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 7, 2012

    “we all know”

    Really?

    Lets do a quick scientific check on this, yes?

    Jeff, chek, lional, do you all three agree with Joan?

    Stop whining about you having to do some work and do it.

    Oh, sorry, forgot. Too ignorant to think.

  2. #2 Lionel A
    December 7, 2012

    Lionel

    DeSmogBlog … are you kidding me?

    Stop whinnying and read and earn something from the sources that you have been pointed at – hint they are all peer reviewed papers each on some aspect of attributing climate change . Of course you may need a load of supporting literature so here is a start:

    Books to help JustNuts with science and stuff.

    To which I could add these:

    Principles of Planetary Climate by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert

    The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast by David Archer (Editor), Ray Pierrehumbert (Editor)

    The Great Ocean Conveyor: Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change by Wally Broecker

    Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate (New in Paper) (Princeton Science Library) by William F. Ruddiman

    Earth’s Climate: Past and Future by William F. Ruddiman

    Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach by
    William James Burroughs [note this one could do with an update in some areas but Svensmark is put in his place although not overtly]

    Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science by Tom Garrison

    And there is always this excellent resource:

    Open Climate Science 101 and click on ‘Video Lectures’ and it is good to go.

    Now stop moaning and get on with learning.

  3. #3 Jonas N
    December 7, 2012

    Lionel

    o you have peer reviewed papers attributing Sandy to human CO2? Are you kidding me?

    Or are you trying to help chek and Wow with theyr denial? THen you need to point at the references i AR4 …

  4. #4 Jonas N
    December 7, 2012

    Lionel

    It seems you confuse quite a few things, and since your preferred sources are the more notorious blogs and sites, maybe it isn’t that suprising after all.

    I am quite aware of the hypothesis and what is argued in its name. But a hypothesis is not established just because it has been published, or has worked for some partial curve fit. It takes an aweful lot more than just repetition and supporters.

    Or support from activists’ faith. NGOs and politicians or the UN. Real science works very differently. Proposed explanaitons need to be presented properly and unambiguously, and the need to work consistently. Handwaiving and making new excuses for every failure dosn’t cut it.

    I’m aware that you are at a stage where you read smething, and believe it as fact (or try to dismiss it) without being to able to judge and decide. You seem still to try to identify authorities to believe. And you land at those reinforcing what you already believe. That’s human, but not a very good method for finding things out for real.

    If you can’t answer proper questions and even pointed ones and criticism, it just shows that your understanding wasn’t that deep after all. And if you even get angry, it just shows the same thing but more clearly ..

    And you can hser see how people react when they have their beliefs questioned … some completely derail and get very angry … And become even less convincing …

  5. #5 chek
    December 7, 2012

    “And nowhere in the entire world is any such science to be found or even its foundations or details discussed. Nowhere! !

    You’ve admitted you haven’t read the research, so how can you make that statement? You can’t, so you make it up.

    “That’s why you (and many others) try to list long lists of irrelevant references to run away from the obvious”

    You haven’t read them, so how can you classify them as either relevant or irrelevant? You can’t, so you make it up. Again.

    “Handwaiving and making new excuses for every failure dosn’t cut it. ”

    And yet that’s all you can ever do.
    Incessantly.
    Along with making stuff up, aka lying.

  6. #6 chek
    December 7, 2012

    “Real science works very differently. Proposed explanaitons need to be presented properly and unambiguously, and the need to work consistently.”

    Congratulations, You’re describing how published science works. Well done to you Jonarse for stating the bleedin’ obvious.

    Where you go wrong is in expecting to be able to understand it without putting in the work, or demanding explanations be in tweetable format or whatever cockamamie conditions you denier morons arbitrarily decide to impose. So let’s cut the pretending – you’re deniers because of your politics, not because of your (lack of) scientific understanding.

    If you had actual objections to the science you wouldn’t be piffling about on blogs making fools of yourselves every day. You’d be doing… well, best not give you ideas you’re unable to formulate for yourself. That’d just be piling cruelty as well as ridicule onto the afflicted.

  7. #7 Jonas N
    December 7, 2012

    chek, you are wrong once more

    I have read quite a few. Earlier I used to read references when climate faithers claimed some particular piece of science or evidence was to be found in a certain references. And almost always, such claims were vastly overstated. If they weren’t simply untrue. (It seems that lying, or just making things up guessing is endemic among your guys).

    And even here, I have been following a few such claims, and even offered others. But that claim isn’t even adressed scientifically there. Sometimes you can find some armwaiving in the discussion sectionm but no science claiming to establish anything even close to that AR4 claim.

    Problem is, always was, and still is:

    This claim, which everybody with a TV and/or newspaper around the world has heard many times, that

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”

    .. that this claim is taken on faith by everybody who believes and repeats it. Every-single-frikking-body!

