ‘argued’ and with what means …

    Like a petulant spoilt-rotten child unable to cope with reality and the surrounding world as it … ehrm .. *gets older* …

    (‘grows up’ isn’t really appropriate here …)

  76. #77 GSW
    April 1, 2012

    @Jonas,

    Hi Jonas! I think we should lay off Jeff on his special day (1st April), he is probably out celebrating somewhere. Normal service can resume tomorrow.

    Did you follow the Planet Under Pressure conference last week? it was streamed for those interested. It was pretty dull, nothing worth reporting, just a bunch of people repeating extreme left wing views to each other with half hearted applause playing in the background.

    Highlight of the week was the twitter feed – One chap was pissed off that having paid £50 for a meal, waited inline for an hour, only to find that all the options were vegetarian!

    They’re not exactly selling it are they, the brave new world, four carrots and a pea for £50.

    Emission reductions don’t get a mention, or CO2, perhaps they’ve moved on, or realised finally that the narrative has no legs. As karen pointed out, “Global Governance” is the new mantra – If we can’t control your lives with carbon, then how about a new “World Government”, run for the greater good presumably by the NGO’s. These people a seriously “Off Planet”.

    Your thoughts Jonas?

    ;)

  77. #78 pentaxZ
    April 3, 2012

    Big blow to the CAGW. No global warming for the past 15 years, says hadCRUT. Something to joy about, wouldn´t you say, CAGW foilhats?

    http://thegwpf.org/press-releases/5360-no-global-warming-for-15-years.html

  78. #79 Jonas N
    April 3, 2012

    Jeff is trying to re-inflate his self esteem using two methods (both indicative of Jeffie’s so called ‘scientific acumen’, a word he seems very fond of:

    Firstly, by using various invectives to label everybody he is incapable of having a debate with or arguing against (only the last few hours it was ‘Jonarse’ ‘idiot’ ‘Curry speaking through her butt’, and it has been like that from day one). Notably he hardly ever engages in anything of what is actually on the table, addresses the issues, criticizes what he thinks are invalid arguments. Just shouts and cusses like a spoilt-rotten child.

    The second method is to just claim various things he desperately wants to be true, and repeating them. Like:

    > Jonarse couldn’t debate his way out of a soaked paper bag. I’ve met better debaters in primary school

    I mean really, really? If Jeffie thinks that I am a poorer debater than you’ll find in primary school. And I wipe the floor with him every time he tries? What does that make Jeff then?  A debater on ‘retarded toddler’ –level? On top of that, someone who describes himself as a ‘real scientist’!?

    Bernard J, unintended of course, came up with a fairly accurate observation about Jeff, someone whose nonsense has been refuted countless times: “once a fuckwit, always a fuckwit”.
    And of course, that observation holds for quite a few more here.

    Personally, I expect people to be or get it wrong occasionally and learn from it, improve, become more knowledgeable, less ignorant, better informed etc. But not all, of course. In quite a few cases, the effect of being wrong, and having things explained to them have been quite the opposite. Jeffie probably is the worst among them here. Screeching about ‘ideology’ all the time, when he cannot argue his own beliefs, or they are blatantly wrong on the face of the facts.

    I don’t know about you others, but is there anybody who truly believes that Jeffie’s self esteem can be repaired, mended using the tools he has tried for six+ months? Somebody whose mind is so entrenched with ideological prejudice and who is patently incapable of keeping that apart from what(-ever?) he thinks is science? I certainly don’t. And essentially everything Jeffie writes shows how badly it’s gotten there inside his little bubble he has filled all by himself with all that […] he has conjured up-

  79. #80 Jonas N
    April 3, 2012

    GSW

    No, I didn’t follow the ‘Planet under Pressure’ spectacle. It was pretty obvious from the start where this was going to land. I did, however, eye through the ‘State of the Planet – Declaration’ you linked. Apparently it was written by the organizers (only) and partly before the meeting was finished. It was a pretty dreadful read. And it is no surprise that the ‘experts’ attending where acquaintances of Jeff, and of the Jeff-style variety of ‘scientists‘: Assertions of how the future will be by method of seclusion and mutually agreeing.

