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 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “and carbon trading in EU attracting billion dollar crimes only.”

    And any proof of this? Or are you going to accept that crime as you see it, if applied to you and your friends, would see them hang for their crimes?

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2012

    “Jeff … its funny. You have spent 1½ year trying to analyse my psychological state”

    No, Jonas, That takes only about 10 seconds. IMHO you’re completely bonkers.

    And no, with you I don’t have hissy fits. Sorry to disappoint. You aren’t as important as your bloated ego leads you to believe.

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2012

    A final point for our resident fruitcake:

    I wouldn’t care if Greenpeace or the WWF nature had a billboard up every mile… these do NOT affect public policy. The fossil fuel lobby and the US government are revolving door. Hlaf of Bush’s cabinet was plucked from the oil or gas industries or their contractors. Why would oil, gas and coal interests invest so much in lobbying members of Congress and the Senate? Think about it dopey. Let it sink in. As I said, thePR budgets of Greenpeace, WWF et al. are a trickle in the ocean by comparison. And how many senior mmbers of environmental NGOs are im senior government positions? By contrast, where are many senior CEOs and business leaders to be found? You guessed it. In some level of government, often in regulatory bodies.

    Good grief Jonas you are stupid. Total, rank stupidity.

  4. #4 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Jeff .. you are in denial about almost everything. You are still trying. And failing. Spouting nonsense

    And yes, my education is better than yours. Far better. As are my degrees.

    And you still cannot show any secret millions going towards skepticism wrt to climate hysteria. Which was your orginal claim. Instead you ar talking about politics as they always have been.

    And mind you, BH, CA, WUWT have far less clout politically than WWF and GreenPeace.

    Your are moving your armies of goalposts and strawmen all over the place again, Jeffie. An the result is the usual minced sallad of everything that occuoies the inside of your head, without any coherent meaning other that the projection of all your evil demons on the wall ..

  5. #5 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “And yes, my education is better than yours. Far better. As are my degrees.”

    You believe that.

    However, it’s just a random statement with no proof substantiating it.

    (PS you now cannot claim “I’ve never made it about me or my education)

  6. #6 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    One more Jeffie. As everybody can see, you have spent 1½ years trying to analyse my psychologically (in the most childish stupid fashions). And you claim:

    “No, Jonas, That takes only about 10 seconds”

    It once again describes what it is about here, Jeff. You start guessing, and claim to know the answer in 10 seconds. Whereafter you believe you have established something as ‘fact’.

    And yes, you did throw a hissy fit, imagining that those evil DENIARS deny that changed conditions affect the biosphere.

    You are in denial once again (of your own actions)

  7. #7 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Wow . and your point is what?

  8. #8 chek
    December 4, 2012

    Joanarse,every word you type is an indicator of your psychological state. And there’s been a lot of them. Oh boy has there been a lot of them. And never a reference to be seen, just overblown claims, vanity and rhetoric.

    You’d go down a storm with the old cranks at Montford’s site.

  9. #9 chek
    December 4, 2012

    And yes, my education is better than yours. Far better. As are my degrees.

    I’m sure everyone recognises that you have the best education and far, far better degrees (and applicable to every subject imaginable too) than anyone else in the whole wide world, Jonarse.

    Such education and erudition as you frequently display can obviously only spring from the most brilliant of minds. I expect many here will be very, very sorry to have treated you the way you have been and will have to go stand in the naughty corner for a very long time indeed when the truth is known.

    The University of Life can be a hard taskmaster.

  10. #10 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “Wow . and your point is what?”

    My point is that several times you’ve whined “I’ve never made this about my credentials” when asked who the hell YOU are. You’ve done it on this thread.

    The point is that you can no longer claim that because on your own thread where you will be writing all your bollocks to will prove the lie.

  11. #11 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    We also note that you haven’t actually mentioned where and what qualifications you have.

    So yet again you’re making statements unscientifically.

  12. #12 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    chek ..

    I believe that you very often type the word ‘Jonarse’ when commenting anything. I think other of your preferred words are ‘moron’ and ‘deniar’ ..

    And I think your wording indicates your psychological state. You seem to believe that such wordings somehow elevate your comments. Jeff seems to share such sentiments. Yet he is patently incapable of distinguishing what is discussed from his own fantasies.

    So far you’ve made one sensible statement here. That Sandy cannot be attributed to any human CO2. But you quickly wanted to revert again to that it after all must somehow been the fault of humas, ‘the bigger picture’

    Well, sorry chap. It is extremely hard to establish any such connection, even if you believe that humans are responsible for some of the warming. There just isn’t any observable trend in the available data.

    But I really wonder: Why are you all so keen on having various disasters occuring? I mean, whenever there is some new information that things are actually better than the doomsayers prophesized, you get really really angry and upset!

    Why is armageddon som import for you all?

  13. #13 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Wow .. as a pet or cartoon character you would be entertaining for a while .. But I think you are neither

  14. #14 Lionel A
    December 4, 2012

    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.

    And Lancaster was correct, which you could discover for yourself if you had half a brain and managed to correctly comprehend the literature on this. You could start with the Affidavits of Justin Lancaster and of Ms. Christa Beran. Also check out the Galley which includes a para’ headed ‘Impacts of Climate Change‘ where the words of S Fred, ‘of less than one degree Celsius‘ have been scrubbed out and initialled RR.

    Now what do you think all that means? Not what you are opining.

    It was statements such as the following which:Singer included by stealth in the article,

    ”Assume what we regard as the most likely outcome: A modest average warming in the next century well below the normal year to year variation.”