    And nobody has to read references who nowhere claim to establish this, to confirm it. And which nobody says is (ie references as) the source for that AR4 claim. There are no references, chek. There is no scientific source to this claim, chek, and looking through the WG 1 chapter 9 and all the appendices and figure captions, supplementary information etc, makes this quite obvious. As does the fact that nobody else claims to have seen such science, or discusses it, or tries to explain it on pro-AGW blogs and references to its source. Nobody, nowhere, around the entire world chek.

    But still, people like you and many more want to believe in its existence so badly that you make total fools out of yourselves.

    And believe me, it’s not me who has caused this. The AR4 was published in 2007, even before I started to look closer at all those wild climate claims.

  8. #8 Jonas N
    December 7, 2012

    Sorry for the messed up quite. It should read:

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”

    and end thereafter!

  9. #9 Jonas N
    December 7, 2012

    No chek,

    I don’t go wrong. I am asking the right questions. I am looking for the science that allegedly supports these claims. I am asking those who are convinced if they have seen, read and understood said science. I am asking them if they can explain it and defend its merits and against criticism.

    I am the one reading the scientific papers ans see if the claimed conclusions are supported by the word and data presented there. But as I just said, nobody even claims to have done such science. So in that particular case, there is nothing to read up to.

    It is you who claim all kinds of things without having checked or even seen it, who are unwilling to put in the work. Heck, I asked about this the first time 1½ years ago, and although most of you here destest me like the plague, and you wouldn’t wish anything more than to prove me wrong, all you manage to do is to deflect and evade the core question.

    Which is typical for members of the climate scare church. Who essentially lose it whenever their faith is challanged or just questioned. Have you seen Wow, who says that this claim is a car built of many many separate parts, by people who don’t have a car as a goal even. And Wow explains that he (the IPCC and ‘scientists’) can vouch for both the car (its existence) and its performance!?

    All this nuttery is on your side, chek. Not mine. The blind belief in authority, the unability to argue any facts. The unability to read what is said, or understand the issues even. On your side. You are just one part of this. Jeff is another, all the anonymous Wows of all the blogs. And those media ‘experts’ and even Mann and Gore and the others. Who are so afraid of facing opposition they avoid it at all costs.

    You ferret here about Montford etc, but I have never seen you even daring to voice an argument there. Actually Frank D has, but rarely any good ones. And even here, the most CV-fist-shaking supporter, needs to hide in the protect zone, where he dares mouthing of with his fantasies about me.

  10. #10 Jonas N
    December 7, 2012

    chek, you say:

    ” you’re deniers because of your politics, not because of your (lack of) scientific understanding”

    Again counterfactual. It is you and your side who obsess about politics of your opponents. I have been asking about the science you claim is supporting your faith.

    There just isn’t anything that you can get right, is there? Every argument needs to be twisted. To get away from the real issues, the core questions, from reality. It’s and endelss battle agains all the strawmen you manage to create, isn’t it?

    Have you seen any proper science even attempting to establish that AR4 claim? Yes or No?

    And since the answer is so obvious, what is it you are hoping to accomplish by denying it?

    What is your best hope for the outcome of such denial?

  11. #11 Jonas N
    December 7, 2012

    And sorry for repeating this, but it really is hilarious.

    Signature Wow tried to give references to that alleged science, and came yo with a study of monsoon patterns, which found that the claims by GHG hypothesis modelled monsoons were not supported by the real data. And this joke of a climate activists accuses me of not reading the science. Can you believe this? You couldn’t make it up if you tried! And you supported his nonsens chek …

    :-)

    And you wonder why less and less poeple take you seriously?

  12. #12 GSW
    December 7, 2012

    @Jonas,

    I wouldn’t bother with wow Jonas. In the Grand Debate, I think he sees himself as a rather volatile “Attack Moron”, doing as much damage to, and falling out with, his own side as he does with the “Enemy” ;)

    Ianam’s had problems with him I think. He had a conversation with him claiming the best way to win an argument was to say something stupid…. Personally I think this was a ruse – get your excuses in early sort of thing. Difficult to know with wow though, I’ve never actually known him say anything that wasn’t stupid, so it’s difficult to make a meaningful comparison.

  13. #13 Jonas N
    December 7, 2012

    GSW

    There is not much substance coming from any of these clowns, who blindly and desperatly hope the references in AR4 somwhere somehow contain science supporting that claim they all want to believe more than anything.

    I just think its entertaining to remind them of this some 1½ years later, after they’ve tried to find such support.

    And I agree, Wow sounds like a badly programmed spam-bot, but still manages to sometimes pick up the topic. I don’t think he’s a robot, but certainly as thick as one most of the time …

  14. #14 Lionel A
    December 7, 2012

    The AR4 was published in 2007, even before I started to look closer at all those wild climate claims.

    So, you a relative newbie to this subject. Little wonder you have not managed to grasp that contained in a vast body of research. Your a novice and likely to stay that way given your attitude.

