By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
Jackerman said: “Does GSW really think anyone cares what he says he stands by? Why do I keep thinking the word “twat” when reading GSW”.
Perhaps because an anonymous, self-important troll proclaiming that he ‘stands by’ his even more worthless, anonymous, self-important statement is the sort of thing a worthless, anonymous, self-important twat might anonymously type on an internet blog and expect to be taken seriously?
Speaking of which, I see from SkS that Pielke Snr. is the Faux News go-to climate guy. What a fitting high point to his career.
GSW – why are you wasting your time here? Shouldn’t you be helping Montford go through Phil Jones’ rubbish bin, helping find out exactly how he deploys armies of warmists to shovel away all that mysteriously disappearing arctic ice? Or helping draft a stinging FOI to Santa Claus demanding to know if he’s seen anything suspicious, at least.
This was one of the most entertaining threads I have ever read. Jonas N calmly walks into the camp meeting asking a simple honest question and all he gets in reply are sealed off shaking-tents where Jeffs, Bernards, Wows, stus, clippos and other ill dressed shamans are sweating it out. And the tents are shaking for sure, to say the least. But what’s going on in there? Nobody knows, it seems. But it is quite impressive to look at, from a distance. At it sounds a lot too.
Jonas N (and GSW), I admire you stamina as much I’m baffled by the reluctance to answer (or grasp) a simple question. Good show. IPCC(-believers) unveiled, to paraphrase Madam Blavatsky. When will they let us infidels know?
When they learn to RTFM.
That is, for Jonas and his admiring ilk, never.
Sorry, I forgot you name chek. Please forgive me.
And chek, please feel free to assist me in any way you can. So far, Jonas N is the one seeking the truth.
References to Jonas’ answer have been posted several times – which you should have noticed if you’d read the thread as you claim.
Jonas – and now you – say that’s not the answer he wants, but unfortunately, his ‘special needs’ don’t allow him to elaborate further, or indeed make the case as to why the provided references don’t answer his question despite mucho prompting.
Perhaps when the afterglow of your admiration dies down a little you could help poor Jonas. I suspect not though, troll infestations being what they are.
> Jonas N calmly walks into the camp meeting asking a simple honest question
Can YOU then please post the question he asked?
*So far, Jonas N is the one seeking the truth*
Really? The why doesn’t he get off his ar** and read some of the primary literature? Problem is, Olaus, that whatever literature is put right in front of him he will turn away from it, or else put his hands over his eyes whilst shouting, “It’s not true! It’s not true! There is no frikking evidence”. What Jonas wants is for us to go painstakingly through the studies ourselves and to read it out to him like a bedtime story. But then he will turn up the volume of the music to drown us out or else shove cotton wool in his ears. No, Jonas isn’t seeking the truth, as elusive as that is in science. What he is doing is trying to ensure that the truth remains buried because that will support his – and GSW’s – and yours, apparently – pre-determined worldview that AGW is a myth.
But heck, I have met enough people who deny climate change, high extinction rates, the deleterious effects of clear cutting tropical forests et al. over the years to know that their anti-environmental views are driven by a political agenda that has nix to do with a desire to find out the truth.
Check, as said, I have read the thread and my conclusion is that Jonas’ simple question hasn’t been answered. What he gets tough, in large amounts, is endless phrases (off topic) that has no scientific bearing whatsoever. And you keep it up.
Olaus, or whoever the hell you are,
Why is Jonas asking people here on Deltoid, a general science blog this question? Why hasn’t he asked any number of real climate scientists, and especially those who contributed to the final IPCC draft for AR4? They are the ones who wrote the damned thing! Or why does he apparently refuse to read the literature? He seems incapabale of answering these simple questions. Why is that do you think? It should be bloody obvious why.
Your posts are getting to be as tiresome as those from the twin-trolls.
Jonas question (as far as anyone can interpret his gibberish) has been answered and the relevant references linked.
He and now you say not so.
But of course, neither you nor Jonas can say why the suggestions offered are incorrect. Such is the nature of pretence in clueless trolls.
# 310, Language Jeffie, language…Why all this heat? There is no need to use profanities.
What sticks (sic) out here is that you guys can’t give a proper/solid ref to the “science” behind this so called “poster child”. Jonas’ main point is that it is only an opinion. And so far none of you have contradicted this.
Its very simple and yet you start chanting i tongues about how stupid, ignorant etc he and digress on topics of no significants what so ever.
Since Olaus Petri is a Wattsian, he may need some help: This thread actually comes midway in the ‘discussion’ with Jonas N. So, allow me to give a very short summary: On a previous thread, discussing the ad hominem attacks on John Mashey by Peter Wood, Jonas N came in and immediately started to shift the goalposts. One of his claims was that AR4 does not show the calculation a claim it makes. Others pointed him to the appropriate figures and references, but that was not to Jonas’ liking. He needed to see the calculation. So far I have been so kind not to point out that the likelihood statements in the IPCC are not “statistical” calculations, but expert assessments. Anyone seeing the attribution studies in chapter 9 of WG1 cannot come to any other conclusion than that the rise in T since mid-20th century must be anthropogenic. As in 100% anthropogenic. This is deliberately toned down, explicitely mentioned in chapter 9 (to allow for some ‘unknowns’) to “most” and the likelihood as “very likely”.
I challenged Jonas N to do the calculation which he so liked to see, but he wouldn’t. Or more likely, couldn’t. In short, his “honest” question was an attempt to shift the goalposts, his ability to understand the relevant literature and methodology insufficient (otherwise he could do the calculation himself), and his continuous unwillingness to answer any questions himself direct evidence that he is not interested in learning, but only in trolling.
So, now he has his own thread where he can troll all he like, and where others can troll with him.
P.S., Olaus, any reason you would use realclimate.com as ‘your’ URL? Shouldn’t it be a link to your favorite hideouts like WUWT or theclimatescam (where you were informed about this thread)
thank you for your kind words on my behalf. Nevertheless you stick (sic) your head in the sand ignoring the core of the problem. Despite your headline lingo of how “boring”, “stupid”, “trollish” and so forth Jonas is, you keep posting on anything that Jonas wants to be enlightened about.
> I have read the thread and my conclusion is that Jonas’ simple question hasn’t been answered.
What simple question?
> Problem is, Olaus, that whatever literature is put right in front of him he will turn away from it,
Or get a sockpuppet.
Olaus Petri sounds like a Jonas N sock puppet.
Certainly, neither can actually make a case that supports any of Jonas N’s claims. And I note that both repeatedly accuse others of doing exactly what Jonas N (and now Olaus Petri) have been doing.
Olaus Petri says:
>Jonas N (and GSW), I admire you stamina as much I’m baffled by the reluctance to answer (or grasp) a simple question.
– “Stamina”? Hardly. Jonas N simply repeats the same unsupported claim again and again. A first generation Turing test could do as well, or better.
– I too am “baffled by the reluctance [of Jonas N and GSW] to answer (or grasp) a simple question” – almost. Parsimony suggests ignorance, ideology, financial incentive, or a combination of these, as a viable explanation.
Wow pipped me with the sock puppet suspicion.
Have you tried reading 22.214.171.124 The Influence of Greenhouse Gas and Total Anthropogenic Forcing on Global Surface Temperature?