    O&C 2010 p193.

    to which Lancaster objected knowing, as he did from his close working relationship with Revelle, that Roger would never have agreed to that from them both understanding, with other leading scientists of the day, Walter Munk, ‘Scientists already knew from paleoclimate data that the lowest possible sensitivity to doubled CO2 was 1.5 C.‘ O&C 2010 pp192.

    On climate sensitivity it is of more than passing interest that on the Galley document mentioned above that there is another freehand annotation Lindzen (underlined) pointing to the text ‘The models are “tuned” to give‘ where ‘tuned’ is the target of the ‘Lindzen’ annotation.

    It is clear that Revelle would never have agreed to the publication of that Cosmos article as is.

    Singer took advantage of a gravely ill man, who could stay focused only for very short periods (see Lancasters Affidavit), to slip one past Revelle by having a document published within which were statement WRT global warming with which Revelle would never have agreed, and indeed to which there is evidence of his aversion). It was unfortunate that Revelle had started this ball rolling before a massive heart attack, a triple by-pass, an emergency hernia operation followed by a severe infection, but back then many scientists were trusting souls – oh how they have learned how wrong they were to trust some as evidenced from this.

    It is plain as a pikestaff that Singer misused Revelle to further the cause of preserving the bottom line and obscene profits, and tactics, of the fossil fuel industries.

    This was the beginning of a push back against the solid understanding of enough of the science back twenty years ago which could, and should, have been used as a basis for precautionary action. The time delay thus imposed on policy to reign in GHGs has already cost the lives of millions and made life a misery for many millions more (we see this unfolding in front of our eyes) and many of the culprits are still active in this. And you are aiding and abetting them.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    December 4, 2012

    Clang!

    It ain’t easy making sure all the tags, in a syntactically complex argument, are what they should be in this small space.

    BTW O&C are Oresekes and Conway and yes original documents can be traced so no hand-waving on that account.

    Also check out the Galley which includes a para’ headed ‘Impacts of Climate Change‘ where the words of S Fred, ‘of less than one degree Celsius‘ have been scrubbed out and initialled RR.

    Now what do you think all that means? Not what you are opining.

    It was statements such as the following which:Singer included by stealth in the article,

    ”Assume what we regard as the most likely outcome: A modest average warming in the next century well below the normal year to year variation.”

    O&C 2010 p193.

  16. #16 chek
    December 4, 2012

    But I really wonder:

    No you don’t, Jonarse.
    A more complete lack of curiosity than you display would be difficult to match. You’re here misrepresent, pervert meaning and quack your inactivist lines and that’s what you do.
    At length.
    Quack quack quackety stupid quack.
    What you believe you’re achieving, only you can know.

  17. #17 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Lionel

    So you too claim to know things you don’t have any chance to know, just because you want to believe them? We have Lancasters word for a lot of things. Quite a few things he may have believed but had no way of establishing. Drop it, it’s a dead goose

    I have read those things … the whole case rests on Lancasters claims. Which he of course cannot prove.

    And we need to be aware of that there were heavy handed politics involved. Do you think anybody just shoud accept the words of a political hack as gospel?

    And it is still totally irrelevant for anything today.

  18. #18 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    chek

    “A more complete lack of curiosity than you display would be difficult to match”

    Well, up-side-down once more.

    You need to remember that I am the one coming here, asking you about your best arguments, asking you if you have seen read and understood any science underpinning that AR4 claim. I even read through some of the papers offered.

    And no, I don’t need to misrepresent. That’s Jeffie (worst of them all) and the rest of the bunch now to various degrees.

    All you ever manage to show is what is at the core of your belief systems. Not even the handwaiving is particularly coherent …

  19. #19 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    re: “Jonas N December 4, 2012″

    And your point of asking what my point was…?

  20. #20 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “So you too claim to know things you don’t have any chance to know”

    Gosh, it’s like you see a myriad copies of yourself on teh interwebs, noob!

  21. #21 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    “And no, I don’t need to misrepresent.”

    You do, though.

  22. #22 Wow
    December 4, 2012

    Well, Joan, you ALWAYS are talking out your arse.

    Hence Jonarse is entirely appropriate.

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2012

    “And yes, my education is better than yours. Far better. As are my degrees”

    Prove it then, ego-boy. We have to take your word for it, and we all know how much that means (hint: not a lot). We have asked you here many times to show us your earth-shattering credentials and you balk every time.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    December 4, 2012

    I have read those things …

    Prove it.

    You wish it were a dead goose and yes it is relevant to today.

    Only the schemers and dreamers like yourself try to hand-wave this.

    You are shown increasingly naked and it ain’t a pretty sight.

    Now what will your masters tell you to do.

  25. #25 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Jeff .. how about you proving any single one of the endless claims you have made about me!?

    Or, alternatively, coming clear about that you just have been fantasizing? As your main method of trying to put me down?

    I don’t think there is much need for me proving that I am far more knowledgeable in real science than you are, Jeff. Almost every post about any real issues, I have detailed for you where you lose the plot, and where the substance is.

    While you kept on describing your fantasy la-la land of mostly those who don’t share your beliefs.

    I’ve given enough hints about my professional skills and background that even a fanatic avtivist would get it if he just wanted. But probably you were just to obsessed with your strawmen and fantasies.

    Again, in your latest comment your rant about some ‘earth shattering credentials’ while it is only you who tried such trashtalk. If you really think that you, somehow represent something so special on this topic, that everybody else should become silence(d) in awe, it says much more about your perception of the world, than I ever need to claim.

    There are few things I have ever said here (on topic) that I needed to revise, and those instances were mostly me not formulating things properly. Whereas you essentially contradict your own arguments in most of your comments. Like an emotional angry child beyond help ..