  15. #15 chek
    December 7, 2012

    Jonarse, you’ve already admitted to not reading the papers, and now suddenly, you have. How does that even happen? Unless you’re a habitual liar, which a gimp like GSW has no problem with of course, given his support role..

  16. #16 chek
    December 7, 2012

    Griselda, touching as your stupid-driven loyalty is, you seem blithely unaware that your darling Black Knight, Sir Jonarse the Liar is being hacked to pieces before your very eyes.

    He can’t even keep his story straight any longer, although that’s likely because he’s such a vain dildo, he can’t keep track of what he’s told you idiots and what he’s already told the outside world.

    A word of advice. Never put your faith in ‘heroes’. Especially not those with the calibre of Jonarse, the scatterbrained Cubicle Kid. Like you have much of a pool to choose from anyway…

  17. #17 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Stop whinnying and read”

    You forget: he’s too dumb to read.

    “@Jonas,
    I wouldn’t bother with wow Jonas. ”

    So, joan, apparently GSW thinks I’m far too intelligent for you to manage to hoodwink.

    What do you think?

  18. #18 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Again counterfactual. It is you and your side who obsess about politics of your opponents”

    Again, wrong.

    You keep whinging on about Al Gore. A politician.

  19. #19 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    hell, check, Joan here doesn’t even know what to look for.

    Has absolutely no clue as to how you would answer the question “How much has climate changed due to human activity”.

    Olap, of course, knows that it isn’t something. They don’t know what it IS, but they know it’s not something, though not what other number it might be, but are CONVINCED it’s not that number.

    You know, no ideas but “It’s not that”.

    Which is rather denialist, isn’t it?

  20. #20 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Heck, I asked about this the first time 1½ years ago”

    Heck, you were given a link but because it began with “www.ipcc.ch” you didn’t click on it.

    The 18+ months of wasted time is YOUR fault.

    Because you’re too dumb to read, too thick to think and too crusty to change.

  21. #21 GSW
    December 8, 2012

    @Jonas

    “but still manages to sometimes pick up the topic”

    I wouldn’t read too much into that Jonas. Not a spam-bot, just an individual incapable of a continuous stream of thought. Ideas appear and disappear at random, hence the repeated multiple postings and repostings. There’s no evaluation of what’s been said to him, no reasoned argument forthcoming, just post post post – an “Attack Attack Attack Moron” as it were. Up to you obviously whether you engage or not.

  22. #22 GSW
    December 8, 2012

    @Jonas

    Doesn’t look as though chek had the empirical science behind attribution in his back pocket after all. ;)

    They’re happy to continue on regardless though, sans evidence. Easier to just skim over that bit in favour of imagining the “horrors” ahead – Like children sitting in the dark telling ghost stories. The science just becomes an emotion then; can be “felt” rather than understood. Not the best way of dealing with reality I would have thought – but hey, it takes all sorts doesn’t it?

  23. #23 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    Lionel, I am definitely not a newbie to real science. Thats my real field of expertise. You, however seem to be a newbie even to climatology .. which involves all kinds of nonsense ..

    First you need to determine what part of that climate consensue has (the possibility of) a real scientificaly based hyptothesis at the bottom (ie remove all that creative armwaiving and prophecies about the future).

    When you know what part at least has is soundly formulated, you need to check what can be argued in favour and what speaks against such a hypothesis. And you need to handle both parts with equal care.

    It is, like your mates here demonstrate, not something where you can pick on favoured side, and then hammer away screaming at everything not agreeing with it. You need to do the work, and remain on your intellectual toes.

    In this debate, your side has almost completely lost that capacity (and there was not to much to begin with)

    It doesn’t suffice just believing the presentations of your side. And I don’t think you’ve gotten beyond that yet. Especially not if you hang at such sites as you link

  24. #24 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    GSW

    But I would presume that both of then, in their actual life consider themselves to be adults and even not stupid. And yet here they willingly disolay the abloutely nuutiest beliefs and arguments as if totally disconnected from reality.

    I agree, that most likely it is pure emotional, even rage. But they really seem unable to control it. Jeffie too, wants so see him as and adult, even an accomplished one. But is unable to think one straight thought from beginning to end.

    Wow most loses the plot after three words. He got the ‘two part (of his own argument) right at some time, but couldn’t handle the content of longer sentences. Monsoon became a ‘data point’ which should e seen as pieces of scrap metal. And the car and its performance was what he imagined built on the ‘two …

    It really is quite amazing. And even mor, all those who thinks he is making valid points …

  25. #25 GSW
    December 8, 2012

    @Jonas,

    “all those who thinks he is making valid points”

    Like LB’s physics remember? Lining up to “endorse” his mangling of F=ma.

    “Monsoon became a ‘data point’ which should e seen as pieces of scrap metal”

    eh..OK. Given up reading wow’s stuff, if you can make sense of it, you’ve got it wrong, it isn’t what he meant.

