Jonas Thread

By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Olaus Petri
    November 28, 2012

    Sorry for not mentioning you Wow. Of course you are as upset as chek. :-)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/dendros-stick-it-to-the-mann/#more-74884

    ;-)

  2. #2 Wow
    November 28, 2012

    Yes, Anthony Watts, that polymath: he is the dendrochronolgy community.

    He is Legion.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    November 28, 2012

    non-bishop Bishop Hill and the non-entity Tony Watts.

    Ah yes, WeUseWishfulThinking and Cardinal Puff, ready made for these morons to genuflect over.

    And bill you beat me to the punch with that excellent Climate Crocks article with that embedded video. I figure that woman was genuinely shocked at how she had been taken in by Billy ‘Goat’ O’Reilly and that andrewfez’s fears are groundless.

  4. #4 GSW
    November 28, 2012

    @Olaus

    I saw that Olaus, kind of something when even the CRU guys are screaming at Mann to stop “Torturing the data”. Interesting times!

    Also came across a clip of Marc Morano at Doha, where most of the talk apparently is about Sandy. With Cyclone/Hurricane trends down, he’s asking to see the evidence that it can be attributed to CAGW, as is being claimed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr-7kT0bxLc&feature=youtu.be

    As some of us here are aware, if there’s no evidence, it’s just not Science. Belief system Yes, Science No.
    ;)

  5. #5 Wow
    November 28, 2012

    “With Cyclone/Hurricane trends down”

    Something you can claim every time you’ve just completed one cyclone/hurricane.

    “We had 100% of a hurricane, now down to 0%!”.

  6. #6 Wow
    November 28, 2012

    “he’s asking to see the evidence that it can be attributed to CAGW, as is being claimed.”

    How about climate? Just climate.

    After all, the continental temperate CLIMATE of, for example, Wyoming do not lend themselves to hurricanes.

    But a climate that is tropical maritime IS prone to them.

    Change the climate, and the weather changes.

    Since the very existence of hurricanes depend on the climate, climate creates them.

    And changing climates cause a change in the hurricanes.

    We’ve never had Sandy before.

    Therefore you have to show that Sandy would have turned up anyway at that time.

    Otherwise, all you’re proving is that NY state has a climate that allows hurricanes to visit. Not that Sandy wasn’t there because the climate changed.

  7. #7 chek
    November 28, 2012

    So, the bobbleheads construct a strawman (the legend of ‘the team’, that monolithic gestalt that conspires to exclude all dissenting denier voices), and then wet themselves with excitement when it transpires that actually, eminent scientists do argue (in the literature) and the bobbleheads’ own carefully constructed strawman falls apart. It takes a special mix of cognitive dissonance and stupidity not to see the entirely masturbatory glee their own perceptions give them.

    Too funny. But then we knew that.

  8. #8 GSW
    November 29, 2012

    Actually chek “The Team” was how they referred to themselves, those dedicated to the “cause” with membership exclusive to those “suitable for our purposes” (see climategate). With Mann’s involvement, it was fairly obvious that those on the science side of the debate should jokingly refer to them as “The Hockey Team” surely?

    As for the Dendro spat,

    “We highlight problems in Mann et al.’s implementation of the tree ring model used … a lack of any empirical evidence for misdating of tree-ring chronologies”

    Ah, at last, someone else who thinks you can’t just go around claiming things because it suits, it requires “empirical evidence”. Some here should take note, making stuff up is good for “stories”, but science requires something more.

    Presummably, as you believe Sandy is clearly an artifact of CAGW, when such events happened in the past they could only be a result of some kind of Magic rather than a natural phenomenon? Science doesn’t deal in the supernatural, only what you have the evidence for and can prove. You’ll be advocating we burn the “Weather Witches” next, just in case.

    ;)

  9. #9 Wow
    November 29, 2012

    You are a strange little individual, gitty.

    stating things as if they were proof merely because you said them.

    then whining about how AGW isn’t science because you haven’t read anything supporting their statements.

  10. #10 chek
    November 29, 2012

    Actually Griselda, if you try reading the comment again, employing the comprehension facilities of at least an eight year old this time, I was referring to ‘the legend’ of the team that denierland constructed.

    As for the ‘dendro spat’ – oh noes!! Shock!! Horror!! Top scientists don’t always agree about everything!! Supported arguments to appear in the literature!! Hold the front page!!

    And then you wonder why you’re dismissed as morons…

  11. #11 Jonas N
    Reality
    November 29, 2012

    Sorry folks, didn’t mean to make you so upset. But then again, you manage that all by yourselves. But what is it you are so upset about? Reality, really?

    Many here have bent over backwards (and others foward)to ‘defend’ Mann from all kinds of criticism. While the flaws and mishandled date have been glaring there for anyone to see (you just had to look)

    It seem that at least in one case, more skilled people on his own side tell him load and clear, officially and to his (official) face that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That he can’t just make data up where there is none.

    His reply is as Mannian as it gets: “Anchukaitis et al. critique various aspects of our approach. Although we welcome alternative hypotheses, we note that their comment does not provide a plausible alternative explanation for this vexing problem” and more akin …

    You can read both href=”http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/all%20pdfs/Anchukaitisetal2012.pdf”>here.

    Notable is that several of the 23 authors were concerned about climatechange, friendly to his ’cause’ and even earlier co-authors.

    I think it was his blatantly anti-intellecutal nonsensical reply that prompted the more clearly spoken judgements by Rob Wilson.

    And here, as has been for years, frothing of the mouth is mistaken for intellectual discourse. Jeffie is at it too trying to deny reality from behind his padded confinement.

  12. #12 Jonas N
    Reality
    November 29, 2012
  13. #13 GSW
    November 29, 2012

    @Jonas

    The “correspondence” does make interesting reading.

    “Mann and colleagues base their conclusions solely on the
    evidence of a tree-ring-growth model”

    and,

    “First, they use an algorithm that has not been tested for its ability to reflect actual observations”

    There’s a pattern emerging here, dispensing with empirical evidence that does not support the theory, in favour of untested models that do, then pretend it’s “Science”. It all looks worryingly familiar.

    Mann’s not quite there yet, perhaps he should take a leaf out of chek’s book, counter reasoned argument with abuse. Something along the lines of,

    “Anchukaitis et al. critique various aspects of our approach. But it doesn’t matter as they are all morons”

    ;)

  14. #14 chek
    November 29, 2012

    No Griselda, I’m cvareful to distinguish that it’s you and your pal who are the morons present here. Not being sufficiently Dunning-Krugered to presume to have an opinion on a subject I have no experience or training in, I’ll leave it to the scientists to make and present their cases to their peers in the literature.

    I’ll leave it to morons like you and Jonarse and Watts et al to agree amongst yourselves (and only yourselves) that you possess the relevant expertise to even have an opinion that isn’t informed solely by your drooling political views.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    November 29, 2012

    “Padded confinement”.

    HA! That’s a laugh. This is the padded cell, Jonas. In case you forget, its yours and those of your fan-club (= 3 regular members). Real science is dicussed elsewhere.

    As usual, I am amused when people with no pedigree in any scientific field think somehow bypassing university education makes them better authorities in climate science than people with hundreds of papers and thousands of citations. I’ve challenged you and your similar scientific non-entities here to write up a paper for a peer-reviewed journal dozens of times. If you guys are a fraction as clever as you think you are, and certainly better scientists than Mann, Hansen, Trenberth et. al., then let’s see the published proof. Instead, you clowns are anonymous armchair/blog experts – legends in your own minds but not where it counts.

    Every time I make the same challenge it is ignored, usually accompanied by some vacuous smear. The simple question is why? The simple answer is obvious: because Jonas-GSW-Olaus-quality science would be bounced like a rubber ball. It wouldn’t stand the test of peer-review. And because none of them have any relevant research education in the field.They are all rank amateurs with a political axe to grind.

    So on blogs they will remain. Forever. That’s fine by me, but until then we have to put up with a stream of self-righteous pontificating and the usual smears.

  16. #16 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    Yes Jeff ..

    I remember you (and others) repeatedly asking for ‘protection’. You even begged to have me banned from this thread too, more than once!

    You are still incapable of arguing anything other than your belief that a CV settles anything in science.

    But as I’ve told you contless times: Real science does not, does not ever, never, work that way.

    It is based on a concept called ‘the scientific method’ and which you seem almost completely unaware of.

    And I notice that you once more, invent your own facts about whom you are adressing. Why is this so central to your ‘argument’, Jeff? You’ve been trying this for 1½ year now. Fabricating your own facts, repeating your fabrications. It is as stupid as is your CV-waiving. You guessing has absolutley nothing to do with science. Real science, that is ..

    But it’s brave of you to venture out of your protected comfort zone.