It’s telling, isn’t it, if Jonas N is indeed recruiting a sock…
Backing up his non-argument with another non-argument, whether his own or one of a conspirator, does not serve his cause at all well.
The conspiracy sock (or is it suck?) puppet seem to be down some throats here, blocking any coherent answer there might be regarding Jonas’ humble question.
Have another go, please.
What is the question, and what is the evidence that supports it?
And calling one’s-self “humble”, isn’t.
Dear Olas/Jonas/GSW or whoever you are,
Can you please let us know what simple question you have read here from Jonas that hasn’t been answered.
After all, you may have missed it and someone here can point out where the answer had already been made, or answer it so your complaint has been solved.
You DO want the answer, don’t you? You weren’t just complaining for the sake of it, were you?
Bernard J #298
You are wrong again. It is easy to prove me wrong (if that is what I am). I make a falsifiable statement, a proposition, I pose a hypothesis. And yes, it is a ‘negative’ ..
You may continue to keep on looking for references, and if you find some science establishing (or attempting to) that AR4 claim, please let me know.
But I very much doubt that you will. And listing references *en masse* which you haven’t read is (almost) pointless, as is listing references you *actually have read* but which don’t contain that particular information.
I see that Andy S once more tries with the same Figure and its captionfor the fourth or fifth time. And that Bernard J asks ‘what question’ although haveing proclaimed previously that:
>In spite of your incoherence, I understand perfectly well what you are claiming
Well, just a few comments before, you weren’t even doing that. But I am glad you are progressing.
But does anybody even have an idea of what you are hoping to accomplish by rambling ons as you do? Are you still hoping it is in there somewhere, only not found by anyone, and still completely unknown to the scientific community, 4½ years after its release?
Is this what you are hoping for? Really?
(I see that some here say that I indeed have been shown the proper reference .. why not ask them, quickly check for yourselves, and then beat me over the head with it? Because, that is waht you would like, more than anything! So why aren’t you? Why do you so urgently want to discuss other things?)
> I make a falsifiable statement
Go ahead then.
Hell, any statement that isn’t personal opinion would do.
*And listing references en masse which you haven’t read is (almost) pointless, as is listing references you actually have read but which don’t contain that particular information*
How do you know which of the articles Bernard cited contain pertinent information, Jonas/Olaus? How many of these articles have you actually read? If, as expected, the answer is ‘none’, then how on Earth can you say anything?
It is now for you to explain (with references) why you consider the information already offered does not meet your standard. It’s simple enough, but can you do it?
I think not, because your sole reference so far (to the SPM) leads me to conclude that’s all you’ve read.
Jeff, you alread declared that these mass-references *should keep me away for a week* which is what you so dearly want …
And Jeff, it doesn’t work that way in science:
A major UN-body makes a specific claim, releases it in its SPM 2007, makes shure it is echoed in all news outlets in the world, and adds *’but we’ve hidden the most spectacular part so well that nobody can find it, not even in the four years to come.. but yes, all the scientific community agrees and stands solidly by it anyway.. ‘*
It just doesn’t work that way!
You are the one boasting that you are allowed to ‘mingle with the big boys’ sometimes, and you were the one (if I remember correctly) bringing up that AR4 statement ..
You may still doubt my proffered assessment, but you can hardly claim anything else but that you all have been taking it on pure faith so far.
(reasonably justified faith, from your corner of the stands, I concede, but still only faith, and quite less justified by now)
> A major UN-body makes a specific claim, releases it in its SPM 2007 and adds ‘but we’ve hidden the most spectacular part so well that nobody can find it, not even in the four years to come.. but yes, all the scientific community agrees and stands solidly by it anyway.. ‘
Ah, well, now we have a falsifiable claim from Jonas.
Jonas, they didn’t add that.
You are so immensely boring and unskilled, I lost interest in trying to help you a long time ago (maybe you noticed that). But I’ll make an exception:
>Jonas, they didn’t add that.
Which is correct, and that’s why I said:
>It just doesn’t work that way!
Because, that is not how it works. Get it?
But that is the underlying implication offered by almost everybody here, still trying to rescue its mythological existence, hoping it is in there, somewhere … and trying nonsense like: ‘But have you really looked in every paper? Prove that!’
> > Jonas, they didn’t add that.
> Which is correct
So you ADMIT now that you’ve made a falsifiable statement and that it was false and KNOWINGLY false.
This is the problem with you, see, you make a flurry of incoherent rants and accusations and then assert that SOMEWHERE in all that horseflesh that there’s some actual beef.
I will quote you YET AGAIN on your falsifiable statement:
> A major UN-body makes a specific claim, releases it in its SPM 2007, makes shure it is echoed in all news outlets in the world, and adds ‘but we’ve hidden the most spectacular part so well that nobody can find it, not even in the four years to come.. but yes, all the scientific community agrees and stands solidly by it anyway.. ‘
And saying “But it doesn’t work that way” doesn’t mean “but that’s not what happened”.
And even if it DID, then what you’re complaining about is:
> A major UN-body makes a specific claim, releases it in its SPM 2007, makes shure it is echoed in all news outlets in the world
Which results in a “Yes? And?” since all you’ve done is state that a UN body has said something and the news around the world echoed it. Nothing there about what’s wrong with that. Unless you don’t like news being reported.
Olaus, I know Wattsians have reading comprehension problems, so allow me first to try by repeating myself:
“So, now he has his own thread where he can troll all he like, and where others can troll with him.”
You are so immensely boring and unskilled
Jonas, that was precious. Keep ’em coming, cupcake!
>Are you still hoping it is in there somewhere, only not found by anyone, and still completely unknown to the scientific community, 4½ years after its release?
Major logic fail. WGI is the product of the scientific community. Particularly that part of the scientific community that has expertise in the subject. It’s publication makes it widely available to the broader scientific community, who by their comprehension and acceptance of of the conclusions therein, not to mention the corroborating documentation by such
Why would it be that you pretend to speak for the scientific community, though you haven’t demonstrated any standing nor shown competence in science, but rather a sophomoric and malformed understanding of science even as a general topic?
We’ve found where ‘it’ is supported in WGI, in particular Chap. 9 where it is carefully explained and graphically shown, using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods, directly from the referenced sources, how it is very unlikely that _any_ of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes. A conclusion that is statistically significant even accounting for the most implausible unknown and scientifically unexplainable serial correlation of natural variability, yet you blindly refuse to accept and understand.
You are, without any doubt, suffering from full blown pathological denial, supported by indications of narcissism, projection of feelings, passive aggressive hostility, self delusion and cognitive dissonance.
You need help but you aren’t getting it here.
you and your fellow climate Jerimiahas are totally consumed not to say obsessed by Jonas, me being wattsian or not. And that becomes crystal clear to anyone reading here, in this “jonas-thread” or any other thread for that matter. So Watts your point?
You guys just can’t take that somebody isn’t in line with your dogma/belief system, and your hostile reactions/wordings are very much on par with what is described in sociological literature dealing with sectarian behavior. Its conspiracies and evil agendas everywhere and besides sola scriptura there is nothing to back it up with except laud mouthing and foul language.
Why not try a another approach, e.g. answer Jonas question or admit that he has a valid point and stop crying like stung pigs? Please also ask yourself why you become so extremely agitated?