    And you’ve been in that state for 1½ years, Jeff. While being old enough to be well beyond such teenage emotive instability …

  26. #26 chek
    December 4, 2012

    I’ve given enough hints about my professional skills and background that even a fanatic avtivist

    Jonarse, we’ve known you were a corporate think tank call centre shill (perhaps, or maybe not with at most an MBA)since you showed up here with your monkey troupe.

    Nothing new there.

  27. #27 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Lionel, I have gone through most of that stuff. I have read both sides of the story (as I usually try to do), and twp people disagree about how history should be described. One with first hand knowledge, and one more, with second hand opinions (Lancaster). I cannot judge on the details, but I would never ever trust an Gore affiliate about any such things. That doesn’t mean that I think Singers version is the whole picture. It probably isn’t. But the bottom line is Lancaster made some very sharp accusations he then couldn’t defend in court. He is probably bitter because if that, possibly because he believed he knew his mentor better than anybody else, but couldn’t provet it. And very likely also because he let himself be a tool in a dirty political fight, and got spit out when he was used.

    As I said, I had never heard of any of that before you activist made an (20+ year old) issue of it. And it still isn’t an issue.

    Singer (and possibly Revelle) where closer to the mark than previous attempts, even if it was quite speculative back then. Same thing with that alleged memo that only Gelbspan knows the origin of or has seen. The uncertainties were much larger than what was claimed by the your side. And still, this memo exists only in Gelbspans book, and is the sole source of both Gore and Oreskes ‘Big Oil conspiracy’ meme ..

  28. #28 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    chek .. the same wishful Jeffie-style fantasies …

    Like a teenage girl .. just knowing by feeling it, closing your eyes and knowing that your feelings confirm your beliefs …

    Sure ..

  29. #29 chek
    December 4, 2012

    Your behaviour, buzzwords and terminology usage fits the bill, Jonarse.

    I doubt anyone’s losing sleep over any possible misattribution.

  30. #30 chek
    December 4, 2012

    Oh dear,,and now your own fantasies are showing .

    Nevertheless, your behaviour, buzzwords and terminology usage fits the bill, Jonarse. We’ll let little details like how you perennially dispute the ‘A’ in AGW and your fellow travellers insist on adressing ‘C’ AGW, yet there is never any disagreement amongst you – none! – pass .

    I doubt anyone’s losing sleep over any possible misattribution. You’re universally derided as an idiot, which is quite correct.

  31. #31 chek
    December 4, 2012

    Now that Jonarse is quite obviously champing at the bit that his true identity be recognised, I respectfully request that we comply with his wishes and address him heronin as “Jonarse, the Call-Cubicle Shill”. It is after all only the respect he requests and deserves.

  32. #32 Jonas N
    December 4, 2012

    Marvelous chek … almost like a caricature

    Guessed the same thing three times in a row, and then adecied it as confirmed! You can’t make these things up ..

    Almost comic that there is a real world person typing these things on your end …

    And the same for you chek. 1½ years, and no beef .. just repetition of guesses and belief systems.

  33. #33 chek
    December 4, 2012

    … and likewise no actual substantive disagreement with the attribution studies all this time from you. Touche!

  34. #34 Vince Whirlwind
    December 5, 2012

    [/]
    I guess JOnas has to rake over old history, seeing as the progress of science has left him and his beliefs by the roadside.

  35. #35 Jonas N
    December 5, 2012

    chek, as far as I can judge you have neither read nor would be able to understand what these ‘attribution studies’ do or how they’d try to show any causation. And anyway, you still seem to miss/ignore that I asked about that 90% certainty. Wich is the crucial question … Does that curve-retro-fitting mean anything more than that they’d fitted their models to agree with essentially one parameter (temps)?

    All that huffing and puffing from the lot of you will not change this …

  36. #36 Jonas N
    December 5, 2012

    Vince ..

    Lots of people claim to be speaking for hte science ..

  37. #37 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “I don’t think there is much need for me proving that I am far more knowledgeable in real science than you are, Jeff”

    There you go again, joan. You “think” there is no need.

    However, like everything you “think” you are wrong.

    Go on, PROVE your knowledge.

    Hell, you don’t even have an alternative theory for the temperature change. All you have is “anti-knowledge” or as SCO would call it “negative know-how”. All you ‘know’ is “it’s not that”, hence you are a DENIER.

  38. #38 Jonas N
    December 5, 2012

    Wow ..

    As a rule of thumb you could navigate by assuming that everytime you assume I am wrong, it is actually you.

    Its not bulletproof, I know, but It will gnerelly guide you towards not being totally off the mark far more often than not.

    But you have only my word for it. I am afraid you have no real method determining any such thing by your own.

    Are you aware that your finish is the ‘creationist gambit’?

    “Hell, you don’t even have an alternative theory for [Creations Greatness]“

  39. #39 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “As a rule of thumb you could navigate by assuming that everytime you assume I am wrong, it is actually you.”

    Prove it.

    Go on. One instance.

  40. #40 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “Are you aware that your finish is the ‘creationist gambit’? ”

    Are you aware that YOU were the one decrying climate science for not considering alternative scenarios?

    Why yes, you are:

    May 4 “I’d say that you lack the ability to compare the relevant and different alternatives and options.”

    Dec 4 “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. ”

    Don’t you realise that “CO2 from human production” is a valid causation and that you need a BETTER ONE to replace it?

    It’s basic science 101.

    Try it sometime.

  41. #41 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “But you have only my word for it.”

    Mar 12: “that Jeffie once more was making wild unsupported (very likely very false) claims just because he so desperately wanted them to be true. ”

    Seems like you are the only one you allow to make unsupported (very likely very false) claims. It’s only everyone else who needs to support their words.

