By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
GSW (and Jeff)
Yes it is strange. The many claims from Jeff are truly amazing. Personally I have never heard anybody being against ‘environment’.
Nevertheless, a search in this thread gives 22 instances of ‘anti-environment’, every single one of them by one Jeff Harvey, who says he knows a lot about anti-environmental lobby/organizations/types .. Even lectures about them.
Amazing! A character like Jeff, thinks he can point at others (almost without ever heeding what they are actually say or argue) and claiming that they are ‘anti environment’ ..
How does one do that?
I mean, you can somewhat sweepingly characterize left leaning individuals (and organisations) to oppose corporate power and profits, to favor taxes, collective solutions, regulations, and various handouts for charitable (and other) purposes. You can even broadly paint them as preferring that others deliver the resources they think they are entitled to use or decide over. And often also to accomplish the things that they so cleverly have planned and devised. While accepting to be pointed at as greedy parasites because the actually work and deliver valuable goods to produce values greater than the costs (which includes all those who rather receive their taxed dollars)
And you could argue that this is somewhat of a stereotype (which it is) and how descriptive it might be for any one individual leftie ..
But labeling others as ‘anti environment’ just makes no sense. It’s worse than labeling some as anti-humanity .. (which can argued for some more extreme cases)
Hey, how’s about we play a little game?
People are invited to guess the temperature anomaly of the UAH-MSU-LT data series over the coming 12 months. Smallest variance (sum of monthly actual-minus-expected) is the lucky winner. (As most will know, it’s the University of Alabama at Huntsville satellite data: http://www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html
My forecast is: Zero point zero degrees every time.
Yes, Brent. The idea of the temperature record being publicly updated due to improved data must be a real blow to your faith. It must be horrifying that not they have done this transparently, but they have published a paper justifying the reasons.
Of course, it can’t be that science improves, can it? It can’t be that as knowledge is gained, the facts change? But that’s not how science works, is it Brent? You know science works by publishing half-arsed “conjecture” you don’t really believe on your blog based on your pre-conceived ideology and denying all other evidence because it doesn’t suit your faith.
It must be shocking to you that the science is only improving, despite the obvious fra*d which is so obvious there is no need for you to have a consistent, coherent theory on what is happening to the climate.
Of course, this is the exact way conspiracy theorists behave. Instead of changing their minds in accordance with the mounting evidence, they becoming increasingly isolated and paranoid, often developing ridiculous fringe theories of their own and ignoring any evidence that they might be wrong because they know, deep in their hearts, it’s all fra*d.
Of course, Realclimate called it before the data was even released:
>Since the âno warming since 1998/1995/2002â³ mantra is so seductive to people who like to focus on noise rather than signal, the minor adjustments in the last decade will attract the most criticism. Since these fixes really just bring the CRU product into line with everyone else, including the reanalyses, and are completely unsurprising, we can expect many accusations of groupthink, deliberate fraud and âmanipulationâ. Because, why else would scientists agree with each other?
It must be frustrating for you that the “rotten edifice” you claimed was about to “collapse” two years ago is only strengthening. I understand that this frustration is causing you to lash out and tightly clutch onto your ideology, at the expense of rational thinking and logic.
In other words, cheer up you miserable old sod
[Jonarse @ #3653 says:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6266465)
chek, you too sound very angry and very frustrated very often .. and your comments are very often very very stupid .. and very devoid of substance .. I very much wonder what you think you are doing or what you think you may accomplish.
Projection much, Jonarse? It can only be so, with every word a self-description of you yourself.
What I’m doing, Jonarse, as ever, is calling out a vainglorious little man – that is you – and your vainglorious claims.
Any ‘anger’ entering the situation can only be from you at being called out. What you may have detected from me is scorn – a very different thing – at your usual avoidance of providing any evidence for your ludicrous claims over the past six months.
Although there is probably also an element of disdain for your playing to your imported gallery of half-wits who even now as a most recent example, are likely under the very mistaken impression that you actually have refuted Hansen. By exclamation marks!
How can I put this? Ah yes, of course – I very much wonder what you think you are doing or what you think you may accomplish.
*But labeling others as ‘anti environment’ just makes no sense*
This shows how much you have to learn, Jonas. If you knew one thing – just one – about the WISE USE movement in the United States, as well as other groups advocating complete privatization of public lands and unlimited development of these lands for profit, then you’d understand just where the term was coming from. But like your other friends you you are so wrapped up in your libertarian ideology that it escapes you. What I have learned from months of to-ing an fro-ing on Deltoid is how utterly native you and your buddies are. It staggers the imagination that you’ve never a thing about well organized groups like WISE USE and similar minded bodies that have worked very hard to eviscerate laws protecting wild places.
As for GSW claiming that he made his mind up on the facts presented here, well we all know thats bullshit. He made his mind up a long time before based on his own perceptions and you just fed into them. And for the record, I was invited onto that radio program because I do have a deep-rooted knowledge of public policy and advocacy-based organizations in the United States and elsewhere. I have presented lectures at universities like Princeton and Stanford in the U.S. and all over Europe on the subject. Just because you are pig-ignorant in the field does not make it fiction. This is your problem, Jonas. In areas where you are utterly naive, you slither your way out of this by claiming its all bunk. Olaus does it too, as do your other scattering of supporters. Again, ignorance is bliss. The real remarkable achievement for you suckers is why I have debased myself and lowered myself to the primordial ooze to engage in any kind of discussion with the likes of you chest-pounders. Its a question a lot have asked me. They think like Fran Barlow, that I have wasted my valuable time. As a scientist I mean. And they are right. Here I go, waving my CV again, but I do have one. You and the others here don’t. I gave you the chance to cough out your luminous qualifications and you muffed it. Well, you told the truth by your silence. It meant that you are hiding behind your career, whatever that it, which is clearly as far removed from science as can be. Or perhaps you are unemployed and get off in the day telling the world how clever you are on a few blogs. But as I said, this does not wash. If you want to make a name for yourself and not remain an anonymous minion, then you have to throw your ideas into the lion’s den. You won’t do that because you know they will be chewed up and spat out.
I tried the polite angle here to you and you had to remain the bottom-feeder that you are by throwing in personal sleights and innuendoes. As I said, I have the ability to elevate myself out of this quagmire called the Jonas thread and get back into the laboratory and university environments. You and the others here don’t. This is where you will stay. The next time I am invited for a public presentation I will mention you, and your insidiously stupid ideas and bloated ego. Be happy – you need all the attention you can get. Same for Olaus, GSW and Brent. Innocuous people all, bitter and confined to their own boxes.
“As for GSW claiming that he made his mind up on the facts presented here, well we all know thats bullshit.”
This is good example of what you are being accused of jeff. The point being made was that jonas presents an argument, you do not. I have never claimed, as in your words “he made his mind up on the facts presented here” – that is all you – in the real world it never happened.
You’re like a Father Dougal on crack, Dreams vs Reality.
John @ 3657: Thanks for the link to the AGU website.
If there are solid reasons for reducing recorded temperatures in the early 20th century (I see between half a degree an one degree) then I shall withdraw any claim of ‘fiddling’. It is possible that a like-for-like comparison, or a then-and-now one, requires error-correction. We should all want the truth.
But I can’t see this point addressed in your link. My question is: as best you can tell, do these adjustments sanitise or corrupt the data?
You’re delusional, GSW.
Jonarse has never presented any arguments.
He makes lots of statements and declarations – which you of course agree with, otherwise what was the point of importing you and your sorry little yes-man arse – but he’s not made an argument, let alone a valid argument yet.
Yes, I figured that much, that you call people or groups who you don’t agree with all kinds of names. Notably when they don’t agree with your ideology, your lack of knowledge and understanding and other naive beliefs ..
You have been doing that since day one. Name calling! Instead of arguing your case or just finding out what the other side says, you resort to labeling and name calling. And you seem to support your beliefs, your ‘justification’ for those labels by just making things up. Out of thing air! Quite often glaringly counter factual!
What you have learnt here? Probably nothing. And even if you had picked up some tiny bits of knowledge, those will totally drown among your vast amounts of ‘just made up’ nonsense stuff without knowing which is which.
Because you don’t learn. You feel! You hope and desperately want things, and you fill in whatever you need by just inventing things. You are not curious and don’t have an inquiring mind, you don’t investigate what you study. Wrt to real science, you lack a method of finding out, navigating, or just appreciating quantitative statements and comparisons. I’d say that you lack the ability to compare the relevant and different alternatives and options.
Instead you use ‘name calling’ as a method to decide on issues. If you don’t like someone/thing you call it ‘anti environment’ (for instance), which of course sounds(!) bad, and since you’re opposing it, your position (beliefs) then must be ‘good’ or ‘pro environment’.
I have rarely seen you even try anything above that level, Jeff, when you tried to go up against me on any issue:
When I point out some particular nuttiness in a Hansen talk, you counter with ‘esteemed, well respected scientist’ (labeling Hansen) and of course name calling and labeling (at me and others. Of course completely avoiding whatever is said.
That’s what you are about Jeff. And you’ve spent eight months here confirming it over and over again.
And it’s good of you to promise to mention me in your presentations. When you told me about your talks about ‘anti environmental lobby’ etc, I kind of envisioned you spouting all kinds of made up nonsense and things existing only in your own mind. Now you’ve even confirmed that this is what you do:
There is hardly anything you’ve said about me that you got right. Exactly because your method is labeling, name calling and inventing facts. And not finding out.
‘Facts’ you already ‘knew’, you’ve simply created inside your head, and even if all (real) facts point in the other direction, you simply revert them. Someone who knows far more than you, and can argue it becomes a bottom feeding pig … Yeah right!
And the most funny thin, Jeff, is that you really seem to believe all the stuff you invent.
And typically for so many lefties, they start to whine, cry ‘foul’ and feel sorry for themselves, whenever one responds to them on their own level or just doesn’t let them have the whole scene for themselves ..
In one way, I do feel sorry for you. But on the other hand only you are responsible for your predicament ..
Some “sceptic” you are Brent. I shouldn’t have to point you to the source data. And you didn’t just accuse them of “fiddling”. You accused them outright of “fra*d”. That’s a pretty big claim from someone who hasn’t even bothered to check why the data has been adjusted.
John, Brent doesn’t have to check – he knows there’s no global warming. After all he has a picture of himself with an absolutely enormous pile of snow, presumably in Little Buttbrain or wherever it is he lives.
I’m rather surprised he doesn’t include Deltoid on his blogroll though, considering the amount of time he spends here.