So after 300+ posts, the lying troll finally defines what the “it” was that he was talking about this whole time and “it” turns out to be total nonsense.
Someone should euthanize this thread.
“it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes”
Luminous, do you have a reference for this?
Glad you could join us!
*Luminous, do you have a reference for this?*
Yes, its found in >1,000 papers in the empirical literature as well as in the IPCC reports. Now be a good boy and look them up for yourself.
*And Jeff, it doesn’t work that way in science*
So says Jonas, our resident D-K poster boy who has no scientific qualifications whatsoever, has never attended a conference or published a paper in the empirical literature. Yup, he can tell us all here how science works. Yawn.
Happy to sit by your feet.
So after 300+ post of total disinterest of Jonas person and his mental status someone (you?) is going to euthanize this thread and remove the (collective) sock/suck puppet out of his/her mouth and answer Jonas’ Q?
OK Jonas, here’s the physical science basis for the anthropogenic fingerprint on the current warming:
I intend to go through these references in the coming weeks. How about you? Ditto for the other two anti-science right wingers, GSW and Olaus. Care to sift through the science, chaps?
Do any of you deniers actually read the IPCC reports, are are you just knee-jerk ‘against’ them?
[SkS](http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm) answers your entry-level questions very clearly. But then I do tend to forget that blogscientists are beyond educating.
You stated earlier that Jonas was quite the philosopher.
Have you got a reference for that?
Extraordinary claims and all that…
Happy to sit by your feet.
Seriously girls, just dispense with the pleasantries and get a room.
So after 300+ post of total disinterest of Jonas person and his mental status
Are you saying we were not interested in his person and mental state? Should we be? Do you know something we do not?
someone (you?) is going to euthanize this thread and remove the (collective) sock/suck puppet out of his/her mouth and answer Jonas’ Q?
It’s been answered seven times now. I’m sorry you don’t like the answer.
By the way, you have no idea what sock puppet means in this context, do you?
Jeff # 340
Sounds good to me, but why didn’t you do that from the beginning, ergo canvassing the refs? A simple “I have to admit that I don’t know the answer to you Q Jonas, but in the two weeks to come, I will try to find it” would have been both sufficient and honest?
Just think how constructive such an answer is. Maybe you could have euthanized the thread at 10+ as well, honors to elspi!
c’mon stu! On the contrary, you guys are obsessed by Jonas mental status and his person instead of Watt really matters.
And yes, I know what sockpuppet is in this context. Want to elaborate on the sucker punch you just delivered? Or, why not join me and Jeffie on our new quest, that is to actually read the refs so that we – at least – can try to answer Jonas’ Q? 😉
“You stated earlier that Jonas was quite the philosopher. Have you got a reference for that? Extraordinary claims and all that…”
It’s a subjective statement of opinion chek, some view that as evidence enough.
Jonas does have a certain quality though, ‘compelling’ is the word that some have used on this thread.
Excellent news Jeff!, your ‘quest’ to understand the science behind it all will be good for you.
Oh, If you find the answer to Jonas question before we do, you will let us know won’t you?
Olaus, if you could delete previous comments, your blustering buffoonery would be your little secret.
But like Jonas and GSW you can’t, so I’ll let you cogitate on that little gem awhile, before you amplify your (collective – or should that be Collective?) stupidity any further.
GSW said: “It’s a subjective statement of opinion chek, some view that as evidence enough”.
Ah, I see now – you’re not quite openly, indeed slyly, daring to claim some kind of equivalence between your own opinion – that of an anonymous, unqualified, Jonas-praising, under-educated, internet blogscientist troll, and the most credentialled, peer-reviewed, respected, conferenced-up-to-their-bollocks, scrutinised and published (not that that’s even relevant) working scientists on the planet and the most ambitious international scientific project our world has ever achieved? And calm down – I’m not referring to the Communist/Nazi/Socialist plot for world domination you two-bit konspiracy trolls fervently believe in at bottom).
Luminous B., you’re the expert here – what was that bit about under-achieving narcissists again?
Olaus, GSW, Jonas’ question has been answered seven times. What remains to be seen is if he (and you) can actually understand the literature. Not holding my breath on that one.
>Luminous, do you have a reference for this?
Can you read for comprehension? [Apparently not.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5268024)
Thank you for your kind words. Why don’t you join me and Jeff on our new quest? I’m sure you are as keen as anyone to know what the truth is.
And stu, you are of course also welcome to join me and Jeff. Instead of riding into the sunset, we can read, read. read. Deal?
>It’s a subjective statement of opinion chek, some view that as evidence enough.
Yes, it is evidence. Evidence you are just as psychologically damaged as Jonas.
I understand that you guys feel threatened when your holy words are questioned. But is it necessary to use a vocabulary like luminous bounty’s in # 353? Its really out of line, me thinks. You behave like privileged white middle-aged heterosexual men being cornered. But hey, maybe you are privileged white middle-aged heterosexual men being cornered? 😉
The thing is Olaus, this the one site you do not wanna troll when it comes to your own half-witted projections.
Correct chek, I’m really more interested in the the answer to Jonas’ Q. Jeff is on to it – finally. May the force be with him. I’ll be working at my end.
What about you?
No, you’ve got it wrong. Completely. Consider the following (fully correct) comparison:
I say that I am a (documented) expert on the probabilities of certain random processes **A** (with known underlying statistical descriptions), and you ask me:
What is the probability for **A** falling within bounds **B**, given that restrictions **C** apply.
And I answer that this will be the case (true) in 82.67% of all instances (and false in the remaining 17.33%)
That is my ‘expert’ statement. And if you have confidence and trust in me and my ‘expertise’ you might act or make descions upon it.
But my statement is not science (even if it might be based on a proper calculation), me presenting a poster or a figure, doesn’t make it science. Neihter does circling the number 82.67& with a red marker pen or 29 cheering scientist make it that.
I need to present the basis for, the underlying assumptions, the used statistical descriptions, and the rational for using these etc. And i need to do it in a manner so another expert, like myself, can se what has been done. Usually this is done in a publication, a reference if you will. And that is what is missing here.
Further, you make another gross error:
I **am not** speakcing for ‘the scientific community’, actually I think the term, especially when presented as a unanimous voice is a total misnomer, sheer nonsense, because nobody represents and speaks for ‘the scientific community’ and such a community does not (cannot!) make statements of a singular stance in any (but the most banal) questions. Definitely not about what makes the climate move, and how much.
Your paragraph about Wg1 ch9, about how those numbers are calculated, where you say *”using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods”* shows that you do not grasp the issues. It is true that the SPM claim is repeated, and some figures are presented with numbers and phrases resembling those in the claim. But the AR4 itself does explicitly not present any solid support. Instead it says ‘based on current methodologies/understanding of uncertainties’, which is exactly what I’ve said: Self appointed ‘experts’ opining.
Further, you ar **dead wrong** about the *”very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes”*
Wg 1 ch 9 says explicitly: *”Warming during the past half century is **not solely** due to known natural causes”* and gives that statement a ‘very likely’ rating.
So luminous b, you are still in the same limbo, because no reference has been found where that claim is established based on solid science. The wordings in the AR4 are just that: Words saying various things, but purportedly, based on science, which none of us has ever seen.
Please stick to that simple topic.