    And Jeff(ie), where to start? A “supposed” Scientist (albeit a soft science) that as a point of principle, refuses to be clear on what he knows and doesn’t know, so he can communicate the things he “feels”. As Edie Campbell’s dad tried to point out him the other day- He is “unique”.

    I’d always assumed that when the graduates left university they’d had the words “How Do You Know?” bullied into them, certainly true in Physics, although I noticed with some regret that even Manchester now has it’s own “Tyndall” (but then there’s money for such things, and hey, why not?)

    Zoology may be different, more a specialized field of farming than science, even so, the principles are relatively easy to grasp and follow. Jeff – the Scientific Method “Denier”.
    ;)

  26. #26 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    chek

    There is no ‘story to keep straight’. It’s much simpler than that.

    Nobody, no one in the entire world has seen any proper science detailing those two specific and quantified levels or that AR4 claim. End of story.

    I certainly have not, and I’ve been looking. And I am asking those who belive in it, if they have seen and read any such thing (fully well knowing they haven’t). And then pointing out that the believe their cherrished story in blind faith. And that the same goes for all of you, and even those consensus climate scientists whom you pin your hopes to.

    End of story once more. And deep down you know it too (Even Jeffie knows). There is no science establishing those levels, just wishful hopes based on halfheared curvefits, and opinions by those who hope it would be in a certain way. But no science chek.

    Bernard and Jeff (in the protected zone) try to talk up their confidence that this claim somehow still is supportable by some science or CVs or the like …

    But it ain’t so! You guys are just trying to get away from the fact, from real reality, from that no one has ever seen such science. And all those repeating this and similar claims are doing this in blind faith. And now knowlingly in blind faith.

    You are in denial and want to blame me for this lack of science and of substance in your claims. It is a quite pathetic show you putting up. You and all the others here. are frantically running from realit, and trying to come up with utter nonsens for why you still should get away with not knowing, remaining ignorant, and convincing yourselves that this all somehow should be my (or Exxon’s or whatever’s) malice and fault.

    You not having any science to back up your claims, you want to explain it with me, my person and all kind of things you concoct up and imagine. It’s my fault that you been believing things in blind faith. And not only you, all the others too. Right!?

    And not only them. The entire ‘climate science consensus community’ … Those allegedly behind this gigantic cimate threat that has a gigantic industry running over the entire globe with an endless string of stupidities attached to it …

    But all those conconced scientists never stpped to ask and see the science … and its Jonas’ fault!? Amazing

    ;-)

  27. #27 Lionel A
    December 8, 2012

    JN:

    Lionel, I am definitely not a newbie to real science. Thats my real field of expertise.

    Really! Tell us more. Why are you so coy about the details?

    You, however seem to be a newbie even to climatology .. which involves all kinds of nonsense ..

    Sorry to disappoint you but after a career involving, amongst others, qualification in aeronautical engineering science, applied mechanics, mathematics including calculus, statistics, complex numbers, (and much, much more) and weather systems this coupled with a growing knowledge of computer systems and software development led to the Meteorological Office offering me a job as a scientific officer.

    Also since the early 1990s I have become increasingly interested in and studied aspects of climate and change (well all science is to do with change of one sort or another). This having realised on a sweltering holiday in the South of France in 1988, where temperatures rose much above the norm’ even for that location, coupled with experiences at sea that something was up. How do you think I was able to offer you texts dealing with the relevant topics.

    You on the other hand have, by self confession only been looking at climate for a dog-watch [1], and you throw insults at scientists who have made it their life’s work to assess the forces at work. This a life of studying the science physics, biology, chemistry and mathematical tools such as statistics so as to be able to conduct a research project, quantify the results and present conclusions which are coherent with other bodies of research and acceptable to other scientists involved in those aspects, and these aspects could be many including climate, and other, models of one type or another.

    If you can parse that correctly you should understand the disparity between you and they.

    [1] A dog watch was an abbreviated watch, on a two watch system, aboard RN ships so that periods of watches WRT actual times alternated from one day to the next. The full watch period was four hours, with a bell rung at the first half hour mark and incrementing by one at each successive half hour thus causing eight bells to be rung at the end of the watch. The dog-watch was shortened [2] to two hours.

    [2] The Patrick O’Brian character Stephen Maturin – no capable seaman himself, in ‘Master and Commander’ etc, joked at the captains table when asked by a ‘newbie’ why a watch was called a dog-watch with the ‘clever’ quip, ‘Why, because it is curtailed’.

    GSW:

    Zoology may be different, more a specialized field of farming than science, even so, the principles are relatively easy to grasp and follow. Jeff – the Scientific Method “Denier”.

    Zoology more a field of farming than science! Oh my! That is classic stupid.