Jonas, let’s get something straight. You are bloody hypocrite. You denounce the term anti-environmentalism because you don’t have a clue about it, but support nonsense about ‘despotic governments, anti-human, anti-development tree huggers’ and other such piffle. And to cover up your pea-brained ignorance your only recourse is to belittle the term; to claim that it is ‘invented’. Then you have to dig out the ‘lefty’ canard. And you and your worshippers here believe this is how one wins debates. Bullshit left, bullshit right. Hup, two, three, four. And when confronted with new information, belittle it, ridicule it, and especially smear the informant. Its clear you don’t understand basic environmental science. GSW is even worse. Spews out a lot of simple linear nonsense that I knew was incorrect in high school. Has no idea of the concept of symergized multiple effects. When confronted with this, what do he and you do? Silence. Silence and smears. More silence. And more smears.
If you took your swollen head out of your butt, you’d see that there are hundreds of groups, many funded by industry, who are aggressively working to eviascerate federal and state regulations protecting wild nature in the United States (and elsewhere, for that matter). For example, the now defunct ‘National Wetlands Coalition’, which had the symbol of a duck flying over a reed bed as its logo, was actually set up by a consulting firm that lobbyed the federal government with the explicit aim of removing wetlands in the United States from federal protection status. They were funded by developers and builders who coveted the land on which the wetlands were found for development. A clear example of ‘anti-environmentalism’. There are thousands of other examples, although why I am telling you this is anybody’s guess. You don’t know much about anything, and certainly are unwilling to take you head from its comfortable place in your anal orifice.
Sharon Beder has studied the phenomenon of A-I for years, as have many other writers and pundits.
As I said before, I have really had to lower myself into the anoxic promordial ooze to have ever decided to engage with a complete and utter moron like you. Whatever you may say, the Dunning-Kruger study was written especially for people like you who think they are intellectual heavyweights in fields well outside of their competence. You actually think you know more about climate science than James Hansen, or at least you intimate this. Un-be-lieve-able. But when it comes to crawling out from under your rock to show the world what a genius you are, you chicken out, big time. You are afraid! Hilarious. You hide behind a pseudonym, like GSW and Olaus (at least Brent does not mind exposing his identity in spite of his wilful ignorance) and spew out cancerous little cells of information on a few weblogs about the ‘World According to Jonas’ but you are too spineless to take this to a broader arena. What a coward you are.
IMHO you are a sad, pathetic little loser stuck in your little innocuous corner of the world. You and your equally sad band of losers are welcome to it. I have encountered schmucks like you all for the past 20 years. Thanks to you, however, I certainly have added to my armory of information on the broader phenomenon of anti-environmentalism. For that I can thank you. My talks get more comprehensive every year.
‘Cabbageology’ was the buttbrains’ recent dismissive term for the life sciences.
Unsurprising really if depressing, considering how many contemporary secondary British schoolkids literally have no knowledge of even basic connections between say, cattle and milk or indeed any dairy products, or fields, crops, bread or other food products.
Jonarse, of course, offered no correction as it suited his agenda.
And once more you fail on so many counts Jeff, that me pointing out all inconsistencies would make that list three times the length of your comment.
I repeat once more what my point is and was:
**You use name calling, various attempts at labeling as substitutes for arguments and addressing what is actually on the table! **
And thatâs what politicians do, and activists and religious fanatics: Using emotive terms and shallow lofty positive, or derisive negative descriptions, aimed mainly at those swayable by appeals to their emotions. To facilitate for the non-thinkers, the gullible and the easily manipulated, the sheeple and lemmings etc, to chose between (what the sender depicts as) âthe good and righteous sideâ and opposing side which accordingly is against all whatâs good an righteous. (And it is also used to reinforce such feelings within the own tribe, and among them to demonize those on the outside)
You do it all the time. And you also invent your own âfactsâ to reinforce that shallow good vs evil narrative, since both your labeling, name calling and âargumentsâ are so weak that you need to cheat. And politicians, activists, fanatics of course also do that. For the same reasons: To better their âstoryâ and because the desperately want it to be so ..
I followed one of you links, and it confirmed exactly the above:
One self described movement ( the âenvironmentalistsâ) hoping to influence legislation, labeled those not agreeing or having other ideas or opposing them as âanti environmentistâ. But the dichotomy:
Environmentalist â Anti Environmentist
carries absolutely no information about anything whether some particular policy, regulation or practice on balance is better or worse for âthe environmentâ. It is only one tribeâs choice of labeling the âUsâ against âThemâ. Just as little as when a nation, or a political party, has the term âpeopleâs â in its name, that it also is beneficial for âthe peopleâ. No Jeff, the labeling as an âargumentâ is kiddie stuff … And mind you, you were labeling much more than professional lobby groups as âanti environmentâ. As usual, shoot of your arsenal of invectives and labels randomly and at almost everything you donât like and require that people answer for others, or just for claims you make about others.
As long as labeling and name calling are the pillars of your argument, you will neither impress nor convince anybody .. So by all means, go on!
I particularly liked these passages:
> You don’t know much about anything, and certainly are unwilling to take you head from its comfortable place in your anal orifice
> As I said before, I have really had to lower myself into the anoxic promordial ooze to have ever decided to engage with a complete and utter moron like you. Whatever you may say, the Dunning-Kruger study was written especially for people like you who think they are intellectual heavyweights in fields well outside of their competence. You actually think you know more about climate science than James Hansen, or at least you intimate this. Un-be-lieve-able.
Every single piece of information therein is dead wrong. So why do you make such stupid claims Jeff? Do you even know? And are you seriously saying that your âcomprehensive talksâ are filled all that total nonsens and crap you desperately try to conjure up here? Jeffs fantasies in la-la-land?
BTW, does that last part indicate that you are back to believing Hansenâs nonsense prophecies about sea level rise? Because you really would like to?
That was actually quite deep and insightful jonas.
That was actually quite deep and insightful jonas.
Hilarious! What are you, ten years old GSW?
Five hundred plus words of twee, obvious cant and full-on hypocrisy to say ‘I disagree’, topped off with an argument from incredulity dressed up to appear as an argument from authority.
Perhaps you have to be there and see the pyschotic stare, the spit flecking and hear the shrieking to get the proper effect, but whatever you think Jonarse is doing, it’s not working for me by text.
chek .. I take it that you too believe that climate armagedon is near. Because Hansen says so … and because Jeff says Hansen is a fine fellow .. and Mann too ..
You’ll find that it’s sceptics deniers and their corporately funded command centres who truly believe it’s all about [personalities.](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2012/5/4/1336125117472/Leo-blog–The-Heartland-I-007.jpg)
Have you seen my post @ 3644? With all the posting recently you might have missed it.
I would like to hear your response to my questions regarding consensus in science. Thanks.
Paul H, Yes, and I did answer it. Strangely enough, my answer is nowhere to be seen (sometimes things disappear here, and posting them occasionally fails for other reasons). Sorry
The short answer is Yes! You may very well describe a hypothesis, or rather a theory as ‘accepted consensus’. I would have picked different examples (but those were hardly the point, right?)
Common for such ‘accepted theories’ is that they make observable (and falsifiable) claims which have been tested, confirmed, repeated successfully etc many times, and also withstood serious attempts to falsify them. In short they work well and consistently.
When it comes to ‘quantifying’, things get a bit more complicated. But generally yes, a good scientific theory that makes quantified statements about its outcome may be elevated to a ‘scientific law’ under the same premises as above: Consistently successful! And there are even situations when those quantifications and outcome are (and must be) expressed in statistical terms. However, then many many more observations will be required, and also much more additional supporting work. (And I’d say that those cases are much fewer, and are mostly found for very well controlled and clearly defined bounded situations).
Wrt to ‘quantifying’, let me give you an example:
The statement ‘habitual smoking notably increases the risk of attracting lung cancer’ I’d say reflects a ‘scientific consensus’ whereas the statement ‘habitual smoking will cause lung cancer in 16%’ has nothing to do with science (it doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis)
I hope this answers your question, and would think this is not very controversial in relation to proper science, as you said moving away from climate change..
But you still have to somehow connect it back to those IPCC ‘consensus’ statements. Because when you moved away, you again wove in all kinds of things that are the heart of the crux of the matter:
>”**can be agreed** upon by a **sufficiently large** … **portion** of scientists **working on** … a **specific area** of research, and where **sufficient expertise** exists that **a level** .. of **certainty** may be **formulated** and **applied to** said statement”
All these phrases are material to people’s opinions, beliefs, convictions and personal certainties, bur are peripheral to the actual science part. Particularly, the phrase ‘sufficient expertise’ struck me as odd? Because that ‘sufficient’ needs to be established against some other and outside test or standard. And this is where it needs to be proper and real science, as I described it above.
And yes you are right, I am saying that “we shouldn’t dress claims up as scientific if there is no scientific backing to the claims”, and I’d add that ‘expert opinions’ however heartfelt do not qualify as ‘scientific backing’ …
>>”Judging from your questions and comments, the answer is No. I just want to ask and have it confirmed for the record.”
>I’ve done my best to avoid making any sort of (pre)judgments about your opinions and views. In the interest of civil discussion, can you please avoid doing that? Thanks.
Yes, I judged it that way, and to be sure I asked specifically and detailed my queries. My judgment was based on this statment:
>at certain points in the thread you seem to be surprised that such an important statement is essentially the synthesis of expert opinion
And I still maintain that expert opinion does not qualify as scientific support, possibly as scientists’ opinions.
BTW Your are correct in observing that I also wrote and gave examples didn’t explicitly asked for.
Strangely enough, my answer is nowhere to be seen (sometimes things disappear here, and posting them occasionally fails for other reasons).
Oh not this tripe again. Jonas, you’re not being censored. Just because you barely know how to post a comment does not make you the persecuted hero you desperately wish you were.
Jeff seems to have reverted back into his more âcomfortableâ name-calling, insult-spouting and fact-inventing mode. Where he wants people to be banned for answering his insults while not paying him the due respect (and recognition, even admiration) he requires based only on his words. He obviously is much more comfortable with that than restraining himself to behaving in civil manner, arguing his actual case or stance, and actually having to read (let alone deal with) what others actually do say.
In the open thread he does exactly what I described above: The labeling âanti environmentalistâ is used by the self described âenvironmentalistsâ for those whom they oppose, dislike and even may oppose them. But Jeff even takes is one step further:
> those who deny a range of human effects on the biosphere .. many of them are part of a broader anti-environment movement (.. well studied over the past 20 years and on which I often present public and university lectures)
As always, anyone using the term â**deny** [this and that]â about what their opposition allegedly does, should be treated with suspicion and extreme caution. Most of the time such allegations are extremely exaggerated, if not outright lies. But Jeffâs weasel-word here is the introduction of âbroaderâ with which he wants to include far more in that emotional antipathy of his (which he cannot control any longer) than only the organized groups who arise on the (or any) scene of politics.