I have no clue why you, who has difficulties understanding even that simple observation, adresseing it properly, or only reading the AR4 correctly, believe that you can make diagnoses as in your last paragraph. And I don’t know why (you or many more here) seem to have such compulsive urges.
I am very certian, you you are even less competent at understanding individuals you don’t understand. So please, stick to trying to understand the simple topic here:
If there is real science establishing that AR4 claim, it can be read somewhere.
Sorry missed your 349 post. Jonas has answered for me (brilliantly).
“The thing is Olaus, this the one site you do not wanna troll when it comes to your own half-witted projections.
[Olaus said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5269843) “Correct chek”
Yeah, thanks I already knew that.
[Olaus then said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5269843) “I’m really more interested in the the answer to Jonas’ Q. Jeff is on to it – finally.”
I hate to break this to you, but Jeff is a world class scientist who no more cares about Jonas’ ill-informed ignorance than I care what colour socks he wears.
Tomorrow is Thursday – I expect Jeff is wondering something along the lines of “should I finish that journal peer review this weekend (the sort of thing you ‘blogscience experts’ dream about as your drool drips off your well-scraped knuckles and onto your well-hammered,semen-stained keyboards) or should I go shopping with the family (the family everytime, IMHO, Jeff).
Bur take my uninformed word for it, educating yet another anonymous Jonas isn’t high up on his radar.
Jeff Harvey, so now there are 1000s of references in empirical sciences showing that luminous b’s nonsens claim is true!?
Seriously: How frikking stupid can you make yourself? I mean, even if you tried your hardest, and wanted to be seen like a total moron!
I’ll repeat the luminous’ claim for you to make it chrystal clear:
>”it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes”
While the AR4 says:
>”Warming during the past half century is [very likely] **not solely** due to known natural causes”
Are you now lying about 1000s of papers you haven’t read, and fantasizing about their contents?
Have you still, after ~three weeks, not gathered enough self preservation not to make up the most stupid claims about things you have absolutely no frikking clue about?
You’ve been caught out so many times, hoplessly embarrassing yourself, and still you do? Has the cheering on from even more stupid contributers here completely deafened you remaining judgement, or capacity for logical thought?
Look, seriously, I don’t mind. I thought you were pretty stupid from the beginning. But please, can you at least let me make that statement before you prove that I was erring way far on the side of caution?
Yes, Jonas, do go on! You’ve got us on the run now!
(Thumbs through the DSM to “pathological projection”)
“Bur take my uninformed word for it, educating yet another anonymous Jonas isn’t high up on his radar.”
No I think his main concern, IMHO, is how to go about educating himself. He has a lot to think about.
He may also be a little concerned about your last post 360, fantasizing, longingly about how he spends his time. It’s, well, creepy.
And, true to trollish form, Jonas at #361 is reduced to quote-mining 14 words – from a table column he most likely can’t read properly and hasn’t followed the references for.
[IPCC AR4 WG1 Table 9.4](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html) if anyone wants in on the hilarity.
GSW said: “He may also be a little concerned about your last post 360, fantasizing, longingly about how he spends his time. It’s, well, creepy”.
Fabulous, coming as it does from a voyeuristic devotee of Montford’s internet stalker site.
Kudos to Jonas. Great answer, as usual.
Dr. Freud would have had a field day with Cheek and his worshiping of the demi-god Jeff. Its a bit scary that someone can be that anal/religious towards another human being. “Don’t touch my Jeff! He thinks very much and I am in bad need of a father figure to function properly.”
Way to go Chek.
To gather the thread(s): Watt becomes crystal clear is that the blood pressure rises to pathological levels in the CAGW-community when someone challenges the buzz-words of its church’s gospel. Jonas did, and all he got in return was smearing, foul language and ad homs. Pity.
There seem to be many such buzz-words (lacking scientific muscles whatsoever) contaminating the science of climate and hence the debate. I especially remember one buzz-word concerning the effects of the melting glaciers of Himalaya. The scientific figure/number roaming in the CAGW-community was that 500 million people would be out of freshwater during the dry season if the glaciers melted away. When asked, surprisingly by Jonas N, HOW this apparently absurd number came about, the answers (from the paragons of truth) were even more empty with facts than in this case. I even did some leg work myself trying to follow the endless drama of “links” to refs in a hunt for the true answer. And yes, in the refs the figure/number existed, but there was no sign of any calculation/methodology. ZERO. It took me a while, but the closest I got to the original source was a GONGO-report that also lacked info on HOW this number came about.
Any comments friends?
Olaus, I think you should stop projecting your own feelings on me. We HAVE answered Jonas’ question. Many times.
Sadly, Jonas has not answered any of OUR questions. Those questions started with discussing the Wegman plagiarism and its importance, something that apparently was too difficult a topic to maintain for Jonas. And so he grasped the one straw: proclaim uncertainty.
Oh, and it is funny to see you state we are having some kind of preoccupation with Jonas because he rocks our boat. How’s your preoccupation (and that of many others) with Thomas going?
So you accept the glaciers are melting, Olaus?
Craig, given that we have had what seems to be a temp raise of 0,7 C globally during the last 150 years, it should have had some effect on the glaciers (but in your case its your affect that I find interesting).
Why would I not agree Craig? Ask yourself WHY you need to ask me that silly Q and you might reach some kind of insight: It is all about anti-science dressed up as science, taboos, fear mongering, and exaggerations that undermines science as such.
And Marco, I like to read Thomas’ stuff. You got a problem with that? I think he keeps the debate running even though I’m not a dogmatic believer (like he is) and sometimes reacts on blindness in certain respects.
Olaus, Olaus, you’re knocking the CAGW’s down too quickly! You need to give them time to recharge, they’ll go flat otherwise.
Their musings on “how papers should be published” and “how science works” may reformulate over time.
They may never get to “It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty” (apologies Feynman again), but their small steps may eventually get us to a point where we can all agree what is, and what is not ‘Science’.
The problem is that Jonas won’t be ‘joining us on our quest’ If you had bothered to read any of his long-winded rants earlier, he will admit to either not reading any of the primary literature or forgetting what he had read. This doesn’t sound to me like someone who is either well-informed or who *wants* to become better informed. It seems to me that Jonas read snippets from the IPCC summary document, focused on the 90% figure that was made in the summary, then ran off with it screaming foul. He has given not a single indication of having read a primary peer-reviewed article in his life. Not a good start for someone who claims to “know what they are talking about”.
So you and GSW – the latter who has’t said anything of substance on this or other threads either except to defend his pet monkey – also defend this kind of behavior? Hmmm. That is kind of odd in my book. I would also like to know if you think that, given the thrust of the question posed by Jonas, that the bulk of the world’s climate scientists are at worst paid liars or at best cunning deceivers. You see, the 90% figure was based upon a reading of the broad base of empirical literature in the field by real bonafide climate scientists, who pieced together the bits and pieces of evidence that constitutes a scientific jigsaw and concluded that humans are the primary forcing agent behind the recent warming. Recall that Jonas has read very little if any of it, and claims to have forgotten the rest. Not a good platform to challenge the scientists, don’t you think?
