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 chek
    November 30, 2012

    Griselda is a modern phenomenon – intelligent enough to pound a keyboard on the internet, but not intelligent enough to have aything to say, which is just how Morano Repeaters Inc. likes’em

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    November 30, 2012

    Sad that GSW can’t separate zoology from population ecology.

    But what can one expect from someone who cites crap from Morano?

  3. #3 Lionel A
    December 1, 2012

    Jonas, a page back spewed this:

    No I don’t thint that WUWT, CA or BH are astroturfing activism. I think their funding is essentially non-existant.

    I have already replied to this bit of wilful ignorance but here is some more proof for your lying eyes:

    following blockquote from within this link

    The documents revealed, among other things, that corporate money was flowing through Heartland to some very prolific climate change deniers, like $90,000 to blogger Anthony Watts and $11,600 a month in funding to Craig Idso who runs a group that argues that increased levels of greenhouse gas are in fact good for the planet.

    Leaked Documents

  4. #4 Lionel A
    December 1, 2012
  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    December 2, 2012

    Thanks again for this, Lionel, and all of your other posts.

    All this does is further show how intellectually bankrupt Jonas and his small coterie of followers are. The right wing think tanks collectively and secretly funnel millions of dollars to weblogs, people and other anti-environmental groups that work on behalf of their corporate sponsors. Again, were one to read any number of books on the subject, they’d realize that the link you supplied was but a small drop in a well-organized and funded sea of disinformation.

  6. #6 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    As I said Lionel, funding is virtually non-existent.

    Those 90 k$ are for a (different) visualisation project, they don’t even go to the blogging. And it’s peanut money. Have your checked ExxonSecrets too? What did they find? Peanut money too. And again, the money did not go towards funding skepticism against climate hysteria. Instead it went to places wich somehow could be constructed to ‘have links’ with persons or other activities which in turn could be viewed to have som skepticviews/ connections.

    All this ‘Big Oil and Industry Coordinated and Massively Funded ‘-meme is bonkers, but often repeated by the hysterics. Even in your link, the lier/faker/deceiver/nutter Peter Gleick says:

    his judgment was clouded by his “frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists … and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved

    What an utter farce. And he needed to fake the document/source that he forwarded to his friends(!) which some then went hysterical over.

    Because they so much wanted to believe their own myths. (BTW Did you notice that ‘sourcewatch’ somehow ‘failed’ to report that the document you all went bonkers over, the ‘Confidential Climate Strategy’ was faked? Very likely by that nutter Gleick?).

    At Deltoid, you were so happy back then to be duped (by someone on your own side)

  7. #7 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    And while I was (writing, and having difficulties with) posting my last comment, our resident poster boy for activism going off the deep end (masquarading as scientist/science) confrimed exactly what I just said:

    .. secretly funnel millions of dollars to weblogs, people and other anti-environmental groups ..

    Again, Jeff just knows that WUWT, CA, BH must be payed lots and lots of money, and that really only are mouthpieces for secret industries and think tanks. He feels those truths so intensely, they just must be true.

    He has spent his life (here, and probably everywhere) establishing things for ‘facts’ by emotionally just ‘knowing’ ie feeling them to be true.

    Here in response to me not being overly impressed by what UCS alledgedly (according to Jeff) had to say about Lomborg. He also claimed that “UCS is made of real scientists” (which I very much doubt). But Jeff must think highly about UCS. Just think (ie feel) about it:

    Union (Nice warm fuzzy comfy word)
    Concerned (Signals: Earnest, caring, protecting)
    Scinetists (Noble, dispassionate, truth seeking, meticulous arbiters of facts)

    How can such an organisation, or what some say in its name, not be taken at face value right away? How could one even questions such a noble cause?

    Well well, Jeff, real science and scientists don’t accept things because they are claimed, neither because the claimant appearsto have a CV or other credentials. Definitely not if said credentials are pushed as the main argument for accepting the claims.

    But I’ guess you will never really learn this (allthough at some point, you seemed to be aware that it of course must be so)

  8. #8 Lionel A
    December 2, 2012

    Jonas, the kid with his hands over ears and blinkers on his eyes and wearing a cap with a big D on it whilst stood in the corner mumbled petulantly:

    As I said Lionel, funding is virtually non-existent.

    As I wrote Jonas, ‘…your lying eyes‘.

    Now why would the Financial Post print the following linked to abominable article so full of zombie arguments (see SkS for the pre-debunk):

    OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists.?

    Now as has been proved time and time again anything like this is undersigned by a long list of the usual suspects, most with not a hint of a scientific track record in relevant fields and any who have, and these have very few if any peer reviewed papers still relevant and cited as such.

    Furthermore these has-been scientists are now engaged in advocacy and not science else they would write all this up for a respected scientific journal. The fact that they have not tells us that they could not.

    Here is a starter on Singer: Mashey Report Confirms Heartland’s Manipulation; Exposes Singer’s Deception: S. Fred Singer Lied to the IRS about identity of his chair

    Now a self proven bully like Singer (check out the Justin Lancaster/Roger Revelle persecution clues here ) would surely have sued about that would he not? That he did not speaks volumes.

    Now here is another trail for you to follow:

    Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax.

    So once again, and also considering material I have previously linked to, you are either a wilful ignoramus or are wilfully lying and spreading BS. Which is it?

    Whatever, I have not even started on this theme, so keep it up for every post you make gives myself and others chances to interdict with information that will inform the casual visitor to this exchange where the real truth lies.

    As denial becomes ever more difficult, and the likes of you become ever more desperate and shrill, I guess we could be in for a long haul. What you need to know is that this one time sisyphian task is getting easier as the slope up which we work eases.

  9. #9 Lionel A
    December 2, 2012

    Clang!

    Now here is another trail for you to follow:

    Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax.

  10. #10 Lionel A
    December 2, 2012

    Here you are Jonas more:

    Meet The Climate Denial Machine.

    Keep falling into these traps Jonas.

  11. #11 chek
    December 2, 2012

    Jonarse is just following orders … or procedure, Lionel.
    When outright denial becomes impossible, then play down and minimise. Dishonesy is their strategy. How many misprepresentions and distortions have The Collective made in this thread? Too many to count. It’s second nature for them.

  12. #12 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    By the way Jeff, I am late with replying to som other of your nutty wild-eyed claims above (your ‘fabricated facts’) and might get back on them later. But your obsession with the existence of sound and reasonable voices about the climate-o-mania is truly entertaining.

    Three private individuals (Watts, Montford, McIntyre) upset the megaindustry of ClimateChurch and even Occultism which is funded (not by Mega- but) Giga.bucks to the extent that the activists almost lose it (not only the argument)

    At the same time, these activists are completely unaware of how this argument applies (if you were to take it seriously) when applied both ways. They gladly believe and link to blogs like SkSc or even DesmogBlog, they think UCS is peddling science, they accept GreenPeace and WWF reports as facts eve science and seem completely unaware of the massive flow of money going to NGOs with various (alleged) ‘green agendas’. Not only tax money, but large sums from industries to. Oil companies fund vastly more to those groups and interest than the feeble breadcrumbs ExxonSecrets managed to scrape together which didn’t even go to climate scare scepticism, only could be constrructed to have some (often far fetched) links to such.

    Lionel,

    You were saying something about funding for those three bloggers. Your last few posts didn’t really bolster your case.

    Your FinancialPost-link does absolutely nothing to establish any such funding.

    Seems you’d rather switch to another of your fantasies. And again you seem completely blind to how your ‘arguments’ work if applied both ways. You take John Mashey as authority, you link to DeSmogBlogg and Rabbet, accept Lancasters (withdrawn, later still claimed) smears on Singer etc (I think he was closely connected to Al Gore)

    And you seem to believe you have a point!?

    chek you are back to your idiotic conspiracy-thinking. And you never got around to establishing anything wrt Sandy (which you of course cannot). And the misrepresentation is massive on your side here. It’s funny that you are so completely oblivious to this …

  13. #13 chek
    December 2, 2012

    That you attempt to portray Watts, McIntyre and Montford’s activities as those of ‘private individuals’, when the documented evidence you were pointed to proves otherwise, shows that you’re reduced to nothing but ineffective table pounding and hand wavin that fools only the likes of your own circus troupe.

  14. #14 chek
    December 2, 2012

    Oh and Jonarse – don’t bother posting again until you can provide credible counter documentation showing John Mashey is in error.

    That may take you quite some time. Yes indeed.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    December 2, 2012

    Jonas.

    Your FinancialPost-link does absolutely nothing to establish any such funding.

    Of course it does not stupid. It was laying out the context by demonstrating the sort of BS coming from your heroes and highlighting who they, some of them, were. In other words it was to prepare the ground for what came next.

    That is the trouble with you black is white/white is black and no shades in between types, more than one colour of argument or factor and you are all at sea.