As so often, the lefties want to have all of that for themselves, and cry foul when others too do exactly what they do (just look at Jeffâs immense output of juvenile insults, nonsense, and what happens if they are replied to at his level). Jeff thinks they should be banned, silenced or even âswatted outâ â¦
But here Jeff is eager to include a far âbroaderâ array into the more formally organized players on the political field. In his views anybody who doesnât share the stance (both views, political implications and remedies) may be included in his âbroader anti-environment **movement**â if they argue against the leftie activists, particularly if they do so publicly, argue why and propose other solutions, and of course point out flaws and problems with the activistâs or left position.
Well, name-calling is part of the political discourse, and it is mostly both tiresome and stupid. And lying is (one more deplorable) part of furthering a political agenda. And many activist groups, particularly those which get a free pass from the press, practice the same methods.
Jeff tries it all the time,
> those who **deny** a range of **human effects on the biosphere**
>he appeared to argue that **without 100% proof, nothing should be done** to deal with acid rain and other anthropogenic environmental problems
> You and your equally daft deniers use the strategy or arguing that, without 100% proof of a process, then the problem **does not exist**
> you have a one-dimensional view of the field and **expect absolute answers**
In an activist campaign handbook those things may be âtrueâ, or at least believed by some activists, or described as âuseful catch-phrasesâ in the campaign, but in the real world it is just dishonest rhetoric and essentially devoid of any substance for any grown up debate (well, it is self evident that Jeff is not about grown up debate, still he rants an demands we should take him seriously, I wonder why?)
But he was caught out in another lie, where he claimed to have âexperienced climate change first handâ (*). He argued that this was just rhetoric, aimed at âcolleaguesâ for the NIOO not to be taken litterally. Note that this came after first having tried to deflect the questions with loads of insults. But it gets even more funny. Finally admitting that his (NIOO-) article was more of his (usual) hand waving, he tried to answer after all, but now by reporting what he **didnât** see:
> I saw little evidence of snowshoe hares which should have been abundant in the park. Lynx are virtually gone
This is like Charles Monnet making a polar bear global warming threat out of **remembering not having seen drowned polar bears** after a storm some 20 years earlier. And publishing it. And getting Al Gore to pick it up. To scare all the children! Well, at least Jeff didnât claim that his âno Lynx seenâ is science. At least I hope â¦
(*) BTW, note that the (ever occurring, fairly uncontroversial) climate change is addressed. As always, Jeff forgets that climate change is the natural state, and only the possible A-signal in GW is anthorpogenic. And that it is only the latter one where (even theoretically) could be **done something about** which is what he is arguing. And of course he never even gets close to **what** could be done, at what costs, and what other negative consequences this might have. Ie questions relevant for policies, regulations and laws. Jeff just does not want anybody else to be heard.
Yes, I think jeffs statement was a lie.
âexperienced climate change first handâ
When it boils down to it, his evidence was only he didn’t see a hare, that should have been there, but only just and only maybe.
“These are species at the southern edges of their ranges”
Bit of a leap to conclude that he’d âexperienced climate change first handâ from this I would have thought, a bit over dramatic.
Keep up the good work Jonas!
Normally I would give somebody a pass about their exact wording and phrasing in an interview. And from activists (ie not scientists) I would expect overloaded dramatic emotive language without that much substance. But I also would expect writer/journalist to pick up the juicier bits and twist and combine those for ‘effect’ .. I would even extend Jeff some slack about that. Meaning that I am not particularly upset about him thinking he has ‘observed climate change’ when the weather (on average) is not like it was 40 years ago
I was a little bit more disturbed by him trying to insult his way out of the question. Those attempts were definitely not that truthful (‘your too stupid, you wouldn’t understand anyway’). And that he can determine that climate change is what makes Lynx sightings less common, I have a hard time accepting too.
If indeed Jeff had made that trip some 30 years or so before, he could possibly have observed the some change referring to his pictured memory. But of course, we know how much this fellow is about seeing what he wants to see, ignoring every thing else, and even inventing all kinds of things filling in what he needs but misses .. I certainly wouldn’t trust his recollections.
Possibly what he thought he saw was ‘the climate’ it self. That particularly warm winter. But it is all quite weird as an argument, don’t you think?
I followed the arguments by ‘adelady’ too, and had had the impression that she(?) was less asinine than the others. But here ‘physics’ argument, and what goes on and comes out of a restaurant kitchen did not impress me at all.
And I wonder if ‘brent’ has been banned? The regulars demand these things all the time. And in some twisted way I can understand their needs ..
Yes Brent has been banned. Don’t know if you saw it, but his last act was to make a list of the Good Guys and then the Bad Guys.
We made it to the Good Guys list! You can probably work out who the bad guys were.
“But of course, we know how much this fellow is about seeing what he wants to see, ignoring every thing else, and even inventing all kinds of things filling in what he needs but misses ..”
Agree with totally, I picked out this laughable statement from the open thread,
“I’d also like to point out that if I were to be doing research in these zones I would find a lot of evidence to support what I say, so its no use burying your head in the sand and saying that as long as nobody studies it all is OK.”
Where do you start with that, no preconceptions there, so much to criticize in that one statement, so little time. He really doesn’t get it does he?
(Note to self: double check that they do irony in Sweden or la-la denierland).
In which Jonarse, in true right wing revisionist fashion, attempts to salami slice selected statements from Doctors Monnet and Harvey … via random comments picked up from … blogs! … using a baseball bat, in an attempt to prove AGW carries no consequences in the real world.
The global urban ignorant, whose only recognised contact with the natural world may be via an annual game of corporately sponsored paintball in some depleted, scrubby, edge of town woodland, can apparently convince themselves such is the case quite easily.
Then throw in that most inane and meaningless of throwaway comments “that climate change is the natural state” knowing that his contingent defuckwits will only interpret that in the one desired way, while offering zilch reference that it accounts for the current state of the globe.
And then Griselda rushes in – having some protean sensing of the train wreck that’s just happened, with a quick, dirty and insincere ‘Good work Jonarse. Nothing to see here folks, move along’.
Almost quality entertainment in the circularity of its self-serving vanity and pointlessness, if you’ve got the time to waste.
Yes, I saw that list (and possibly it was what put Tim L over the top)
I had a response prepared for Brent, because I don’t think Richard Simmons qualifies for the ‘bad guy’ list, even if he possibly disagrees on many issues ..
Before I had a chance to post it (under that thread, where it most likely would have been deleted) Brent’s comment was gone. And some of the usual suspect had chirped in ..
Wrt Jeff. He actually tried, for some three comments or so, to behave (almost) like a civil grown up. I wonder what that was about? It is so totally against his nature. And probably the experience was ‘unbearable’ so he abandoned the ‘experiment’ prematurely, possibly because the outcome didn’t look like what he wanted …
“But here ‘physics’ argument, and what goes on and comes out of a restaurant kitchen did not impress me at all.”
No, me neither. She seemed to think a Physicist would be perfectly capable of explaining what went wrong with ‘unexpected’ results from a kitchen. Perhaps doing old Albert down, but I don’t remember him being that highly sought after for his culinary skills.
chek … your logic is at least, or at least almost as impeccable as Jeffie’s ..
.. and the same goes for your comments stylistic qualities .. as is your civility.
But that you look up to the Jeffie style version of science, debate and behavior was picked up by others, long before me.
I would say that you get it right about as often as him too .. Good job, chek!
That you think that the ill considered verbal spewings of you and those like you demand anything more than the most contemptuous and cursory of replies is an indication of your collective vanity and nothing more, Jonarse.
That you somehow seem to imagine that blog debates with uneducated denialists equals anything substantive only demonstrates the depth of your ignorance and your lack of awareness.
Don’t try to equate whatever you think you’re doing with the scientific process. Your native intelligence and that of those random idiots you choose ally with isn’t even anywhere near the ball park, let alone in it.
this just in by Jeff .. from his protected ‘comfort zone’:
>As an aside, note how hypocritical Mr. Know-it-all claims that his opponents are ‘asinine’ here, then attacks me for my insults. Talks about asinine! I was willing to give the twit the benefit of the doubt, but he muffed it, and couldn’t keep his massive, bloated patronizing ego in check. And he still hasn’t answered the one question he’s been asked a million times: what is his profession? Since he uses a pseudonym, its not like he will give his identity away. The reason Jonas doesn’t answer this is because he is afraid of being humiliated when he tells us all the truth. That we’ll laugh (we probably will). Any guesses from people here what out resident egotist does for a living? All answers welcome.
I take this as if Jeff considers him (for a brief moment, after eight months) **not** being insulting .. as a concession. Somehow to be ‘acknowledged’ by letting only him not *”keep[ing] his massive, bloated patronizing ego in check”*.
I seriously don’t understand this part:. Jeff has been insulting, demeaning, patronizing, and trying to put-down with his CV, never addressing any of the topics, making up all kinds of stuff about his opponents, and even lying blatantly about all kinds of stuff ..
And still this fellow expects (even demands?) that none of that is heeded or responded to? How can an adult even think those things.
Wrt my background: I have told him many times that I am qualified to bring up those things I am talking about. And notably, he is never addressing what I actually say. Always something else I haven’t brought up.
Anyway, Jeff has been telling people all kinds of things about my background, training, professional accomplishments, and equally much about what those are not.
Without the slightest piece of something resembling any evidence. Just based on his fantasies. And of course, he doesn’t even understand what it is I am saying (at least he bungles it almost every time). Someone who is almost totallu oblivious to ‘doing numbers’, to physics, to logic, to ‘the scientific method’, to proportions and quantities, to comparisons of size, const, feasiblity etc. Is trying to tell me what it is I am lacking …
And this guy takes him self seriously!?
Jag vilar min lÃ¥da!
chek … what you and your kin miss almost every time is how your ‘logic’ looks if applied in both ways.
Do you even have a clue as to how much your “verbal spewings” are **not** “ill considered” !?
I think it would be much easier to count those. Why don’t you? Why don’t you remind me of the least “ill considered verbal spewings” you have directed at me? You who can’t even spell my name ..
What is the **smartest, most relevant and substantial** comment you have produced … directed at me, since august 2011?
Is there one at all, that isn’t **downright idiotic**, chek?
Let’s see now, because you have generated such fogs of stupidity so far…. oh! most recently I’m still waiting for you to refute Hansen’s papers as you stupidly and grandiousely claimed a couple of hundred posts ago now, Jonarse – although we already know that ain’t ever going to happen.
And let’s not even mention that tu quoque is the weakest form of argument by diversion but the strongest hand you’ve got, given your Odyssey of Stupid documented word by word above this line.
taht was your best ‘argument’ so far? It’s brand new. You haven’t attempted that one before. It as lousy as all your others. No substance at all. Do you want to give it another try?
What is the best (non-stupid) argument you have tried so far, chek? An attempt that is not exactly as stupid as how you want to describe others’?