Jonas writes as if we are all starting from a knowledge base of nil, as if the climate scientists who wrote the final draft of IPCC 2007 had not read a single paper and as if they just suddenly scratched their collective heads and said, “Gee, I have better things to do with my time. Are well all agreed on 90%?”. Where else can he think the figure was generated? And whenever we have called him out on it, he has responded with insults, innuendo, various other evasive maneuvers, all the while being baited and supported by his puppet-master (you are added to that now; as you seem to be, as Bela Lugosi famously said in one of Ed Wood’s films, “pulling the strings!”.
You see, unlike you, Jonas and GSW, I am a scientist and I also investigate various theories and hypotheses in the field of ecology. One of the most important areas now relates to the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, in which two hypotheses now prevail: the rivet popper hypothesis and the redundancy hypothesis. Both have generated intense, and sometimes acrimonious debate in recent years, with scientists dividing into both camps. But the debates have been always based around the empirical data, which shows that there may be merit to both hypotheses, showing some degree os associational specificity. But what I see here with Jonas has little to do with empiricism but with ideology. The same is true for GSW and, in all likelihood, you as well. In areas of science that overlap strongly with public policy, such as climate change and other aspects of environmental science where anthropogenic activities may compromise the health of local ecosystems, there has been a strong backlash against environmentalism. This backlash began in earnest in the 1980s, driven in large part by corporations who saw regulations imposed to curtail some industrial activities as a threat to the way they do business. The backlash – or brownlash as Paul Ehrlich calls it – has grown ever since into a huge multi-billion dollar industry from its cottage-industry level roots. Huge amounts of money are flowing into think tanks, public relations firms, in setting up astroturf lobbying groups (often with environmentally friendly names, a form of greenwash known as ‘aggressive mimicry’ that aims to confuse the public) in order to ensure that any measures to deal with looming environmental problems are killed before they get off the ground.
Climate change has evoked, for obvious reasons, one of the strongest responses from the broad anti-environmental lobby. This is hardly surprising, given the huge amounts of short- and medium term profits that are at stake. What is more surprising is how easily many members of the general public have been duped into believing that it is all part of some vast left-wing conspiracy, in which scientists (like myself) are co-conspirators. When I wrote critical reviews of Bjorn Lomborg’s (IMO) monumentally incompetent book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist” for Nature and other periodicals in 2001, I was greeted with hoots of derision from some right wing think tanks and others on the political right. My email account was bombarded with virus-laden emails for a time, and some other colleagues who had been publicly critical of the book actually received death threats. You will notice on this thread that one of the tactics used over and over again by both Jonas and GSW is to claim that I am either incompetent, that I do not understand science (although I got my PhD in 1995 and have 108 peer-reviewed publications) or that I am not really a qualified scientist at all. This all comes because I have repeatedly asked Jonas to provide links to the actual articles that were used as the basis for the summary of AR4/2007 and to show where they authors got it wrong. This means reading a lot of material, because, as I said earlier, and a point that has been made repeatedly by Bernard, lb, wow, Stu, Chek and others, it is up to you, GSW and Jonas to prove that the scientists got it wrong, and not the other way around. But any mention of this salient fact results in the usual cries of anger, derision and bitter denunciation that have characterized most of what Jonas has written. All GSW has done is to cheer Jonas on without even a shred of science.
Therefore, to come back to thrust of what I am saying is that the 90% figure so derided by Jonas was not ‘plucked out of thin air’ by the large number of scientists who contributed to the final chapter. It was certainly based on many discussions at fora, conferences, workshops and through widely circulated e-mail exchanges, university visits and other institutional meetings. In other words, it was based on a stupendous amount of work and co-operation. If Jonas, GSW or you for that matter had any even basic knowledge of how major scientific issues like this are processed, you would realize how silly that your postings read to someone like me.
To be honest, I have far better things to do with my time that are based on the real science that I do than to engage in to-ing and fro-ing with people like Jonas, who have brought this discussion to such a low common denominator that its become a debate that it has little to do with science – which he does not understand anyway – and more to do with posturing. I have admitted several times since wading into this thread and other where Jonas suddenly popped up, that my expertise lies outside of climate science. I was not formally trained in that discipline, and therefore I trust the opinions of the people who have actually been trained as climate researchers and who contributed to the final draft of AR4-2007, either directly or indirectly. Of course I have much more confidence in a field in which I have spent over 20 years of my life – population and evolutionary ecology of plant-insect interactions (which is a massive field in its own right). I have been singled out for the heaviest criticism from Jonas and GSW because I am a scientist. Clearly, scientists who defend the integrity of their colleagues in other disciplines are fair game, as far as people like Jonas and GSW are concerned. I have learned this fact over the years.
For their part, people like Jonas (and GSW) hold no such reservations as to what they know and what they don’t in the field of climate science of any science for that matter. This is precisely what the now famous Dunning-Kruger (1998) study showed: that the less someone is trained in a specific field, the more they *think* they know about that field. Or, as Charles Darwin famously said, “Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge”. In the past, I challenged the arguments of some people on anti-environmental blogs who made such flippant remarks as, “The Earth can easily support one trillion people” (this is just one example of many). When I responded that our global ecological life support systems are fraying and unraveling with <1% of this number of human inhabitants, I was torn apart and derided as an idiot by many posters on these blogs who claimed that I did not know what I was talking about. So the behavior of Jonas and GSW is hardly surprising. I am used to it.
The bottom line is that scientists are trained to be cautious and skeptical. The very fact that there was broad consensus amongst the scientists who co-authored the summarizing chapter of AR4 should say tell us that it was based on an immense amount of discussion, and that this figure was not reached superficially. To me, Jonas and his ilk are like trains without brakes. They huff and puff and try to tell the world that they are experts without any kind of formal training. I will always defer to those trained in a specific endeavor over ‘pretenders’ whose views conflict with the prevailing wisdom. On that note, I will leave this thread to Jonas, you and GSW to ponder over. I have had enough of it. I profoundly support the efforts of those who have ‘hung in there’ against the vacuous rants of Jonas. But to me its a waste of time. Its clear to me that Jonas is not interested in science but in bolstering his own personal political views, and that science has become a tool in doing so. As I explained earlier, he is not alone.
Your last missive, to you personally, is this what passes for “a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty” ?
Olaus drivelled: “Dr. Freud would have had a field day with Cheek (sic) and his worshiping of the demi-god Jeff.
Its a bit scary that someone can be that anal/religious towards another human being. “Don’t touch my Jeff! He thinks very much and I am in bad (sic) need of a father figure to function properly.”
Amazing display of projection, particularly of his religious and parental issues, from Olaus.
Confirmation yet again that there is nothing guaranteed to inflame the ire of fake blogscientists than common or garden respect for professional scientists with a proven track record that support action on AGW.
> given that we have had what seems to be a temp raise of 0,7 C globally during the last 150 years, it should have had some effect on the glacier
This could have been done with a much shorter:
But you seem constitutionally unable to give straight answers.
Now ask yourself why you feel it necessary to avoid simple straightforward answers and instead demand lots of words to hide behind.
Then ask yourself “So it’s warming by 0.7C, what’s changed by enough in that time to cause 0.7C warming?”.
Then realist that CO2 explains 78-86% of the change.
It’s about the science, you see, not the dogmatic insistence that AGW is false that is the religiously-held belief of all deniers.
The AR4 posterchild claim about attribution and certainty **is not** a ‘snippet’ and you know that.