    And as demonstrated by the supporters in the April-thread, they can’t even read what it says. It’s meaning is in itself a ‘conspiracy’ by those actually reading it. It was all quite funny! As was the ‘weather-is-no-climate-unless-Jeff-needs-it-to-be’ and even more so when NOAA mutated into Judith Curry’s butt .. and Jeffie trying to wiggle out of it 

  80. #81 Jonas N
    April 3, 2012

    Jeff Harvey, I know you are a terribly slow learner (if you learn at all?). And that you most often think you ‘know’ something which you don’t. But which you have heard, or imagined to have heard previously, and which suited you prejudices and fit well on the bubble inside. Which means you need to purge yourself of quite some garbage before you can progress (in the right direction, meaning learning something meaningful, gaining new insights etc)

    Here are two things I am addressing. You said:

    > But I won’t go there – he seems to have a fanatic obsession and hatred for a large sector of the scientific community

    First, you open with a bold faced lie! Easily checkable! And the second claim is also a gross and untrue misrepresentation of my position. On the contrary: I respect scientists, those who do real science, who adhere to the scientific method, and are meticulous about reporting what they have done and how (You of course wouldn’t know about such, since you are not one of them). Secondly you write:

    > Saying that Trenberth and Hansen aren’t ‘real scientists’ is beyond the pale. This coming from someone who has refused categorically to say what their day job is

    Here you get at least some part partly right. I have said that Hansen and Trenberth are not (any longer) any real scientists (if they ever were in earlier life). And I explicitly explained why and how that is. (And not one single part of that explanation requires my CV or knowledge of my day job. You’ve been informed sufficiently many times that I know what I am talking about. And you never engaging with anything I actually say, only your own fantasies and fabrications, are a good clue to how much you are competent to challenge).

    But I’ll repeat explicitly why I say that Hansen and Trenberth aren’t (any longer) any real scientists:

    1. Trenberth’s attempted reversion of the null-hypothesis shows that he has abandoned science and is now an activist.
    2. Hansen’s ‘predictions’ of a 3 to 15- fold increase of **average**sea level rise rates for the next 100 years. Real science cannot predict anything like that. Because it cannot predict alien nuclear attacks on the ice-sheets either.

    Now you, dear Jeffie, were the one to both bring up Hansens Ted-talk, and hail it even after me pointing out (only its worst) flaws. And you claimed that Hansen’s predictions must be reality, because (you claimed) he was such an ‘esteemed and respected’ scientists. Well, Jeff, that’s where you get it completely wrong once more. And once more reveal that you really don’t understand what science is: It is not, not ever, the words spoken out of a person’s mouth. Or the words printed in a publication. Especially not predictions of vast changes to come in the near future defying the known laws of physics. You may also want to recall his prophecies about ‘boiling oceans’!? That too was nonsense, but activists aren’t really concerned with accuracy, getting their facts right, addressing the real issues etc. Instead, they think that such petty details only are in the way obscuring ‘the bigger picture’. And it is exactly that which makes them unsuitable as scientists. As you so amply have demonstrated for many months now ..

    Of course, you went nowhere near any of those things I said about Trenberth or Hansen. Presumably because you have no clue about neither the scientific method nor what it would take to actually support either of their statements. Scientifically, that is. Instead you repeat that they are fine scientists, merely because you want to believe what they say … and that is kinda my point too regarding you, Jeff.

  81. #82 Jonas N
    April 3, 2012

    I see that Bernard J is making claims about population ecologists, and that they *“are still far and away better able to assess the veracity of their climatological colleagues’ research”*

    This is funny indeed, because we have seen absolutely zero of any assessment of research veracity for half a year here. Particularly not by the ‘population ecologist’ who is only capable of shouting and spewing sheer nonsense .. But I reckon, in those quarters belief is an adequate substitute for knowing or mastering any facts ..

    And Bernard is begging for others to guess about his guesses about the future. As if it were somehow very relevant? Funny thing is that he many times has equated what has been discussed here (by the scientifically more literate) with having made claims about future arctic ice content. I wonder how one could arrive at such twisted beliefs!? But then again, believing things blindly is the preferred method among this bunch … who just love their name-calling and think it makes them feel and/or look smarter.