    Seems you’d rather switch to another of your fantasies. And again you seem completely blind to how your ‘arguments’ work if applied both ways. You take John Mashey as authority, you link to DeSmogBlogg and Rabbet, accept Lancasters (withdrawn, later still claimed)…

    That is where your ignorance once again lets you down as this demonstrates , Singer is the smear and no you don’t ‘think

    Lancaster’s words:

    Over ten years ago, I was forced by a SLAPP suit to retract my statements exposing the Cosmos myth described here. Likely to prevail at trial because my statements were true, I regretted deeply that I could not then afford to continue. I had hoped, in settling, that the other side would honorably let the Cosmos paper and this issue slide into obscurity. This did not happen. In 2003, Singer published a book chapter, titled The Revelle-Gore Story: Attempted Political Suppression of Science, that presented the story the way he’d like it to be known. His story villifies both me and Al Gore. The editor of that book swallows the story and echoes the condemnations in his own introductory chapter. And the objectionable use of this Cosmos article by the very participants in its creation has not ceased (see Balling, SEPP, May 2006).

    This shameful manipulation and exploitation of the life and teaching of a great scientist and humanitarian cannot stand. For my friend and colleague, for all those who have been misled by this Cosmos myth, and for the honor of a courageous and committed politician and journalist, it is important that I hereby fully rescind and repudiate my 1994 retraction and make available the evidence that supports my statements.

    This shameful manipulation and exploitation of the life and teaching of a great scientist and humanitarian cannot stand.

    J. Justin Lancaster

    Source Article

    espi@att.net

    Last updated 7/6/06.

    This matter was raised some time ago here at Deltoid Nobody should trust S Fred Singer.

    But keep up with your ideologically driven, and probably funded, stupid. This way more will learn how bankrupt, on many levels, your arguments are. Remember I have hardly started yet.

    BTW Have you studied the entirety of John Mashey’s work?

    Of course you haven’t, you would rather argue from ignorance.

  16. #16 Lionel A
    December 2, 2012

    Clang!

    Jonas.

    Your FinancialPost-link does absolutely nothing to establish any such funding.

    Of course it does not stupid. It was laying out the context by demonstrating the sort of BS coming from your heroes and highlighting who they, some of them, were. In other words it was to prepare the ground for what came next.

    That is the trouble with you black is white/white is black and no shades in between types, more than one colour of argument or factor and you are all at sea.

    Seems you’d rather switch to another of your fantasies. And again you seem completely blind to how your ‘arguments’ work if applied both ways. You take John Mashey as authority, you link to DeSmogBlogg and Rabbet, accept Lancasters (withdrawn, later still claimed)…

    That is where your ignorance once again lets you down as this demonstrates , Singer is the smear and no you don’t ‘think

    Lancaster’s words:

    Over ten years ago, I was forced by a SLAPP suit to retract my statements exposing the Cosmos myth described here. Likely to prevail at trial because my statements were true, I regretted deeply that I could not then afford to continue. I had hoped, in settling, that the other side would honorably let the Cosmos paper and this issue slide into obscurity. This did not happen. In 2003, Singer published a book chapter, titled The Revelle-Gore Story: Attempted Political Suppression of Science, that presented the story the way he’d like it to be known. His story villifies both me and Al Gore. The editor of that book swallows the story and echoes the condemnations in his own introductory chapter. And the objectionable use of this Cosmos article by the very participants in its creation has not ceased (see Balling, SEPP, May 2006).

    This shameful manipulation and exploitation of the life and teaching of a great scientist and humanitarian cannot stand. For my friend and colleague, for all those who have been misled by this Cosmos myth, and for the honor of a courageous and committed politician and journalist, it is important that I hereby fully rescind and repudiate my 1994 retraction and make available the evidence that supports my statements.

    This shameful manipulation and exploitation of the life and teaching of a great scientist and humanitarian cannot stand.

    J. Justin Lancaster

    Source Article

    espi@att.net

    Last updated 7/6/06.

    This matter was raised some time ago here at Deltoid Nobody should trust S Fred Singer.

    But keep up with your ideologically driven, and probably funded, stupid. This way more will learn how bankrupt, on many levels, your arguments are. Remember I have hardly started yet.

    BTW Have you studied the entirety of John Mashey’s work?

    Of course you haven’t, you would rather argue from ignorance.

  17. #17 Lionel A
    December 2, 2012

    Jonas, here is some more:

    Who framed Roger? Rabett

    wherein one of the respondents supplies this link OSS: The Cosmos Myth.

    and here: The Real Truth About the Revelle-Gore Story we find this reply:

    Eli Rabett
    2009/10/22

    Lancaster got some help at the very end, but was on his own for all of the depositions and more, the substantial expenses of which he paid. S Fred didn’t have to front a cent, and he had the most expensive legal talent in Boston, Joseph Blute

    Now can you understand how a poor scientist, with a new family to support as it happened, was bullied by S Fred who had the deep pockets of the FFL to back him. That is what a SLAPP suit is, it is financial bully boy tactics.

    Not only do you appear to not-understand climate science but also don’t know much about the history of denial. You must do better.

    Read ‘Climate Cover Up’, ‘Merchants of Doubt’ and then ‘Doubt is Their Product’ and ‘Golden Holocaust’, or remain wilfully ignorant and pig headed.

  18. #18 Lionel A
    December 2, 2012

    WRT SandyJonas, I have answered your points about why the impact of Sandy was unusual and extreme, lookee here for more on this: Top 5 Weather & Climate Challenges Facing White House where we find this:

    Hurricane Sandy’s impacts were exacerbated by climate change-related sea level rise, and the storm was powered in part by warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures. Sandy’s final price tag may exceed $100 billion.

    .

    Now try hand-waving that away again, and all the other points raised in the above.

    Hint, even Curtin knew when to stop digging, admittedly he moved on to other ‘venues’ and was treated just the same. In the end – with utter disdain.

  19. #19 GSW
    December 2, 2012

    @Lionel

    Careful Lionel, you’re starting to look like a one man Astroturfing advocacy machine. That last link, haven’t you posted that once already?

    It’s from Climate Central;

    “Mission Statement

    Communicate the science and effects of climate change to the public and decision-makers, and inspire Americans to support action to stabilize the climate and prepare for impacts of climate change.”

    Not exactly NOAA, NASA or the Met Office are they?

    (Anybody know what’s happened to Tim? it’s the 2nd and there’s no Dec thread, normally a bit more punctual than this)

  20. #20 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    chek – as I said, you guys go bonkers over the existence of a few private citicens who blog and are trying to get by.

    Those Mega-bucks you all rant about, all the way up to your revered ‘climate scientists’ and failed Veeps are nowhere to be found.

    And you (lots of you) are unable to argue the case, the possibility and extent of an A in GW. Whenever that core question is raised you need to switch to different things, preferably all those myths you nourish, and rant about that all those not believing them, or arguing other viewpoints are bad bad baddies. And then you try to ‘prove’ that by more of the same or similar nonsense.

    You shout like little children, stamping your feet and cussing, hoping that insults and name-calling will strengthen your stance, try stupid ‘linked to’ implications and conspiracy theories, and get these from the silliest blogs around. Incidentally, all of which need to ‘strengthen’ the case of the ‘home team’ by deleting comments which counters the picture they’d like to paint. RC, Deltoid, Stoat, SkSc, Rabbet, Tamino, and the others too.
    And almost all arguments are counterfactual and what you ‘attac’ grossly misrepresented.

    What the heck does an opionion piece in Financial Post even has to do with trying to show a stream of money towards WUWT!? Nothing whatsoever! And still we here this and Rabbet and Mashey are ‘crucial evidence’ … And it seems they don’t even know ‘for what’?

    The claim here (both you, Lionen och Jeffie) is that BH, WUWT and CA are astroturfing activist which are funded by outside sources. The closes ‘funding’ provided was a grant of 90k$ for a different project. Peanut crumbs ..

    And what does that money show, even if it indirectly helped keep WUWT alive? How does it ‘prove’ that Watts is wrong or disingeneous?

    And this stupid talk about ‘my heros’? I have not referred to them or made the argument that what they say therefore also must be true. Thats the stupid stuff you find on your side. Blogposts and activists, cartoonints, Al Gore and Oreskes.

    Now chek, I have been around a lon long time, and seen various activists how they rant and cheer. And in this topic, those who feel that ‘denier’ or ‘denialist’ or ‘anti-science’ and similar are ‘arguments’ to be used, they never have anything of substance to contribute. They repeat what they have heard and meomorized, but discussing any topic, they are incapable of.

    The lot of you here, all those who cherish the word ‘deniar’ are excellent demonstrations of that.

  21. #21 GSW
    December 2, 2012

    @Lionel,

    Actually, Climate central are good case in point. From their “Funding” page;

    Anonymous
    Changing Horizons Fund of the Rockefeller Family Fund
    ClimateWorks
    The David & Lucille Packard Foundation
    The Dixon Family Fund
    Flora Family Foundation
    Foundation for Environmental Research
    Google.org
    The High Meadows Foundation
    Island Foundation
    Kresge Foundation
    NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
    NASA Headquarters
    NASA Langley
    National Institutes of Health via Johns Hopkins University
    National Science Foundation via Columbia University
    National Science Foundation via George Mason University
    NOAA CICS (Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites) via North Carolina State University
    Northrup Grumman
    Peter T Paul Foundation
    Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation via Pepperwood Preserve
    The Pisces Foundation
    Rockefeller Brothers Fund
    The Robert & Ellen Gutenstein Foundation
    Robertson Foundation
    Saul D Levy Foundation
    The Schmidt Family Foundation
    Town Creek Foundation
    Turner Foundation, Inc.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    U.S. Department of Energy
    University of Tennessee
    V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation
    The Winslow Foundation
    The World Bank via The Nature Conservancy

    Formatting’s probably screwed.