And you seem to acknowledge what I have pointed out the entire time: that it is a reasoned of opinion. By ‘experts’ you say, but generally not experts in the necessary disciplines.
And no, expert opinions **do not miraculously mutate** into science or extablished facts through:
1. Broad agreement in ‘the community’
2. Reading much in empirical literature
3. Other jiggsaw puzzle pieces by ‘climate scientists’
4. Many of those discussing it often among themselves
5. In widely circulated email exhanges
6. At universities, institutions and visists to such
7. At meetings and workschops, or
8. Repeating this belief at conferences etc.
Nono of this makes it science, it is and remains an opinion, possibly heartfelt by the many ‘bonifide climate scientists’ (which generally are quite poor at statistics).
Generally, I have no problem with people opining, but it bothers me that it is missleadlingly presented and relayed (and swollowed by the believers) as being science or even ‘truth’ …
No Jeff, before you can wave that 90% certainty figure, and claim it has any value beyond opinion, you (meaning: somebody skilled) need to go back to your lab and do your homework, do it properly, meticulously, check every detail, state every caveat, make sure that all underlying assumptions are met, and if not, incorporate those in that homework, and then you still have to do the tedious work of putting it all togethere.
If, after such a process (it’s called ‘science’ and the ‘scientific method’), you can show the resulting number, if indeed it is 90%!
And **you still need to hand in that homework**! and have it checked, not only once, but aopenly vailable for all for the remainder of eterinty …
But if you are aware of those IPCC likelyhood statements mostly are results of discussions (which I knew all the tima), the question arises why you have to challenge that so bitterly and fervently?
> The AR4 posterchild claim about attribution and certainty
Ah, so it’s TWO things, not just “attribution” as you kept condescendingly saying earlier.
> And no, expert opinions do not miraculously mutate into science or extablished facts through:
> Broad agreement in ‘the community’
If it’s the science community, then it definitely DOES become science then.
> Reading much in empirical literature
You mean facts don’t come from where the facts of measurements are written down???
> Other jiggsaw puzzle pieces by ‘climate scientists’
So science isn’t support by multiple lines of evidence now?
> Many of those discussing it often among themselves
You mean science is no longer scientists trying to work out what all that empirical evidence means?
> In widely circulated email exhanges
So science cannot be done by asking other scientists what they think is going on?
> At universities, institutions and visists to such
So science can’t go on in universities and science research institutes now?
> At meetings and workschops
Again, a scientist can’t actually ever ask another scientist what is going on, else it isn’t science?
> Repeating this belief at conferences
So as soon as some science is repeated, it stops being science???
> Nono of this makes it science, it is and remains an opinion
So when a scientist measures, say, the melting point of Lead and writes it down and tells other people about it, and they test the melting point of Lead and find an answer indistinguishable from the earlier measurement, this is suddenly no longer a measurement but now only opinion?
> No Jeff, before you can wave that 90% certainty figure
Before you can throw it away, you need to show that there’s something else that could be doing it.
> need to go back to your lab and do your homework, do it properly, meticulously, check every detail, state every caveat, make sure that all underlying assumptions are met, and if not, incorporate those in that homework, and then you still have to do the tedious work of putting it all togethere.
At which point, it becomes empirical literature, exchanged in emails or discussed amongst “the community” and at which point Jonas will claim it’s now opinion…
> If, after such a process (it’s called ‘science’ and the ‘scientific method’), you can show the resulting number, if indeed it is 90%!
The 90% for what? And it WAS “over 95%” when the scientists had done it, but the politicians wanted it watered down to “Over 90%”. Neither case is it actually 90%.
And, yes, the IPCC AR4 report and earlier DO show how they work out that “>95%” in whether the human activities are the cause of the majority of the temperature change seen in the last 150 years.
And this is because all other known options DO NOT explain the majority of the warming trend seen in the last 150 years.
The interesting part was/is why Craig think/thought that the topic was/is melting glaciers or not.
And No, science isn’t settled regarding climate sensitivity and CO2 and Yes I do think that the CO2-hypothesis is worth scientific inquiries.
I just can’t stand that a scientific hypothesis being kidnapped from the laboratory to be manhandled and sodomized by political and ideological forces.
Olaus said: “I just can’t stand that a scientific hypothesis being kidnapped from the laboratory to be manhandled and sodomized by political and ideological forces”.
Oh, the irony.
Out of the mouths of babes (and lately pig-ignorant Wattbots) it seems …
“The interesting part was/is why Craig think/thought that the topic was/is melting glaciers or not.”
Except that Craig made no such statement.
It’s interesting why you think/thought he had.
It rather looked like he was asking you if you believed in some scientific evidence of warming.
It rather looked like you were trying to avoid agreement.
“And No, science isn’t settled regarding climate sensitivity”
It’s agreed that it’s above 1C and that it is untenable below 2C and that the upper limit may extend beyond 6C.
You could conclude that this isn’t “settled” because there’s a range of values.
It doesn’t however make the IPCC statements incorrect, unscientific, wrong or even unsettled, since they already include that range in their statement.
If you wish to contend the IPCC wrong or AGW not a problem, you’d have to go to science that is settled: wrong science.
You claim that the IPCC and the global body of professional climatologists have not actually calculated the uncertainties that are stated in AR4, and that they instead simply fabricated their figures.
What papers in the scientific literature, and referenced by AR4, have you read in order to arrive at a point where you can make your claim?
Why do you persistently avoid stating your claim in scientific, substantiated, testable form?
The reason for that Bernard is seen by post 329 where he makes a claim that is concrete and falsifiable and is found to be wrong and not only wrong, but he KNEW he was wrong.
In order to avoid being shown to be wrong again, he has to avoid giving statements that are concrete and falsifiable.
Jaff H contd.
You keep on trying with the nonsensical:
>”I have repeatedly asked Jonas to provide links to the actual articles that were used as the basis for the summary of AR4/2007 and to show where they authors got it wrong”
Seriously, how totally wrong can you get things? **I** have been the one asking for exactly those articles? For some ~three weeks now (here, and much longer at other sites also pretending to discuss climate science)
But still, you pretend the exact opposite. Why is it so immensly difficult for you to stick to the truth, to reality, to discuss what actually is the topic, and refrain from inventing your ‘facts’?
You (and Bernard J) have tried to counter the appearant non-existence of proper science by demanding:
*’Show us what you think is wrong, in that/those paper(s) which cannot be found, write to the authors/scientists who arr unidentified, or point ot the flaws in papers which **do not** make that claim’*
The amounts of twisted logic and pure nonses are allmost surreal. As is of course all that other ranting which you fill your comments with, between all the factual nonsense about the topic.
So far you have not contributed one jota to anything of substance. Instead tyou have tried various version of:
1. Trust me, **I am** a scientist
2. Trust me to trust others, they are scientists
3. I don’t understand, but I *do** trust them
4. Stop asking to see what is done. They **are** the scientists
5. Trust me, I speak for **The scientific community**
6. No, I don’t understand the matter, but **we all agree**
7. Yes, I sometimes get to mingle with ‘the big guys’
8. Look at my CV, **you simply must be wrong**. Look again!
9. If you don’t trust the scientists, accept their words, you must have evil motives
10. If you argue the facts, you must be incompetent
11. If I say Dunning Kruger, I have **scientifically** ‘proved’ that my beliefs are the truth
12. … and so it goes on … utter drivel for weeks
Sorry Jeff, I don’t know what passes as intelligence or logic in your knick of the woods … but you have to do a lot better in the real world if you want to do some convincing (and stop making up your own ‘facts’, definitively)
My observation (claim, hypohesis, statment) is perfectly testable and falsifiable. I have been begging to be falsified here for three weeks.