  42. #42 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    Hey, Joan, do you think you know more than these guys?

    “Is there a greenhouse effect? Concedo [concedo / concede]. Does it warm the Earth? Concedo. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? Concedo. If carbon dioxide be added to the atmosphere, will warming result? Concedo.”
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/monckton/climate-freedom-hancock-background.pdf

    “I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that there exists a major flaw in the theory explaining the basic operation of the Earth’s natural Greenhouse Effect.”
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/

    “There is a greenhouse effect”
    i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

    “The emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, and its continued accumulation in the atmosphere is changing the climate. ”
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/skeptical-climate-responses-to-my-questions-and-my-reply/

    “The greenhouse effect is real, as is the enhancement due to increasing carbon dioxide concentration.”

    http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=460&Itemid=32

  43. #43 Lionel A
    December 5, 2012

    Here is another signature tune for you Jonas the increasingly incoherent and babbling shil, who clearly gets some of his stuff from Bishop Hill, aka Cardinal Puff (magic dragons and all that).

    His display of wishful thinking is another marker for source.

    I suspect he has others feeding him stuff in an attempt to stay relevant whilst continuing with the BS argument all of which have been knocked down repeatedly at SkS alone.

    Keep digging for more and more will decide you are best left to that and ignored.

  44. #44 Lionel A
    December 5, 2012

    Jonas, listen to the oracle herself starting at about 0:16:47.

    All the evidence points to Lancaster being certain that Revelle would NOT have agreed to the statements slipped into the article in question. Only somebody living in a FFL funded bubble would eschew that.

  45. #45 Jonas N
    December 5, 2012

    Wow ..

    You were the one not even understanding why it matters whether or not there is proper and published science behind that prominent AR4 claim.

    I cannot even begin trying to imagine what depth of ignorance even would promt such a statement. But I am thankful that you did, and that Jeff thinks your ‘contrubutions’ here are on the mark.

    Because in one twisted way, they all are. Yours, Jeff’s, chek’s, Bernard J’s, Lionel’s bill’s and all the others. They describe a deeply rooted beliefsystem and how it reacts when challenged, when flaws and gaping holes are pointed out, or just when the dogmatic beliefs aren’t shared.

    We’ve seen just lately how desperately many of you want to linke Sandy to AGW, although (some of the smarter) they realize that this doubly implissible. But they so much want it to be so, they just can’t help them selves.

    And you again missed what I say. I cannot prove it to you, because you lack even the most basic understanding of what is discussed. That was why I wrote:

    “Its not bulletproof, I know, but It will gnerelly guide you towards not being totally off the mark far more often than not.

    But you have only my word for it. I am afraid you have no real method determining any such thing by your own”

  46. #46 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “I cannot even begin ”

    Is that why you never tried to explain what the hell you’re talking about?

    “it matters whether or not there is proper and published science behind that prominent AR4 claim.”

    And since there is, then that’s fine.

    “We’ve seen just lately how desperately many of you want to linke Sandy to AGW”

    So you know more than all those people who agree that CO2 from human causes cause climate change?

    You know people like:

    John Christy
    RPSr
    RPJr
    Monckton
    Watts
    et al

    ?

  47. #47 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “I cannot prove it to you, because you lack even the most basic understanding of what is discussed. ”

    No, you cannot prove it to anyone (and haven’t tried) because you’re an idiot.

  48. #48 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    Or, in other words, Jonarse, you don’t understand because you’re too damn thick.

    Unfortunately, the thick-as-a-yard-of-lard idiot (you) are ALWAYS the last one to know.

    And too dumb to read the above.

  49. #49 Lionel A
    December 5, 2012

    We’ve seen just lately how desperately many of you want to linke Sandy to AGW…

    Well of course Sandy is most certainly linked to AGW as has been demonstrated repeatedly. Including here:

    Did Climate Change Cause Hurricane Sandy?

    If you’ve followed the U.S. news and weather in the past 24 hours you have no doubt run across a journalist or blogger explaining why it’s difficult to say that climate change could be causing big storms like Sandy. Well, no doubt here: it is.

    The hedge expressed by journalists is that many variables go into creating a big storm, so the size of Hurricane Sandy, or any specific storm, cannot be attributed to climate change. That’s true, and it’s based on good science. However, that statement does not mean that we cannot say that climate change is making storms bigger. It is doing just that—a statement also based on good science, and one that the insurance industry is embracing, by the way. (Huh? More on that in a moment.)

    Scientists have long taken a similarly cautious stance, but more are starting to drop the caveat and link climate change directly to intense storms and other extreme weather events, such as the warm 2012 winter in the eastern U.S. and the frigid one in Europe at the same time. They are emboldened because researchers have gotten very good in the past decade at determining what affects the variables that create big storms. Hurricane Sandy got large because it wandered north along the U.S. coast, where ocean water is still warm this time of year, pumping energy into the swirling system. But it got even larger when a cold Jet Stream made a sharp dip southward from Canada down into the eastern U.S. The cold air, positioned against warm Atlantic air, added energy to the atmosphere and therefore to Sandy, just as it moved into that region, expanding the storm even further.

    Here’s where climate change comes in. The atmospheric pattern that sent the Jet Stream south is colloquially known as a “blocking high”—a big pressure center stuck over the very northern Atlantic Ocean and southern Arctic Ocean. And what led to that? A climate phenomenon called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)—essentially, the state of atmospheric pressure in that region. This state can be positive or negative, and it had changed from positive to negative two weeks before Sandy arrived. The climate kicker? Recent research by Charles Greene at Cornell University and other climate scientists has shown that as more Arctic sea ice melts in the summer—because of global warming—the NAO is more likely to be negative during the autumn and winter. A negative NAO makes the Jet Stream more likely to move in a big, wavy pattern across the U.S., Canada and the Atlantic, causing the kind of big southward dip that occurred during Sandy.