    Doesn’t look as though they starve though does it.
    ;)

  22. #22 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    Lionel

    You are not that well versed with science, are you? My question was if you believe there any part of Sandy can be attributed to human CO2 emissions.

    You seem to answer that you believe it was aggravated by AGW. But that wasn’t the questiond. It was wheter this belief also can be demonstrated wrt this causation.

    And I am 100% certain, that you can’t. Heck you spent two days not even understanding the question.

    You little shouting activists, reading Rabbet and DeSmogBlog etc, cannot even understand the simpler questions. Of course you would be completely unable to understand the very difficult task to demonstrate scientifically that a weather event would have been different in a very specific way if ththere had been less CO2 in the atmosphere.

    With you little ranters, its all about religuous belief, and that’s why you are so obsessed with what the ‘heretics’ say and are doing.

  23. #23 GSW
    December 2, 2012

    @Lionel

    Hey look Lionel – I can post that type of stuff too.

    http://www.greencease.org/article/21/follow_the_money_the_morality_of_green_funding

    “Members of the board of WRI, are Al Gore and Theodore Roosevelt IV. Mr Roosevelt is the chairman of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. and is the former chairman of the ill-fated Lehman Brothers’ Global Council on Climate Change and a board member of the Alliance for Climate Protection, whose chairman is Al Gore. The 2008 income for Gore’s “Alliance” was over $88m. Nice.”

  24. #24 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    Further Lionel
    I had looked into that Lancaster story previously, and there is no real beef there either. Again it’s nothing but you activists shouting faul play.

    Lancaster was urged byr Al Gore to start this fight, and made some public and defaming statements about Singer and didn’t stop at that. even tried to rewrite history and have namens removed, records deleted. Ie the usual tactics from your camp ..

    Well, he got taken to task for his actions, and conceded in court that he’d gone to far

    Best case scenario (for your side) is that he really really believed what he said but couldn’t prove it. And was forced to retract ..

    But Al Gore tried more of the same at the same time, slinging his mud at anybody whom he saw as opposing his views.

    And I really wouldn’t trust anybody in the Gore camp on anything wrt to global warming.

    But still there is no beef. Singer and Revelle’s Cosmos piece is not very controversial, it jsut goes against the extremist side, and spoils the stupid, untrue narrative of a ‘consensus’ just a little bit.

    That’s all. It neither proves or disproves anything. To me it sounds like one or two activists claiming privilege to knowing exactly what one deceased scientist really meant. It’s all quite petty anda stupid.

    But hey, this is climate activism for you …

    ;-)

  25. #25 chek
    December 2, 2012

    Keep digging boys – you must be real close now to convincing yourselves.

  26. #26 Lionel A
    December 2, 2012

    My question was if you believe there any part of Sandy can be attributed to human CO2 emissions.

    Let me see.

    Sea surface temperatures were higher,

    Sea levels are higher,

    Because of more heat energy in the earth’s systems – there are so many sources that can prove this.

    The increase in energy in recent times is due to the earth warming because heat is not being released back to space as fast as it is coming in.

    This is because of the known increase in GHGs with an isotopic signature that can only come from anthropogenic sources.

    That is based upon basic physics understood since the time of Fourier, Tyndall, Arrenhius and taken forward by such as Callendar, Bolin, Revell and of course Keeling.

    The behaviour of molecules WRT various energy levels, wavelengths of electromagnetic energy is also a part of the underlying physics.

    I didn’t think a person of your claimed abilities would have needed reminding about the underlying causes.

    You have come away from the Revelle, Lancaster Singer story with a direct inversion of the truth. Why is this, poor comprehension or ideological blinkers. Whichever you are a total idiot for we all loose out here if we do not reign in GHGs. You included you dipstick!

  27. #27 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    What this stupid Lancaster story is/was about is an article in Cosmos coauthored by Fred Singer and Roger Revelle (Al Gores alleged but very questionable ‘mentor’ regarding global warming).

    I had never heard of that article before the climate nutters braught it up, it is not very controversial or of any larger consequences. But it was not the picture Al Gore wanted to paint.

    And for that reason he/they wanted Revelles factual coauthorship revoked. And made som very nasty accusations in order to achieve this. No suprise there …

    You guys really want to radicate all opposition ‘swat them like flies’ as Jeffie put it. :-) Or ban them everywhere you can ..

    And this purportedly because your scienctific case is so strong. So strong that nobody can argue it. That the core messages of the alleged science are nowhere to be found in all thos IPCC references ..

    And you still wonder why you are not convincing? Why the public is losing interest in your alarmism? Why the direction is to move away from catastrophism towards saner and more resonable views. Among all but the die-hard activist, a few pot-commited academics, and the ones who swallowed all this and are dyed and duped to the core?

    Well I am not suprised. If anything it is surpising that it has taken so long … But then again, that’s what happens if politics get involved. The damage lasts for ages … We haven’t really recovered from all the damage done by you lefties last century …

  28. #28 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    Lionel

    That’s almost cute ..

    You are trying to make a scientific argument. And doing this by piling up various talkning points you’ve no doubt come across ..

    And still, you fail to address the question and the relation to Sandy. Maybe you are even aware of that here ar many links missing (not only re: Sandy) and that’s why pile up talking points, and name-drop Tyndallm Fourrier etc ..

    And conclude with the usual vary convincing: “you are a total idiot .. you dipstick!”

    About the strength and depth of Jeffies ‘scientific’ arguments!

    Let’s just take one part (that has been frequently used), the alleged higher sea levels. For all I know these have been rising at about the same rate before and after CO2 emissions. But lets assume your side of the argument, that some of that rise may be caused by human GHG emissions. How much?

    And how different would Sandys impact have been if sea levels really had been those few millimeters less? Seriously? And how much is this when compared to the unfavourable tidelevels at the time it hit? Or do you want to ‘attribute’ Sandy’s timing too to CO2?

    ;-)

    I’ll stop there. But remind you once more of the ‘can be attributed’ part of the Sandy …

    The armwaiving I hardly have to ask you about.

    Funny too that you claim to posess the truth about Lancaster. As I said, I’ve read up on it, all the way to the court affidavits. The only reason I ever came across that issue is because you (the Al Gore side) kept on pestering about it … Who would ever have cared about a Cosmos article from 20+ years ago

  29. #29 Jeff Harvey
    December 2, 2012

    “Three private individuals (Watts, Montford, McIntyre)”

    You mean three right wing hacks…

    Not a real scientist amongst them.

  30. #30 chek
    December 2, 2012

    What experience of this thread from the beginnning will show you Lionel, is that Jonarse will claim to have read something, with the implication that he’s understood it.
    Such inferences are invariably wrong

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    December 2, 2012

    “You little shouting activists…”

    Jonas is of course referring to >90% of the scientific community and every prestigious scientific organization on Earth. Funny that this little fact always bypasses him.

    He believes, in the tried and trusted behavior of a denier, that <5% of the world's scientists, no reputable national organizations, and the right wing punditocracy that agree with his side represent the sound, mature side of the scientific debate.

    And one wonder why so many of us here consider Jonas to be a complete and utter imbecile. It also explains why no one has heard of the guy outside of a few blogs. Anonymous deniers with wafer-thin arguments feel safe sniping from the sidelines. But you don't see many of them trying to break tackles in the open field.

    Jonas: you are an unknown minion. Same goes for GSW. No scientific publications, no lectures, no seminars, no nothing. If it makes you feel all excited getting a few people to respond to your bull-crap on a blog or two, then go with it. But it is a relief to know that you are effectively shut out from the scientific arena.

    Hurray for small mercies.

  32. #32 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    Yes Jeff..

    They’re private citizens, and they bug the hell out of you nutty activists. And coming from you, the term ‘right wing hacks’ means absolutely nothing. But how many on your side are left leaning ideologes? I would reckon, quite a few. That doesn’t invalidate anything you/they say per se. But I’d guess it comes in the way of straight thinking quite often. But hey, it was you who brought up yet another unscientific attempt at labelling instead of arguing the facts. What a surprise (nt)

    And mind you two of them are published scientists in the flied of climatology. Again you seem to be confusing the essence with some piece of paper on which things are stated.

    I would say that Steve McIntyre is by far mor a real scientist than many who masquerade as such. Definitely compared to you Jeff. It is true that he is (or at least was) unfamiliar with the academic way of doing science. But then again, only a nutter would think that real science has to be carried out in academia, or that ‘publishing’ is the ultimate test of science.

    Further Jefffie

    No, 90% of the scientific community (which you previously claimed to speak for) are not shouting stupidities like you, and a few fellows here. Not even among the climate scientists is the rhetoric as derailed as among you.

    And as you very well know, those organisations don’t either. Their boards have made statments to echo the IPCC cliams (which you by now know to be overstated) without consulting or polling their memberships. Several of them have reversed that stance, and other are trrying tu bury that there is fierce objection to such stated beliefs.

    “why so many of us here consider Jonas to be a complete and utter imbecile”

    You know the answer to that Jeffie .. Because you so dearly want to belive that. Half of your comments are directed at constructing those whishes as ‘established facts’. And again you are leaning on a ‘majority’ who believs shout ‘denier’ or ‘Dunning Kruger’ constitutes an argument.