Even Jeff, has occasionally trued arguing (He just quickly realized that ‘arguing’ wasn’t in his best interests)
Well .. is there anything at all, chek? Or are we going to have to believe and trust in your feelings alone?
Pretty pathetic avoidance, Jonarse. With all that lashing out and flailing at thin air, I’m starting to think you’re just another tuppenny denier with a big mouth and big claims but no education or substance.
Nobody forced you to claim to be able to refute Hansen’s papers – that was your own cheap and stupid bravado wedded to your undeservedly preening ego that landed you in that position.
You really don’t get it chek, do you!? I was saying that Hansen’s TED-talk was crap. I even asked if what he claimed there supposedly was science. No one ever got back.
And yes, I can refute Hansen’s TED talk. You on the other hand have only faith. And you still haven’t answered:
“What is the smartest, most relevant and substantial comment you have produced … directed at me, since august 2011?”
I don’t even remember any single one that hasn’t been as stupid as your regular ones … That’s why I am asking, in case I have missed that moment of intellectual clarity and relevance ..
What is it!?
So you can’t refute Hansen after all. I guess the only valid response is who would ever have thought otherwise.
You’re a busted flush Jonarse.
A bit slow, but nobody would expect otherwise:
“And yes, I can refute Hansen’s TED talk”
And I’m still wondering: Have you ever said anything with the slightest relevance, chek?
Or are all your comments equally idiotic and stupid and devoid of any substance wrt to the issue, chek?
Just wondering, not really expecting you to come up with anything better.
And do you think it is a coincidence that so many of you here can’t do better that infantile bickering, and outright lying .. are you really so insecure in what you believe in?
Just asking ..
But I find it entertaining that Jeff, mostly waives his CV and tells me how many **here** are on his side. He is quite insecure too ..
chek, in in #3671 I asked you this:
>chek .. I take it that you too believe that climate armagedon is near. Because Hansen says so … and because Jeff says Hansen is a fine fellow ..
It certainly still sounds like it ..
“That you somehow seem to imagine that blog debates with uneducated denialists equals anything substantive…”
And blog debates with uneducated alarmists do?
I see that Jeff once more is doing the spitting from his protected side of the fence (and demanding that more be removed)
But from what I can see it is only strawmen he is fighting, as he has done for so long.
>Dozens of times I have explained that species do not exist as isolated entitites but depend on an array of interactions with other species in food webs
And no one has ever claimed the opposite, so why does he repeat that â[d]ozens of timesâ?
And I donât know how many times people have told Jeff that they are fully aware of and accept that changes (of all kinds) effects biota and that climate is one of these changes. That this is not the issue, but instead 1) how much of such climate changes are due to humans, and how large that part is compared to the naturally always occurring changes, ie if it at all is possible to identify an increased CC-stress component (compared to what is natural) for local conditions concerning those biota, and 2) if such a signal exists and can be identified, can and should anything be done about it and what then is the best strategy to do and to do what ..
So why is Jeff still beating that dead horse? I really donât know, but probably because it is his (only one?) to beat â¦
Well â¦ he has one more dead horse to beat, and that is all his fantasies about me and what I (really!?) am and qualified to do. Again, eight months running Jeff has tried to reshape and redefine reality to suit his ânarrativeâ. And although I canât (and havenât tried to) judge how he goes about checking and ensuring his âfactsâ in his professional life, Iâd say if it is anywhere close to what he is doing here, heâs a full blown incompetent, bordering a mythomaniac diagnosis â¦
But he also once more confirms my observation of his use of negative labeling whatever he dislikes, and even claiming to be an expert on the matter (anti environmentalists). Now Bishop Hill, Anthony Watts and Stephen McIntire are labeled by Jeff. He is of course free to dislike those sites (he seems generally very opposed to discussions and open debate), but labeling them as âanti environmentalâ or âanti scienceâ is just plain stupid! Nothing else! It once more shows the lack of intellectual prowess when name calling and stupid labels is all you can muster .. Even worse, his comments are aimed at actively endorsing the practices of lying and fiddling by the CRU-team and others. Checking the facts and doing it rigorously, is âanti scienceâ in Jeffâs world. (Well it ainât in the real world, and real science is all about doing your homework properly, not cheating, not inventing, not filling in where facts are missing. But of course, youâve been told that for months too. And are still trying to fend it off with more insults and name calling. Sorry Jeffie-chap, this will never go your way either)
Can anyone understand how Jeff can be âan expertâ giving invited talks and lectures about things he so profoundly does not understand, does not even read? When he must fantasize up âfactsâ about those he is describing? It sound almost too surreal to only be plain stupid.
Jonas, sweetheart, are you still not privy to the advanced computer-fu of scrolling up?
Jeff has been insulting
We have all been insulting. To your views. When it became obvious you were arguing in bad faith, we started insulting you. There is no reason to treat you with respect, because you are willfully disrespecting the truth, this blog and any and all persons attempting to have a civil discussion.
You are a troll. A bad one. You are a narcissist, you are delusional, pathologically insecure and a proven liar.
These are not insults, they are statements of fact. Over the past months and thousands of posts, you have proven to be all of those things. I’m sorry it hurts your feelings, but it is up there for all to see..
Wait. No, I’m not sorry it hurts your feelings. You are pathetic and descending into a dead end of cognitive dissonance, as quite a few have done on this site before. By now all you do is whine.
Originally, we told you over and over to take your wonderful conclusions about the AR4 public, since it would gain you money and fame. You haven’t even attempted that. You know damned well, deep down inside, that your arguments are weak. If you had any faith in the tripe you spew, you would have been attempting to publish your findings and save the world from all of the misery the alarmists are attempting to inflict on it.
But here you are, Jonas. You whine on in the dungeon of your own making. Does it feel comfortable because it truly reflects the warm embrace of your mother’s basement you keep posting from, noshing her Spitzbaaken and refusing to take your medication?
Oh, I’m sorry. Are your credentials remotely up to par with anyone you are arguing against? If so, please enlighten us.
and trying to put-down with his CV
I’m so sorry. I must have missed your post where you laid out your credentials in ecology, statistics and climatology.
Please do point me to that post, Jonas. Put down the rusks for a second and share.
never addressing any of the topics
Obvious and stupid lie. Sweet tap-dancing Jeebus you are pathetic.
making up all kinds of stuff about his opponents
He never did. I just did. Would you care to refute any of it?
and even lying blatantly about all kinds of stuff
Yes. STUFF. Totally. Oh, no, wait.
[Citation seriously fucking needed]
Can anyone understand how Jeff can be âan expertâ giving invited talks and lectures about things he so profoundly does not understand
Wait, what? You are now directly questioning his expertise in ecology?
Oh, and Jonas, just a few friendly pro-tips:
It sound almost too surreal to only be plain stupid
There are at least four errors in that sentence alone. If you are going to talk smack about someone, calling them stupid, you really, really, really, really want to triple-check the sentence you do it with. If not, you’re just going to sound like a petty, insecure douchecanoe.
It’s somewhat telling that you still, after the better part of a year and over a dozen separate specific exhortations have still been unable to obtain any type of spell-checking software to at the very least make you sound less like an abject, sad little douche.
And you whine about chek’s stylistic woes?
One more thing, Jonas. The ellipsis, in any Western language that I am aware of (and I do admit my ignorance of most Scandinavian languages), consists of three periods… and one space after, none before.
Stu, we already know. You too believe, hope and wish .. as your main method of navigating. Finding things out just isn’t your ting. And this is the result … no beef whatsoever, just the same drivel as always. Impressive!
A lot of believing going around here by the haters. However, there is one truth hidden in plain sight: That the first thing a Deltoid do when “loggin in” is to see if there is anything going on in the Real science thread.
So yes, you live in your mother’s basement. So yes, you have no credentials whatsoever. So yes, you admit to lying. So yes, you admit to having no argument. So yes, you are a troll.
So yes, I can leave this cesspool alone for another week or two. Ta ta.
Stu, you and I and the rest of the deltoids know that you spend a lot of time here regardless if you post or not.
Have you read the thriller over at Bishop Hill? Can’t be true can it?
I would like to share some words of wisdom from the head of Climate impact over at MET-Office:
“Most climate scientists* do not subscribe to the 2 degrees “Dangerous Climate Change” meme (I know I don’t).”
And the Asterix says:
“I prefer to distinguish between “climate scientists” (who are mainly atmospheric physicists) and “climate change scientists” who seem to be just about anyone in science or social science that has decided to see what climate change means for their own particular field of expertise. While many of these folks do have a good grasp of climate science (atmospheric physics) and the uncertainties in attribution of past events and future projections, many sadly do not. “Climate change science” is unfortunately a rather disconnected set of disciplines with some not understanding the others – see the inconsistencies between WG1 and WG2 in IPCC AR4 for example.”
What on earth could he mean by than “climate change scientists” sometimes has problems with what real science says?
Stu, you are aware of that you just confirmed my description more concisely and convincingly than I could have with so few words, arenât you? Inadvertently of course â¦
Poor Jeff just isnât getting anywhere. He again confirms my observations. And constructs strawmen an outright lies. Why do you think he feels so compelled to continue doing so?
First he again tries with some really stupid labeling attempts (âchild-boy Jonas continues muttering insanelyâ) follows it up with a lie (âwithout addressing the results of a single studyâ), and concludes by confirming what I have said all the time (about him, and so many who have jumped onto the AGW-bandwagon):
> more empirical studies on the effects of AGW on species interactions and phenology. Note (1) that these studies represent the metaphorical tip of the iceberg, and (2) that the human fingerprint on the warming is taken as ‘given’on species .. Note .. that the human fingerprint on the warming **is taken as ‘given’**
Let me spell out his statement for him. He claims that:
> One can observe empirical **effects of AGW** .. under **the presumption** that it is indeed AGW that is causing them. But this presumption **is given**!
Or shorter: If it is true, then it is indeed true! Coming from âscientistâ Jeff Harvey, trying to argue why we should believe that is indeed the A-signal in GW that is causing whatever is observed. In a later post we get the same âlogicâ once more (about hybrid grizzly bears):
> More **proof** of the **human** experiment on climate
Personally, I donât think this case (Jeffâs âlogicâ) can be made much clearer than that. Keeping different things and questions/issues apart in his mind just isnât his thing. He repeats one of his often used lies:
> He has yet to address a single scientific article that has been shoved in front of him
He scores owngoals en masse:
> he is an arrogant little pr* .. whilst patronizing those who disagree with him
> I tried the polite route and in return all I got was his usual psychobabble, condescension and blank-cheque support for the other idiots on the thread
Particularly the âI tried the polite routeâ is laughable beyond belief. He has consistently been treated far better than he behaves. Consistently! I wonder if he seriously expected that omitting insults and name-calling in some three comments would suddenly make brighter minds âacceptâ him to be the âauthorityâ about what should be believed and accepted on faith.