    With every statement you expose your deep seated ignorance. You wouldn’t recognise the scientific method if you fell over it. You need help, as does your mentor.

  28. #28 FrankD
    December 8, 2012

    Jonas,

    Sorry I missed your reply yesterday.

    Please provide evidence for your assertion that Monckton is 100 times as knowledgable as Al Gore. How did you quantify that number? What are the error margins? If this is just your opinion, surely you should have been explicit about that?

    I suspect there is no basis for that figure at all and you just made it up. Do you normally go around making up figures and asserting them as fact?

  29. #29 FrankD
    December 8, 2012

    Oh, and Jonas:

    “I think you are the first defender of Al Gore here …”

    Please point out where I defended Al Gore. If you can find such a defence, please point it out. If not, please acknowledge that I did not defend Gore, or it will look like you are just making up your own facts.

    Thats not very scientific, is it?

  30. #30 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Doesn’t look as though chek had the empirical science behind attribution in his back pocket after all.”

    No, he had it in the AR4 report, not his back pocket.

  31. #31 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Do you normally go around making up figures and asserting them as fact?”

    Oh you bet he does!

    Big time!

  32. #32 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    ” Easier to just skim over that bit in favour of imagining the “horrors” ahead ”

    Like “Australia will collapse back into the stone age”

    Or “This is just a scam to install a communist world order”

    Yeah, you’re always imaginging things. Including horrors.

    Why?

    Because you’re too dumb to read.

  33. #33 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Lionel, I am definitely not a newbie to real science. Thats my real field of expertise”

    Another incorrect statement from Joan.

  34. #34 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Wow most loses the plot after three words”

    Yup, another incorrect statement from Joan.

    Can’t manage to post without littering them around.

  35. #35 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    No problem Frank D

    But this is very very cute:

    Do you normally go around making up figures and asserting them as fact?

    You ask this here? At Deltoid of all places? Where a string of characters do nothing but trying to invent their own facts? And not only in colloquial speech ..

    Very cute!

    But I repeat what I said originally:

    Now you bring up Monckton as an argument for what? He is Al Gores counterpart, and about 100 times as knowledgable. And nothing I need to rely on.

    But I’m sorry, you were saying something? Something important? You sounded very happy in your last comment.

  36. #36 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Monsoon became a ‘data point’ which should e seen as pieces of scrap metal. ”

    Too dumb to read a dictionary. Even though they explain every word.

    Poor little babbie.

    a·nal·o·gy
    /əˈnaləjē/
    Noun

    A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
    A correspondence or partial similarity.

  37. #37 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    Of course knowing it was an analogy would require Joan to read the word “like”.

    As previously affirmed, too dumb to read.

    He’s like one of those insane long-term drunks yelling at his imaginary friend and smelling of piss and shit, only attended by the other alcoholics turning insane from liver damage.

  38. #38 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Where a string of characters do nothing but trying to invent their own facts?”

    Did anyone hear that in “Lord Windbourne” voice?

    “Here? With me? With *my* reputation?”.

    ?

    Joan, you are the major current produce of numbers with no basis in reality.

    You are posting on deltoid.

    The real problem is that you can’t answer Frank’s question.

  39. #39 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    ” Now you bring up Monckton as an argument for what? He is Al Gores counterpart, and about 100 times as knowledgable. And nothing I need to rely on.

    But I’m sorry, you were saying something?”

    Yes, he was saying have you any evidence of your statement.

    We’ve asked for many many years if you have EVER had ANY evidence for your claims.

    So far neither you, GSW/Olap (who has had to go off and wash one of his socks because he was finding it uncomfortable), Dai Duffski and the rest of the ignorance fan club have EVER even ONCE managed to provide any proof at all for your statements.

    Apparently you don’t do evidence.

  40. #40 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Bernard and Jeff (in the protected zone) try to talk up their confidence that this claim somehow still is supportable by some science or CVs or the like … ”

    OK, apparently expertise is shown by claiming it.

    I am 10,000,000 times more intelligent than you, Watts, RP Sr and Jr, Christy and Monckton ADDED TOGETHER.

    I know more maths, more latin, more about Mrs Thatcher, more about economy, more about chemistry, more about satellites, more about imagery, more about weather presenting and more about everything than these people collectively or individually.

    I am far far far smarter than you.

  41. #41 Lionel A
    December 8, 2012

    There is a wonderful exposition on the modus operandi (deniers, ask Monckton if you don’t understand) and just plain idiocy behind the propaganda (and Monckton could well have learned something from Dad here) of the denial machine Between the science and a hard place: The intellectual incoherence of lukewarmism. Part One: jimming the Overton window. and the name of that site addresses you directly you members of the alphabet soup. You are all ‘stark naked’ when it comes to intellectual honesty.

  42. #42 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “But all those conconced scientists never stpped to ask and see the science”

    For the same reason they don’t ask to see the proofs of 1+1.