    I told you 1½ years ago that that doesn’t fly in science … but then of course, that’s not what your peddling here … never were. Which instead is ‘a shouting little activist’

  33. #33 chek
    December 2, 2012

    The salient thing is Jonarse, for all your ineffective huffing anf puffing your “point” regarding attribution hasn’t flown ANYWHERE.

    Why is that? My guess is your winbaggery is just that – the puffings of a verbose, moronic windbag and his accompanying coop of li’ll chickens.

  34. #34 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    chek – You make the claim that this thread somehow shows that I don’t know what I’m talkning about!? Either you haven’t followed it, or you suffer from similar delusions as Jeffie, who irresitably wants to replace reality with what he feels should be the truth instead.

    At some point you made a reasonable comment about ‘attributing a part of Sandy to human CO2′, but Lionel has been pounding the opposite from the beginning. And you side with him here.

    Sorry chap, but that doesn’t fly either. Shouting stupid activism .. Denier Denier Denier .. Dunning Kruger to the cube .. JonArse in almost every comment .. that has been your main line here …

    And you don’t know physics. And still you want to beat me over the head about what can and cannot be established based on physics!? Which means that self awareness isn’t part of your skillset either …

    Heck, almost all of you were siding with post-reality-physics -expert ‘luminous b’ in a simple matter of a sliding box .. and set your hopes to utter (and easily checkable) nonsense. And failed!

    Maybe that still stings, and that’s why you are in denial. Or wors, you still believe that you did bet on the right side.

    Wlle wich is it? Jeff, Wow, chek, were in on it. Sorry Lionel, I can’t say for certain you were too. But if you had been there, I’m very certain you would have chimed in with the nutters also then …

  35. #35 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    So chek …

    The absence of any possible attribution of (part of) Sandy, to any human “hasn’t flown anywhere”!?

    Well, then you probably can direct me to someone/where where my observation is contradicted based on science and sound argument/reasoning and proper demonstration of causation.

    If not, you are essentially conceding my point.

    All those loonies who want to attribute (even only a part of) Sandy to human CO2 are talking (or repeating) nonsense. Including Lionels attempts here ..

  36. #36 chek
    December 2, 2012

    … and yet everyone employed and professionally involved in the field, including every National Academy of every major country doesn’t dispute that attribution. It’s only blog-posting you and your little band of contrarian nutters.

    Nor have you taken your objections outside of your stupid blogposts to places where rhetoric doesn’t count. Why is that, Jonarse? It’s OK, I’m pretty sure everyone knows the answer to that including you and your fresh-faced coop.

  37. #37 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    chek .. repetition of claims is not science.

    If there is sceince behind it, it can be found and checked. And Re: Sandy, I don’t know of any academies puting their (remaining) weight behid such claims ..

    And you have no clue, just as little as fantasizing little Jeffie, to what I do when I am not mocking you fake-science-promoters here …

    None!

    But you claim to speak for ‘everyone’!? Another giveaway …

  38. #38 chek
    December 2, 2012

    The thing is Jonarse, that you refuse to “see” the science that is there to be seen (by all those scary “activist” Academies), and that will never change. Not as long as your mission parameters remain.

  39. #39 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    This is getting nuttier by the minute, chek!

    Now you claim to speak for everyone involved, that every professional and even every academy and whole countries believe in such an attribution which essentially none of them even attempted to perform!?

    Completely amazing, chek!

    Nuttier by the minute! You just demonstrated two things:

    1) You relly believe that Sandy was caused or aggravated by the A in GW, and

    2) You believe that everybody else also shares not only those beliefs, but that this attribution can be made, ie demonstrated

    Which is essenatiall what I’ve claimed all along:

    That what you are harbouring is a (relgious type of) belief system. That your views are based on beliefs you harbour and which you cannot substantiate. And when challenged, you simply invent things, that so manay more shar this faith, that there is a consensus and that you think everybody (except the ‘heretics’) share the same belief.

    Accept without proof, argument or demonstration. Even in the face of empirical evidence that no such trends can be established …

    You are truly part of an amazing cult … But fortunately, its dwindling now. Just not quick enough ..

  40. #40 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    chek …

    the problem is the opposite. Quite early I asked to see the science behind that infamous AR4 claim .. and nobody ever even attempted to present it.

    Academy statements are not science .. science is something which can be demonstrated, with detailed methods so that others can be convinced, or repeat the procedures to check if they work.

    My ‘mission parameters’ were to see if anyone of you had seen that ‘science’ which you claimed to base your beliefs on … and so far non of you has.

    So why am I discussing ‘science’ with the likes of you who have never seen it!? Do you think it is coincidence that all of you (essentially) need to revert to stupid insuts the monent I ask a pertinent question? Do you think it’s conicidence that Michael Mann refuses to debate any of his critics? Or even Al Gore?

    I am just pointing out the obvious … and we can all see what that leads to here.

  41. #41 chek
    December 2, 2012

    So why hasn’t your Great Revelation gone anywhere Jonarse? And why haven’t you knocked down the whole house of cards?

    You don’t need me to tell you the answer to that do you Jonarse? I was there seeing you cut off at the knees on every forum used by professional scientists.

    All you’ve achieved is Griselda and Olap and PantisizeZ for your efforts. That must be a wonderful consolation to you.

  42. #42 GSW
    December 2, 2012

    “why haven’t you knocked down the whole house of cards?”

    Don’t think there’s much left to knock down chek, it’s pretty much a busted flush.

  43. #43 chek
    December 2, 2012

    Your comprehension skills are as inadequate as ever, Griselda. But a perspective such as yours is to be expected when you choose only to swim in the infosewers, as is your inevitable wont.

  44. #44 Jonas N
    December 2, 2012

    Well chek .. can you demonstrate that your beliefs are shared by essentially every professional and all countries and academies? About what (part of) Sandy can be attributed to?

    Or were these cliams just things you found in the ‘info sewers’ which you frequent!?

  45. #45 bill
    December 3, 2012

    Thje idea that the ‘cult’ – i.e. those who perceive reality as determined by evidence and actual scientists, as opposed to filtered by their Libtard ideology and the spoutings of corporate whores – is ‘dwindling’ is as well evidenced as all your other quarter-arsed (let’s face it, they don’t even make it to half-arsed!) claims.

    Why am you discussing ‘science’ indeed?! You’re too stupid to even appreciate that you’ve lost the debate…

  46. #46 Jonas N
    December 3, 2012

    bill .. if there had been actual science behind that infamous AR4 claim, I’m sure even you morons would have found it by now… five+ years later.

  47. #47 chek
    December 3, 2012

    And yet you are wholly unable to show that the emperor has no clothes, why is that Jonarse?

    Could it be that failure to see is a failing in you? Of course that’s not an admission you can make, being the one and only treasured USP you have to sell.

  48. #48 Jonas N
    December 3, 2012

    chek – The absence if any proper science establising that prominent AR4 claim pretty much establishes the absence of clothes … Unless you now want to claim that those clothes arw to be found elsewhere, where nobody dares to show them … And it would still be my point!

    You are taking things on faith, and pure faith ,,, knowingly by now

  49. #49 bill
    December 3, 2012

    More on the ‘dwindling cult‘.

    Jonas, you are a pathetic, useless individual, and the world would, in all seriousness, have been a better place had you never been born.

    Same goes for your pointless acolytes.

    Sod off, the lot of you.

  50. #50 Jonas N
    December 3, 2012

    Ah bill, the idea of a better world if just some of its inhabitants could be eradicated .. where have we heard that on before? I think it was another selfproclaimed friend and protector of the environment.

    And you too, of course now claim to be speaking on behalf of ‘the world’ .. I am not surprised

  51. #51 bill
    December 3, 2012

    Gee – play the manipulative ‘exterminist conspiracy’ card – now there’s a surprise! Like the pathetic Cold War relic that you are…

    Clearly I forgot to add, you’re also a pompus, hypocritical, hysterical, paranoiac, narcissitic humbug.

    The Reality Wars are over, little man: you lost. Now, have the decency to STFU.

  52. #52 Jonas N
    December 3, 2012

    Ah bill … I lost … and you won!? And I should take your word for that? And everything else you say?

    On faith? Or because your ABC-link claims 4-6 degrees more by 2100? You know, that this would mean more than a 10-fold increase in rate compared to the warming we’ve had so far. Of which at most half could possibly be due to CO2.

    As I said, the nutters are growing fewer and nuttier …

    4-6 degrees, by end of this century bill .. Pah!

  53. #53 Lionel A
    December 3, 2012

    You know, that this would mean more than a 10-fold increase in rate compared to the warming we’ve had so far.

    Jonas, ‘rate’ of what?
    You cannot even lay out a coherent statement, this demonstrates quite clearly the chaotic state of your cognitive processes. You are either a wilfully ignorant moron (like Morano) or a mendacious tool of the FFL (like Morano).

    That the FFL have been corrupting the science-public policy interface with BS aimed at manufacturing doubt since before the start of the nineteen naughties has been established by the following:

    The late, and much missed, Stephen Schneider [1], in his book ‘Science as a Contact Sport’,

    Ross Gelbspan in ‘The Heat is On’,

    James Hoggan & Richard Littlemore in ‘Climate Cover-Up’

    Naomi Oresekes & Erik M Conway in ‘Merchants of Doubt’

    To misconstrue the Revelle-Singer-Lancaster story in the way that you have demonstrates again that you are either a wilfully ignorant moron (like Morano) or a mendacious tool of the FFL (like Morano).