    Climate change amps up other basic factors that contribute to big storms. For example, the oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms. And the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture, which is drawn into storms and is then dumped on us.

    These changes contribute to all sorts of extreme weather. In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, James Hansen at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York blamed climate change for excessive drought, based on six decades of measurements, not computer models: “Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.”

    He went on to write that the Russian heat wave of 2010 and catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 could each be attributed to climate change, concluding that “The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills.”

    Hansen also argued a year ago that Earth is entering a period of rapid climate change, so radical weather will be upon us sooner than we’d like. Scientific American just published a big feature article detailing the same point.

    Indeed, if you’re a regular Scientific American reader, you might recall that another well-regarded scientist predicted behemoths such as Sandy in 2007. The article, by Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, was presciently titled, “Warmer Oceans, Stronger Hurricanes.” Trenberth’s extensive analysis concluded that although the number of Atlantic hurricanes each year might not rise, the strength of them would.

    Hurricane Sandy has emboldened more scientists to directly link climate change and storms, without the hedge. On Monday, as Sandy came ashore in New Jersey, Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, tweeted: “Would this kind of storm happen without climate change? Yes. Fueled by many factors. Is [the] storm stronger because of climate change? Yes.”

    Raymond Bradley, director of the Climate Systems Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, was quoted in the Vancouver Sun saying: “When storms develop, when they do hit the coast, they are going to be bigger and I think that’s a fair statement that most people could sign onto.”

    A recent, peer-reviewed study published by several authors in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science concludes: “The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923.”

    Greg Laden, an anthropologist who blogs about culture and science, wrote this week in an online piece: “There is always going to be variation in temperature or some other weather related factor, but global warming raises the baseline. That’s true. But the corollary to that is NOT that you can’t link climate change to a given storm. All storms are weather, all weather is the immediate manifestation of climate, climate change is about climate.”

    Now, as promised: If you still don’t believe scientists, then believe insurance giant Munich Re. In her October 29 post at the The New Yorker, writer Elizabeth Kolbert notes:

    Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurance firms, issued a study titled “Severe Weather in North America.” According to the press release that accompanied the report, “Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America.” … While many factors have contributed to this trend, including an increase in the number of people living in flood-prone areas, the report identified global warming as one of the major culprits: “Climate change particularly affects formation of heat-waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run most probably also tropical cyclone intensity.”

    Insurers, scientists and journalist are beginning to drop the caveats and simply say that climate change is causing big storms. As scientists collect more and more data over time, more of them will be willing to make the same data-based statements.

    Image courtesy of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

    Author Mark Fischetti is a senior editor at Scientific American who covers energy, environment and sustainability issues

  50. #50 Lionel A
    December 5, 2012

    Because in one twisted way, they all are. Yours, Jeff’s, chek’s, Bernard J’s, Lionel’s bill’s and all the others. They describe a deeply rooted beliefsystem…

    Correction, ours is a deeply rooted understanding based upon scientific analysis from multiple lines of investigation of which ecology and paleobiology are just some fields. Once you diss in your crass slanging at Jeff.

    Whereas your is the belief system, one bolstered by ideological inspired anti-science. You are either a dupe or are duping others. If you believe the BS you spout then you are an intellectually challenged fool and if you don’t then you are a dishonest promoter of those denial memes.

    Monbiot, 2006, had this to say, my additions in [ ]:

    By dominating the media debate on climate change during seven or eight critical years [now longer] in which urgent international talks should have been taking place, by constantly seeding doubt about the science just as it should have been most persuasive [and in reality was], they have justified the money their sponsors [yes this has been catalogued] spent on them many times over. I think it is fair to say that the professional [bought and paid for and on the cheap] denial industry has delayed effective global action on climate change by several years [I make it over twenty].

    This from ‘Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand’ by Haydn Washington and John Cook pp.77.

    Jonas, you have not made one valid argument, not one.

  51. #51 Jonas N
    December 5, 2012

    Wow … so now you fantasize about the science being in there?

    And who exactly is in denial?

    ;-)

  52. #52 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “And who exactly is in denial?”

    You.

    But, like I said: too dumb to read the above.

  53. #53 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    The science is in there.

    Read it.

  54. #54 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    ” ” We’ve seen just lately how desperately many of you want to linke Sandy to AGW…”

    Well of course Sandy is most certainly linked to AGW as has been demonstrated repeatedly.”

    Hang on, I think I get it.

    This idiot thinks that if you say that a dog is an animal, then you’re desperately trying to link dogs to the animal kingdom.

    If you’re saying that mountains are a geographical feature, then you’re desperately trying to link mountains to geography.

    The point is that there’s nothing to this label “desperately trying”. To Joan here, that’s what every teacher has ever done to them: depserately tried to teach him things.

    Thing is, joan here is immune to being taught.

  55. #55 chek
    December 5, 2012

    Jonarse, you haven’t so much as refuted or corrected a single paper of AR4 Chapter 9, not a single one. Not even in E&E, the sack of shit journal by sacks of shit for sacks of shit.

    Instead you preen about on blogs posing for the likes of Griselda and PantiesizeZ. And making a jerk of yourself to everyone else.

    The only issue you have with AR4 is you’re too moronic to understand that you’re too moronic to understand it.

  56. #56 Jonas N
    December 5, 2012

    Wow you stupid moron ..

    The entirety of your sides activists and faithers have had almost six years to find that science. They cannot even come up with any references. Those few who actually gave real references revealed that they hadn’t checked, they just hoped.