    Because, unlike you, they have already seen the evidence.

    See? I’m far far far smarter than you. I knew that, you didn’t.

  43. #43 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    Frank D

    Oh, you made a Gore-remark too? Sorry, missed that at first. I think you are the first one here defending Al Gore against criticism. (here Monckton being much more knowledgable). Yes, that’s the imporession you gave and what I thought.
    Is there a problem somewhere in there?

  44. #44 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    You talked about him first, Joan? What? You think Al Gore only exists for you?

    Mind you, I’m far more intelligent than you by several score orders of magnitude, hence I can remember things like that.

    As for Monckton? He’s a mental gnat compared to Al Gore.

  45. #45 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    (another example of how much smarter I am than you: the word is “impression”)

  46. #46 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Is there a problem somewhere in there?”

    Yes, the problem is that Monckton is insane. Medical condition. But he thinks that he has cured it (because he’s nuts, as ascertained earlier).

    He’s far far dumber than Al Gore.

    Therefore the problem is that your asseriong is wrong.

  47. #47 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    Actually, I think Monckton’s counterpart is Chemical Ali.

    But nutty as fruit looms.

  48. #48 GSW
    December 8, 2012

    @Jonas

    That caused a bit of a fuss, let’s see;

    Someone who believes in CAGW because it was hot on holiday (South of France) back in 1988. mmm… compelling.

    Someone who wants “error bars” on rhetoric. mmm… curious.

    Someone who blames it all on the “Denial Machine”. mmm… probably an Ecologist.

    Nothing on the science behind the attribution claim however. Disappointing, perhaps they would like another go? We’ll score them this time, bonus points for the most original answer!

  49. #49 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    Lionel A

    Now you claim to be a seasoned professional, with numerous skills. Even being offered a job as a ‘scientific officer’!?

    But in spite of that, you link to the worst activist blogs, read Gelbspan and Oreskes and accept them as facts? Or whatever Lancaster said he believed? And no even a link to ‘Idiot-Tracker’?

    And you want to tell me that you are a professional?

    And you even try to tell me about the scientific method? Surely you’re joking Lionel!

    Idiot tracker … whodathunkit

    :-)

  50. #50 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    GSW I would have thought Lionel to be a highschool kid … Born much later than 1988 …

    Just think of it. He says he remember 1988 in souther France, and even claims to have noticed that it is “much above the norm’ even for that location”

    How did he did that you think? Spent many summer vacations there? Searched the internet a decade later when it was starting to come up? A guy who ferrets about idiots and deniers and links to ‘Idiot Tracker’ wants to portray himslef as a seasoned professional of many skills …

    Ah that’s Deltoid for you … discussing ‘climate science’

    Regarding Frank, I think he can do better than those clowns. But he chose to try nitpicking irrelevancies …. And posturing with indignation

    ” Do you normally go around making up figures and asserting them as fact?”

    I think he decided that was his best shot … if so, probably a correct assessment

  51. #51 GSW
    December 8, 2012

    @Jonas

    Detta är kul!
    ;)

  52. #52 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    Yes, but sorry for the poor spelling sometimes …
    Wow is funny too. He thinks his car part analogy was clever …

    :-)

  53. #53 GSW
    December 8, 2012

    @Jonas

    Spelling not a problem Jonas. Not entirely sure what I last posted, hope it was decent.

    “Wow is funny too”

    Careful, you might start getting too attached and then hold back on Destroying them quite as effectively as you do.
    ;)

  54. #54 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Someone who believes in CAGW because it was hot on holiday (South of France) back in 1988″

    Total count of real people in that group: 0

    “Someone who wants “error bars” on rhetoric.”

    Total count of real people in that group: 0

    “Someone who blames it all on the “Denial Machine””

    Total count of real people in that group: 0

    Yup, you’re batting 100% on imaginary people.

  55. #55 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “. Even being offered a job as a ‘scientific officer’!? ”

    Yet another case where I’m far far far smarter than you.

    There is a civil servie grade “scientific officer”.

    Apparently there is no limit to your ignorance!

  56. #56 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “But in spite of that, you link to the worst activist blogs”

    What? Like WUWT, Jonova, bishophill?

    No, never linked against activist blogs.

    YOU have, though.

    “read Gelbspan and Oreskes”

    Yeah, read.

    It’s how you learn things. But you’re too dumb to read, aren’t you.

    “and accept them as facts?”

    Yes because they have evidence. You know, corroboration.

    Something you deniers don’t do.

    “And no even a link to ‘Idiot-Tracker’?”

    Yup, what’s up with that?

    “And you even try to tell me about the scientific method”

    Yeah, this does rather require you’re actually capable of learning.

    But you find ignorance much more comfortable.

  57. #57 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “He says he remember 1988 in souther France”

    Remembers. Past tense.

    Southern. Souther would be wrong.

    Then again, I’m far far more intelligent than you.