Only the truly ignorant here still believe that this has actually happened.
Why don’t you read Jeff’s post #372, where he seems to be aware that the claim, and the accomanying number, are the result of reasoning, of educated guesses or expert opinions, if you will. Nota bene, ‘experts’ mostly in completely different disciplines ..
Hazarding an estimation based on perceived data Bernard, I’d say Jonas hasn’t even read all 18 pages of AR4 WG1 SPM.
Forget about the references.
Of course, even the few sentences he possibly has read (but not understood – see his table chart quote gaffe at comment #361) – makes him a regular postdoc compared to most of his ilk.
In the end, as Stein memorably put it, there was no there there. Which came as no surprise whatsoever, I’m sure.
> So far you have not contributed one jota to anything of substance. Instead tyou have tried various version of:
Given your past performance on lists that make no sense, Jonas, I’m not optimistic about the accuracy of this newest one.
And as expected, still nothing falsifiable, just statements of your own diseased mind.
> My observation (claim, hypohesis, statment) is perfectly testable and falsifiable.
You’ve made several statements that are not testable (see, for example, the list in the earlier post) and your last perfectly testable and falsifiable claim was proven false.
And are you stating with the reference to Jeff’s post 372 that your proposition IS that this:
> as if the climate scientists who wrote the final draft of IPCC 2007 had not read a single paper and as if they just suddenly scratched their collective heads and said, “Gee, I have better things to do with my time. Are well all agreed on 90%?
is actually what happened?
Because again you’ve not stated anything falsifiable because you’re using generic pronouns and overloading “it” so nobody can read what you’re saying.
There is something that is a bit odd happening with this thread in relation to Olaus and Jonas. This is the sequence of posts between the two of them (format = post number, poster):
Their comments cluster and alternate. I wonder why?
I hate to be baited but I am sick to death of this thread. Sick of it! And sick of the ignorance paraded by Jonas. Fed up to the teeth with it. The guy is an a**h**. And an ignorant one to boot. Why I even waste my time with this person is beyond me. He’s doing what most deniers I have encountered do. If a process is complex, then he says we cannot ever hope to ever understand it. So why study it at all? Why make estimations? Why try and project what will happen in the future? This moron must hate economics with a similar passion, as models used to make economic projections are even worse that those used to predict future climate patterns. He’s also implying, by the sheer audacity of his arguments, that all of the climate scientists who contributed to the summary chapter of the last IPCC document are liars. Deceivers. Paid cheats. What else is there to say? In all of my years of experience with science-hating deniers I have never come across such a self-righteous, smug, confident and arrogant prick as Jonas. Well done boy! You head the a long list of people that even exceeds most of the dorks who contribute to Junk Science. That is quite an achievement.
Of course I trust the opinions of trained climate scientists over a scientifically twat like you, Jonas. And why the hell shouldn’t I? You claimed that I disparaged cardboard box factory workers when I said you were probably one. In no way do I do this. I disparage the views of cardboard box factory workers, accountants, business directors, corporate heads, politicians or anyone who tries to say that they know more about a specific field of research than people who have dedicated their lives to it. Get that through your head, dammit.
This entire debate is ridiculous. The climate science community should have realized that the idiot-factor out there (including Jonas) would seize on an arbitrary figure and use it as a stick to undermine what we do know about the human impact on warming. They should have said the influence of human actions was highly significant and left it at that. But I am sure that this would have similarly been abused by the Jonas-crowd, who would have screamed, ” But HOW significant!? WE WANT FIGURES!!!!”. So scientists come up with a ballpark figure of 90%. It could be 88%… or 85%…or 92% or 95%. But, whatever one concludes, humans are the main factors. End of story.
Or is it?! (cue horror music….) Duh! Duh! Duh! Duhhhhh!
The Jonas factor steps forward and says…but how do you know its 90%!? I need proof of this absolute figure! Because if you CANNOT prove this is correct, then it may be 80%… or 60%.. or less! It might even be NIL!!!!! (Cue dramatic drum roll…). Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…
This is the denier mindset. Its pure insanity in my view but there is a method to the madness. It is to say, that without 100% unequivocal proof, then the problem does not exist. If we cannot nail the empirical support for an exact figure of 90%, then we can dismiss the entire concept of anthropogenic global warming. Forget the fact that the 90% figure – or should I say, the conclusion that the human combustion of fossil fuels along with changes in land usage patterns – are agreed upon by the vast majority of climate scientists. Jonas has dug his teeth into 90% and won’t let go.
And, to reiterate, I am sick of him and his wilful ignorance of science. Sick, sick, sick and sick again. Fed up. Tired, Drained. Mentally exhausted. Well done Mr. JN illiteracy. Let me tell you this. You couldn’t stand in a room with any scientist I know personally. Not a one. We have lunchroom chats at my institution that are deeper than anything you could muster. IMO you are a disgrace.
This is why I will try and refrain from responding here again. I wish that Tim would ban this troll. He does not deserve to be read, as far as I am concerned.
Jeff, don’t put so much effort into it and the waste of time won’t be so frustrating.
Jonas still hasn’t actually been able to say what he is asking.
“Attribution” is different from “Confidence levels”, but he’s used one, either or both to complain.
And his sock posted how Jonas’ simple question hasn’t been answered, but seemed unable to work out what that one simple question was.
Even if he’s not a sockpuppet or coworker, even those most friendly to the troll can’t work out what he’s asking for.
>Your paragraph about Wg1 ch9, about how those numbers are calculated, where you say “using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods” shows that you do not grasp the issues. It is true that the SPM claim is repeated, and some figures are presented with numbers and phrases resembling those in the claim. But the AR4 itself does explicitly not present any solid support. Instead it says ‘based on current methodologies/understanding of uncertainties’, which is exactly what I’ve said: Self appointed ‘experts’ opining.
The methods are in the referenced papers, but you won’t necessarily find them so thoroughly explicated as you might desire. Here’s a clue: References have references. For example: [Here](http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/~jchiang/Class/Fall08/Geog249/Week12/eb97.pdf) is a methods paper not explicitly cited (as far as I am aware) in AR4/WGI. It is, however cited by many papers that are.
Further, you ar dead wrong about the “very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes”
>Wg 1 ch 9 says explicitly: “Warming during the past half century is not solely due to known natural causes” and gives that statement a ‘very likely’ rating.
What do they say about the likely effect of known natural causes? Hint: [(c) estimated contribution to temperature trends over 1950 to 1999](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-9.html)
>So luminous b, you are still in the same limbo, because no reference has been found where that claim is established based on solid science. The wordings in the AR4 are just that: Words saying various things, but purportedly, based on science, which none of us has ever seen.