    Bernard J has tried to deflect from that fact for 1½ year now.

    And you still haven’t caught up. You can’t even read short blog comments correctly. and think you can teach me about science you have never seen!? As the saying goes:

    It’s even worse than we thought …

    ;-)

  57. #57 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “Wow you stupid moron .. ”

    Yup, like I said: you see yourself everywhere.

    And you still show that you’re too dumb to read.

  58. #58 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    The science is in AR4.

    Read it.

  59. #59 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    And there’ll be science in AR5, just like there was in AR3, AR1 and the first report from the IPCC.

    But you’re too dumb to read the above, never mind the IPCC reports.

  60. #60 Lionel A
    December 5, 2012

    Jonas, having had his ‘arguments’ shelled, bombed and torpedoed is floating around like The Black Knight talking to the fish whilst gabbling inanities madly to himself.

  61. #61 Jonas N
    December 5, 2012

    chek ..

    I don’t need to refute any paper yet, because nobody of you can show me any paper where this claim allegedly is established. Nobody!

    Although you all are boneheaded hard believers …

    Instead I get the ranting or idiocy like Bernard J’s demand that I detail all the papers I’ve read which don’t even pretend to contain such science.

    Above, you claimed to have the science and the scientists on your side. (Well not here, at Deltoid). But that particular science is still just an unsubstatiated rumor among the activists (at Deltoid) and unfortunately also among other scientists who accept the claims that it is someone else who has seen and checked such science.

    And that’s what the gullible are fed to believe: All the worlds best experts agree in consensus, that most of the warming is caused by humans, and with 90% certainty …

    Especially when this relayed through the media.

    Your stupid and childish insults don’t mean squat! It still is only a rumor, even among you guys. I guess that’s why you get so darn angry!

  62. #62 Lionel A
    December 5, 2012

    Well, what did I just write:

    Jonas, having had his ‘arguments’ shelled, bombed and torpedoed is floating around like The Black Knight talking to the fish whilst gabbling inanities madly to himself.

    Point proven.

  63. #63 Jonas N
    December 5, 2012

    Lionel,

    I am sorry to inform you, but nothing is bombshelled. You just cut and paste more text saying the same stuff, repeating it from the same few sources, linking to activist sites who repeat this.

    Wow .. if the science were in AR4 it would have been read by someone on your side. Who would have hit me over the head with it. Over and over again.

    Instead jokes like you try ‘But it’s in there, all of us say so. Believe us, we do!’ over and over again ..

  64. #64 Lionel A
    December 5, 2012

    The fish hear another inanity, Scientific American is an ‘activist site‘.

    Whoda thunk!

  65. #65 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “I don’t need to refute any paper yet, because nobody of you can show me any paper where this claim allegedly is established”

    Yes he has: AR4 Chapter 9.

    If you want a paper specifically named because you can’t read long words then try this one:

    Andronova, N.G., et al., 2007: The concept of climate sensitivity: History and development. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.

  66. #66 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    If you’re worried about the authors, do you have a problem with Roger?

    Chase, T.N., J.A. Knaff, R.A. Pielke, and E. Kalnay, 2003: Changes in global monsoon circulations since 1950. Natural Hazards, 29, 229–254.

  67. #67 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “Wow .. if the science were in AR4 it would have been read by someone on your side”

    It has.

    However, you are too dumb to read.

    The science is in AR4

  68. #68 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “linking to activist sites”

    Which if you weren’t too dumb to read, you’d have read AND FOUND THE PAPER YOU WERE DEMANDING.

    Truly you’re too dumb to read.

  69. #69 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “and unfortunately also among other scientists who accept the claims”

    Because, unlike you, THEY CAN READ.

  70. #70 Jonas N
    December 5, 2012

    Lionel, thanks for the video ..

    It’s still the same old rehash retold. I have heard Oreskes several times before. And there just is no beef in there, she is the sole source of Al Gores claimed ‘consensus’, a very poor study. But it propelled her to center stage (she mentions it in your video, but grossly misrepresnts its content)

    But you really need to realize one thing Lionel. Everybody, every-single-body who tries to paint others as ‘denialists’ has already lost the argument. Has shown that it is about something completely different. You’ve seen it here many times, and elsewhere. And in that radio-show they both lament about ‘denialism’ and ‘deniers’!

    There is no need to listen to that. They are bone headed activists fighting a PR-war ..

    It’s worth just as much as if Al Gore would have given me his most earnest look and assured me it was true ..

    Zip!

    Look kid, you link Oreskes, Monbiot, Joe Romm, John Cook, DeSmogBlog refer to McKibben and Gelbspan as if they were neutral arbiters of anything.

    It just shows how deeply skewed your perceptions are. It shows how desperately you want to believe what you read at those places. Now it’s opinionpieces and activist radioshows with the most strident warriors on the belief system side.

    It’s almost a wonder you haven’t linked Al Gore yet!

    ;-)

  71. #71 chek
    December 5, 2012

    “I don’t need to refute any paper yet, because nobody of you can show me any paper where this claim allegedly is established”.

    Whu are you lying, Jonarse? And refusing Bernard’s challenge?

    “Everybody, every-single-body who tries to paint others as ‘denialists’ has already lost the argument.”

    So you say, but that doen’t make it true. You for example deny the ‘A’ in AGW when there is an overwhelming consensus that the climate is being modified by mankind. You reflexively deny this without counter evidence, ergo you’re a denier.

    “Look kid, you link Oreskes, Monbiot, Joe Romm, John Cook, DeSmogBlog refer to McKibben and Gelbspan”

    The primary differenceis that most of those are scientists using the scientific method to practice science, and/or are journalists referring to peer reviewed papers and studies.