  82. #83 Jonas N
    April 4, 2012

    Jeffie is still at it. In full denial of reality. Clinging to and boldly yapping from his protected zone here, how right his beliefs must be albeit neither understanding nor even knowing what they say or address. He is still clinging to his ‘all the academies’ meme, having longwinded arguments with himself for why similar proclamations should replace proper science. Most of these (by some so much revered) proclamations are merely echoing the claims of that political UN-body, the IPCC, which used to claim to be based on the ‘best science available’, and endorsed by some 2500 of the finest experts. Well, by now we know how much that is/was worth.

    Further, the APS-statement Jeff got so excited about is from 2007, the same year as the (latest AR4) IPCC release and five years old by now. And although Jeff is in denial of essentially everything, there has been quite some fierce opposition from within the APS-membership to the blatantly political statements, overconfidence in politicized pseudo science, and unvalidated climate models. Those responsible have tried essentially everything to maintain the (idiotic and untrue) consensus-narrative, and the later additions/commentary reflect both that and the backpedalling necessary not to look completely stupid. A similar uprising occurred in the Royal Society, which also had to revise its stated opinion (nota bene!) considerably.

    Anyway, as even Jeff will (grudgingly) admit, opining and agreeing does not constitute any science or confirmation at all. And falsely claiming to speak for a large membership, and/or making far reaching proclamations about suitable policies is advocacy that has no place in real science. However it is a common tactics among activists to just claim to speak for a large number or entity, and to claim that everybody nor fiercely opposing them indeed agrees. It the kind of stupidity sold by Gore or Oreskes and the IPCC (whose activists additionally takes measures to keep opposing voices silent and out).

    And Jeff too has many many times demanded that dissent should be banned, now he is showing even more of his true fascist colors when he can’t handle open and honest debate: “They are like annoying gnats that need to be swatted”. He really must fear knowledge, science, competence facts and honest debate, this little intellectual dwarf, who likes to compare himself with a pissing skunk contest. We have heard these notions before, incidentally also by those claiming too care for nature and the future of our children …

    Dishonest science is not science. It is just dishonest. And Jeff once more repeats (and desperately wants to believe) that only non-scientists are skeptical of the IPCC-consensus!? How does this intellectual dwarf-giant arrive at that conclusion? By closing his eyes and wanting to believe it, by denying reality. He even argues that one shouldn’t know how these academy-proclamations are arrived at! What they asked? If they asked anything. Again the non-scientists Jeff Harvey demands that beliefs should be taken at faith! And even complains about the “level of intellectual discourse with which we are dealing”! Can this guy make it any clearer? He does not what to know! He does not want anybody else to ask and know either. Everything he believes (and cannot even formulate properly) should be taken at faith and on unsubstantiated authority! No wonder he is so completely ignorant.

    You think I’m joking? I’m not. Here is vehemently [arguing that authorities and their claims are not to be questioned, not even to be examined for what they are worth]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6252939)! He even says that trying to evaluate the substance of made claims: “this is crazy, mad, ridiculous, plainly nutty, but this is what our little band of fecal deniers does”. This is self proclaimed (but nowhere) ‘real scientist’ Jeff Harvey’s response to those asking to see the basis for scientific (and similar) claims. We have seen the same attitude about that (in)famous most prominent IPCC AR4 claim: Don’t you ever dare to question it, or to see the basis. Even if it’s false. You should believe it anyway. As should everybody else! I am not joking, he repeatedly and vehemently argues for actively choosing ignorance, for not asking how those proclamations were arrived at! And that’s why asking to see the data, the code, the measurements, the original temp-records, the science etc, is so dangerous. Why such questions and those who keep asking them “like annoying gnats … need to be swatted”

    What an absolute farce this is, calling himself a scientist! And as others completely correctly point out, a ‘scientist’ that doesn’t even do numbers, one that consistently gets almost every basic fact or issue totally wrong. No wonder he demands protection from reality. And that reality is kept away from everybody else too..

    PS And the guy is still lying about not reading here. And gives it away again in the simplest manner. And demands we should accept and trust his beliefs solely because he demands we should trust him.

  83. #84 GSW
    April 4, 2012

    @Jonas,

    Apologies, I didn’t revisit the thread for a couple of days and missed your posts. Have you noticed them on the Recent Comments list as you post them? I only saw your last post.

    Will have a read.

  84. #85 Jonas N
    April 5, 2012

    GSW, yes my posts are visible among the ‘recent comments’. It’s fun how Jeffie both tries to reply to them and pretend he never reads them. I guess lying comes natural to him. Even in his ‘science’.