Since you seen to have the nous of a puppy that needs to have his nose rubbed in it to stop shitting on the carpet, I am going to indulge you by explicitly citing some few relevant [references](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-4.html) you should be able to find on your own, but in which capacity are apparently too cognitively challenged:
Huntingford et al., 2006
Gillett et al. (2002c)
Nozawa et al., 2005
Stott et al., 2006c
Stone et al., 2007a,b
Smith et al., 2003
Schnur and Hasselmann, 2005
Min and Hense, 2006a,b
Lee et al., 2005
Berliner et al., 2000
McAvaney et al., 2001
Lee et al., 2006
Kaufmann and Stern, 2002
Pasini et al., 2006
Rybski et al., 2006
Fomby and Vogelsang, 2002
I hope you are satisfied, but I doubt it. You are seemingly wedded to the bizarre and erroneous notion that there must be some single silver bullet paper that completely and conclusively answers all and every salient detail of complex scientific issues. It has never been so and your inability to grasp this simple understanding of scientific progress is probative evidence of your D-K impairment.
Here we go again friends, and please make a mental note that numerology now is a part of the analytic framework, thanks to GWB’s nemesis. And isn’t it ironic? Jonas, GSW and I are asking for some basic scientific principles behind a certain figure, and nobody wants take the climate conspiracy eschatology sock puppet out of the pie-hole. (Jeff seem to be on his way out of the closet though. Good for him). But me think I can start to connect the dots. Maybe the reluctance to present something scientific regarding the origin behind “90%” has more to do with climate numerology than climate science?
Want to help us out GWB’s nemesis? 😉
But seriously, I’m sure we soon all can agree that the 90% is more of an educated guess than anything else, but why is it then dressed up as top notch science when its apparently not? I believe it is because the IPCC has to come up with numbers. It is, after all, an organization with a responsibility to write “summary for policymakers”. Some numbers/figures have to be materialized. Of course “science” then has to take a step back in favor of “politics”.
Shall we call it a draw?
Ah, shift change!
> Shall we call it a draw?
Nope, I don’t think so.
> I’m sure we soon all can agree that the 90% is more of an educated guess than anything else
Nope. It’s not even 90%. It’s >95% but watered down to 90-95%.
> but why is it then dressed up as top notch science when its apparently not?
Because that “apparently not” is not the truth.
You can repat your rants all you want, your wishful thinking, your made up ‘facts’ your beliefs don’t come true that way.
Your problem is that you have now real grasp of statistics, what they are, what they mean, what the can be used for, how to use them properly etc.
Sure, you can feed observational data into a stats-package, and repeat the numbers you get. But unless you have any real knowledge of the topic, you are helpless beyond that point.
So yes, ‘climate scientistis’ reinforcing each others opinions about how really certain they are and putting numbers to their grade of personal conviction and faith is not science.
And as you say, you may “trust the **opinions** of trained climate scientists” but thats all they are, expressions of faith.
And yes, Jeff, if a puported scientific body claims that a certain statement (or hypothesis) is confirmed with 90% confidence, it means something different that a handwaiving ballpark figure, and it should not be understood like how certain the fans are late at the Pub, about their home team winning the upcoming football game.
All I have said, and said from the start is that the AR4 posterchild claim is not established by proper science. (And you seem to grudginly agree to that. Maybe that’s why you are losing it now)
And again you bring up your complete nonsense fantasies, things which nowhere have been claimed nor even implied:
1. He’s also implying .. that all of the climate scientists who contributed to the summary chapter of the last IPCC document are liars
2. .. who tries to say that they know more about a specific field of research than people who have dedicated their lives to it
3. It is to say, that without 100% unequivocal proof, then the problem does not exist
4. we can dismiss the entire concept of anthropogenic global warming
I have said nothing of the kind: 1) Particularly since not one claimate scientists makes the claim, presents it as science in a paper and puts his name behind it. 2) see answer to 1), 3) & 4) this is total BS, things you cannot resist to make up as you go (you’ve made up so much more nonsense, its absolutely breathtaking)
And your implication that I know nothing about science, which you have reiterated in every single comment, is as ludicrous as everything else you try.
I’ll tell you what Jeff, nobody inventing his own ‘facts’ is a scientist, he might masquerade as one, even have Phd and a academic position. But the moment he needs to fudge reality, to bolster his narrative, he ceases to deal with science. He becomes an activist, a shenanigan, a cheater, or worse …
Now, I can be in any room with any scientist and discuss my both opinions and scientific arguments. And I for certain do not need to invent ‘facts’ at every turn to justify (or arrive) at my desired conclusion.
I don’t know about you, is this behaviour you displaya here, is it condoned in the rooms with ‘scientists’ where you hang? Do they all sound like you? Do the also completely lose it if someone points out that ‘this particular argument/logic/evidence does not support the offered conclusion’!?
Do they too, abgrily start shouting back: ‘No maybe not in the strict sense, but heck, we all agree that its the truth anyway. And who are you to question us, we’ve been convinced far longer than you’ve been here’?
You ar boasting about your deep lunchroom chats, but here all you can muster is the sort of endless drivel and insults everybody can read in your comments. early on you even proclaimedselfrighteously, that you are entitled to insult others, because of your moral superiority ..
And now you start whining because I dont adore your infinite wisdom, your briljant logic and deep understanding (which you’ve all been hiding very carefully) about things you do not master, not even have a clue of?
Well, you are indeed one pitiful character, Jeff Harvey …
I’ll make an exception for you. If you say that 90% certainty, together with the ‘most/at least half of the warming the last 50 years’ is to be found in any among that list, I’ll check it out.
But is there? Because I seriously doubt that.
If you only copy paste things you haven’t read, you are on the same level as the others here. Merely whishfully hoping ..
And are you aware of that you now are at odds with Jeff Harvey, who finally seemed to have realized that it is more of an ‘opoined ballpark figure’!?
Pardon me for the formatting error. The following should have been indented.
>Further, you ar dead wrong about the “very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes”
>>Wg 1 ch 9 says explicitly: “Warming during the past half century is not solely due to known natural causes” and gives that statement a ‘very likely’ rating.
Jeff, I’m sure you know that Jonas and his hangers on aren’t interested in real science or what real scientists have to say. As Wow says, they’re not worth the effort and eventually they pay out enough rope to hang themselves anyway.
What they really want is conspiracy and pseudoscience as served up by hucksters such as Watts, McIntyre, Monckton, Montford and that whole sorry fossil-fuelled crew and their echo chambers.
As this thread shows, there really is no talking to them because they’re conditioned to think that their blind ignorance serves them better (and is certainly far, far easier) than applying the effort to understand real work about the real world.
Be assured there is nothing more amusing than a Jonas or a GSW or whatever pontificating on how they think science should work when they have no quantifiable experience whatsoever. All they’re armed with is a keyboard and unfortunately for whatever group they latch onto, an internet connection. There’s always one.
For the record Wow, (its really ‘wow’ when reading your echolalia) given the circumstances – you losing in every aspect of the word – and somebody offer “a draw”, it is because s/he makes fun of you. But you are so hysterical that you can’t see it, cry-baby. 😉
>Jeff Harvey, so now there are 1000s of references in empirical sciences showing that luminous b’s nonsens claim is true!?
How fucking stupid can _you_ make yourself? I mean, even if you tried your hardest, and wanted to be seen like a total moron?
The disinterest in Jonas N is now pushing 400 posts…:-)
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Let’s skip straight to January.