There is not much he manages to read correctly. What I was saying was that the labeling of WUWT and BH as âanti-environmentalâ was just stupid. I wouldnât consider them âscience blogsâ although far more real and relevant science is discussed there than compared to the Deltoid âscience blogâ. At Climate Audit however, some quite narrow but very relevant science issues are discussed.
For instance has it been (quite recently) revealed how almost criminally dishonest the CRU-team has assembled its temp-reconstructions. And Jeff of course grinds his teeth over that real science slowly wins out over outright fraud. He seems to argue that since the fraud(s?) were perpetrated so many years ago, and since so many others have bought into it, accepted, used and built further upon it, therefore now the lies should be accepted as truth!
I cannot even begin to express my disgust with both with the cheating âscientistsâ and those who defend such practice.
Getting the facts and details right, checking what numbers went into the mill (and which were hidden/omitted), showing the data used, doing what proper and real science does and must do every day of the week â¦ Jeff labels as âborders on the psychopathicâ
Now, everybody of course knows why Jeff would take that stance. Because the real data doesnât support the climate alarmism, and because it reveals his âherosâ not only as poor scientists, but something even worse. And we can be pretty certain that there is more hidden among all that âclimate scienceâ we havenât been allowed to see and check yet. No wonder Jeff is desperate and throwing hissy fits. Fortunately, out there in the real world, among the real scientists, belief in both the climate scare and in the integrity of some of the more central players of the âclimate scienceâ is crumbling. As is the number of those defending the indefensible .. You need to go to blogs like this, or some cartoonistâs to find them. And of course among those who just blindly staked their faith on it all being true and so firmly supported by so robust sound and solid all that âscienceâ allegedly was. But never knew why and how ..
Jonas, I had a good laugh when I first read Jeffie’s scientific evaluation: “that the human fingerprint on the warming is taken as ‘given’on species .. Note .. that the human fingerprint on the warming is taken as ‘given’”.
That’s “climate change science” for ya, honors to professor Bretts. How much bananas can an alarmist be?
And I still can’t fully believe what’s reviled in Montford’s piece on Yamal. It can’t be that bad!? It’s Jeffie standards, if true.
And if true, McIntyre should have a Nobel Piece Prize, don’t you think?
I think with your latest round of analyses, I don’t think jeff has any credibility left when it comes to claiming to be a “Scientist”, he’s an Activist!. Not a particularly convincing one, and not a particularly educated one either. His knowledge of “Science” falls short at every hurdle, climate science with numbers, and even zoology with feelings.
His ability to rattle off pages and pages of drivel, peppered with various names of species and associated make-believe gloom is second to none however. Why bother with the facts when you can just make stuff up!
Congrats to you both!
PS I have a horrible feeling that if Betula doesn’t stop making the shrill believers look more washed up than they already are, he’ll be joining you both here soon. Nothing like a fair fight. And it’s not nothing like it.
And Jeffie is still at it â¦
As for owngoals, can it be more compact than this:
>**kindergarten** level antics of Jon**arse**
And since he is not anywhere near any relevant debate or discussion regarding the possible human influence on the climate, and likewise possible observable and detectable signals thereof, he instead goes on and on banalities such as âchanges have consequences, and some are negativeâ, and enumerates long lists of species he knows, tells us about their dire projected future and the doom to come. And of course fills his comments with the stupidest insults while waiving his CV.
What amazes me is that this guy seems to believe he is making some grown up argument. But on the other hand he again lists the Stus, ianams and cheks etc of these threads as those he wants to convince and impress, so I guess one shouldnât expect too much grown up behavior ..
The Deltoid cronies now argue that since we don’t know for absolute certain, since nobody has really seen everybody’s emails (or phone calls), since the 2nd hand recounted hearsay dinner conversations still are just that, since the possibility exists that all the stories and accounts and released emails are just the **least frightening** ones ..
.. therefor the campaign of death threats reported around the world last June still just might possibly be true still. And that no one really exaggerated any threats, concocted up death threats, and claimed an office move was in response to a dinner squabble one year earlier, or a nasty email long before that.
It’s similar to the notion that all those scare prediction about the future, made in the past based on the ‘best science available’ (unvalidated computer simulations) still might come true, that it’s just happenstance that natural variablity, ENSO-effects, aerosols, sunspots and -activity, noise and internal variability and everything else just are lining up to conceal the true truth about those predictions and the climate crisis.
It all just might possibly still be the absolute truth we’ve been fed for so long.
But honestly, the prospects for this being so are looking increasingly dimmer (and dumber). But if you all have been so convinced and certain and that ‘the science’ is all on your side, you of course must maintain that belief …
On the other hand, if you take a stance like that, solely on the belief in what others claim to be the only ‘science’ to be allowed and accepted, you of course run the risk of being caught with you nickers around your ankles ..
As you say, there is still a (very very unlikely and) slim possibility, that your nickers are just in the right place .. Ain’t it?
Hehe…the sore toe to step on here on this pseudoscience blog is obviously Mann. I simply asked the foilhats from how many trees the Arch Bishop Mann had data from and how many he actually used when he constructed his hockey stick. And why. And you know what, all my recent comments were deleted. What an enormous owngoal. When the foilhats know they can’t dodge the question, simply delet it. But the really funny part is that they don’t seem to understand that by doing so they only poor gasoline on the fire. Shutter Island indeed.
I see that Jeffie once more is trying to ‘argue’ by using kindergarten labels instead. Most likely he doesn’t even know what he is arguing, or arguing against. It’s just the ‘against’ by which he navigates:
He has absolutely zip to contribute about ‘climate change’, doesn’t even know (much less understand) what is claimed on ‘his side’ of the debate. And still he rants, screeches and hisses and throws his little fits and demands that others must accept his beliefs that are built on blind faith.
What is this guy even doing on a site discussing climate science and the climate scare?
I can’t remember one singe issue where he has actually addressed what has been on the table. And whoever said it was spot on right: Jeff is scared of numbers …
If nutty James Hansen predicts at three- to fifteenfold increase in sea level rise rates, one must believe him because of his ‘reputation’, because Jeff admires him because he ‘stands up to’ the criticism and attacks from ‘the right’.
Sea levels and the rate of rising, are immaterial to Jeff. As is most reality. But siding with the alarmists is all that matters … and if they once more were spectacularly wrong, it doesn’t matter since those who were right were right .. which little Jeffie-ranter just knows is wrong.
He supports the OWS-movement … not because such white trash ever can accomplish anything, but because they are against … just against.
Well maybe I’m wrong. This indeed seems to be a refuge for the last climate loonies who cannot put together complete sentences, whose only means of navigating in the real world is by hoping that they guessed right .. and clinging to others who did likewise.
Jeff even solicits their support here. While trying to deride me for not giving all the details about my day job. What a farce ..
And although it is blatantly obvious that I know far more about many matters, little Jeffie wants to tell me that I don’t know one single thing.
Fighting reality blindly … once more
What a joke!
And he is too afraid to face me, although he has Tim’s protection … I wonder what he is so afraid of …
You were requesting quite detailed answers and clarifications from me before. You even made some quite bold statements about what you had seen and were prepared to argue.
However, I have not seen you commenting after you last (repetition of a) request, and this is now weeks ago.
Were you going anywhere with your questions? Because so far I havenât really seen where that might be â¦ And I think all my answers to your questions have been reasonable and not very controversial.
But I did note the bolder claims above (in #3644) and will remind you and others of them â¦
The cores of the problem (nah, a puny part of the cores) found in the hockey schtick are now being contextualized:
Please fellas, tell me it ain’t true!
I notice that Jeff still argues some backwards-reasoning why the climate scare after all should be believed to valid and true. And as so often his âargumentâ are the opposite of how science (real science, that is) is carried out. It is once more nothing but an appeal to what should be believed, and mostly even believed blindly.
The gist of the âargumentâ is once more based on various appeals to authority, to lengths of CVs, to numbers of publications about the matter, number of citations, or journalâs impact factors etc. Everything but the core crucial comparison with reality, how it holds up when tested.
It is perfectly true that there are an awful lot of publications who mention global warming, AGW, which âacceptâ it, and which cite others that do so too. How the heck can it be anything else after decades of rampant climate hysteria and all!? It is also true that such publications appear in âprestigious journalsâ and are cited often.
But what does that mean wrt reality? What does that prove? The answer is: It proves that there are more publications mentioning, relying on, repeating etc the various AGW-claims.
The relevant questions is rather if the basic claims (the large positive feedbacks due to CO2-level changes) become more well funded, more confirmed, validated affirmed if these numbers increase!
And the answer is: No! Such repetition, citations, publications (impact factors) do not further prove or support the correctness of the underlying hypotheses. To believe so would be sloppy to put it mildly. It would be wrong, it would be an non-scientific argument. And unfortunately, it is those we see an awful lot of. Some even argue that those not accepting the belief therefore must be wrong, and labels such as anti-science, DK-afflictees and worse are used.
In stark contradiction to what real science and the scientific method actually is.
One might wonder why so many are so against goi9ng about the questions as one would do in proper science. I would surmise that those who shout like many here, just are afraid of finding out for real, and getting proper answers to the relevant questions.
Judging from the shouting and what goes on, the last thing they want to learn more about is how the climate works, and what can be said about that. Possibly because it just might shatter their beliefs ..
And that’s why the deltoids no longer dares to debate with you, here on the only real science thread on deltoid.
I see there is quite some effort made (from the pseudoscience discipline called ‘dendroclimatology) to justify the practices of picking and ignoring whatever data you like/dislike, and want/don’t want others to see. And that this is welcome and cheered on by the remnants of the faithful believers …
Gavin Schmidt is starting to sound like Jeff here, in his cringing attempts to argue that we should just believe the (self professed) experts, trust their conclusions, the integrity of both them, their calculations and their data, their capacity to ‘just know’ whatever happens to be needed to know, for instance what trees have been ‘thermometers’ consistently over decades, even millenia, and which haven’t. Or when such trees were indeed thermometers, and when they ‘decided’ otherwise.
And of course that all such assertions should neither be checked or questions by others. Again the ‘argument’ often revolves around ‘peer reviewed and published’, that therefore firstly, the ‘conclusions’ should be accepted and trusted and regarded as ‘truth’, and secondly no objections, questions or criticisms are valid, even legitimate.
Further it is ‘argued’ that whatever unanswered questions, and unresolved issues there are, those should not be raised by others. Instead those on the inside should (again!) be trusted to raise the ‘relevant’ among them. Eventually! And others should just wait patiently until the team members can be bothered to do so, to raise the questions, release the data and code, all of it, even adverse results, and publish those at some undisclosed future time, until which they should be considered as ‘unpublished, work in progress’.