    Now, if you just addressed real issues, argued them like a man, abbandoned that infantile sputtering, and just formulated and argued whatever your stance is wrt to reality (not your belief system/fantasies), and if you’d stick to it consistently, that would be real progress.

    Do you even know what the climate and climate scare debates are about? Do you even know what has been discussed (by a few grown ups here)?

  17. #17 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    We could ask you (and the others whose numbers you find reinforcing)

    1) Do you really think that volcanos make some tree stands jump some treerings? Yes/No

    2) Do you believe that anything of storm Sandy can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? Yes/No

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    November 29, 2012

    Jonas, Why don’t you put a sock in it… let’s see your bonafides: write up paper and let’s see it published. Until then, put up or shut up. Your blog forays are hollow and vacuous. They ain’t science, pal.

    You lecturing me about the scientific method? HA! What a joke. When you publish one – just one – paper, then come back and lecture me on the ‘scientific method’. Clearly, my 125 (and counting) articles published in peer-reviewed journals (the latest came out yesterday in PLoS Biology) seems pretty conclusive evidence that I know what the ‘scientific method ‘is, you nitwit. I have several in Nature, PNAS, Ecology Letters etc. It seems a bit weird if someone with a lot of scientific publications has to be lectured about the ‘scientific method’ by a wannabe with no scientific background in any way, shape or form.

    You claim you know what ‘real science’ is, and then you go on to smear Mann, Hansen, Trenberth and other scientists with hundreds of peer-reviewed papers and citations. You are an imbecile, Jonas. You can get stuffed.

  19. #19 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    Yes, I am lecturing you about the scientific method Jeff. You have in your countless comments here demonstrated that you cannot even argue simpler points without glaringly violating almost everything that is required of a real scientist.

    Period!

    Sientists don’t make up their ‘supporting data’ or ‘evidence’!

    You still think publishing/citations is ‘the scientific methord’!?

    And I can tell you exactly where Mann, Hansen, and Tranberth go astray! You can’t, Jeff! You stare in awe at their CV and believe therefore what comes out of their mouth or from their pen must be the undeniable truth!

    And still, Jeff, science does not work that way. Never did!

    All you are doin is arguing ‘authority’ and science does not work that way, Jeff. Never did!

    Will you ever learn?

  20. #20 Jeff Harvey
    November 29, 2012

    Oh Jonas, you are one funny guy. Amsuing, comical, and weird. Do you really think that I give a damn about you lecturing me on the scientific method? Come on, man. I couldn’t carer less – your ‘clout’ in science is – well – non-existant.

    Think about it before you write any more piffle. And with respect to Mann et al. I repeat (yawn): if you are so cinvinced of your greatness, then write a paper. Submit it. See how far it goes. I am sure that you cam get the bobbsy twins to co-author it with you. Or is your own little feeble thread on Deltoid the extent of the world learning of your wisdom?

  21. #21 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    Jeff, it is quite obvious that learning comes hard and slow for you. I would almost say you are in denial.

    The missteps in elementary logic, already at the blog comment level, are so many, so consistent and so glaring, it’s just flabbergasting!

    As is you pathalogical need for inventing who I am, my skills and expertise, educations, accomplishments and CV. You just desperately hope.

    I explain simpler things in detail. The non-scientist Jeff harvey screeches:

    ‘I don’t believe you. I have a CV. And haven’t seen yours! How could I ever judge whether what you say is valid?

    Exactly my point, Jeffie-little. You can’t! And that’s why you’ve been screeching here for over 1½ years.

    But can you answer me this instead? You have been shouting here about climate change for ages. Even before my arrival. If you don’t understand the issues, the methods, the language, calculations, proposed mechanisms etc. And if you don’t argue them either, or address what is discussed, what is your role here?

    I mean, you ave entities like Wow, Lionel A, chek, Bernard J here, who often share you outraged emotions (about thins the understand equally little about). But why are you doing it?

    I haven’t seen you making many points of substance even wrt your own field. Which does nowhere address the possibility and size of the A in AGW, which is my interest.

    Why aare you shouting nonsense like a madman för years? Whom are you trying to impress? And with what?

  22. #22 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    Look Jeff,

    Above, I wasn’t even asking you to be a scientist. I just asked what you thought about two things mentioned here recently:

    We could ask you (and the others whose numbers you find reinforcing)

    1) Do you really think that volcanos make some tree stands jump some treerings? Yes/No

    2) Do you believe that anything of storm Sandy can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? Yes/No

    Simple matters of opinion, Jeffie. And both alternatives ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ are admissable.

    ;-)

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    November 29, 2012

    *Sigh*. Publish or perish, Jonas. Aside from a few acolytes, the only person who takes anything you say seriously here is yourself. Its a big world out there, and you are clearly afraid of it. So Deltoid is where you will stay. Tough, ain’t it?

    If it gives you comfort in your deluded rants, then stick with it. After all, its you who is screeching. Not me. You and your opinions mean diddly squat to me, Jonas. Remember that in your next reply. Let it sink in. Digest it. I repeat: your opinions of me mean nothing, Nix. Nada. Why? Because you don’t count. You can smear and attack me on this innocuous little corner of the world all you like, but I have much bigger fish to fry.

  24. #24 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    Jeff …

    Still clining to your fantasies.

    I am not the one screeching. I came here, and asked for references to a very prominent claim by the IPCC AR4. And the screeching began. You were part of it. Still are!

    I read the (very few) offerend alleged references, and pointed out why they were not sufficient.

    You and most of the others continued screeching. Hardly ever addressing anything of substance.

    BTW Have you ever thought about how your oft repeated proclamations that you don’t care the least about me or what I say …

    .. how that comes across in the light of you angrily shaking your CV in your fist at me for 1½ year?

    :-)

  25. #25 GSW
    November 29, 2012

    @jeff

    I think we’re talking about degree’s here jeff. Mann et al, abandon the scientific method when it doesn’t give the answer they want. You’re a different kettle of fish altogether, completely oblivious to the “need” for it even.

    Jonas asked where you stood on the old Sandy, Tree rings and volcanoes questions. I’m curious too.

    1) Do you really think that volcanos make some tree stands jump some treerings? Yes/No

    2) Do you believe that anything of storm Sandy can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? Yes/No

    Happy to accept you probably haven’t got a clue. But it’s just yes/no answers so there’s a 50% chance you’ll be right from pure luck!

    ;)

  26. #26 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    GSW

    strictly you are wrong on the 50% chances. And I am asking Jeffs opinion. If he manages to give me that without lying, I’ll accept this as the correct answer. Mind you, I’m not even asking him about his rational for believing this or that. Just what it is.

    Arguing pros and cons a specific proposition would come after. But for that we first need the proposition. And I will gladly accept if Jeff says that’s what he believes. Or if he ansers that the lengt of various CVs led him to lean either way.

    And although it is an scientifically invalid argument, the total length of 23 professional CVs compared to only three, would if so, lead Jeff in a direction I believe is is very reluctant to go.

    But I don’t think we’ll get a straight answer. If anything it will be about something else …

  27. #27 GSW
    November 29, 2012

    @Jonas,

    “strictly you are wrong on the 50% chances”

    I do understand Jonas ;) – But where’s the fun in that? There’s a very one dimensional reasoning engine at work here, let’s see where it goes!
    ;)

  28. #28 chek
    November 29, 2012

    I read the (very few) offerend alleged references, and pointed out why they were not sufficient.

    Your status as an unqualified moron explains it sufficiently.

    <iAnd I can tell you exactly where Mann, Hansen, and Tranberth go astray!

    No Jonarse, you just * think * you can. The difference is substantial, and applies to McIntyre, Montford and Watts and the whole anti-science circus you gleefully perform in.

  29. #29 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    I’m trying to give Jeff an opportunity to show that he can actually make for the topics here meaningful comments. And belief-Yes/No on a specified question seemed to me like a reasonably simple starting point.

    Let’s see if this goes!

  30. #30 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    chek – your comments are just stupid, idiotic. I don’t even knwo why you make them. Probably for the same reason as Jaff makes his. You would desperately want to believe all you say ..

    But as I said above. Even your opinions (Yes/No) on very simple questions would be welcome.

    And if you for once managed to behave like a grown up

  31. #31 chek
    November 29, 2012

    The reason is very simple Jonarse – you have said nothing of any import at any time here. Your whole routine is about creating meaningless impressions for your own band of imported hangers on.

  32. #32 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    Well kiddie,

    There you’re wrong. Anyway, the unimportan, meaningless, stupid remarks here are the norm from you and quite some more.

    I raised the level considerably. Even for you, ceckie ..

    You know are (grudgingly) aware of that nobody here has any clue where that AR4 claim about 90% certainty came from. Although this was said to be entirely my own fault.