    You appear as a particularly nasty example of a troll for the contrarians. Any intelligent, roundly educated (which means gaining information from a broad swath of the sciences, history and socio-political issue [2]), sensible and honest person who dips into those books searching indices using the relevant names, including also Michaels and Lindzen will be appraised of how nastily perverted your lines of argument are.

    [1] Who in a presentation in front of a largely hostile audience broadcast on Australian TV was so courteous and painstaking in his replies, in particular to a short sighted farmer who refused to understand the issues and a GP who couldn’t understand the ‘bath tub’ analogy WRT building GHG levels. This at a time when Schneider was clearly gravely ill.

    This is typical, on one side we have had openness and courteous honesty and on the other all manner of dirty tricks from bulling law suits to pushing of partial truths, downright lies and subversion of the democratic process (through the media and election irregularities – see Greg Palast on that latter). It is way past time to stop playing nice with the likes of you. You have clearly shown that you don’t deserve that.

    [2] We don’t see such a balanced outlook from many of those who have been home-schooled, and it frequently shows.

    Also the ever growing trend for individuals to get their news from one or two sources or restrict the sources of information for a narrow range of interests (blood sports are typical) is not good for setting humanity on a sustainable course.

  54. #54 Jonas N
    reclaimreality.blogspot.com
    December 3, 2012

    Lionel ..

    The ABC-piece talked about 4-6 degrees this century. Depend how you interpret that it means a warming of some 5 degrees in 88 years.

    You can (well, maybe not you, but someone with a basic science degree could) calculate the rate of warming necessary to reach those prediction. And compare them to how it has looked so far. You know the ‘unprecedented’ levels of temperature and increase rates so far.

    And yes, I am aware of all those concpiray-books. I’m not the least suprised that you get your ‘facts’ from such sources. But they nowhere manage to establish any coorruption of any science.

    It’s jsut the usual innuendo, trying to smear people with different (non-äactivist) views trough imagined or constracted ‘connections’ … the stuff you guys feed of, whil avoiding the real issues.

    The fuss about Revelle was that some activists didn’t like him being co-author on a Cosmos piece. And tried very hard to change that afterwards. Those are the facts, Lionel. The story after is documented. The accusations (by Lancaster) were very speculative, and he went too far. Again, you are obsessing about a co-authorship on a piece 20+ years ago. It is immaterial to argue about what exactly were the views of Revelle back then. Lancaster pretty much claimed that Revelle became a co-author against his will. And couldn’t prove such claims in court.

    And your incessant and stupid insults are growing a bit old, my dear Lionel. Whil your arguments are incoherent, mostly activist fodder from the worse sources. And you still have not established one thing.

    It started by my pointing out that BH, CA and WUWT essentially are private citizens with very little (if any) funding for their blogging. Individuals who upset the (C)AGW-industry to levels they virtually lose it!

    Reading your last comment looks like you want to give the impression of the CAGW-industry and the billions of dollars spent annually on and around it … is being bullied and unfairly treated by three bloggers, som thinktanks who barely get by, and commenters and scientists who on question the dogms of the climate church on their spare times.

    You still haven’t found thes huge monies, and iven if you find them (alleged millions) they’re peanut crumbs compared to what activists spend on their activism. And regardless of that, those activists and even the louder public figures dare not debate their views on a level playing field. Dare not expose themselves to valid and pointed questions and criticism when other can see them.

    Sorry Lionel, but the smearing and mudsllining, the ad homs, the strongarming tactics, the urge to want to shut people up, etc … they all abound in your trench .. I think it was good that Gores tactics didn’t work for once back in 1994 (?) and Lancaster mayby just was a usful tool while it lasted. I can understand if he is bitter.

    Regarding your last point, I actually agree with you. That’s one of the reasons I ask people with views and beliefs different than mine, what their best arguments are for their view.

    And quite often (on this topic) it comes down to exactly what has transpired here. Essentially no substance, but tons and tons of (attempted) abuse.

    Quite often without even understanding what issues are debated and why …

    It is truly surreal to watch quite a few individuals (who probably think of them selves as educated and even intellgient) spout insults as the core part of their argument .. .

    I’ve seen this behavior mainly in extreme leftist cults and cells, and other groups who search inwards among them for confirmation and shun contact with the outer world ..

    That’s what I referred to when I noted that so many here want to be protected and demand exclusion of dissenting voices. And a large part of the climate industry is similarly afraid of meeting reality ..

  55. #55 chek
    December 3, 2012

    Yeah right Fantasy Boy.
    “a large part of the climate industry is similarly afraid of meeting reality” – that would be the ‘industry’ with actual research and peer reviewed science backing it up, whereas you have paid cranks shysters and liars on your side.

    Your a clown, Jonarse.

  56. #56 Lionel A
    December 3, 2012

    The ABC-piece talked about 4-6 degrees this century. Depend how you interpret that it means a warming of some 5 degrees in 88 years.

    Now let me see, the amount of warming we have seen so far is……?

    And thus ‘a more than 10-fold increase in rate‘ is ….?

    Something a little odd there.

    Whatever, the take home point is this, if we stopped increasing GHGs tomorrow then temperatures will continue to rise until such times as all components of the climate system reach energy exchange equilibrium.

    Indeed, the final balance is unlikely to be reached for more than a millennium due to the inertia in the oceanic systems where most of the extra heat is going. This is partly why the waters are expanding. The other part is from glacial run off.

    The true effects of that increased flow of water are muted by increased catchment behind dams and increased irrigation for agriculture. And it was the increased amount of water in the atmosphere due to rising temperatures over recent years that caused a slight hiatus in the increasing rate of sea level rise. Other example of inertia.

    You accuse me of not knowing science and yet you still fail to grasp these points.

    That you still can chant on about not answering your simplistic question WRT Sandy is another pointer to your weird thought processes. The bottom line to that is that global warming may or may not have caused the formation of Sandy but it sure as heck brought on the climate change that made Sandy the monster that it became.

    So what science have you done? Enough to be a dental technician or something perhaps? Brain surgeon?

    And did you not note the date of the latest response from Lancaster WRT Revelle being tricked? Your arguments there are as bankrupt as any other, and getting more incoherent at that.

    Here is your theme tune. I wonder if anyone can recall what was on the reverse of that?

  57. #57 Lionel A
    December 3, 2012

    Jonas who cannot grok Sandy this is for you:

    As Brutal Record Hurricane Season Ends, NBC Says It’s The New Normal Since Climate Change Is ‘Right Here, Right Now’

    be sure to watch the video and listen to Heidi Cullen.

    And for the extreme weather junkies out there, meteorologist and former hurricane Hunter Dr. Jeff Masters has the stunning numbers:

    Hurricane Sandy was truly astounding in its size and power. At its peak size, twenty hours before landfall, Sandy had tropical storm-force winds that covered an area nearly one-fifth the area of the contiguous United States. Since detailed records of hurricane size began in 1988, only one tropical storm (Olga of 2001) has had a larger area of tropical storm-force winds, and no hurricanes has. Sandy’s area of ocean with twelve-foot seas peaked at 1.4 million square miles–nearly one-half the area of the contiguous United States, or 1% of Earth’s total ocean area.

    Most incredibly, ten hours before landfall (9:30 am EDT October 30), the total energy of Sandy’s winds of tropical storm-force and higher peaked at 329 terajoules–the highest value for any Atlantic hurricane since at least 1969. This is 2.7 times higher than Katrina’s peak energy, and is equivalent to five Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs. At landfall, Sandy’s tropical storm-force winds spanned 943 miles of the the U.S. coast. No hurricane on record has been wider; the previous record holder was Hurricane Igor of 2010, which was 863 miles in diameter. Sandy’s huge size prompted high wind warnings to be posted from Chicago to Eastern Maine, and from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to Florida’s Lake Okeechobee–an area home to 120 million people. Sandy’s winds simultaneously caused damage to buildings on the shores of Lake Michigan at Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore, and toppled power lines in Nova Scotia, Canada–locations 1200 miles apart!

    Hand wave that away.

  58. #58 Jonas N
    December 3, 2012

    Lionel, the only odd thing would be if you found my statement odd. Especially after the second time. It’s OK to ask if you really find this difficult. But that’s not what you did. Instead you said:

    “You cannot even lay out a coherent statement, this demonstrates quite clearly the chaotic state of your cognitive processes. You are either a wilfully ignorant moron … ”

    And I see that you pile up a bunch of talking-points (Al Gore-level) about the climate alamism. But no, none of these are science, they are the tabloid version of the (C)AGW hypothesis. And you really don’t think I’ve heard these before!? Really?

    Re: Sandy
    You seem to be claiming that Global Warming made Sandy the monster it was. “[S]ure as heck” were your words.

    Again, do you really think such a statement of attribution can be demonstrated? And have you still missed that it was the possible A in GW I was asking about?

    And I missed what ‘date was tricked’ wrt to Lancaster. Thats essentially a non-issue. You brought it up to somehow support your idea that WUWT (and possibly more) received substantial funding for their blogging, secretly. But if your main sources are all those blogs, sites and books you linked and listed, I would expect you to essentially know nothing of any of the issues. Heck, there is a reason for why you are hanging here …

  59. #59 Wow
    December 3, 2012

    Joan, you have nothing to say because there’s no reason to believe a word of what you put down.

    Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  60. #60 Wow
    December 3, 2012

    “Again, do you really think such a statement of attribution can be demonstrated?”

    What causes hurricanes, dipshit?

    Why don’ t they happen in the temperate zones or in continental interiors?

    SSTs.

    And when the SSTs rise, you get a hurricane as an option where you didn’t before.

    SSTs increasing power hurricanes.

    And when the SSTs rise, you power a stronger hurricane.

    Really, you’re like the creotards going “Prove that we evolved from monkeys!!!!” (for some reason, they don’t accept a link to your posts as evidence we haven’t all managed to evolve *away* from monkeys yet.

    Prove your lights are caused by electrons running through your light filament, you ignorant arsehole.

    Go on, prove it.

  61. #61 Jeff Harvey
    December 3, 2012

    …”they’re peanut crumbs compared to what activists spend on their activism”

    Pure and utter bulls***. This statement alone should tell everyone wasting their time with the Swedish meathead what an utterly deluded person he is.

    No more need be said. End of story.

  62. #62 Jonas N
    December 3, 2012

    Jeff …

    Instead of your empty puffing .. show me where those bloggers receive those secret millions of $$ you were going on about.

    So far, and in spite of your repeated efforts to the contrary, you have not demonstrated one bit anything that isn’t fully legitimate and part of a debate on both science and policy.

    The big part missing, and what you activists go on and on about, is still how any of your (mostly imagined) money is paid to for the purpose of forwarding disingeneous positions wrt to climate.

    And are you really unaware of what money is being floated around to all those GONGOs and various UN and other programs who all feed of the climate hysteria.

    Why don’t you finally show that right whing instead of just claiming that it is there but secret …

  63. #63 Jonas N
    December 3, 2012

    Wow .. thank you again for your valuable contribution.

    And although I just inte last comment had pointed out that the issue was not GW but the possible A-component to it, this little detail must just have slipped your mind while you took the precious time to share your profound thoughts and insights on the matter.

    Mustn’t it?

  64. #64 Wow
    December 3, 2012

    So you agree that SSTs increasing made Sandy worse.

    Well, the A component is demonstrable entirely in exactly the same way as someone can deduce the murder when they’re standing by the dead body with a smoking gun in their hand saying “I DID IT!!! AND I’LL DO IT AGAIN!!!!”.

  65. #65 Wow
    December 3, 2012

    Fuck it, that joan is a peabrain.

    It’s not like it hasn’t been shown time and time again the A component of this GW event. Hell, the little pindick could just pick up an Exxon shareholder report to find the A component.

  66. #66 Jonas N
    December 3, 2012

    Lionel

    I see that you still rely on some of the worse activist sites for filtering and interpreting (and exaggerating) informaion and spin for you. But even Heidi Cullen, who definitely leans in the direction of your beliefs. is careful avoiding attributions. It’s all ‘possibly’ and ‘maybe’ and ‘if it continues further ..’ or ‘if our models are correct .. ‘ etc.

    But the point is, in spite of your media-headline, hurricane seasons har not getting worse over the years, and witth the increased observed temperatures. If anything, the trend is slightly downwards.. It is the reporting that is getting worse, but that’s something different …

  67. #67 Jonas N
    December 3, 2012

    Wow ..

    Are you aware of that it is not the greenhouseffect that heats the oceans? If anything, it lowers the cooling rate, particularly over land, in dryer coller darker, more poe-ward regions.

    The possiblke extra ‘downwelling’ longwave radiation cannot heat the oceans, that is done almost excusively by the sun.

    It’s a minor detail. Not really relevant to correcting the massively ill informed beliefs you have.

    Fact is, that Sand-type storms y have happened before, several times, and att markedly lower temperatures.And couldn’t be attributed to human emissions then either.

    But science just isn’t for you, is it? Belief by the masses, and dumb media reports … It’s way quicker to establish ‘facts’. Jeffie is quicker still. He just invents things as he goes! His recent comment just states i regarding those secret millions:

    “No more need be said. End of story.”

  68. #68 Jonas N
    December 3, 2012

    I notice that Bernard J still is trying to rescue the fact that no one here (or anywhere else) can point to any proper science demonstrating that most prominent IPCC AR4 claim about attribution and high certainty. Not one of all the faith believers …

    His preferred method of misdirection is to ask:

    ‘Have you read all these papers (which nobody claims to contain said science). If not, you have not searched properly’

    it is a very idiotic argument. It describes science as something that needs to be hidden ..

    But then again, he is talking about ‘climate science’ and all kinds of things are not suitable for public display there ..

  69. #69 chek
    December 3, 2012

    ..and so Jonarse continues, plinking away at his one note riff on his one string banjo at the riff that neither Michaels, Lindzen or the Fabulous Furry Flying Idso Brothers will touch with a bargepole, hoping against hope to have a worldwide hit with it that’s never gonna happen. It was a minor hit on the Swedish gay club scene (championed by the other Bjorn, but sadly obscurity doesn’t come any more obscure than that.

    Meanwhile AR4 Chapter 9 is working on a follow up provisionally titled AR5 Chapter 9, with expectations said to exceed athose of another Led Zep reunion. (which to anyone who has seen the Celebration Day release of the 2007 show, is a very high bar indeed).

  70. #70 Jonas N
    December 3, 2012

    chek

    Essentially, you are making my point for me:
    Nobody has ever seen any science baking up those claims. And your assertions above, that claimed “actual research and peer reviewed science backing it up” on your side but which nobody ever can detail or even has seen, makes things worse for you. It menas that those who claimed this were doing this in blind faith or lying. And the same things goes for all of you repeating those claims.

    Now it seems that you pin your hopes to that AR5 finally will prove all such beliefs right .. well good luck!

    And you are wrong again. I can knowingly discuss quite a few aspects of the climate hysteria. But whenever I do, you guys derail and want to switch topics.

    You had one partly mature comment earlier, that of course Sandy cannot be attributed to exactly human CO2 emissions. But you never got closer. Rather the opposite ..

  71. #71 chek
    December 3, 2012

    You merely underline that you, as an individual – Jonarse the Moron – don’t comprehend attribution.

    Thank you for reinforcing the point so speedily.

  72. #72 Vince Whirlwind
    December 4, 2012

    Did anybody notice that the recent “letter from 125 “scientists”” did not include Ian Plimer’s name?

    You’re going to get awfully lonely there under that dunce cap in very short order, JOnas.

  73. #73 GSW
    December 4, 2012

    Dear me, I see the intellectuals have arrived.
    ;)

    Your doing a good job Jonas, Keep it Up! They must get it eventually. The requirement for evidence to back up claims, theories to be tested empirically, It’s all part of science. For those of you that have not come across the term before it’s spelt S-C-I-E-N-C-E.

    There some long established principles that we try to adhere to, sort of makes it work. How are you alarmists getting on with your leeches, ouija boards and witch-dunkings? Any new portents of doom we should be aware of?
    ;)

    It’s hard work Jonas, but think of it as missionary work to the heathen.

  74. #74 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    chek, your problem is that it is the other way around. Attribution in real sciences is something very different from armwaiving, consensus claiming, implied linked-to connections, and the glaring gaps filled in with wishful thinking. And of course from the CV-waiving, authority elevating and stupid name calling.

    And deep down you know it too, at least partially. You just don’t want it to be so, not pointed out in public and definitely not by me. But that’s your problem, not mine …

    Vince W

    Yeah, the promises about what is to come have been many, far reaching and sometimes spectacular, in the name of so called climate science and expecially from the supporting foot soldiers …

    Incidentally, those supporters quite often are called scientists and experts when commenting on such things. But I guess on your side those labels are fully legitimate every single time!?

  75. #75 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “Attribution in real sciences is something very different from armwaiving, consensus claiming, implied linked-to connections, and the glaring gaps filled in with wishful thinking.”

    Indeed it is. Your point?

  76. #76 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “Are you aware of that it is not the greenhouseffect that heats the oceans?”

    Yup.

    Are you?

    Do you know what does?

    “The possiblke extra ‘downwelling’ longwave radiation cannot heat the oceans”

    No, apparently not.

    According to this idiot, H20 in liquid form is transparent to IR radiation…

  77. #77 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “Fact is, that Sand-type storms y have happened before”

    Fact is, they happen for a reason.

    You seem to have problems with “reasons” you seem to want to insist they are completely random events with no cause and no mechanism for cause.

    Like I’ve always said, you’re a nobody who has never once demonstrated that they know what they’re talking about.

  78. #78 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Wow — as ever so often, there is no coherent argument in what you write. Its only brainless ranting, disconneted from both issues and reality.

    You still haven’t gotten around the ‘attribution’ part. And contrary to your latest claim, what you tried time and again is exactly “armwaiving, [and] implied linked-to connections’

    “Fact is, they happen for a reason”

    Fact is that quite a few claim, or want to imply that human CO2 was the reason, or part of it. Demonstrably more CO2 is not a necessary requirement ..

    I would say that you have a quite severe problem both with reason, with reason, and reasoning …

  79. #79 chek
    December 4, 2012

    Demonstrably more CO2 is not a necessary requirement

    No barnaclebrain, but the well known effects of more CO2 help provide the necessary conditions.

    Hanging round with the company you keep must be knocking 10 IQ points a week off you, and you only started in double figures.