Well, these practices may work for the faithers. But they have absolutely nothing to do with real science. Matter of fact: They reveal quite well what it is about. And curiosity, scientific inquiry, genuine and honest interest to learn more about the truth, reality of present and historic temperatures , and the best practices to assess those or learn more about the methods .. is not among the primary motives.
Fortunately, this is becoming more obvious to increasingly wider circles and audience, and you can’t put that cat back in the bag. Although some on the faither side think that the decline in support and trust in ‘climate alarmism’ and purported ‘science’ needs to be countered with better communication strategies ..
Presumably aimed at the remaining faithers and the still gullible. And of course at younger kids before they mature ..
And that would also explain their anger and outrage at everybody else who doesn’t believe their gospel and speaks up.
And what about the catastophes the warmiztaz are claiming are going to happen if the temperature and co2 level rises? Well, tye catastrophe might be that the production of food might increase. That’s really a catastrophe, isn’t it?
Well, is this site/blog really coming apart? Thousands of comments disappeared? OK, it’s not a great loss to the world. But for some of the resident trolls it seems to have been the major source of ‘inspiration’ ..
Well, this has become a full blown joke. The few new threads in 2012 contain almost only ridiculous nonsense, and what goes on in the comments is even more pathetic. I find it quite amazing (and also amusing) that Tim Lambert mostly caters to that crowd.
However, I will make a mental note that one commenter Paul H here (among very few among the thousands disappeared) tried to make a reasonable civil argument, or at least the beginning of one.
However, he too made claims to know having seen read and understood, and afterwards being able to argue and defend that (in)famous AR4 attribution claim. He was very specific about that.
But it is now almost four weeks since he asked alnd later urged me for answers to his questions.
I will add Paul H to the rather length list who claimed to know, but ultimately never even provided the reference(s) purportedly behing the AR4 claim.
And I am not the least suprised. Nobody else has managed so far. Martin Vermeer’s ref did not support it either, and he never even tried to maintain it did ..
“But it is now almost four weeks since he asked alnd later urged me for answers to his questions.
I will add Paul H to the rather length list who claimed to know, but ultimately never even provided the reference(s) purportedly behing the AR4 claim. ”
I don’t know anything about Paul H Jonas, but I think many have just accepted “the Science” has handed down. It’s not until you take the time to ask questions and evaluate the evidence, that you realise it’s all very “iffy” and the risks over stated (being polite about it). Maybe Paul H is just starting down the path…(?)
Deltoids are “outraged” by those asking questions (your thread), trying to gain an understanding, “How dare you Question?”, well that’s healthy science for you, asking questions, the antithesis of orthodoxy.
We/you ‘ve established over the last few months, I think to everyone’s satisfaction, Deltoids don’t “do” science, they consider it more a convenient “currency” for achieving a “desired” ideological end. Their Alarmism’s had it’s day I think.
Nobody takes CAGW seriously anymore, it’s all become a bit of an embarassment.
New blog format is kind of screwed don’t you think?
PS, Why don’t you just try posting on the open thread? nothing to loose, site is so screwed now, don’t think anyone would notice.
GSW, I will, but there is no debate or any substance there to challenge. It would only be to see them scurry around a bit again repeating their empty memes ,,
Re: Paul H, here is what he claimed (above). Quote:
Responses to various quotes from Jonas @3639:
“Have you seen any proper science (from 2006 or earlier) based on which one can claim attribution of at least half the warming in the last 50 years on human activities with 90% (or higher) confidence?”
“And if so have you read it and understood it properly.”
“To the degree that you are convinced it is correct.”
“And if so, are you then capable and prepared to argue the merits and answer to criticism and challenges?”
“Judging from your questions and comments, the answer is No. I just want to ask and have it confirmed for the record.”
I’ve done my best to avoid making any sort of (pre)judgments about your opinions and views. In the interest of civil discussion, can you please avoid doing that? Thanks.
Note the affirmative ‘Yes’ to every specific question,
As our dear friends here (and wlsewhere) so often tell us in no uncertain terms: It is always worse than you would have thought!
Strange, my comment is stuck in moderation. I’ll post it again:
As our dear friends here (and wlsewhere) so often tell us in no uncertain terms: It is always worse than you would have thought!
Genuinely sorry for not responding sooner. Been a bit too busy.
“I would have picked different examples (but those were hardly the point, right?)”
Actually, I chose those examples because in these cases our knowledge comes from an array of sources, both quantitative and qualitative, and I would argue that we can’t strictly derive a quantitative certainty about these theories. You could argue that the HIV/AIDS case is an exception, but every person that gets HIV ends up with AIDS, some die of other causes prior to that, or of course get drug treatment. The theory linking the two predicts that all people with HIV will eventually contract AIDS all other things being equal. So, in these cases how can we express our certainty that these theories are correct? These theories are recognised as being robust within their respective domains, so how can one express that to a lay person or to other scientists that aren’t in the same field?
I would argue that there are similar types of evidence, i.e. a belnd of types of evidence from multiple lines, supporting these theories and the relevant IPCC statement, so these theories share something in common with that statement in terms of how we arrive at that state of knowledge. Hence why I picked them.
You are saying that people with HIV might contract AIDS, unless they die of other causes before, or get inhibiting treatment. Fair enough, I agree. Your original statment however was:
>1. HIV is the causative agent in the development of AIDS in humans
I see now that you slightly revise that (very plausible) statement to mean:
> “every person that gets HIV ends up with AIDS”
which you however immedeately admit needs several caveats. And I would like to point out, that it is a distinctly different (and stricter, stronger and more specified) statement for which I would require quite some additional support (proof?) to accept, compared to pt 1.
The question whether or not HIV-infected persons would (ny neccessity) contract AIDS if they only lived long enough, however, is slightly moot.
But wrt warming attribution, and more specifically that AR4-claim, you made some very pointed and specific statements. And not only that, you claimed to be capable and prepared to argue and defend them in detail, based on your own claimed full understanding of the published science you had actually read. I would like to go back there, and particularly that 90% certaintly attribution claim.
Could you please summarize how this atttribution and quantification of high certainty was accomplished, by describing how this was done, with words describing the methods used, how this number was established, and also how one goes about ruling out other possible (or less possible, or even unknown) causations including ‘internal variabiltiy’ or natural fluctuations and chaotic behavior.
Just describe what was done with words. We can revisit the equations, relations, numbers, and what those amount to later.
If you please …
“>1. HIV is the causative agent in the development of AIDS in humans
I see now that you slightly revise that (very plausible) statement to mean:
> “every person that gets HIV ends up with AIDS””
I’m actually guilty of being rather imprecise in this case, sorry for the confusion, and you are quite right that my statement did change. After posting my original comment I did some research into consensus statements on HIV. In the intervening period (several weeks) I managed to poorly paraphrase what I read and not explain to you why my statement changed. Here is the document I found with the relevant pages:
So to be clear, using this document as a benchmark, my statement was too strong. They say, “Current information suggests that the *vast majority*…will eventually progress to AIDS…” whereas I said “every person”.
At the end of that paragraph it does say “Some analysts believe that virtually all infected persons will eventually develop AIDS”, which was the origin of my statement paraphrasing what I read.
Just to be clear, I’ve been talking about both qualitative and quantitative certainty of various scientific theories at some length now because I think we should separate out 2 key issues:
1.Does the IPCC statement (or an equivalent statement reformulated as a hypothesis) constitute a good scientific theory?
from 2. The discussion about how to attach a quantitative certainty to that theory.
I’m still interested to hear your opinions on how you attach a quantitative certainty to a theory having shown 1 to be an affirmative.
I am going to get the IPCC statement next. Should be this evening hopefully. I will first post up a list of the evidence with no references. Then, if you have questions, we can go through the list and I’ll give you refs to show how the evidence was derived.
Paul, I’d say it is pretty darn far from a ‘good scientific theory’. It is a put forward hypothesis, based on (AFIK) very scanty empirical support, and other (non empirical) conjectures, combined with several ad hoc assumptions about many other things.
A Scientific theory without quantification? I hardly know what that even is supposed to mean. The sign of the corresponding coefficient (to first order?) for to a certain assumed causative paramater, wrt to a specified effect!?
But maybe I can save you some time, Paul. I am very familiar with the usual (handwaiving) arguments for AGW. You don’t need to repeat them. It is specifically the combination of those into a very narrowly specified attribution claim I am after, and even more specifically how one goes about to ascertain that none of the neither ‘known or unknown unknowns’ dilute such claims of certainty ..
With words only will suffice. In my experience, people who really understand the depth of what they are arguing, are able to do so describing their methods and how their argument is set up. Qualitatively. Before asigning numbers and values to all parameter ..
“I am very familiar with the usual (handwaiving) arguments for AGW.”
Hang on a minute. Earlier today you said:
“And not only that, you claimed to be capable and prepared to argue and defend them in detail, based on your own claimed full understanding of the published science you had actually read. I would like to go back there, and particularly that 90% certaintly attribution claim.”
So which is it? I’m trying to open and honest, and I’m going out of my way to talk to you about this subject. If your mind is already made up, or if this is some kind of game then I have better things to be doing.
“very scanty empirical support, and other (non empirical) conjectures”
I would argue that this is a very poor summary of the evidence in support of the theory. Please take a look at the list I’ve prepared.
Anyway, here it is, qualitatively:
The general framework of the theory is that various predictions about what we should observe emerge from it due to our understanding of the physics. I will present all of the evidence to my knowledge including some of the more fundamental aspects that the whole theory rests on (see points 1 and 2).
1. The globe is warming unequivocally.
a. Surface thermometer records.
b. Sea surface temperature records.
c. Glacial ablation.
d. Ice pack ablation.
e. Thermal expansion of the oceans.
f. Species distribution shifts due to surface temperature changes.
g. Reduction in winter time snow cover.
h. Lakes are warming.
i. Observed shrinking in areal extent and thickness of sea ice.
2. The observed rises in GHGs have unequivocally caused an increase in radiative forcing since 1850.
3. The observed horizontal spatial pattern of the warming is consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG radiative forcing dominated warming.
4. The observed vertical spatial pattern of the warming is consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG radiative forcing dominated warming.
5. The observed temporal patterns of the warming are consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG radiative forcing dominated warming.
a. The observed changes in temperature diurnal cycle are consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG radiative forcing dominated warming.
b. The observed changes in temperature on the multi-decadal timescale are consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG dominated warming.
6. Observed changes in the distribution of water vapour are consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG dominated radiative forcing.
7. There is less clear evidence, present in observations, that other climatic indices such as sea level pressure and land surface precipitation have changed in manner consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG dominated radiative forcing.