    I understand that you hate me for that revalation, but that’s just life. Reality may sting, but its not personal ..

    ;-)

  33. #33 GSW
    November 29, 2012

    @chek

    I’m happy to accept it’s all a bit above you chek. The fact you see no “import” in what’s been said, speaks for itself.

    Jeff buggered off has he? A couple of straight forward questions put to him and he’s gone! Probably checking his CV to see if there’s anything in there about yes/no questions or volcanoes.

  34. #34 chek
    November 29, 2012

    I’m happy to accept it’s all a bit above you chek

    Why you waste your time performing this act, when the only obvious thing is that you and your sidekick haven’t got a clue … well presumably the only possible benefit of it is that you could be elsewhere and an unknown quantity. Witness Jonarse now pretending he understands current “issues”.
    Amazing.

  35. #35 Jeff Harvey
    November 29, 2012

    “Happy to accept you probably haven’t got a clue. But it’s just yes/no answers so there’s a 50% chance you’ll be right from pure luck!”

    More self-righteous arrogance from one of the Brady bunch. So you know the correct answers, do you? Youy’ve done the research? Published the papers? What’s comical coming from you, GSW, as well as from Jonas, is the ways in which you two twits act as if you are statured scientists giving sermons.You both appear to believe you have the ability to comment on the validity of published studies that have already gone through peer-review, and that your adjudications are what ultimately matters. Good or bad. End of story. I am surprised that neither of you have mega-web sites where you personally filter out the good science from the bad, and where that is considered, “the final word”on the subject y the scientific community at large. Talk about arrogance and hubris. You two jerks have it in spades. The only problem is that virtually no-one is listening.

    OK: regarding Sandy: one excerptional storm of course does not provide proof of AGW. But, and its a big but – certainly an increase in exceptional weather events is an indicator that something is going on in the atmosphere that is quite unusual. And that factor is certainly likely to be linked with anthropogenic forcing. You morons won’t like it, being the twin geniuses you think you both are, complete with your lack of scientific bonafides and nil publications, but the climate science community by-and-large would agree with that. I am sure that you both think its hardly strange that autumn temperatures along the Arctic coast of Alaska and NW Canada are 10-15 C above the long-term average, and that for the first time in recorded history the Alaskan coastline was ice-free at the beginning of this month. But I don’t. Neither do most climate scientists. Sorry to burst your bubbles, but I just don’t take your nil-publication, nil-expertise views all that seriously.

    As for volcanic eruptions causing some trees to ‘jump’ tree rings, I am honest enough to say that, having never researched the field, I wthhold judgment. I would say that it does not make sense, but then again I am not a researcher in that area. You two clowns aren’t either, but that won’t stop you acting as judge, jury and executioner in claiming to be veritable experts in the field. But of course, neither of you will take your brilliance to a scientific arena, as I have said many times before. Deltoid is it.

    As far as my CV is concerned, Jonas appears to be having wet dreams over it. Its the politics of envy. A person builds up their CV as a result of working for it. They don’t sit on their asses and suddenly – whoosh!!! – they are globally respected experts in a field. I’ve done the mileage, Jonas. You haven’t even gotten past the starting line. And yet you lecture me on the ‘scientific method’! Un-be-lieveable. A person who has never done a single experimentin his life, never published a paper, given a lecture at a university, lectures a scientist. That’s a hoot.

    This isn’t even ridiculous anymore – it basically reveals that Jonas borders on being psychopathic – with GSW at his side in the cuckoo’s nest.

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    November 29, 2012

    I have just read the Mann et al. paper: Here is how they woird their results:

    “However, a large fraction (90%) of the 20 independent sites following the ad1258/1259 eruption, and more than half of the sites following the1815 eruption (Fig. 3c), have growing-season lengths that fall below a reasonably defined `no-ring’ threshold (we hypothesize that a ring may in practice not be discernible for growing seasons shorterthan 26 days, but similar results are obtained assuming a shorterthreshold, for example 14 daysSupplementary Information)”.

    And how does Jonas interpret this conclusion? By twisting it, claiming that Mann et al. say that trees ‘jump some treerings’ duyring a specific year. This type of distrotion is straight out of the anti-environmetal handbook. Mann et al are arguing (using ‘…’) that in some growing season tree rings are so close together that they fall below a growth threshold; this may be particulalry evident if the results of these years are juxtaposed against other yearly growth data. Jonas and his poodle use the term ‘jumping’ as a smear to imply that Mann et al are claiming that trees have leap years in whichthe rings stay exactly the same. Yet Manns use of the term is within the realm of scientific reality, whereas Jonas twists it to make the conclusion look ridiculous.Talk about dishonest.

    And note how its only now that Jonas and GSW take the scientific high ground on this issue. Why is that? Because a rebuttal has been published that was hihglighted on BH or some other contrarian site. To these twits the Mann study is only on the radar when the denier blogs have a go at it.

    Talk about idiots.

  37. #37 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    Yes Jeff, I have the ability to comment upon published science. I actually do. Even here, when occasionally there is an adult in the room. enough about that ..

    But as I foresaw:

    You wouldn’t answer the question. You probably didn’t even read it. Instead you repeat your appeal to a majority of numbers and alleged vaguely related experts in the field.

    And still, still after over 1½ years, you are incapable of making the absolutely necessary disstinction between GW and AGW in your argument. In the simplest question directly addressing that distinction, asking about it. It’s just amazing

    Well, regarding the vocano/treering question you actually did (almost) answer. You indicated that you find it hard to believe. As do I. (And I can argue why I do, but not based on other peoples CVs)

    Well, regarding “researcher[s] in that area”, thats exactly what they said and wrote. 23 of them. And to the face of (mainly) one who isn’t.

    And Yes Jeff, I still lecture you on ‘the scientific method’, but I wouldn’t as far as claiming that I’m lecturing a scientist. Amonst others, because you still are trying to fabricate your arguments.

    How do you even come up with the stupidities you write in almost every one of your posts Jeff? Just claiming nonsens to be facts out of the blue! Again and again! Inventing, fantasizing, dreaming up stuff!

    And to top it of: Based on his own fantasies Jeff deduces that:

    ” it basically reveals that Jonas borders on being psychopathic ”

    Well, Jeffie once more demonstrates how scientifically inclined his ‘logic’ is.

  38. #38 chek
    November 29, 2012

    I have the ability to comment upon published science. I actually do.

    Bear in mind that long, long experience tells us that your assurances are worthless and an indication that you’re – yet again,

    Inventing, fantasizing, dreaming up stuff!

    .

  39. #39 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    Jeff .. maybe you should read the reply too, before you wet your pants. I don’t need to twist anything. Making things up is your method, not mine.

    The core beef of your ‘argument’ now seems to be that Mann et all didn’t call it ‘jumping treerings’.

    But did you understand what he actually argued. And had you even read the criticism? Or are once more just hoping and believing things to be the way you hope and believe?

    Regarding your attempt to come to Manns aid by semantical twists, I can tell you that didn’t use the term ‘flipped upside down’ about the Torneträsk sediments either. His rational for doing exactly that was phrased to sound like:
    “within the realm of scientific” methodology.

    Likle you observed: “Here is how they woird their results:”

    Yes, thats how they worded it. And then you need to check what that actually means and implies in the real word.

    the fundamental foundation of dendrochronology”

    And still that’s what he did. Jeffie! Flipped them!

    And you have no way of finding out. Just hoping and believing. Or actually listening to people who care about science and truth ..

    I will remind you of two comments by Rob Wilson (on of the 23):

    “”if [Mann] had taken the trouble either (1) to speak to some of his dendrochronological colleagues or (2) look at some real tree-ring data to learn what “crossdating” is, he would have quickly realised that his hypothesis was wrong and would not have wasted a lot of time for many people”

    ”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

    Now let me be clear, I don’t know if Wilsons assumptions [about Mann] are right. But their rebuttal makes a pretty strong case for Mann being out of his depth (or just randomly making up things to suit him). His ‘response’ is also revealing.

  40. #40 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    chek .. you are a perfect supporter for the Jeffie-side. As is Wow, and earlier Stu, bill Lionel, Bernard J and quite some others. You probably do the best you can ..

  41. #41 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    I scambled the Rob Wilson quotes, Jeff. Here they are again:

    1) “if [Mann] had taken the trouble either (1) to speak to some of his dendrochronological colleagues or (2) look at some real tree-ring data to learn what “crossdating” is, he would have quickly realised that his hypothesis was wrong and would not have wasted a lot of time for many people”

    2) ”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”

  42. #42 Jeff Harvey
    November 29, 2012

    “Yes Jeff, I have the ability to comment upon published science”

    Says who? You?????