    It would be fun to dissect one of his alarmistic publications only to see if he is as dishonest as here when referencing others and restating their claims. Just to check if he even can reference the work of others honestly.

    I have the absolutely lowest expectations. But then it would still be fun to see how bad it is ..

    Generally, those proclaiming to be ‘experts on the future’ are considered as charlatans, trying to sell you something of little or no value, for payment now, and (rightfully) have the same standing as snake-oil-salesmen. And Jeff H fits that description perfectly. (Have you seen his promises about future polar bear populations?)

    But I wouldn’t be surprised if he even needs to cheat with (today) checkable facts to paint his pictures of the coming future ..

  85. #86 GSW
    April 6, 2012

    @Jonas

    “But I wouldn’t be surprised if he even needs to cheat with (today) checkable facts to paint his pictures of the coming future ..”

    Jeff doesn’t do facts jonas, just stories, we know that. If you push him – “it’s in thousands of papers” (about something else usually), inconvenient facts can be dismissed, because the chap reporting them – his father may have been a ['chain smoker'](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6252050)? and even that ‘fact’ he got wrong.

    “It would be fun to dissect one of his alarmistic publications”

    I agree. Play “How do you know? What evidence do you have?” with every assumed ‘truth’. Science Journals don’t usually accept the ‘Hand waving’ arguments jeff presents here, the environmental journals that take jeff’s papers may be different- Who knows.

  86. #87 Jonas N
    April 6, 2012

    GSW have you noticed that Tim Lambert isn’t really pushing the CAGW narrative as hard any more? Two consecutive threads, one month apart (March and April) with only the usual suspects making the same old noise?

    In a way, I feel sorry for him, his blog. But on the other hand, this is the kind of crowd he attracted, supported, cheered on and whose behavior he encouraged actively by banning saner and more knowledgeable participants.

    And maybe, just maybe, he is starting to learn a little more about what the issues are. Not just swallowing every piece of junk fed to him from stupid activists claiming to speak for ‘the science’ or even ‘the scientific community’ .. But I won’t hold my breath!

    ;-)

  87. #88 Jonas N
    April 6, 2012

    I see that the (self proclaimed) ‘top rooster’ on the pile of incompetents here yet again thinks he has found a URL-link to the future, confirming and proving his promises.

    A NGO link which incidentally tries to solicit money by selling ‘Polar Bear Adoptions’. This is how Jeff Harvey believes that he can see into the future(*), how he believes that he ‘again demolished’ the one who he so desperately wants to call an ‘idiot’!

    I just ask: What does such tripe make him then?

    My answer would be: An absolute farce!

    (*)Strangely though, he needs to revise his former ‘prophecies': From formerly having been ‘doomed’ with certainty, the polar bears’ future has improved to now only being ‘bleak’. (Ergo: My answer above still holds!)

  88. #89 GSW
    April 19, 2012

    @jeff,

    You realised your CV is not an argument jeff? Good. Posting links rather than CV waving, It’s so not like you!

    Let’s have a look. …..Oh, oh, hang on a minute, weren’t you the guy complaining about others getting their science from a blog?

    Your #3523 “….. Use anti-environemtnal[sic] blogs for much of your source information…Try and avoid reading the primary literature as much as you can”

    The first ‘evidence’ link you posted was to “http://takvera.blogspot.com” a self styled “Climate Citizen” blog writing on “Climate Change, …biodiversity loss…and Climate protests from a Melbournse Citizen” – looks more like an activist blog than primary science to me. I’d call that a convenient case of hypocrisy jeff.

    The others? As Olaus pointed the other ‘primary’ sources were a Nature “opinion piece” and a link to an “Impacts Review” by Camille Parmesan – Scatter Gun advocacy(?) as is the vague reference to 5,000 ‘other’ studies. You are a serial offender at this jeff.

    The frog link, Alan Pounds, you’re right he’s very much the cheerleader when it comes to linking climate change to herpetile extinctions. His ‘Golden toad’ Climate Change hypothesis looks pretty much dead and buried.