  80. #80 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “Demonstrably more CO2 is not a necessary requirement ”

    Cyanide isn’t a necessary component of poison either.

    This doesn’t mean it won’t kill you if you ingest it.

  81. #81 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “You still haven’t gotten around the ‘attribution’ part.”

    Yes I did. But you missed it because you’re too busy getting a BJ for GSW.

    AGW causes higher SSTs.

    Attributing the change of SSTs that cause hurricanes increasing to AGW.

    Attribution.

  82. #82 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “or want to imply that human CO2 was the reason”

    Nope, not human CO2.

    CO2.

    Currently humans are increasing it.

    But it doesn’t matter what caused the CO2 increase.

  83. #83 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    GSW

    What we see here (and unfortunately elsewere, even from more ‘official’ places too) is a new version of science. Some might call it post-modernism or post normal science, but partly I’d say its even post that.

    Post modernism was the idea that in understanding (mostly cultural, social) phenomena anything goes, if you just feel it , argue it, want and believe it. That there are many simultaneous layers of reality to be viewed and interpreted differently, by different individuals. Contradictions are no problem and no view is better than another. It wants to distance itself from the idea of one objective reality. (Most often the desire is abandon the need for meticulous and hard work, to replace it easier softer wishing instead)

    Post normal science, is when such post modern ideas are introduced also into the real and hard science fields. Examples are when math and physics should be interpreted differently from a gender perspective etc.

    In climatology we see all sorts of post modern arguments being put forward. Unfortunately also by ‘offical scientists’

    They are too many to be listed, but the idea of a model explaing what is not understood, or that many model runs quantify the degree of uncertainty are some of them. The invention of large positive feedbacks or that CO2 rules H2O as a slave parameter globally are some ..

    Also al the post hoc adjustments that need to be appended.

    But equally bad is the argumentation from its proponents, all the way from Trenberth and Mann, with the backward reasoning and arguments, such as reversed null hypothesis or ¨we have no other explanation’. Verry irritating too is the notion of that vage, shaky and contradictory hyptheses and thereupon built models should be accepted as ‘best knowlege’ because no alternative is presented.

    Brrrr … none of these arguments is even close to any real science.

    And if we go down the ladder, and listen to the ‘experts’ that make up the ‘consensus’ who are just repeating the memes and talking points, who are clueless to any scientifically pointed question pointed at them, if they have not a rehearsed reply ready, or instead try a different reheared reply.

    And closer to the bottom, we find all these ‘soft science’ types who hope that finally their time has come to be ‘of real importance’, to part of reshaping the world and how it is understood.

    But interspersed we also have the small and sometimes big cheating with the data, where lack of information, or large uncertainties are us as the argument for the pet-hypothesis, or even taken as opportunity to fill in what is desired.

    Jeff Harvey, inventing all kinds of things about all the (rest of the) world he does not know or understand is only one of the more blatant types: ‘Those BigOil millions are secret, that you cannot see them is proof of it. And therfor you are an idiot’ – kind of arguments. Incidentally he is back att producing CAPITAL strawmen en masse in his protected zone again. Poor thing ..

    To be fair, the dwellers here are not that many. Those few on their side capable of formulating their stance properly, arguing its merits and understanding/responding to valid counterquestions and even understanding why they are asked their relevance, have abandoned ship, if there ever were that many.

    For the remainder its all about the war, the activist agendas and belief systems. Every acknowledged point (to the other side) , every new understanding of the climate, every publication with more sceptical results, every media article or clip with such viewpoints, even existence of bloggers and their traffic are all steps in the wrong direction (and concessions are defeat) and must be avoided at all costs and ferociously counterattacked.

    Jeff here, who really knows nothing about the climate, climate science (neither the CAGW-versions, or others), who cannot argue one aspect of that debate properly (actually ‘cannot argue properly at all’), who is unaware of what real science and the scientific methods are, has spent 1½ years shouting that everybody not sharing his complete ignorance of this topic, and based upon that also his belief system ..

    .. therefor must be a total idiot and a long list of similar epitets.

    The main argument from our Jeffie is: He has all the answers and correct understanding of things. Which i cannot even formulate. And those not accepting his ‘authority’ therefor must be moron, idiots, mentally ill etc.

    Its what you expect from 7 – 8 year olds in the schoolyard. But he really seems to mean it exactly that way!

  84. #84 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2012

    Jonas, do you really, honestly, seriously think I give a rat’s ass what you say?

  85. #85 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Jeff Harvey, in is protected zone is having another fit over this:

    “I wonder whether the Scandinavian Troll Collective has explained yet why the biosphere has ignored their denialism and is instead agreeing lockstep with the consensus climatology”

    Which he’d like to explain with:

    “No, and they never will .. The guy is a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect”

    It seems that he still not has wrapped his braincell around the fact that it is not the global waring that is the issue. It is whether there is an A-component to it, and if so its magnitude.

    I guess this must have been pointed out to him some 100 times by now. Nobody has questioned that the biosphere reacts to both temperatures, and in some part to more CO2. Nobody!

    But our myth fabricator Jeff Harvey is so convinced of the exact opposite he starts screaming counterfactual:

    “climate change DENIAL”

    What an utter idiot he must be!

  86. #86 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Jeff .. y

    “Jonas, do you really ..think I give a rat’s ass what you say?”

    You spend quite a lot of your time here fantasizing about me and trying to come up with some final smackdown … A year and a half by now.

    Your comments here, and their content, are the emprical observations ,Jeff. Those which can be shown as corroboration evidence if one would like to make the claim (hypothesis) that what I say matters to or has some effect on you.

    The effect is obvious, the cause is often spelled out in detail in your comments. I don’t see that I need to add much here …

  87. #87 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “The invention of large positive feedbacks or that CO2 rules H2O as a slave parameter globally are some ”

    Wow, idiocy in its purest form.

    Just because YOU don’t understand a bloody thing doesn’t mean your misunderstandings belong to anyone but yourself.

  88. #88 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “because no alternative is presented.”

    Where’s yours, dipshit?

  89. #89 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Wow .. I think you have demonstrated very well how little you understand. For starters, you haven’t figured out the difference between ‘believing’ and ‘understanding’ yet …

    On a much higher level: The atmospheric H2O content is not governed by its CO2 content. You can believe that (because its true, and I tell you this) or believe whatever else you want. Both alternatives would still only be beliefs …

  90. #90 Lionel A
    December 4, 2012

    Lionel, the only odd thing would be if you found my statement odd. Especially after the second time. It’s OK to ask if you really find this difficult….Heck, there is a reason for why you are hanging here …

    Another incoherent, ambiguous and ill constructed rant, further proof that,“You cannot even lay out a coherent statement”. Keep going your making my point for me.

    Now as to my difficulty with your statement WRT rate of increase [of something or other, you did not specify where the start was, what values there were at the start and then you later blundered by muttering something about about, ‘a more than 10-fold increase in rate‘ which did not compute with the numbers that you provided at that time] this was because your lack pf precision in language

    Now as to an Al Gore level bunch of talking points, that is ridiculous. Why? Because within each article I link to are other links to information that would provide scientific support for the arguments therein. Maybe you don’t know about the cleaver way the intertubes are constructed so that instead of having to re-invent the wheel and try to educate (in your case the obviously in-educable where each of us is continuing to bang our head against the brick wall that is you) there are easily available lessons on the science just a few clicks away.

    Similarly there is much information available on how the think-tanks and other special interest organisations gather their funds and to whom and how they are distributed. Seeing as the tax payer props up the fossil fuel industry by tax breaks (and higher energy prices) then the tax payer is essentially paying to be hoodwinked by the delayniers. Now that is where one term of the un-ethical expression comes from (using a mathematical analogy). This is what makes the likes of Joe Bast and those he connect fiscally with so disgusting, this ignoring for a moment the scandalous propaganda and character assassination of others. Michaels and Lindzen both have a record here too.

    As for the A in AGW, you must have missed my chain of causation so clearly and unambiguously presented on December 2, 2012 , here it is again:

    Sea surface temperatures were higher,

    Sea levels are higher,

    Because of more heat energy in the earth’s systems – there are so many sources that can prove this.

    The increase in energy in recent times is due to the earth warming because heat is not being released back to space as fast as it is coming in.

    This is because of the known increase in GHGs with an isotopic signature that can only come from anthropogenic sources.

    That is based upon basic physics understood since the time of Fourier, Tyndall, Arrenhius and taken forward by such as Callendar, Bolin, Revell and of course Keeling.
    The behaviour of molecules WRT various energy levels, wavelengths of electromagnetic energy is also a part of the underlying physics.

    All those points are easily backed up by consulting the scientific record, (including David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert ‘The Warming Papers’, much consulted) and indeed you have been provided with ample links to assist with this.

    Instead of doing that you hand wave by inferring that we know no science and/or don’t have any scientific experience when a reading of any of our collective posts on other threads lays the lie to that.

    I have asked you recently – what are your scientific credentials – don’t be shy now. Being coy about this diminishes you further. If that were possible.

    I have had much scientific education, practice and have a library to support this including a very good text on weather and climate dating back to the 1980s, Roger G. Barry and Richard J Chorley (Fourth Edition 1982) ‘Atmosphere, Weather & Climate’, ISBN 0-416-33700-7 and building on that my most recent addition is, Hunt Janin (Author), Scott A. Mandia (2012) ‘Rising Sea Levels: An Introduction to Cause and Impact’, which I am in the process of reading.