    And GSW didn’t spot it. Because he’s no smarter than you.

    “How did he did that you think? Spent many summer vacations there?”

    Well that would work, wouldn’t it.

    Or looked at decades of records of weather. You know, evidence. Something you and the other deniers don’t do, because that would require learning and reading. These are not your strong points.

    “A guy who ferrets about idiots and deniers and links to ‘Idiot Tracker'”

    Ferrets: either an animal or an activity of looking around for something.

    Again, another word incorrectly used.

    Whats up with that?

  58. #58 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “” Do you normally go around making up figures and asserting them as fact?”

    I think he decided that was his best shot”

    Yeah, it’s not as if you could answer it, is it.

    You just make shit up and assert them as fact.

  59. #59 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    I see that Bernard J, chek, Lionel and Wow are trying to reaffirm each other in the protected zone. Bernard still tries to evade the absence of any proper sciencethat does establlish the AR4 claim, by demanding that I provide him with a the list that didn’t ..

    But what would there possibly be to ‘destroy’ with Wow? More than three words and he is lost … An extremely poor analogy about a car becomes the core of his belie:. It is hidden in there, among the parts. He can see it, and ‘the scientists’ he assures …

    No I appreciate him/it because the others too think his points are so valid … :-)

  60. #60 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “He thinks his car part analogy was clever … ”

    Oh, now you’ve learned a new word!

    Well done, boy. Here’s a bikkit for you! Nice bikkit! Mmmmm.

    Of course, it’s far beyond your comprehension, though, isn’t it.

    Too dumb to read, too thick to think.

  61. #61 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Spelling not a problem Jonas.”

    I see, you’re one of those New-Age PC “There’s no such thing as a wrong answer” sort of people who ruined teaching.

  62. #62 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “I see that Bernard J, chek, Lionel and Wow are trying to reaffirm each other in the protected zone”

    Yeah, the insane often have visions and fantasies.

    The failure of the liver will do that to you.

    “Bernard still tries to evade the absence of any proper sciencethat does establlish the AR4 claim, ”

    Still forgotton how to read, Joan?

    You’ve been given a long list of proper science that establishes the AR4 claim.

    But then again, your brain can’t hold on to anything beyond the 10-minute limit of short term memory.

    The old and drunk frequently have this problem.

    The problem is you’re thick, Joan.

  63. #63 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “An extremely poor analogy about a car becomes the core of his belie:”

    Well, it’s “belief” first of all.

    And the analogy was perfect. You’re just too stupid to understand.

    I’d explain, but you wouldn’t get it.

  64. #64 GSW
    December 8, 2012

    @Jonas

    “But what would there possibly be to ‘destroy’ with Wow”

    Your reasoning, as always, is flawless. Can’t argue with that.
    ;)

  65. #65 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    Ah, GSW and Joan are only talking with each other. But still wish to complain nobody else is talking to them. Of course, when you’re as nuts as a sack of squirrels on crack, coherent thought is impossible.

    The echo chamber is the only place they feel safe.

    And idiots prefer the company of themselves.

    You two love-birds enjoy each other’s company now.

  66. #66 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “GSW
    December 8, 2012

    @Jonas

    “But what would there possibly be to ‘destroy’ with Wow”

    Your reasoning, as always, is terrible. Can’t argue with that.
    ;)”

    Indeed, can’t argue with that. Joan really IS a terrible thinker.

  67. #67 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    ” More than three words and he is lost … ”

    Yeah, the baby thinks that because THEY can’t see you, you can’t see them. Because he’s lost after three words of reading, he thinks that I must be too.

    Joan hasn’t yet finished teething.

  68. #68 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    There was no problem with the translation. And I agree ..

    But what was Lionel A thinking there? Trying to pass himself off as a seasoned professional!?

  69. #69 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    Well, yes.

    He is a seasoned professional. He said so. It’s not all about CVs and so on, you know.

  70. #70 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    Ah Wow, you think that I should talk to you too? About what? Your many fantasies? Your blind faith in things you have neither seen nor would understand if you did? Your compulsive posting rants?

    Sorry, but there is no content, and there is no reasoning. You are unable to form any choherent argument, just line up random statements of not very interesting beliefs …

  71. #71 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    Wow, you got one three word sentence right:

    “He said so”

    Pretty spot on, I would say! Now, what was the argument you tried to build upon that?

  72. #72 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “what was the argument you tried to build upon that?”

    That you’re a CV-fist-shaking supporter and are trying to claim that a fact must be supported by a CV.

  73. #73 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    Ah, talk of blind faith!

    Your blind faith in Monckton.

    Your blind faith in how AGW is all a scam.

    All because you don’t understand science.

  74. #74 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    “Trying to pass himself off as a seasoned professional!?”

    What was your argument here? Or were you just confused at all the words?

  75. #75 Jonas N
    December 8, 2012

    As I said, Wow ..