8. Alternative theories just don’t cut it.
a. ‘Solar forcing is dominant’ theories have serious flaws.
i. The solar forcing has had the wrong sign for the past few decades.
ii. Even if the change in forcing had the right sign, changes in solar forcing have been too small to explain the observed warming without assuming unrealistically high climate sensitivity, which many skeptics would argue strongly against.
iii. Svensmark’s hypothesised cosmic ray forcing seems to be too small to explain the changes if you listen to anyone other than Svensmark. Plus, see point 6.a.i.
iv. The spatial patterns of the warming and other observed changes are are inconsistent with theory and model prediction for solar forcing dominated warming.
(A). The horizontal spatial warming patterns are inconsistent with theory and model prediction for solar forcing dominated warming.
(B). The vertical spatial warming patterns are inconsistent with theory and model prediction for solar forcing dominated warming.
b. Natural variability caused by heat exchanges with the oceans can not explain the observed warming and other observed changes.
c. Changes in cloud cover can not explain the observed warming and other observed changes.
d. UHI can not explain the observed warming and other observed changes.
e. Anthropogenic heat from combustion can not explain the observed warming and other observed changes.
f. Getting in the realm of the ridiculous now, but it has been put forward before: Heat release from the Earth’s mantle can not explain the observed warming and other observed changes.
If you could reference your objections according to the numbering system I’ve chosen that would help further discussion. If you would like references to material supporting these points I will do my best to provide with the information.
“A Scientific theory without quantification? I hardly know what that even is supposed to mean.”
Nor do I. I was talking about attaching quantitative certainty to theories. That should have been clear from the context of the discussion. I did not say anything about “A Scientific theory without quantification”.
I was discussing theories that are widely accepted as being good theories, but the theories I chose to mention also lack any good way of directly attributing a quantitative certainty to them. I.e., we do not have some kind of experiment that can perform that will give us the probability that the OH radical is the most important oxidant in the atmosphere. We have several lines of evidence that converge to support that theory, but there is no framework in place to say how certain quantitatively one can be that this theory is correct.
If your mind is already made up, or if this is some kind of game then I have better things to be doing.
You’re a little slow, Paul.
Made a mistake. At 8 iii I refer to 6.a.i. That should be 8.a.i.
I should have added a further point supporting the theory.
9. The top several hundred meters of the oceans have warmed in a manner consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG dominated forcing. Further, this warming occurred at a time when natural external forcings should have caused a cooling. This therefore argues against the observed surface warming being due to heat release from the oceans. If the oceans were supplying heat to the atmosphere over this time we would have expected them to cool. This point further supports point 8.b, and I should have added a point 1.j. stating that the top several hundred meters of the oceans have been observed to be warming in addition to SSTs.
Paul, thank you for your comments. There are several points worth replying to, but I have not found the time to do so properly yet.
But you provided exactly what I wanted to spare you to write:
A long list of the usual talking points found to argue the case for AGW and why many find it plausible.
The core question here, however, has been the alleged scientific underpinning of one very specific claim about high certainty in attribution of one observation.
As I said, I am very familiar with what proponents usually mention. The question here however is how one scientifically may make the claim that a certain statment has a confidence of 90%, and not 82% (a huge difference) or 71%, och 64%. (even huger differences)
And it whas that quantification I would have liked you to describe, first by just using words of _how_ it is done.
I (had hoped I) had made myself sufficiently clear above about what is missing (what nobody has even tried to provide) about that 90%-certaintly claim, so that I don’t need to repeat this specifically and endelssly
OK Paul H,
Lets recap what this is about!
It is about the existence of proper, solid and published science behind the AR4-claim of:
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (*)
where the “very likely” corresponds to a stated 90% confidence. This claim is the issue, and if I understood you correctly, you claimed to know such science, have seen and read it, have understood it and can vouch for its veracity, and were prepared to argue its merits and also to defend it and answer to criticism and challenges.
I hope you are with me so far!?
But I think you are somewhat misreading what I am referring to (partly due to imprecise wording). My comment:
“I’d say it is pretty darn far from a ‘good scientific theory”
refers specifically to that AR4-claim (*) and its implications, the one (and in direct response to what) you addressed as:
“Does the IPCC statement (or an equivalent statement reformulated as a hypothesis) constitute a good scientific theory?”
Whereas I in the following paragraphs then also talked about AGW more in general, as did you when replying to it. So please, lets keep ‘some AGW’ (a reasonable hypothesis IMO) and IPCC projections and quantified claims apart.
And yes, I would not call (*) it a theory, not even a hypothesis. At best it is one claim, a quantification that somebody would proffer based on his presented work (if such work was indeed properly presented with its supporting arguments, data and calculations). Nota bene: If such were presented and available. BTW if it were a theory, or just a hypothesis, the formulation would start at the other end (but it is not).
OK back to your last main post. You write:
“I’m trying to open and honest” and “I’m going out of my way to talk to you about this subject”
Why would the first even be necessary to point out? Particularly when discussing scientific issues about the physical reality of nature? And what do you mean by the second? Is making an argument (that others cannot, will not make) a sacrifice somehow? Especially if you indeed (as you claim) think that it is justified? I truly don’t understand these comments, nor about this being ‘some kind of game’!?
Going back to your list, it contains the arguments most often proffered for AGW (the milder version). And as such it is mostly reasonable and not very controversial. There are issues with it that I might come back to later. But this long list of supporting/non-contradicting points does not do the quantification, and mostly not the attribution, and the my main issue, that 90% certainty is not even mentioned.
As I see it, the latter hinges on the assumed large positive feedbacks from CO2, amplifying its effects by a factor of ~3. And even if you concede quite some uncertainty around such numbers, that claimed (needed!) high feedback is the crux of the matter.
Rereading your posts I notice that you circle quite a lot around the ‘”attaching quantitative certainty to theories” but to theories which “also lack any good way of directly attributing a quantitative certainty to them”, while you argue(d?) that experts still should be able to opine about them and that their certainty (regarding certain cause-effect relations) should be accepted as such. And to some degree I even agree. Without personal knowledge I would (presently) be prepared to accept att HIV is the causative agent for contracting AIDS etc. However, you may also observe that such (firmly held) opinions aren’t expressed in quantitative terms as the AR4-claim. For precisely those reasons, as you said: “we do not have some kind of experiment that can perform that will give us the probability ..”. One would be even more (much more!) reluctant to make claims about the tails of such an opined proability/distribution ..
So I would like to ask you once again:
Have you seen, read, fully understood, and if so are you prepard to argue, respond to questions and defend against criticism, objections etc .. those publications where this 90% certainty that most of the observed warming since mid-20th century is demonstrated?
Have you and are you, or have you not?
And it is the confidence for the stated interval that is the core issue, Paul! The one that every news consumer was fed back in 2007.
That there are those ‘experts’ and scientists who firmly believe in those numbers, I too believe, and I have no problem with that. But as you must know by now, I am not after how confident some few involved are in how good their guesses are, I am after demonstrated work that seriously tries to asses such confidence, and that attributes those numbers, and where also all other factors, uncertainties etc are assessed or at least estimated quantitatively in order to establish how ‘certain’ they are that observations cannot have other causes.
Sorry to have to ask again, but everytime I read your comments, it looks like you are trying to get away from those two hard numbers (90% and ‘most of’ since ~1950).
And you are aware of that exactly these where the AR4 Take-home message!?
PS By ‘some AGW’ I mean that mankind causes, through CO2 emissions, land use, and others, some warming. I thinks this is a quite reasonable assumption
With regards to your ‘main point’ about the certainty attached to (*), you should read this document prepared by the IPCC ahead of the production of AR4:
(Look at point 14 it explains either quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views).
A brief nitpick, I stated:
As it stands the statement isn’t a theory, but it could certainly could be reformulated as one as I claimed above. In that case it certainly would constitute a theory since various testable predictions emerge from it, and it is a good theory because those testable predictions are verified by observation. Further, you mention that I am talking about the general AGW theory. This is not the case. Apologies if this is not clear, but the evidence I presented directly supports the (*) statement reformulated as a theory. True, some of those points (1 and 2) are not directly relevant, but they are certainly necessary conditions that must be fulfilled for the theory to be correct. I added them because I did not know what you accept and do not accept with regards to these matters. I have frequently encountered people that disagree with points 1 and 2 when engaging climate sceptics.
Another point, climate sensitivity is not really that relevant to this statement (*) since climate sensitivity refers to changes at equilibrium, and the current conditions are, according to observation and theory, very much out of equilibrium.
In the next posts, I will try to outline how the evidence I presented fits within the framework for estimating likelihood as stated by the IPCC. I also think I will have to add a point 10 listing some further evidence, which I hope will more directly address your questions. But here is the short answer: We have some studies providing direct quantitative estimates of probability of successful attribution for the observed variables in isolation to GHG forcing, and we also have a collection of evidence that does not lend itself well to providing a direct quantitative estimate of probability successful attribution that lends qualitative support to the statement (*). Therefore, some of the evidence fits the definition of “quantitative analysis”, and some of it doesn’t.
Paul, two short comments here and now:
The main crux is the 90% certainty, because it makes statements about the tails of an assumed but not established or properly assessed distribution function (pdf). And:
Climate sensitivity is at the very heart of this issue. The assumed large (~threefold) amplification factors (feedbacks) for a change in CO2-levels manisfest themselves equally prominently in the transient- as well as the equilibrium ‘climate sensitivity’. They are absolutely central to the attribution attempts.
I am surprised that you think those are peripheral to the issue.
And no: That IPCC claim is not a ‘scientific theory’ it is not even a scientific hypothesis. At best it is a hypothesis (extremely poorly phrased) as to where its proponents think how far and in what direction the effects of a specified cause should point .. the certainty claims are wild speculations (which rely on loads of ad hoc and unwarranted support hypotheses), which even you seem to be at least party aware of: ‘All data is not equally supportive’
On sensitivity, the IPCC reports that the effects of uncertainties in sensitivity have been removed from the detection and attribution studies. This is detailed in chapter 9 AR4. You made the original positive claim that sensitivity affects the attribution studies, so please support that with evidence. Attribution is more about pattern recognition of observed patterns of warming and comparing those to predicted patterns of warming. The list of evidence I posted should make that quite clear. If you want to diverge from the evidence I posted then you need to post some persuasive evidence as to why that is the case.
We are going to have to disagree about your claims about it being possible to formulate the statement as a theory.
Let me know when you are up to speed on the document I linked. I’m going to be busy for the rest of the week so I won’t be able to post.
The claim (*) is about magnitude caused by GHGs. Climate sensitivity (to CO2) is about magnitude caused by (one) GHG
Maybe you are confusing the term CS, which is (interchangably) used both for sensitivity to CO2 levels, and of the ‘climate system’ to a ‘forcing’.