    That you moronically claim some kind of equivalence with the output of cranks, loons and industry shills is a proposition that only flies with your fellow shills, Cubicle Boy.

  72. #72 Olaus Petri
    December 5, 2012
  73. #73 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “And there just is no beef in there, she is the sole source of Al Gores claimed ‘consensus’”

    And this is another proof you’re too dumb to read.

    Boy are you dumb.

  74. #74 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “Wow .. if the science were in AR4 it would have been read by someone on your side”

    then after

    Andronova, N.G., et al., 2007: The concept of climate sensitivity: History and development. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.

    and

    Chase, T.N., J.A. Knaff, R.A. Pielke, and E. Kalnay, 2003: Changes in global monsoon circulations since 1950. Natural Hazards, 29, 229–254.

    What?

    Despite having demanded papers, when given them, Joan here is, as said before: TOO DUMB TO READ.

  75. #75 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    Olap doesn’t know what The Onion is!

    Probably because he’s too dumb to read!

  76. #76 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    Hey, denier retards, read this!

    http://friendsofginandtonic.org/

    PROOF of your deniers idiocy!!! :-P :-P :-)

  77. #77 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a scientist who applies the laws of physics to the behaviour of the atmosphere must be part of a communist conspiracy to overthrow Christianity and impose a genocidal world government.”

    From a denier website!!! :-) ;-P ;-)

  78. #78 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    Work day has ended in Norway so we’ll have to wait until work opens up again before Olap or Joan answer.

    They don’t work for free, you know. :-)

  79. #79 GSW
    December 5, 2012

    @Olaus,

    Nice! Hopefully our Celebrity Zoologist won’t turn up telling us it all must be true (because he has CV) and refers us to the excellent “TED” video from Perez Hansen-Hiton!
    ;)

  80. #80 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    ‘course the EST sect are still punching the clock :-P

  81. #81 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    What? You’re not going to comment on the “fact” that romney locked himself in the whitehouse?

    “Romney Locks Self In Oval Office During White House Visit ”

    Ha ha!

    Too dumb to read, too thick to think.

  82. #82 BPW
    December 6, 2012

    Does it strike any of you that there is considerable irony in the fact that this is the most commented thread on this site? And that you all say the same thing over and over? And that at 3000+ comments it is undoubtedly the most commented on thread in the history of this site?

    Yet you keep saying Jonas has no valid argument. So why do you bother? Really. Why?

  83. #83 chek
    December 6, 2012

    Possibly because its fun pointing out to the deniers that they’re delusional, selective and alarmist and frequently other negative attributes they like to accuse others of too.

    Plus they’re very, very slow learners.

  84. #84 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    “Yet you keep saying Jonas has no valid argument. So why do you bother? Really. Why?”

    Because he has no valid argument.

  85. #85 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    I mean, does the fact that Joan doesn’t know that its arguments are empty and unsupported (as well as being dead wrong) make his points valid and supported?

    If you don’t think we think that is the case, why did you post that message? Really. Why?

  86. #86 Jonas N
    December 6, 2012

    Wow … why would you post references that you haven’t read yourself? And wouldn’t understand if you tried? It seems a very common practice among types like you though?

    These two references do not present any such science demonstrating the claimed certainty!

    And while you think that some random site you found proves anything, you need to remember that we are at a site, where the proponents claim to argue science while sputtering utter nonsense … many of them

  87. #87 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    “Wow … why would you post references that you haven’t read yourself?”

    You demanded the names of science papers in AR4.

    You got them.

    Now you’re whining about having being given them???

    Too dumb to read, too thick to think.

  88. #88 Jonas N
    December 6, 2012

    chek, really!?

    do you still not what the debate is about? Although you’ve been hanging here for years? Spouting all kind of upset and unsubstantiable claims at the ‘deniers’ without ever managing to engage in any relevant debate? You really still don’t know?

    Are you really just flailing your arms in the fog at the strawmen and demon windmills of your imagination?

    Point is. Still and has been for 1½ years:

    Nobody has ever presented, or even claimed to have read and understodd what proper science that prominent AR4 claim is supposed to be based on. No one! Neither you, nor Bernard, Jeff, or any other activist or climatescientist who has dared to answer has ever seen such science.

    Bernards challanges (both) are irrelevant to this.

    And your capacity to understand written english must be really poor, when you still try to convince your self of counterfacual nonsens like:

    “You for example deny the ‘A’ in AGW ..”

    Albeit i have said, repeated time and again that it is the A in GW that is relevant (for Sandy, for glaciers etc) and also that it is the size of that A (the alleged positve feedbacks) that are the core discussion about the matter.

    And still, like mythomaniac-Jeffie, you need to invent an alternative universe where you knock down your own strawmen. Simply amazing.

    And no, those activists are not scientists (Oreskes is probably closest, but in a different field, and has abandond science for mud slinging and campaigning). The others are entrenched eco warriors and activists. And more importantly, their arguments are not over the science. They too argue mostly that they are the goodies against the baddies.

    And yes, anybody bringing ‘denialist’ or all of the other stupid labels to a debate, is not interested in debate, at best a shouting contest. You yourself demonstrate that perfectly well. Only Jeff is worse here. But you’r not alone.

    You say me saying so doen’t make it so. But this observations has held for a very long time now. Ask yourself, what have you possibly brought to the table here? You who cannot even read the arguments and positions you’d like to attac?

    The most funny (or depressing) thing is that you claimed that Glebstein Oreskes, Monbiot, Romm, Cook, etc use ‘the scientific method’. It’s just hilarious how absolutely clueless you must be. Do you really think that handwaivingly referring to a oublication is ‘the scientific method’?