    [Tropical cloud forest climate variability and the demise of the Monteverde golden toad](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/25/0908572107.abstract)

    From the abstract,
    “There is no evidence of a trend associated with global warming. Rather, the extinction of the Monteverde golden toad (Bufo periglenes) appears to have coincided with an exceptionally dry interval caused by the 1986–1987 El Niño event.”

    Attempts to directly link frog extinctions to Climate Change are tenuous at best. Pathogens (certainly), land use changes/intrusions, ENSO and pollution or combinations thereof, are probably better, more compelling, candidates

    Other disappointing (for you) frog papers;

    [Decreased winter severity increases viability of a montane frog population](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/21/0912945107.short)

    [Effects of temperature and hydric environment on survival of the Panamanian Golden Frog infected with a pathogenic chytrid fungus](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00197.x/abstract)

    [Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and the collapse of anuran species richness and abundance in the Upper Manu National Park](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01604.x/abstract)

    I’m not sure which is the more distressing, your irrational presumption that Co2/Climate Change is the root cause of everything, your lack of critical reasoning in all things, or the level of ignorance you repeatedly demonstrate in what is supposedly your own field.

  89. #90 GSW
    April 19, 2012

    [Come off it Tim, It's a post on troll thread for goodness sake, banned from a troll thread? people advocating murder on the open thread and I can't post links to Zoology papers on a troll thread? - doesn't look good does it ;)]

    @jeff,

    You realised your CV is not an argument jeff? Good. Posting links rather than CV waving, It’s so not like you!

    Let’s have a look. …..Oh, oh, hang on a minute, weren’t you the guy complaining about others getting their science from a blog?

    Your #3523 “….. Use anti-environemtnal[sic] blogs for much of your source information…Try and avoid reading the primary literature as much as you can”

    The first ‘evidence’ link you posted was to “http://takvera.blogspot.com” a self styled “Climate Citizen” blog writing on “Climate Change, …biodiversity loss…and Climate protests from a Melbournse Citizen” – looks more like an activist blog than primary science to me. I’d call that a convenient case of hypocrisy jeff.

    The others? As Olaus pointed the other ‘primary’ sources were a Nature “opinion piece” and a link to an “Impacts Review” by Camille Parmesan – Scatter Gun advocacy(?) as is the vague reference to 5,000 ‘other’ studies. You are a serial offender at this jeff.

    The frog link, Alan Pounds, you’re right he’s very much the cheerleader when it comes to linking climate change to herpetile extinctions. His ‘Golden toad’ Climate Change hypothesis looks pretty much dead and buried.

    [Tropical cloud forest climate variability and the demise of the Monteverde golden toad](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/25/0908572107.abstract)

    From the abstract,
    “There is no evidence of a trend associated with global warming. Rather, the extinction of the Monteverde golden toad (Bufo periglenes) appears to have coincided with an exceptionally dry interval caused by the 1986–1987 El Niño event.”

    Attempts to directly link frog extinctions to Climate Change are tenuous at best. Pathogens (certainly), land use changes/intrusions, ENSO and pollution or combinations thereof, are probably better, more compelling, candidates

    Other disappointing (for you) frog papers;

    [Decreased winter severity increases viability of a montane frog population](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/21/0912945107.short)

    [Effects of temperature and hydric environment on survival of the Panamanian Golden Frog infected with a pathogenic chytrid fungus](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00197.x/abstract)

    [Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and the collapse of anuran species richness and abundance in the Upper Manu National Park](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01604.x/abstract)

    I’m not sure which is the more distressing, your irrational presumption that Co2/Climate Change is the root cause of everything, your lack of critical reasoning in all things, or the level of ignorance you repeatedly demonstrate in what is supposedly your own field.

  90. #91 GSW
    April 19, 2012

    @chek,

    You “legless” today then chek?

    ;)

    “Typical lying lie from GSW the liar in an attempt at deflection”

    Perfectly happy for you to try and re-interpret Gingerbread’s words on the April thread in a positive light. Interested to see what you come up with.

    ;)

  91. #92 MikeH
    April 19, 2012

    @Jonas
    You may wish to check with Olaus first. He was certainly unwilling to retract his claim in Feb doubling down at every opportunity.

    While we are on the subject of lying, I see GS Weasel has turned up. Remember this claim GS.

    …Kari Norgaard’s “sceptics are diseased” and requiring some form of medical treatment

    We established in the April thread that that was a lie. Still waiting for the weasel to retract.