    Do you have the ability to write up scientific findings? To publish your research? To give lectures at universities? Or is your science confined to blogs?

    We all know the answer to that one.

  43. #43 Jeff Harvey
    November 29, 2012

    One last point: in what kind of deluded world does a simple rebuttal of one study by Mann et al.- even if the authors of the rebuttal are correct – deligitimize a huge body of empirical and theoretical literature on AGW?

    A: It doesn’t. Not at all. I am sure that most if not all of the authors of the rebuttal agree that humans are the major agent of climate forcing. Science does not work by consensus. It never has. This is where your arguments become unglued. You think that by taking apart a single study (and you only did this after Jones made his rebuttal – amplied on the denialosphere – evidence that you rely on WUWT and other contrarian blogs to do your thinking for you), that somehow the entire field is dismissed.

    I have given enough lectures on anti-environmentalism to know exactly how the strategy works. Mann is relentlessly smeared by think tanks, right wing blogs etc., and by doing so, the aim is to smear the entire climate science community that by-and-large agree that humans are forcing climate. Its been used in other areas of science where policy is concerned.

    Is the climate warming? Most definitely. Numerous proxies prove that without any doubt. The question is how much humans are responsible. Most scientists, whether you like it or not, agree over the primary cause. Us. Until you get off your lazy ass and start publishing rebuttals and counter evidence, and stop relying on contrarian blogs for your information, then you will never win the scientific debate. But of course that has never been the aim of deniers. The aim is to sow enough doubt over the process as to render counter action mute. There you are winning. But not on the science.

    As a final point, over a year ago Benard cited some 300 papers in the IPCC report (2007) for you to critique.You never discussxed a single one. I suppose you were relying on Watts of McIntyre or Mountford to help you out, because you clearly cannot think for yourself. Manns Nature Geoscience paper was published months ago. Yet only now are you huffing and puffing about it and about how much you know about the field. Yet, this is only after a rebuttal is published and spread all overthe denialosphere. Coincidence? Hardly.

  44. #44 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    Jeff, again

    “in what kind of deluded world does a simple rebuttal of one study by Mann et al.- even if the authors of the rebuttal are correct – deligitimize a huge body of empirical and theoretical literature on AGW?”

    Apparently in your fantasy projection world. Since I have never made any such claim or connection.

    “As a final point, over a year ago Benard cited some 300 papers in the IPCC report (2007) for you to critique”

    Bernard was trying to avoid the core questions by spamming me with a long list (I think they were 30 or so though). He didn’t even claim that any one of these cointaned that AR4 claim I was asking for. Why would I even bother reading a list by Bernard, which not even he claims cointains it? He hedn’t even read them himself he said.

    “”The question is how much humans are responsible. Most scientists, whether you like it or not, agree over the primary cause”

    Yes, we hear that a lot. But science is about demonstrating. And whatever people believe is not part of the demonstrating. You need to understand that. Yes, it’s true that many agree on that. Because the IPCC said so for instance. But this agreement carries no weight if it is only based on belief. As I have shown here, this faith i strong in certain quarters. And has been almost blindly accepted there.

    Ask yourself why you never had heard that there is no proper science behind that AR4 claim? And why nobody even hade checked? Ask your self also why people get so extremely worked up when you ask to see that science that still 1½ year later they’re behaving like kids who had their candy taken away?

    And all the while making one counterfactual statement after the other. I have never referred to WUWT or any other blog for authority. It is your side that is obsessed with them, while waiting for blogs to explain the science for them. If they’re not busy inventing all kinds of ‘facts’ about those who don’t share their beliefs.

    “Jonas borders on being psychopathic ” or “you clearly cannot think for yourself”

    That’s your level of thinking for yourself Jeffie. ANd it’s revealing!

  45. #45 Wow
    November 29, 2012

    “I scambled the Rob Wilson quotes”

    Still if he’s “the dendrochronology community”, then the community is very small, isn’t it.

    PS proved that Sandy would have happened even if AGW hadn’t occurred, or are you too busy fapping the wagger, you wanker?

  46. #46 Wow
    November 29, 2012

    “Since I have never made any such claim or connection.”

    So what the fuck are you wibbling on about, then?

  47. #47 Wow
    November 29, 2012

    Hey, arsebreath, since big questions are beyond you, care to answer this?

    Are cloudless nights colder or warmer than cloudy nights?

  48. #48 Jeff Harvey
    November 29, 2012

    ““Since I have never made any such claim or connection.”

    As Wow said. Why else would Jonas expend so much energy about one study and one researcher? And although Jonas claims that his wisdom does not require input from WUWT/CA etc., its pretty strange that his critique of the Mann et al. paper only surfaced when Wilson and colleagues wrote a rebuttal that went viral over the denialsphere. The Mann paper came out 7 months ago. Our resident genius did not make a peep about it until now, shortly after it was attacked by the right wing denial machine. Again, a coincidence? Hardly.

    If you aren’t claiming that AGW isn’t happening, Jonas, why expend so much effort on a few pedantic points? Why not busy your brilliance in another field? Like medicine? Or astrophysics? After all, you’ve implied here time and again that self-education is all one needs to be a super-duper expert in any field of research. I am sure that your dopey band of followers would be glad to cough up sponsorship for you.

  49. #49 Jonas N
    November 29, 2012

    Jeff
    It’s good that you finally admit that it’s all about guessing how things are ‘connected’ without any other ‘evidence’ than what you and your imagination come up with.

    And now Nature Geoscience, and quite a few dendrochronologists are part of a “attack[] by the right wing denial machine”.

    Imagination, fantasies, wild-eyed guesses ..

    “you’ve implied here time and again that self-education is all one needs to be a super-duper expert in any field of ”

    You just can’t help your self Jeff, can you?

  50. #50 chek
    November 29, 2012

    What is it with Jonarse and Griselda & Co. that they can’t comprehend the simplest statements without distorting them? Today’s examples include some absolute classics of whining victimhood.

    Time to wipe that foam off your spittle-flecked screens, boys.

  51. #51 bill
    November 29, 2012

    I do not think the ‘Dendro’ letter means what these fools think it means.

    I’m reminded of Goering waking Hitler with a phone call to congratulate him on the death of Roosevelt in April ’45, because now the West would waver and fall apart and German might would be resurgent across Europe etc..

    When you’re a bunch of aging arch-reactionaries confined to your bunkers by the sheer weight of your opposition and praying for a miracle to reverse the course of history, this is the kind of blackly-comic hysterical daftness that comes naturally…

  52. #52 bill
    November 30, 2012

    Gee, whaddya know?

    Looks like you’re still stuck deeeeep in the bunker, guys, and the artillery fire is drawing nearer…

  53. #53 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    Interesting bill …

    You call that artiellery fire? I’d guess that you’d also call Jeff’s decarling victory from his protected zone or at the end of most posts ‘direct missile hit’ !?

    chek & wow … when did you last time even attempt anything resembling a valid argument?

  54. #54 bill
    November 30, 2012

    Let’s face it guys, if beating yourselves into an onanistic frenzy regarding some collegial technical dispute, and proclaiming it yet another incipient End of Mannism and the Real Live Truly Final This Time No Really Demise of the CAGW Scam is the best you can do, you might as well just join Lord Monckton on the Alex Jones / Tin-Foil Hat circuit in the US.

    C’mon now – man up and admit it ; you feel ridiculous! You certainly should, at any rate…

  55. #55 GSW
    November 30, 2012

    @Jonas,

    Still doing your Science 101 for jeff and others then? aka All that matters is what you have evidence for, forget what you think you “know”, no place for prejudices/preconceptions, just what you observe and can show. Be nice to think he is approaching the lesson with an open mind, but he’s shown no inclination to that in the past.

    I’ve been trying to parse his answer to the Sandy question. As you say it’s a non-answer.

    “one excerptional storm of course does not provide proof of AGW.”

    mmm… that sounds like a No. But is it? This “stock” answer is usually followed by “but in a Warming world we would expect more…”

    the take home message from this to simple folk (chek and some others) seems to be that this “failure to attribute” is just science being “awkward” – we know CAGW caused Sandy, but the “intricate rules of science” just won’t let us say that ;)

    Jeffs take is a little different, he follows with,

    “an increase in exceptional weather events is an indicator that something is going on in the atmosphere that is quite unusual”

    Presummably a lack of increase in “exceptional weather events” would be an indicator that nothing very much is going on in the atmosphere?