If so, you can make statements about the _relative_ contributions of one ‘forcing’ without bothering about the total effects of them combined. In that light, I can at least understand your (IPCC’s?) statement (while not totally agreeing). But it doesn’t remove the ‘necessity’ for a high CO2-sensitivity (relative others)
Further, even with this (relative) interpretation, attribution studies must still be compared to absolute levels when it comes to natural (‘internal’) variability. Especially when trying to remove (the possibiliy/uncertainty of) such and bumbing up your confidence levels.
So no, you can neither discard the needed high CO2-sensitivy, and its alleged high water vapor feedback from you claim in relative terms, nor in absolute terms. Both are central to the two numbers in that claim (*),
Finally, for a claim (like (*)) to be a theory does not depend/rely on how it is formulated. A theory is a hypthesis that has been elevated to a theory since it has proven to be consistently confirmed by observations, and withstood falsifications attempts, and thereby become not only accepted but also not questioned (cf HIV/AIDS).
So yes, you could rephrase (*) as a hypthesis, but elevating it to theory requires quite something more and very different than only reformulation.
I (re-)asked you that question, since I’ve had the imression that most of our discussions have cirkled around you relaxing how I interpret (*) to make it somethings less strict. Do you stand by what you claimed reading that claim as it actually is stated?
And I had seen your IPCC-link (years) before, reread it again now. It is essentially a IPCC vocabulary, about how to use the words. Some pointes to avoid groupthink and self-affirmation. The paragraph you pointed to essantially a double caveat:
The numbers shouldn’t be taken quite literally, and they may very well be elicited ‘expert opinion’.
I can’t see that these explanations are making anything more scientific … rather they are pointing my way, I’d say
I have a few spare minutes, so quickly.
What do you mean by this? Can you define the range that you think is high sensitivity? For instance, I would define high sensitivity as being on the upper limit suggested by empirical evidence, i.e. 4.5oC. No doubt you have your unique definition.
Again, I asked could you provide evidence that climate sensitivity was central to that claim. You’ve provided some assertions but no evidence. Can you provide evidence? For instance quotes from chapter 9 supporting your position?
The ‘climate sensitivity’ (one of two definitions) is defined as the global average temperature increase to a doubling of CO2-levels.
Based on radiative transfer models, in a controlled environment, the no-feedback sensitiviy can be calculated to be around ~1 C/doubling (which I haven’t checked myself but don’t question)
The IPCC-proffered CO2 sensitivity is (several) multiples of this number, it lies in the interval ~2 to 4.5 and relies on large positive feedbacks explicitly to the CO2-level changes. And these amplifications, are what I refer to as ‘high’. I even mentioned the (usual) claimed ‘central estimate’ of ~3 above several times.
I maintain the position that a high such number facilitates making the case for that AR4-claim (*). It is self evident that the effects would be lowere if feedbacks were low, insignificant or even negative.
I would say that there is quite som equivalence between the two.
I don’t need to provide ‘evidence’ that such are needed, and wouldn’t expect IPCC to explicitly write that both statements are closely related. As I stated when I brought this up, this is “[a]s I see it”.
The two might very well be two sides of the same coin. But you (initially?) claimed that attribution was irrespective of climate sensitivity magnitude!? Do you maintain that, and could you please point me to this claim?
BTW, I really would appreciate if you could confirm that you stand by ‘most of’ and ’90% likelihood’ (hard dumbers, science, no hanswaving)
Sorry for the misspelling:
Hard numbers, real published checkable science and no handwaiving
Sorry for the typos:
Hard numbers, real published and checkable science and no handwaiving
“Hard numbers, real published and checkable science and no handwaiving
I think PaulH has run off Jonas.
Well it certainly seems he has reconsidered what he initially claimed, claimed to have read and know, and claimed to be willing to argue and defend.
Notable is that he came with one link (remotely) relevant for the discussion, namely the IPCC vocabulary and recomendations how to approach and deal with uncertainties.
But that link only reinforced my impression that the more public AR4 (and previous) claims must be dealt with using extreme caution. And preferably never been taken on faith.
However, it is strange that Paul H made such definite claims to the contrary. Even before he got to that ‘vocabulary-link’ I had the impression that every turn he took, every argument he brought up (about completely different things often) was to weaken and dilute the interpretation of that famous AR4 claim.
I wonder if in the end he too more was describing his own convictions, albeit him claiming to have read and understood actual references with real science in them.
Strange indeed. But he managed to keep a civil tone at least. That’s better than almost all of the rest.
Agree, he did keep it substantive and to the point, rather resort to the usual abuse. Which is good. Maybe we’re seeing a new type of deltoid emerge? The old ones have had their day I think.
Do anybody else have the feeling that Deltoid is slowly dying?
As I’ve said early on, and many times, an as I allways have had confirmed every single time I brought up the subject:
Nobody I have ever met has seen any proper and real science actually establishing this most prominent AR4-claim about how certain they believe they are in their attribution. None!
Almost everybody just tried handwaivingly ‘Oh, its in there. You only need to read the references in the report’. Many claiming certainty that it is to be found there, and that so many others do know. Very few have attempted to name those references though, and thw very few exceptions were to papers that most certainly did not establish that claim, not even addressing that issue.
As you know, nowadays I ask those say they know if they’ve seen, read and thoroughly have understood such alleged references themselves. And also if they are prepared to, after I’ve had timeto read them properly, to stay and argue their merits, answer for them and respond to criticism and objections. You were the first to claim to be prepared to do that.
However, now we are at mid July, and you have neither given any references, nor have you (as I’ve asked you) given any outline about how such quantifications were attempted to be established. The only relevant link was one about IPCC-lingo, and guidlines to how to treat uncertaintly, and mostly what vocabulary to use, not any technical specs about what they mean.
That link (I had seen it before) did mor to confirm my suspicions than lend support to the existence of such published science.
And it also seems that you ‘have left the building’ completely.
Honestly, I’m not the least suprised. I was however, suprised at those claims you made (May 3, 10:40 am ) so affirmingly. But I also expected that you couldn’t/wouldn’t live up to them.
As I said above, I’ll add you to the lengthy list which of those who claimed to know, but never could show where and how.
However, I will commend you for your civil tone (exceptionally rare here, and also among most other pro AGW-debaters). And there were some interesting turns in our discussion about what one may claim to be accepted as science ..
If you ever change your mind. Either really find/read/understand such publications and think you can argue their merits when scrutinized, or if you want to revise your position, your are most welcome to do so.
Meanwhile, our conversations too reinforced me in my views about what that famous AR4 is/was worth ..
Good to chat to you the other day over at BH Jonas! What do you reckon to the Muller and Watts shenanigans?
I think Watts has actually done some good stuff on the paper but not sure it was a good idea to rush it out (I imagine a response to being forewarned about the Muller meltdown).
Still interesting times!
Bernard J and chek are trying to argue since my comments are erased, I never answered them. Quite amazing. Either they are really fooled to believe so through the moderators removal of comments. Or they are aware of removal of comments (quite obvious, since all of the stupid answers are still visible) and are disingenuously trying to imply that I never responded. And additionally hoping that others are that easily fooled. The very obvious response pointed out:
Neither Bernard J nor chek (nor anybody else for that matter) has even made the claim that the provided lists contains the answer to my question. Where is the alleged science demonstrating that famous AR4 claim!
Bernard J, chek, and many others of course would like to send my of elsewhere and waste my time. But the bottom line is they have no clue. They are just firing of random rounds in the dark hoping it my divert the attention and fool others …
And because my comments are so extremely scary for the regulars, they are now moderated before they (very likely) are erased. Here is the response to cheks posturing about me not replying. Which he very well knows I did:
“So chek, did you ever get around to even claim that that list actually does answer the question to which you posted it in response?
I asked you a number of times. And also if you at all had read them, or at least some of them? (I don’t expect you to understand their contents, just wanted to know if you at least believe that they, or some of them actually establish that famous AR4 claim)
“Something’s very wrong here, surely. Many, many [months] have passed since I ..” first asked about that claim. “Many, many [years] have passed since” it first was made.
It seems to me that all the world, all that mighty consensus and all that science and those scientists and national academys, every single one in Jeffie’s lunchroom and at every important conference and seminar he has ever attended still takes that claim on pure faith and faith alone.
Isn’t that marvelous? Everytime (and almost everybody) I challenge the existence of such science, the answer is similar: It’s in the references (but somebody else, unnamed knows where, and can vouch for its existence and veracity).
But not one single person has ever seen it, or even properly tried to reference that claim. It’s taken on pure faith, and apparently by all those who you think that IPCC-reports are based on ‘the science’. Now why is that? Why blind reliance on faith on the side which again and again claims to deal with ‘science’? I agree: “Something’s very wrong here, surely …”
And I can tell you what’s wrong. It’s the same thing that makes both you here, and those climate activists you champion as ‘scientists’ so afraid of facing opposing views, facts and science … It is what makes you scream for censorship, deletion, demanding exclusion everywhere where your positions come under the slightest challenge.
Only (your own) strawmen dare you really challenge, and of course that looks only ridiculous if this is pointed out simultaneously. Can’t have that, can we ..
Things are not looking so well for the climate scare believers … But then again, they never did. It just looked like it from inside the tent …
Don’t let me disturb your fragile thought processes though, I see that some few regulars still are lingering doing their thingie ..
I just came back here to find a link that Paul H provided me with, about the use of IPPC-lingo. Useful stuff! To bad he threw in the towel too ..
You’re done Jonarse.
As in redundant.
Two years and not so much as even a solitary comment in a POS journal such as E&E, arguing your case. Nothing.
All you have are your rag-tag-along clown circus of half-wits which you preen to, instead of doing the work.. Congratulations, nonentity.
What you don’t have is any coherence explaining the warming that also accounts for ocean acidification to complement your ‘natural variation’ belief. The IPCC does.
You’re done, you preening twit.
Ah chek, on the “denier” thread I see. Don’t worry, nobody thinks you are a denier, you’re just “Reality!-curious”.
Glad you popped back Jonas!
Hey, morons – by which I mean you, Judas and GooseSez’Wha’?'; turns out it is possible not to be an idiot forever.
Won’t work on you two bolted-on degenerates, of course, but that’s because you really are the nadir of humanity.
Other than that – sod off, the pair of you! Real people can look forward to seeing the movie, when it makes it here…
GSW and Jonas, don’t be hard on chek. He’s still upset with the dendrochronology community’s views on Mann’s excellent work:
“I would be surprised if Mann has ever sampled a tree, looked at the resultant samples and even tried to crossdate them. He has utterly failed to understand the fundamental foundation of dendrochronology.”
Science is settled!
A quote with no citation that a google search brings up only under the non-bishop Bishop Hill and the non-entity Tony Watts.
Yeah, “the dendrochronolgy community” indeed. Pathetic loser.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.