  92. #93 Jonas N
    April 19, 2012

    GSW #3541

    Oh, I’m certain he is still rooting for the ‘home team’ just as much as before … but the chanting and cheering is easier (and louder) when your team seems to have the upper hand, is playing a good game and has a chance at winning the match.

    Just look at what issues the cheering crowd has been pushing in the threads recently (and I mean months).

  93. #94 GSW
    April 19, 2012

    @MikeH,

    If I remember rightly mike, the statement is very much in keeping with the press release that was made by her university. As we discussed, UO subsequently tried to pass it off as a “play on words”, perhaps you would like to explain the joke to the rest of us?

  94. #95 chek
    April 19, 2012

    Perfectly happy for you to try and re-interpret

    You should try putting more effort into comprehension of what was written instead of ‘interpreting’ it.

  95. #96 Jonas N
    April 19, 2012

    chek

    >You should try putting more effort into comprehension of what was written instead of ‘interpreting’ it

    I think this suggestion is **very** appropriate for quite many here, and I think you are one of them

  96. #97 GSW
    April 19, 2012

    @jeff,

    Just arrived thru moderation, [response](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6259658).

  97. #98 Jeff Harvey
    April 19, 2012

    GSW, For every article you link, I could link a dozen mor.

    For example:

    Global stressors and the global decline of amphibians: tipping the stress immunocompetency axis
    Author(s): Kiesecker, JM (Kiesecker, Joseph M.)
    Source: ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH Volume: 26 Issue: 5 Special Issue: SI Pages: 897-908 DOI: 10.1007/s11284-010-0702-6 Published: SEP 2011
    Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
    Cited References: 93 [ view related records ] Citation Map
    Abstract: There is a widespread consensus that the earth is experiencing a mass extinction event and at the forefront are amphibians, the most threatened of all vertebrate taxa. A recent assessment found that nearly one-third (32%, 1,856 species) of the world’s amphibian species are threatened. Amphibians have existed on the earth for over 300 million years, yet in just the last two decades there have been an alarming number of extinctions, nearly 168 species are believed to have gone extinct and at least 2,469 (43%) more have populations that are declining. Infectious diseases have been recognized as one major cause of worldwide amphibian population declines. This could be the result of the appearance of novel pathogens, or it could be that exposure to environmental stressors is increasing the susceptibility of amphibians to opportunistic pathogens. Here I review the potential effects of stressors on disease susceptibility in amphibians and relate this to disease emergence in human and other wildlife populations. I will present a series of case studies that illustrate the role of stress in disease outbreaks that have resulted in amphibian declines. First, I will examine how elevated sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific since the mid-1970s have affected climate over much of the world and could be setting the stage for pathogen-mediated amphibian declines in many regions. Finally, I will discuss how the apparently rapid increase in the prevalence of amphibian limb deformities is linked to the synergistic effects of trematode infection and exposure to chemical contaminants.

    Regional Decline of an Iconic Amphibian Associated with Elevation, Land-Use Change, and Invasive Species
    Author(s): Johnson, PTJ (Johnson, Pieter T. J.)1; McKenzie, VJ (McKenzie, Valerie J.)1; Peterson, AC (Peterson, Anna C.)1; Kerby, JL (Kerby, Jacob L.)2; Brown, J (Brown, Jennifer)2; Blaustein, AR (Blaustein, Andrew R.)3; Jackson, T (Jackson, Tina)4
    Source: CONSERVATION BIOLOGY Volume: 25 Issue: 3 Pages: 556-566 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01645.x Published: JUN 2011
    Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
    Cited References: 59 [ view related records ] Citation Map
    Abstract: Ecological theory predicts that species with restricted geographic ranges will have the highest probability of extinction, but species with extensive distributions and high population densities can also exhibit widespread population losses. In the western United States populations of northern leopard frogs (Lithobates pipiens)-historically one of the most widespread frogs in North America-have declined dramatically in abundance and geographic distribution. To assess the status of leopard frogs in Colorado and evaluate causes of decline, we coupled statewide surveys of 196 historically occupied sites with intensive sampling of 274 wetlands stratified by land use. We used an information-theoretic approach to evaluate the contributions of factors at multiple spatial extents in explaining the contemporary distribution of leopard frogs. Our results indicate leopard frogs have declined in Colorado, but this decline was regionally variable. The lowest proportion of occupied wetlands occurred in eastern Colorado (2-28%), coincident with urban development and colonization by non-native bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus). Variables at several spatial extents explained observed leopard frog distributional patterns. In low-elevation wetlands introduced fishes, bullfrogs, and urbanization or suburbanization associated negatively with leopard frog occurrence, whereas wetland area was positively associated with occurrence. Leopard frogs were more abundant and widespread west of the Continental Divide, where urban development and bullfrog abundance were low. Although the pathogenic chytrid Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) was not selected in our best-supported models, the nearly complete extirpation of leopard frogs from montane wetlands could reflect the individual or interactive effects of Bd and climate patterns. Our results highlight the importance of considering multiple, competing hypotheses to explain species declines, particularly when implicated factors operate at different spatial extents.