    On the contrary, the way those guys use selected phrases from selected publications is the antithesis of ‘the scientific method’.

    That one would require dealing with reality, the issues, the questions, the data, the lack of data and understanding, the uncertainties etc, and doing it properly. But you wouldn’t know that, would you?

  89. #89 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    “do you still not what the debate is about?”

    Do you?

    You seem to chop and change it at the whim of providence.

    “Nobody has ever presented, or even claimed to have read and understodd what proper science that prominent AR4 claim is supposed to be based on.”

    You have already been given two papers which the AR4 assessment claim was based on.

    Too dumb to read, too thick to think, too inbred to change.

  90. #90 Jonas N
    December 6, 2012

    Wow ..

    Yes, I asked for published proper science which establishes those AR4 claims. Not random references you found … and definitely not references you haven’t read and which not even adress the core claims. But this is as it always goes. The least knowledgable just try posting random (lists of) references and lists hoping that it might contain something, and buy them some time.

    You are definitely not the first one trying this. While I wonder if all of you really are so thick and gullible that you manage to fool even yourselves?

  91. #91 Jonas N
    December 6, 2012

    Wow, you really really are that dumb, aren’t you?

    Here is the abstract of one of them. It deals with totally different things. Neither attribution, nor assessment of certainty of such attribution!

    Chase, T.N., J.A. Knaff, R.A. Pielke Sr. and E. Kalnay, 2003: Changes in global monsoon circulations since 1950. Natural Hazards, 29, 229-254,

    where we concluded, as summarized in the abstract, that

    “We examined changes in several independent intensity indices of four major tropical monsoonal circulations for the period 1950-1998. These intensity indices included observed land surface precipitation and observed ocean surface pressure in the monsoon regions as well as upper level divergence calculated at several standard levels from the NCAR/NCEP reanalysis. These values were averaged seasonally over appropriate regions of southeastern Asian, western Africa, eastern Africa and the Australia/Maritime continent and adjacent ocean areas. As a consistency check we also examined two secondary indices: mean sea level pressure trends and low level convergence both from the NCEP reanalysis.

    We find that in each of the four regions examined, a consistent picture
    emerges indicating significantly diminished monsoonal circulations over the period of record, evidence of diminished spatial maxima in the global hydrological cycle since 1950. Trends since 1979, the period of strongest reported surface warming, do not indicate any change in monsoon circulations. When strong ENSO years are removed from each of the time series the trends still show a general, significant reduction of monsoon intensity indicating that ENSO variability is not the direct cause for the observed weakening.

    Most previously reported model simulations of the effects of rising CO2 show an increase in monsoonal activity with rising global surface temperature. We find no support in these data for an increasing hydrological cycle or increasing extremes as hypothesized by greenhouse warming scenarios.”

    Are you really so stupid, that you believed the AR4 claimed was based on this? Really? I mean even chek and Jeff must be ashamed about such stupidity on their side.

    Why would you post these references and make such claims? Stuipid activists in total denial would be my first guess …

  92. #92 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    You really really are that dumb, aren’t you.

    ““Nobody has ever presented, or even claimed to have read and understodd what proper science that prominent AR4 claim is supposed to be based on.”

    You have already been given two papers which the AR4 assessment claim was based on.”

    Too dumb to read, too thick to think, too inbred to change.

  93. #93 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    “Yes, I asked for published proper science which establishes those AR4 claims.”

    Yes you got two of them.

    Do you want to know where to get them all?

  94. #94 Jonas N
    December 6, 2012

    Wow: Too dumb to read!?

    Even your own claims and references?

    Too dumb? Monsoon patterns! Too dumb?

    Let me highlight the last sentence in the abstract:

    We find no support in these data for an increasing hydrological cycle or increasing extremes as hypothesized by greenhouse warming scenarios

    Too dumb to read!? Stupid beyond belief? To incompetent to post? A liability even for the worst activist sites? Which is it Wow?

  95. #95 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    Wow: Too dumb to read!?

    I never asked that, ‘cos I know the answer.

    You ARE too dumb to read. Too thick to think. Too inbred to change.

    “Yes, I asked for published proper science which establishes those AR4 claims.”

    Yes you got two of them.

    Do you want to know where to get them all?

  96. #96 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    “We find no support in these data for an increasing hydrological cycle or increasing extremes as hypothesized by greenhouse warming scenarios”

    And the AR4 isn’t saying “100% of weather is created by anthropogenic climate change”.

    Too dumb to read, too thick to think, too inbred to change and too stubborn to listen.

  97. #97 Jonas N
    December 6, 2012

    So Wow .. now even you yourself have demonstrated that there really is no bottom to how stupid claims you guys can make in order to maintain your faith and belief system shielded against reality.

    I ask for proper science regarding ‘most of the warming since 1950′ and with ’90% certainty’ and the moron brigade try to swamp me with lists of other references, and even specifies some that show how the AGW-hypothesis predictions cannot be seen in observations.

    Too dumb to be called dumb!?

  98. #98 Jonas N
    December 6, 2012

    chek, Jeff, Tim Lambert and all the others …

    :-)

    All I can say is: Wow !!

  99. #99 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    “I ask for proper science regarding ‘most of the warming since 1950′ and with ’90% certainty’ ”

    And you don’t seem to want to know how to get it.

    Why is that?

    Don’t you want to know how to find the papers you’re demanding? You’ve been given two. There are more.

    Why don’t you want to know how to get them?

    Too dumb to read, too thick to think.

  100. #100 Olaus Petri
    December 6, 2012

    If I didn’t know that Wow was a masochist I would be very impressed with the amount of spanking he can endure. :-)

    But has the poor guy no self-preservation at all?