    I looked at the NOAA/NCDC site on the “Atlantic Hurricane Climatology and Overview” page.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/hurricanes/us-hurricanelandfall-fig4-por-2008.gif

    The graphs only run to 2008 for some reason, but NOAA’s “end of year” report for 2012 has the following,

    “Based on the combined number, intensity, and duration of all tropical storms and hurricanes, NOAA classifies the season as above-normal. 2012 was an active year, but not exceptionally so as there were 10 busier years in the last three decades.”

    so Above average, but not exceptional. Reading that and looking at the graph it would be hard to conclude that there is “something is going on in the atmosphere that is quite unusual” from this single Hurricane (jeffs get out) or the entire historical record of past US hurricanes.

    Coincidentally, the latest installment from the WUWT video day has just been released. It’s from Meteorologist Mike Smith of WeatherData Inc. in Wichita, KS, talking about this very subject.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu-6NIUNNw0

    Not watched it yet, will do at some point during the day. Mike’s just been anounced as the co-lead of the National Weather Service’s service assessment for Hurricane Sandy, so should be interesting.
    ;)

  56. #56 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    bill, I didn’t expet you to understand neither of the issues, papers, letters, replies, RC-posts or what is going on in the larger picture.

    The latter BTW, its quite OK and interesting to have different views and opinions about what is happening wrt ‘climate science’ of lately.

    There is some fuss about the recurring hysteria about ‘extreme weather’ we hear so often from the nutty side.
    Interesting things too about the sun, about clouds etc.

    But of course you will not be fed such from your usual outlets.

  57. #57 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    GSW

    I was particularly asking if Jeff (or any of the other band) believe that any part of Sandy can be attributed to human CO2.

    I don’t think he ever got close to the key word therein …

  58. #58 GSW
    November 30, 2012

    @Jonas,

    I got that subtetly Jonas. Hayhoe is on record with the following

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/jso8ub

    “So did climate change cause Sandy? No: there is absolutely no evidence that it did. In fact, several future modeling studies suggest climate change may actually *decrease* hurricane frequency (although increasing the number of Cat 4 and 5 storms).”

    and (what you’re getting at I think)

    “I estimated earlier (see previous twitter feed for references) that long-term 7 inch global sea level rise could have enhanced Sandy’s storm surge by 4% and sea surface temperature increases by something on the order of 1oC. Compare that to the 14 foot storm surge measured during the storm, and the >5oC natural SST temperature anomaly present this month.”

    Trenberth has something similar I remember, attribution to Natural Variability and ocean temperatures 3C above normal, with 0.6C[his figure] attributable to Global Warming. Despite that though Sandy meander between being only a Tropical Storm thru to Cat2 Hurricane, just, Cat1 being the quoted level. So fairly unexceptional even with a speculated CAGW component.

    I’m sure jeff will comment further.

  59. #59 Jeff Harvey
    November 30, 2012

    “I’m sure jeff will comment further”.

    Nope. The main reason is that I will not be dragged into another wasted discussion with a know-nothing (Jonas) and his wart (GSW). Take your wisdom guys to the climate science community where you will be laughingstocks.

    Besides, I have science to do – REAL – science – 4 papers to review, three manuscripts to finish and a seminar to prepare for the British Ecological Society in late December. You clowns don’t appear to have anything else to do but to sit on your lazy butts and write into Deltoid.

  60. #60 bill
    November 30, 2012

    Notice how we’ve discreetly dropped the Mann/dendro BS – because even these muppets recognise there’s nothing to it, and now we’re back to desperately flailing around re Sandy attribution.

    Love the utter imbecility – and I seriously mean that – of ‘fairly unexceptional'; tell that to the New York subway system! Warmer ocean, higher ocean, 5% more moisture in atmosphere, dramatically reduced Arctic icepack, meandering jetstream. What’s not to understand?

    And speaking of understanding; saying ‘Sandy’ would have happened without AGW is like claiming that if chimpanzees had evolved to become the most intelligent species on earth a chimp named Bush would have been elected in a year 2000 (oh – wait a minute!) Sensitive dependence upon initial conditions and all that… morons!

    But, by all means, carry on – you two buffoons are an outstanding advertisement for our side of the argument…

  61. #61 chek
    November 30, 2012

    So (Sandy) fairly unexceptional even with a speculated CAGW component.

    Alrighty, if it was so ‘unexceptional’ I’m really looking forward to all the 1000 mile diameter storms you can name that have hit so far north in the west Atlantic and so late in the season within (oh, let’s make it easy..) say the past 50 years.

    ** crickets **
    When will you realise that your distortions, misrepresentations and lying only work on double digit IQ’s and some Faux viewers (although some of those are turning) – in other words people like yourself. Take your wares to those who don’t (yet) know that there’s real data out there, not filtered by the mendacious likes of you.

  62. #62 Jeff Harvey
    November 30, 2012

    Bill: well said. Notice how they’ve steered away from meterorlogically extreme events such as the searing heat wave the crippled much of the US this year; March when temperatures broke existing records in some areas by ten or more degrees C on multiplee days; heat waves and other extreme events elsewhere in the world that have increased in extent since the 1960s. And the point about Sandy is not just its intensity but its size: this gigantic storm reached almost half way across the US, impacting Lakes Superior and Michigan while battering the Atlantic coast at the same time. It is this that was exceptional and unprecedented by any standards; the “Long Island Express” hurricane of 1938 may have been devastating to New York and New Jersy as well, but that storm (and later, hurricane Hazel in 1954) were not even close to Sandy in their geographical size.

    And of course the latestnews which shows that ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic are melting three times faster than they were in 1990. What makes this years loss of Arctic ice (and especially older ice) so remarkable was that even the IPCC did not expect such an event to occur for another 20 years or so. Climate change is very real, its largely mediated by human activities, and its getting worse.

  63. #63 Jeff Harvey
    November 30, 2012

    As Chek said… Sandy was gigantic. Storms of this size are unprecedented. Its not just the intensity but the size.

  64. #64 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    Jeff

    You are the one wasting time and space writing about all kinds of things that are either irrelevant, and very very often just products of your fantasies. And your infantile spouting attempted insults inbetween …

    I have watched this for 1½ year no, and you truly are incable of anything resembling civil, much less scientific debate.

    And most amazing is that you write som much nonsense wich is demonstarably untrue about many factual things. I don’t know how many times you completely misrepresented things I said. Even completely missed the topic.

    I have a very hard time that you can do better in whatever it is you call ‘science’ in your publications. The only thing I’ve read is your smear on Lomborg, whose book you neither understood nor reviewed the contents of. Just the usual idiotic rants … and that was you in your day-job!

    And your need to waive your CV as if it would somehow impress och strengthen your argument is just ludicrous. Someone who consistently fails even simple things like answering straightforward questions (or reading them correctly), someone who is emotionally som unstable he cannot hold back his flood of insults he’d rather spew.

    Somene behaving as imature and badly, but who still has the temerity to whine about not beeing treated nicely enough.

    A person desperately wanting to be labelled ‘scientist’ but makes every logical fallacy in the book, comment after comment … And has no clue about what ‘the scientific method’ requires.

    BTW Did you ever get around to tell us how and what you were going to do about the melting glaciers? Your were very upset about it, and accused others for not doing anything about it ;-)

  65. #65 Wow
    November 30, 2012

    Hey, you two lovebuddyboys, “it’s happened before” isn’t proving Sandy would have happened without AGW changes to the climate.

    Skyscrapers fell down because of earthquakes and NYC gets earthquakes, but this doesn’t prove 11/9 was caused by earthquakes.

    And you bumchums still don’t seem to know whether a cloudy night is colder or warmer than a cloudless one.

  66. #66 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    bill …

    I see you too want to ‘draw conclusions’ based on things you are not seeing. Its a common misconception among those who aren’t trained in science. That you get to make up ‘facts’ about everything you don’t know or see. If you just imagine them, or convince yourself they are consistent with whatever you want to believe.

    The relevant questions is (and was): Is there any part of Sandy that can be attributed to human CO2-emissions?

    Chimpanzies and Bushes are not part of the question (but giveaway part of the emotional mindset)

  67. #67 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    Wow … “this doesn’t prove 11/9 was caused by earthquakes”
    your logic is even better than Jeff’s.

  68. #68 chek
    November 30, 2012

    I don’t think he ever got close to the key word

    Any reputable scientist will not honestly attribute a single storm event to AGW as you are so desperately trying to get someone here to do, anymore than a doctor can attribute cancer to any one single cigarette.

    You need a larger focus, which is why you morons are obsessing about one event.

  69. #69 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    Congratulations chek

    A rare comment with some substance and content.

    But I didn’t ask him (or anybody) to attribute “a single storm event to AGW”.

    Instead I asked:

    2) Do you believe that anything of storm Sandy can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? Yes/No

    Let me specify the details. Firstly, I asked about Jeffies beliefs. Thats all he has, but these (potentially at least) he can give correctly. Secondly, i asked about any part of Sandy (for instance its size, or if it was aggravated) and finally I asked if such can be attributed to human CO2. Still only his beliefs. But the ‘can be attributed’ implies two things. Some kind causation, and the possibility to demonstrate this connection. And it was a Yes/No question, and I’d accepted both answers.