    (0) Save to: more options

    A general assessment of the conservation status and decline trends of Mexican amphibians
    Author(s): Frias-Alvarez, P (Frias-Alvarez, Patricia)2; Zuniga-Vega, JJ (Jaime Zuniga-Vega, J.)1; Flores-Villela, O (Flores-Villela, Oscar)3
    Source: BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION Volume: 19 Issue: 13 Pages: 3699-3742 DOI: 10.1007/s10531-010-9923-9 Published: DEC 2010
    Times Cited: 2 (from Web of Science)
    Cited References: 97 [ view related records ] Citation Map
    Abstract: We present a review on the conservation status and population trends of the 372 amphibian species currently recognized for Mexico. We based our analyses on the information gathered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature-the Global Amphibian Assessment (IUCN-GAA) as well as on available literature about imminent or potential threats to these organisms in Mexico. This country has the fifth largest amphibian fauna in the world and almost 58% of the species that inhabit this country are considered as threatened. We highlight the proportion of species per order, family, and genus that are currently under severe risk in Mexico. In addition, we prepared a detailed list of the main factors that are threatening amphibians in this country. Evidence is provided that the six main mechanisms that are globally leading amphibians to extinction (alien species, over-exploitation, land use change, global changes, pollution, and infectious diseases) are indeed currently operating in Mexico. We discuss the relative importance of each of these causes. We also highlight the paucity of quantitative studies that support the current conservation status of Mexican amphibian species.

    As I said, you brainless twerp, many environmental stressors act in synergy in affecting amphibian demographics. Cliumate change is MOST CERTAINLY in the mix. But who am I supposed to believe? You or some of the world’s leading experts on amphibians? Fact is, in an intellectual debate on population and evolutionary ecology you don’t reach up to my kneecaps, sweetheart. Nice try, though. By the way, in case you were wondering, I was just putting the finishing touches to a manuscript I will be submitting to Animal Behaviour. Next week I will submit three more, to Journal of Animal Ecology, Phytochemistry and Journal of Evolutionary Biology. When can we expect your first publication to be submitted, Mr. Know-nothing?

  98. #99 Jeff Harvey
    April 19, 2012

    Final point GSW: as you lick your wounds, see if you can log into the Web of Science and actually read some of the meta-analytical studies and reviews which have assessed the effects of climate warming on biodiversity via effects on network interaction webs, trophic interactions and epidemiology. Better still, read the primary literature.

    But don’t waste my time with your grade-school level dismissal of reviews by Post, Parmesan, and others, as well as dozens of studies reporting climate-change mediated effects on species interactions and their possible consequences for system stability and resilience. I am a busy scientist, not a time-wasting wannabe who thinks he knows more than he clearly does (where have we seen that before?).

    Lastly, it was you who said frogs were ‘doing fine’. As the first study shows, a large proportion of species are doing anything but fine. Then you switch the goalposts and claim they actually aren’t doing well, but that AGW wasn’t a factor. Sure, some species are recovering, but a much larger proportion are not.

    If you are Jonas’s main ‘intellectual’ ally on Deltoid, heaven help the poor sod.

  99. #100 chek
    April 19, 2012

    Jeff, you’re failing to appreciate the degree to which blog-science means that unimpressive idiots such as Jonas and GSW here can consider themselves experts (or as good as) on any given subject within minutes.

    While to most that only serves to compound their complacent idiocy tenfold, they fully believe it – and believe in it, too.

Current ye@r *