    Now my point about dates with Lancaster was to do with the date of his most recent statement putting the Singer-Revelle saga in its proper light. This implies that Singer would rather not drag this up again because he knows how he would now come out i.e Lancaster was right first time.

  91. #91 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “For starters, you haven’t figured out the difference between ‘believing’ and ‘understanding’ yet”

    Yet you have nothing to base that statement on.

    Or do you just “believe” that?

  92. #92 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “The atmospheric H2O content is not governed by its CO2 content. ”

    True.

    So what?

  93. #93 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    Do you “believe” that your “H2O content is not governed by its CO2 content” is sufficient and that you have no need to “understand” it?

  94. #94 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2012

    Jonas, you’ve been ranting pretty much at length for a few weeks now.Look at your recent posts. Diatribes one and all. Usually trying to explain my psychologic al state. Clearly I get under your skin… but then again, if the vast majority of scientists who agreed with me decided to write into Deltoid, your bullshit would be truly and utterly washed away down the drain.Your views are very firmly planted on the academic fringe, where they belong.

    Your problem (well… one of many) is that you think you’re incredibly smart. Stuck in this little corner of the blogosphere, you are feree in your anonymity to spew forth all kinds of crap, packaging it as science, and then to return to your little shell. You seem oblivious to the fact that most posters here think you are a complete pillock; only one (GSW) regularly tries to stoke your bloated ego.

    I must admit that, amongst all of the verbal diarrhea that you spew forth in copious amounts, your recent one suggesting that environmental activists have bigger PR budgets than the fossil-fuel, automobile and energy lobby has to be amongst themost clearly deluded and insane. Environmental NGOs depend on membership fees to exist; these plae in comparison to the PR budgets of transnational corporations.In some of the lectures I used to give on the subject, I showed that the fossil-fuel lobby invested 58.3 million dollars in 1998 alone in lobbying members of Congree on various energy bills and regulations; the same year ALL NGOs combined (not only environmental groups, but those advocating on behalf of such disparate topcs as gay rights, women’s rights, laws with regards to race, pensions for the elderly, social security groups etc.) invested a paltry 4.3 million dollars. Certainly that from environmentgal NGOs constituted a tiny portion of this. And this is only for direct lobbying money: it does not include the vastly greater sums spent by the fossil-fuel lobby for election campaigns, political donations etc. Just check out to see how much money the oil and electrical utility corporations have invested in politicans like Joe Barton, James Inhofe and other politicians in both major US political parties. It is a staggering amount. Environmental groups do not have this money at their disposal. So who curries the most favor in elite ciircles of government? If you for a second think that policy is influended at all by environmental activists as you call them, then you are even dumber than I previously thought (which is saying a lot).

    Exxon-Mobil makes more annual profit thatn all but 13 nations on Earth. Along with Shell, BP, Texaco-Chevron and the other fossil-fuel giants, these corporationsinvest a of money in PR, think tanks and other astroturf groups. That is because they see any imposition of regulations as a threat to the way they do business and to their profit margins. There are quite a few books out there detailing the well funded industry of denial; you simply choose to not read them. Just because your head it firmly planted up your butt does not change reality.

    Ultimately, I am fed up with your vast ignorance and self-righteous preaching. You really think that you are a clever guy. It bleeds out every time you write some more of your piffle. But of course, given your self-professed scientific brilliance, I would have expected you to be a houselhold name in the world of science. I would expect to be reading about you in the media, seeing your books advertised on the internet, and for your TED lectures to be promoted long before they are given. Buyt all of this is an illusion. You are an annoyance, but, as I said yesterday, it is nice to know that your fame is very limited in scale. Even here your cannot muster an avalance of support; its tricked away to a few dregs.

  95. #95 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Lionel

    Lancaster claimed to know that Revelle meant something very different than what was written in a Cosmos piece together with Singer. Essentially he claimed that Revelle was tricked into accepting coautorship and/or content against his will.

    There are those who claim to be in contact with the dead, and can to know them to speak for them posthumously. I don’t believe such things. But I know that many have very strong feelings about what they think others think and feel. Or thought and meant.

    As I said, I think that Cosmos piece is totally irrelevant, especially today. I don’t even know when Lancaster last spoke up about it. And to draw any far reaching conclusions about others in absence of anything would just be guessing once again.

    And I am sorry you didn’t understand what ‘rate’ referred to when I stated a temperature increase over a given timeframe. It still implies about 10 times as much as hitherto observed.

    And I have seen that list Lionel. Are you sure you want to push that one? Because it is not quite what you think it is. It is a list of talking points to argue AGW. I don’t even see any point in there which purports to indicate more, stronger, or bigger storms which was your initial claim. And furthermore, the list represents arguments for a AGW-hypotheses, it is not even close to specify any magnitudes (which is the crux of the matter, regarding the bigger issue here)

    I am glad that you’ve had an education. But I’m afraid it is not sufficent to fault me on things I say here, not wrt to the real science parts at least.

    But you can of course point out when you feel II was being unclear. And maybe you can even refrain from the Jeffie-style personality extraction attempts. I think those look really stupid, especially when you at the same time make basic errors and attac strawmen …

  96. #96 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2012

    “I am glad that you’ve had an education. But I’m afraid it is not sufficent to fault me on things I say here, not wrt to the real science parts at least”

    What a pompous, arrogant jerk you are, Jonas. In my opinion you’re well and truly bonkers.

  97. #97 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2012

    Lionel asks Jonas, ” I have asked you recently – what are your scientific credentials – don’t be shy now. Being coy about this diminishes you further. If that were possible.”

    His creddentials are these:

    In the mind of Jonas: World renowned expert on all areas of science, all-around genius. Several doctorates, > 300 peer-reviewed publications, many plenary and keynote conference lectures, invitred speaker at AAAS, other prestigious bodies; several TED lectures.

    Reality: No formal qualifications at all. No peer-reviewed publications, no invited lectures, no conferences attended. Purely self taught amateur.

    Stll is a legend in his own mind…

  98. #98 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Jeff … its funny. You have spent 1½ year trying to analyse my psychological state. I think you brought Dunning Kruger already the first day. Sorry if you can’t handle if I speculate about why you fail so specacularly so often. I am not even on the playingfield when it comes to your stupid barrage of piling up insults. But you are correct if you deduce that I don’t have any higher regards for your intellect or your ability to argue scientific issues.

    Earlier today, you had a hissy fit (in another thread) about the biosphere reacting to changing conditions. A complete and total strawman. So abysmally stupid it defies belief!

    Here you now try to equate the size of large production industries their PR, marketing, and also lobbying expenses to what you describe as “climate CHANGE denial lobby”

    And still none of that money can be tracked to any denial. Because neither the climate, or its constantly changing is denied by anybody (except in the wet fantasies of deranged fanatics).

    But even with the correct labelling of those who you fear, despise, hate, and are incapable of debating arguing or otherwise interacting with ..

    Even wrt those who argue, express and research skepticism against (C)AGW, the likes of BH, CA, WUWT and a few others, you cannot show any stream of secret millions. And anyway, where is that alleged money purportedly being spent? Maintanance and support for som webservers?

    I see WWF adds everywhere, and need to listen to their ‘experts’ in both TV, the papers and now they’re flocking in Doha. They arrange 24 h Climate Bonazas on the internet, and Earth Day around the globe. And are visible.

    GreenPeace and WWF are huge industries, and ‘climate change’ is a major part of their agenda.

    On the skeptic side I know of one (rather poor) 1 day ad campain along one freeway in Chicago.

    As usual, you make the idiotic (or dishonest) attempt to equate the entire size of a general budget, if some part of it goes to some organisation, which in turn in some part has produced a pamhplet, or invited a speaker, who harbors sceptical views, or just can be ‘linked to’ somebody/thing else which according to you screaming activists can be viewed as skeptical.

    And you then claim ‘Millions supporting Denial’ wich is wrong in every part of it.

    And you are claiming that ‘green agendas’ have no clout in politics? Well you really must be living on a different planet then. We have windpower desaster all over the old world, and carbon trading in EU attracting billion dollar crimes only. We have subsidies to all sorts of crank green technology and of course lots of them who want to be part of such handouts.

    And you almost lose it over som private bloggers with shoe-string budgets, Jeff!?

    And I still think its funny that your ‘massive’ support here, at this of all the places, leads you to believe anything at all. That’s almost cute …

    to to the budget of pressure groups and NGOs etc.

    Again it defies belief.

  99. #99 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “you cannot show any stream of secret millions”

    They have shown that stream of millions. 400 grand here, 80 grand there, it all adds up.

    Meanwhile you haven’t shown any stream of millions being milked by scientists to “promote” AGW.

  100. #100 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “And you then claim ‘Millions supporting Denial’ wich is wrong in every part of it.”

    Nope, there’s plenty of millions. Every part of the claim is true.

    “We have windpower desaster all over the old world”

    Where? You mean the “disaster” of Germany coming out of recession early because of their reduced deficit of payments from their use of wind and solar power increasing?

    I admit that it’s a disaster to your friends at Exxon.

    PS isn’t that claim “windpower desaster” alarmist???

    of course it is!

Current ye@r *