    Well, it seems you are aware that the demonstration/attribution is essantially impossible for a single event. I just would have liked to hear this from Jeff (and others) too.

    And I’m sorry, but you totally and completely miss the plot. The hangup with single event Sandy is entirely on the climate scare side. And it is made by many, and implied by many more still. On the realist side, it is again and again pointed out that such claims cannot be made.

  70. #70 Jeff Harvey
    November 30, 2012

    “The only thing I’ve read is your smear on Lomborg, whose book you neither understood nor reviewed the contents of”

    Now Jonas you really are out of your depth. I so badly understood Lomborg’s book that I co-reviewed it for Nature, the Union of Concered Scientists, as well as being invited to Demark to give seminars at two universities on the book as well as being interviewed by the BBC and two newspapewrs in the UK and one in Holland. And here you are, a complete non-entity in science telling me that I didn’t udnerstand the book. Your comedy rotuine gets better every day.You are a complete idiot.

    The book wasn’t at all hard to understand as most of the arguments were based on kindergarten-level analysis. I certainly understood that Lomborg cherry picked results over and over again, and ignored many others that came to directly different conclusions or which were correctives. I understood that he used a single model based on predicted UK insect extinctions and applied that to global extinction rates of all taxa, whilst ignoring 12 others that produced very different (and higher)estimates. I undersood that he referred to earthworms as insects; I understood that he does not know what supporting ecosystem services are, and completely does not grasp the prevailing global economic system that drives social injustice aqnd poverty. I certainly understood that he included palm oil plantations and banana plantations in his estimates of global forest cover, as well as planned reforestation projects that had not yet been realized. I understood well enough that he could not tell as second growth forest from a primary forest, a grave mistake. I understood that he had not a clue about the ecological effects of acid rain on fresh water and forest ecosystems.I unbderstood that he misquotes scientists several time sin the book (e.g. Paul Colinvaux) in order to distort what they siad. I understood that he tried to link esteemed scientists like Jared Diamond, Ed Wilson and Paul Ehrlich to a plan taht doesn’t exist as he describes it in order to smear them. Need I go on? Most scientists could see that the book was an abomination but it wass never intended for a scientific audience; it was intended for simpletons like you, Jonas. Welcome to the club.

    You think you are a really smart guy but you are an ignorant jackass in my humble opinion. I’d debate you or GSW in any venue on Earth on the Lomborg book and would destroy your arguments.Piece of cake. Heck, I gave Lomborg a beating here in 2002, and since then he has avoided me like the plague. He’s doing very well on the right wing think tank circuit these days anyway. They queue up to listen to his nonsense, and that’s fine by me. But on environmental science, Jonas, you know nix.

  71. #71 Jeff Harvey
    November 30, 2012

    “Well, it seems you are aware that the demonstration/attribution is essantially impossible for a single event. I just would have liked to hear this from Jeff (and others) too”

    Of course it is, you moron. But many events occurring in a relatively short time increase the evidence that something with climate is amiss. You love to create straw men for your purpose. Its one of your allegedly cunning strategies. I have news for you: it isn’t cunning.

    You love asking me questions, smartass, but here’s one for you (that you won’t answer, of couse):

    WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND (IF ANY). WHAT IS YOUR DAY JOB?

    Watch Jonas evade this one. He’ll again claim its irrelevant. But it isn’t. People lacking specialist training in certain fields are apt to make asses of themselves because they think they know more than they actually do. I have made it clear that I am not formally trained in dendochronolgy or climate science, but that the prevailing view based on the empirical evidence amongst professionals in the field is that AGW is very real.

    However, several of the crappy chapters in Lomborg’s book do stray into my field of expertise. The one on forests, his dicussion of biodiversity and ecosystem services are well within my scientific comfort zone (note how Jonas, in true D-K fashion, appears to suggest his comfort zone is petty well every field of science). And those chapters in Lomborg’s book are abominable. End of story.

  72. #72 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    Jeff …

    If you really did understand the book, why did you not review its conent then? Your Nature review was ad hom and hate speech which seems to be your your preferred debating MO. Avoiding the issues, and probably incapable of seeing even what the other guy’s viewpoint and perspective is.

    If you understood Lomborg (which I doubt), why not address and in a balanced argument take on the points where you think he is wrong, why his perspective would be on the whole, not valid.

    In that Nature review (wich wasn’t a review) you did nothing of that. It looked as most of your comments here. Angry screaming and insulting, for som two thirds of the text.

    I haven’t seen the BBC interview, UCS is astrtoturfed activism, but I’ve heard about your ‘debating’ which meant your usual ranting.

    And I’m serious here Jeff. I can’t (nor have I tried to) judge on any particular topic there. But somebody screaming and ranting like yourself, is very hard to take seriously. Especially when he isn’t even making an argument. Just spouting insults. Repeating ‘You’re / He’s wrong! .. Because I say so!’

    I have read (and probably you too) his response to your rant, and again he comes across like tha reasonable argumentative type, and you still look like the screaming activist.

    And yes, you repeatedly, essentially in every comment, tell me that I’m and idiot or something very similar. And you still you 1) need to invent your own facts about me, and 2) you are incapable of arguing and getting any details right here. Most of the time I have the impression you yourself have no clue about what you are arguing. ‘Do something about the glaciers’ ‘Your earth shattering views’ etc.

    I would assume that your ‘victory’ over Lomborg carries as much weight as when you declare the same thing here.

  73. #73 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    Jeff … it is really really difficult, isn’t it?

    “many events occurring in a relatively short time increase the evidence that something with climate is amiss”

    Apart from climate always changing, and ‘being amiss’ in that respect is quite vague, the question was a different one:

    2) Do you believe that anything of storm Sandy can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? Yes/No

    I detailed the specifics in my response to chek above. I am asking your opinion or belief. So far, it seems (only slightly) that you lean towards the ‘No’ option, but can’t bring yourself to say this, whereupon you once more bring up that ‘climate-is-changing-everywhere-spiel’ drawing speculative implication lines between all kinds of things, to land in a ‘but it should really be Yes’ position.

    BTW Neither moron, Dunning Kruger, Denialist, idiot etc are arguments anywhere among scientists. Rather they indicate that it is primarly emotional, and is most often because of ‘lack of better arguments’ or anger. Or both. And you seem like a very angry guy, Jeff.

  74. #74 chek
    November 30, 2012

    The hangup with single event Sandy is entirely on the climate scare side.

    You conveniently (yet again – it’s a pattern, isn’t it) missed my qualifier “you need a larger focus”. As Bill said:
    “Warmer ocean, higher ocean, 5% more moisture in atmosphere, dramatically reduced Arctic icepack, meandering jetstream. What’s not to understand? “

    Those major contributory factors are exactly the components which are predicted by AGW.

  75. #75 Jeff Harvey
    November 30, 2012

    Oh my: “UCS is astrtoturfed activism”

    And WUWT, CA, BH et al aren’t? At least UCS is made of of real scientists, not retired weathermen and pundits with no relevant background. This very comment of yours tells me exactly where you’re coming from. No further comments needed.

    I clearly rattled Lomborg, but that wasn’t hard. He freely admits in his book that he isn’t an expert with respect to environmental problems. That’s the most honest statement in his book. As far as the soc-alled debate, I focused on teh biodiversity chapter which if it was written by one of my Master’s students I would fail them. That’s how awful it is. So its hardly surprising that Lomborg didn’t even try to rebut my criticisms except to try and defend his smears of Wilson, Ehrlich and Diamond. That was easy to counter too. The we were supposed to chat for an hour but he just sat there looking scared to death. Clealry he did not want to give me any rope to metaphorically hang him with. Later on I was invited to present a keynote lecture on the biological effects of climate change; Lomborg was invited too but at the last minute backed out. He also backed out of a debate here in Holland with me later in 2002. Take from that what you will. But he’s not a scientist and his book is not aimed at scientists because he is fully aware that its full of distortions. But the general public (that’s you, Jonas)will often swallow this crap hook, line and sinker, because they aren’t trained to see the flaws.

    As for the Nature review, I stand by it. We did not have unlimited space which a full demolition of the book required. Kare Fog has done a great job of that on his web site.

    As for anger, no; its more frustration at encountering a stubborn, arrogant, self-professed know-it-all who clearly won’t admit his limited knowledge in various complex fields.Your question of hurricane Sandy is a straw man. You knwo it. As I said, it constitutes part of a much larger scenario in which trends can be extrapolated. In case you were wondering, Jonas, this provides definitiev proof that you have no basic understanding of the scientific method. I woluld never draw a conclusion on, say, the relationship between secondary chemistry in a plant and the development of an insect herbivore on the basis of a single data point. But many data points do provide evidence one way or the other. And the current trends in weather and climate point to the fact that super-storms like Sandy – super meaning in sheer geographical size – are unusual in the context of normal background weather patterns. The same is true for the frequency of droughts in Aamazonia; heat waves in much of the world; and record melt rates of polar ice caps. Biotic indicators are showing clearly that it is warming. I need not go into the proxies here; the empirical data is full of them. Its just too bad that you probably have never read an ecological journal in your life.

    And finally, for the billionth time: just what is your professional background? You job?

    S-I-L-E-N-C-E; obfuscation! Yup, you are not going to answer that one. And while we are on the point of evasion, your hypocrisy bleeds through every time you claim that I am “seeking refuge from you on other threads”. At least I have been honest and you know who I am. But you steadfastly refuse to tell us not only who you are but what it is that you do. The latter is because it will make you look even sillier than you already are in the eyes of most who contribute here except, of course, your blemish.

  76. #76 Lionel A
    November 30, 2012

    Notice how we’ve discreetly dropped the Mann/dendro BS – because even these muppets recognise there’s nothing to it, and now we’re back to desperately flailing around re Sandy attribution.

    Indeed they have bill, now let us see if they can follow this:

    Responses to volcanoes in tree rings and models

    and their quoting of Hayhoe is straw clutching sublime, after all this is the best they can do to construct their straw men. What GSW did not quote was this:

    But I would bet that Gerry would also agree with me, that it’s not likely that the impact of climate change on Sandy was zero.

    Without global warming there would not have been an increase in sea level, a very much altered jet stream pulling two weather systems together, and warmer surface waters which combined caused the Coriolis force to be overcome and the storm growing to an hitherto unrecorded size for this time of year and latitude. This produced a storm surge capable of inundating New York and causing the damage we are now, second hand for most of us, familiar with.

    You bozos would soon change your tune if you were hit by something like this.

    As clear novices in this field I will suggest an excellent book on sea level rise:

    Rising Sea Levels: An Introduction to Cause and Impact Hunt Janin, Scott A. Mandia

    And take note of this:

    Scientific American: ‘Loss of Ice, Melting Of Permafrost And Other Climate Effects Are Occurring At An Alarming Pace’

    Another take home point here comes from the crowing of the ‘delayniers’ a few years ago about the fact that many scientists involved in the information gather part of the IPCC TAR were upset because they didn’t agree with some of the projections therein. Their objections were based on their understanding that the projections were watered down and didn’t include many of the factors which should have been causing an undershoot between the worst case scenarios of the IPCC FAR and what many scientists suspected from the physics, models and data on the ground combined.

    And the likes of Marc Morano who from this search result: seems to be pushing this Hayhoe quote story along. Surprise! Surprise!

    Professor Andrew Watson got Morano spot on., and you two, Jona and GSW are in the same category as Morano.

  77. #77 Lionel A
    November 30, 2012

    Drat, dropped a closing italic tag.

  78. #78 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    chek

    I didn’t miss the qualifier. But commented about the ‘obsessing’ which definitely is on the climate scare side. As in: Weather is not climate, unless we need it to be ..

    And the larger picture is not very conclusive wrt to the issue of storms /extreme weather.

    And yes, I saw bill’s comment. It was the usual attempt to barrage of words conceal that you can’t really imply any causation. Chimps and Bushes too. Same thing Jeff tried, and I think he was all over Canada, Alaska, and last years heat too etc ..

    Jeff tried before with (a typically unscientific) ‘unprecedented’ wrt both size and ‘by any standards’. But I think it will be hard even to argue that implication based on observations and alleged mechanisms (the ‘unprecedented’ I disregard, those are Jeffs emotions on the loose again).

    In his latest comment he throws in ” it constitutes part of a much larger scenario in which trends can be extrapolated”! In response to ‘what can be attributed to human CO2’!?

    And it doesn’t stop there. After his wildeyed extrapolation affirmation of his own beliefs, he concludes:

    “Jonas, this provides definitiev proof that you have no basic understanding of the scientific method”!?

    Did you get that? He again lost focus of the absolute main question here. About what I have been asking: The A-part of GW!

  79. #79 Wow
    November 30, 2012

    “The hangup with single event Sandy is entirely on the climate scare side.”

    Weird. You and your bottom buddies keep claiming that you need to see “a catastrophe” before you admit there’s any such thing as AGW.

    Then when you’re given one that you can’t ignore, you whine about how *we* are obsessed about a single event.

    Truly you lot are up each others arses…

  80. #80 Wow
    November 30, 2012

    “Wow … “this doesn’t prove 11/9 was caused by earthquakes”
    your logic is even better than Jeff’s.”

    Cheers.

    So you care to give some actual proof now you have admitted your current attempts were empty?

  81. #81 Wow
    November 30, 2012

    “2) Do you believe that anything of storm Sandy can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? Yes/No”

    The SSTs are higher than they were because the climate is getting warmer and the sea therefore warmer and therefore since SSTs are the power source of hurricanes (hence why they don’t appear in continental interiors), that is something of the storm called Sandy that is attributed to human production of CO2.

  82. #82 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    Jeff

    No I don’t thint that WUWT, CA or BH are astroturfing activism. I think their funding is essentially non-existant. And neither are they referred to as authorities. However, some of them in their readership actually publish climate science. Successfully, and to the great dismay of some of your ‘preferred scientists’.

    Regarding UCS it definitely has financial and PR backing, and it admits anybody. Regarding the ‘scientists’, I would be vary cautious. I have read only few of their reports, and it was mostly the kind of propaganda you’d expect from such quarters.

    And no, the ‘scientists’ at UCS are not in any way more qualified re the issues than others. And when they also are activists they cease to be scientists. BTW, I would be suprised if there were that many among them engaged in real science, the one you know, where you must(!) adhere to the scientific method.

    Re: Lomborg

    If on any particular part you seriously think Lomborgs view and stance is unsupportable, I would have expected a serious reviewer to state that stance, and the explain why it doesn’t ad up. But from your ‘review’ it is completely impossible to determin what Lomborgs book was about. What could be seen however, were angry proclamations, hatered and invectives.

    In my book, that has nothing to do in a boow review. Its what I expect from raging blind actvism. My point is: If you had a valid point, you failed to get it accross. The only thing you did convincingly was to demonstrate your loathing, and claims that everybody does/should see it that way …

    As unprofessional as it gets in my view.

    And Jeff, you often claim that yor intimidated your ‘enemies’, here too. Also in your protected zone. And yes, you’ve asked again and again for having med banned. This is how people like you would like to ‘resolve’ disagreements or opposing views.

    We’ve seen it many times before.

    As to who I am!?

    You see, that’s the problem Jeff. You have been telling me that from almost day one. Not only that, you’ve told me on what floor I live, who pays my bill, what I work with or have quit, what I have done and never done, my (lack of) education, expertise, training etc. and everything that I’m not. And changed your story. You spent 1½ trying to tell me exactly those things.

    And of course (and obviously) you have no clue at all. And although I’ve told you quite some details, and given more than just subtle hints. You have no clue at all! You have been fabricating fantasies for 1½ years about those things, trying to bully and intimidate me, to beat me over the head with such tactics. And of course, those don’t work. Moreover, they are the antithesis to scientific mind and inquiry.

    I was just glad to let you go on with this (and still am) because everytime, it proves my point: inquisitive curiosity, and real science just aren’t your things. You are incapable of leaving your emotions and your extremely wishful thinking outside almost any issue. You want things to be to fit you’re narrative so badly that you just invent them when you don’t know. Or fit perfectly as long as nobody can see …

    Care to explain why you spent so much effort telling me what and who I am and not?

    From my side it just looks stupid. Stupid futile attempts to defy reality, and in public!

    Why?

  83. #83 Wow
    November 30, 2012

    “No I don’t thint”

    Yup, you don’t.

  84. #84 Wow
    November 30, 2012

    “If on any particular part you seriously think Lomborgs view and stance is unsupportable,”

    It’s all unsupportable.

    But if you’re told, you whine “from my side it just looks stupid”.

  85. #85 Wow
    November 30, 2012

    Joan, the point is you’re a nobody.

    You haven’t got any indication that you know what you’re talking about on the subject of, among many other things, climate, physics and biology.

  86. #86 Jeff Harvey
    November 30, 2012

    “No I don’t thint that WUWT, CA or BH are astroturfing activism. I think their funding is essentially non-existant. And neither are they referred to as authorities. However, some of them in their readership actually publish climate science. Successfully, and to the great dismay of some of your ‘preferred scientists’”

    First point: Of course weblogs set up to deny human impacts on the biosphere, and which counter the empirical evidence, are a form as astroturf activism; one has to wonder what motivates untrained people to challenge the bulk of scientific evidence. And let us not forget, some of these people are linked quite openly with right wing think tanks like the George Marshall Institute, Fraser institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute etc. that are openly acting as PR conduits for the fossil fuel lobby. Or else they collaborate with people employed by these think tanks, which quite openly aim to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. As for publishing in the scientific literature, that’s a joke: a could count on one hand the papers most of these people have published and few are cited much by other scientists. Again, this apparently reveals the Jonas view of science: good if you are a denier, bad if you aren’t. Just look at anything published by Mann: the aim of smearing him (and again, the hypocrisy could not be richer from Jonie boy here) is downplayed, whilst I am accused of smearing Lomborg. As Wow said, I didn’t do that: his book is so abominable that he did that all by himself when he wrote it in 15 months superficially covering a huge range of complex and diverse fields that experts take many years to master in each field. But Lomborg has a thick skin and knew his book would be trashed by the experts: his aim, as I said, was to sell it to the general public, who either needed some form of solace to convince them that the planet is doing quite well, and that western overconsumption and social injustice is not one of the major roots of environmental destruction. His book was lapped up by those whose understanding of these issues is wafer thin as well as by neoclassical economic thinkers who think humans are largely exempt from nature’s laws. Scientists weren’t fooled. But again, we weren’t it target audience. The aim was to sell it in bundles to a gullible public desperate for good news. The right wing denialosphere loved it. Hence why our resident untrained genius drools all over it. He doesn’t know anything about environmental science but thinks he does.

    No wonder Chek calls Jonas ‘Jonarse’ , cos’ that’s where his head is safely tucked away…

  87. #87 Jeff Harvey
    November 30, 2012

    By the way, Jonas, I am not telling anyone what it is you do, I am openly asking to know what it is. And of course you won’t tell. Not because we’ll track you down and find out who you are, but because your intellectual cover will be blown. After all, its you who are attacking the likes of Mann, Trenberth, Hansen and others with quite impressive scientific resumes.

    My guess is that your professional background, if you indeed have one and aren’t some computer geek, has nothing scientifically relevant in it. If i was wrong, given your bloated ego, you would have told us all by now. But your steadfast silence tells everyone here that I am correct.

  88. #88 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    Wow, you are a true asset to this site. And to Jeff Harvey too … What would he be without you? Among the two of you, you should be able to have really intelligent lunchroom discussions. Jeff has those, he told med multiple times.

  89. #89 Jonas N
    November 30, 2012

    In denial Jeff?

    Making up new stuff, now even about all your own certain claims? You never made thme? You were merely asking? Or guessing?

    Point is you have no clue, and even are incapale och taking a hint or two(-hundred)

    “but because your intellectual cover will be blown”

    You really don’t know what constitutes an argument even, Jeff, let alon a logical one. And right after, you again try your nonsensical claims. In the same post you started out denying them.

  90. #90 Wow
    November 30, 2012

    “Point is you have no clue,”

    How do you know this? You refuse to show evidence that your testimony is reliable.

    You are a nobody whose mouthings are worth nothing.

    (PS I note that having answered your whining petulant query, you fail to do anything about it other than pretend it isn’t there)

  91. #91 Lionel A
    November 30, 2012

    No I don’t thint that WUWT, CA or BH are astroturfing activism. I think their funding is essentially non-existant. And neither are they referred to as authorities. However, some of them in their readership actually publish climate science. Successfully, and to the great dismay of some of your ‘preferred scientists’.

    Lookee here oh simple one and then connect the other dots by visiting here and John Mashey’s exposures. You will have to provide your own plate.

  92. #92 chek
    November 30, 2012

    You really don’t know what constitutes an argument even, Jeff, let alon a logical one.

    Jonarse, on the most primary of elementary levels, PhDs are not handed out to those who can’t.
    Your customary childish, hyperbolic tantrums are the evidence that , as Wow says, “You are a nobody whose mouthings are worth nothing”. Or less.

  93. #93 Lionel A
    November 30, 2012

    Jonas grok this: How The Big Oil Lobby Secretly Funded 2012 Election Attack Ads.

    And here we have more connections made;

    REVEALED: Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers.

    But of course you won’t you will slalom around this like any argument with substance that threatens to blow away your smoke and splinter your mirrors. Andrew Watson could have been describing you when speaking, almost, off camera, about Morano (see above).

  94. #94 Lionel A
    November 30, 2012

    Clang!

    And here we have more connections made;

    REVEALED: Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers.

  95. #95 chek
    November 30, 2012

    “Drat, dropped a closing italic tag”

    I think it may have been me Lionel, but having taken care since the last ‘italicsgate’ incident, I’m wondering if there’s some site glitch which doesn’t like use of more than one quotation.

  96. #96 Jeff Harvey
    November 30, 2012

    You know, once again my time in Jonas’ little asylum is coming to man end for awhile. Thankfully I will be away for a month in February and won’t read his willful ignorance. But here’s a closer for today-:

    Jonas is constantly accusing me of waving my CV in his face (I know it hurts that he hasn’t got one to wave, but I digress). I have said many times that I fully admit that I have no formal training in climate science or, as I said yesterday, in dendochronology. These aren’t my fields. But I do know well enough that the vast majority of scientists – and especially climate scientists – agree that climate warming is very real, that humans are the primary culprit, and that the consequences of business-as-usual could be grave. At conferences I attend where the biotic effects of climate warming are described and discussed, the speakers, all scientists, don’t even have to say that GW is ‘controversial’ or whether its causes are poorly understood. Given what we now know, its taken pretty much as a slam dunk, a given.

    But listening to pseudo-intellectual skeptics like Jonas and his few admirers here, as well as the right wing denialosphere in general, its intimated the GW is some controversial area of science and that it’s causes are very poorly understood. This flies in the face of the mainstream scientific opinion and of the evidence.

    A few days ago GSW, who clearly spends a lot of time on the denial blogs, had the audacity to link a piece by Marc Morano. Why anybody would take this right wing clown seriously is anyone’s guess, but GSW apparently does. Morano used to work for Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s. In 2000 he wrote an abominable piece about the current state of the Amazon forest, of course downplaying the amount of damage incurred on it at that time. The article was utterly appalling: Morano interviewed two people who have no expertise in the field at all, both of whom are now climate change deniers, to argue that the Amazon was doing fine. His article said nothing about the collateral effects of fire and high grade logging on wet tropical forests, nor did he mention how much of the forest was second growth. Now Morano has switched to climate change as his anti-environmental topic of the moment, and GSW cites his bilge as if its somehow independent and reputable.

    As far as Jonas is concerned, he seems to forget that most posters on Deltoid don’t agree with him at all. He’s got his little wart, GSW, and a few other Swedes, but that is it. Yet the way he responds to all of his critics is as if there is some huge army of people out there who agree with him. At the same time, he can’t fathom why Tim banished him to his own little thread. He appears to think its because his ideas were so special that they stand out. Well, I’ve got news for you Jonas. Try the other one.

  97. #97 GSW
    November 30, 2012

    @Jonas,

    OMG!, you’ve been busy – don’t know where you get the patience to deal with all this. Simple things like explaining the required relationship between claims and evidence drives them into a mad fury. It’s almost as if CAGW should be exempt in some way – certainly how they come across anyway.

    Let me see… our resident Zoologist, who couldn’t even answer the simple Yes/No “quiz” set for him with any degree of coherence, keeps referring to his CV as a reason for not knowing anything, or being able to put forward any kind of alternative argument whatsoever. Twas ever thus.
    ;)

    It’s the simple folk (chek et al) I feel sorry for. They just keep posting endless rounds of abuse as they don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute.

    Surprisingly, made me think of another Mitchell & Webb piece. ;)

    (Warning any similarity between the “Anne Robinson” character and wow’s posts is entirely coincidental)

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

    No matter what anyone else says zoologist Jeff, remember… You Are the Hole In the Ring!

  98. #98 chek
    November 30, 2012

    Oh look – the sycophant’s back making up sycophantic drool as sychophants do, because he hasn’t comprehended the last two dozen posts, and how the object of his sychophancy has had his arse handed to him.

    It’s not just climate science you’re in pathological denial about, is it Griselda?

  99. #99 Wow
    November 30, 2012

    GSW, you’re also a nobody.

    Why should anyone take what you say seriously when you have not proven your bone fides on the subject?

  100. #100 Lionel A
    November 30, 2012

    Sickophancy for a sick-O’-mancer. GSW clearly likes his material regurgitated.

Current ye@r *