    Up to three words, you’re doing OK. At least sometimes. Here is another sentence, and two words there you got right. But again bungled it completely when you tossed in more words:

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

    For your convenience I highlighted the two correct words for you …

  76. #76 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    Yes, so you can bold two words.

    Well done. Have a bikkit.

    Now what was your argument you’re trying to build from there ‘cos at the moment you’re completely lost.

  77. #77 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    Tell us, Joan, are you wearing your underpants on your head with two pencils stuffed up your nose?

    ‘cos you’re wibbling.

  78. #78 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    Underpants getting in the way?

  79. #79 Lionel A
    December 8, 2012

    Sigh! I know not why I grapple with this pig (JN), but here we go again.

    No chek,

    I don’t go wrong. I am asking the right questions.

    Well JN that is where you are dead wrong WRT Sandy for you see, well you would have done had you bothered to look past your growing nose, you were asking the wrong question as Kevin Trenberth wrote:

    According to NCAR senior climatologist Kevin E. Trenberth, “The answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question.

    Found here: Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change you can download the PDF and the quote is found on the very first page where Trenberth continues:

    All weather events are affected by climate change
    because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.

    Which is what has been explained to you time and time again for you have to admit to writing this:

    December 2, 2012

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

    Wrongly phrased for I understand (not believe) that part of Sandy can be attributed to human CO2 emissions for reasons explained up thread and reinforced by Trenberth and also a study of the physical science.

    Here is another variant from you December 5, 2012 :

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

    A link has been established, unless of course you don’t understand the meaning of your own phrases.

    And here is another cracker, December 4, 2012:

    But I really wonder: Why are you all so keen on having various disasters occuring?

    No you dolt, this is typical denier logic fail,.we don’t want these disasters to happen you muppet we are trying to help prevent them, or now being late prevent the worst of theme.

    You are flailing and failing.

  80. #80 chek
    December 8, 2012


    “But I really wonder: Why are you all so keen on having various disasters occuring?”

    “No you dolt, this is typical denier logic fail”,

    I hate to contradict you Lionel, but that wasn’t ‘logic’ of the denier kind, or any other.

    It was an example of sheer batshit fruitcakery of the most insane kind. Most likely a product of the same mental disorder that likens zoology to farming, and therefore most likely the same source of support that magically (along with the magical thinking involved in ‘wishing’ disasters) turns up when Jonarse paints himself into the inevitable corners his crazed logic and overweening vanity leads him into.

    I’m off out for the night now, but I woudn’t be all that surprised to find various if not many, many love letters of support for our mentally unstable hero posted here upon the morrow.

  81. #81 FrankD
    December 9, 2012

    100 times, Jonas.

    I only asked for the basis of that number. And all you gave me was projection.

    C’mon, J – as a scientist – how did you derive the figure of 100 times. Why should we think that Monckton knows 100 times as much as Gore and not 50 times. Or 10 times. Or some other number.

    You make an assertion, but do you have any backing for it?

    Even your dopey fanboi GSW thinks this is rhetoric. But would you use rhetoric, J? You’re all about the facts, aren’t you, But if I have misunderstood, and it was just empty posturing, just say so. I won’t think less of you for admitting it. And then we can start considering your many other assertions that turned out to also be rhetorical flourishes.

    I’m just trying to get to the facts here Jonas. Seems like your more interested in wafting impressive-sounding but baseless numbers about. So how do you determine “100 times”?

    “that’s the imporession [sic] you gave and what I thought.”
    Jonas, I’m not responsible for your incorrect assumptions, so you don’t need to project your error onto me. Perhaps you can (as I asked earlier) point to where I defended Gore. You can just admit you were wrong on your assumption. I won’t think less of you.

  82. #82 GSW
    December 9, 2012

    @FrankD

    !t’s a hyperbole Frank

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

    “Hyperbole (play /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, “exaggeration”) is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.[2]”

    Not difficult to come to terms with I would have thought. The x100 is a hypebole and not meant to be taken literally. It’s a very common form of rhetoric.

    If you have link saying “error bars” should be attached Hyperboles, please post, I could do with a laugh.

    Anyway, thanks for stopping bye again.

  83. #83 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    “!t’s a hyperbole Frank”

    Since hypberbole is not countable, you mean “It’s hyperbole”.

    But still the statement is wrong. Monckton is medically brain damaged. Graves disease. He was never smart before then, but he’s unhinged and he’s made up his past to suit what he would prefer to be (since reality doesn’t matter anywhere near as much as his ego).

    But if Joan’s statement was hyperbole, then prove Mocnkton is smarter than Gore.

  84. #84 Jonas N
    December 9, 2012

    FrankD

    “about 100 times” means exactly that. Look, Al Gore does not really know that much. He would look like a fool on a level playing field with almost any skeptic. He, like so many others on your side, is patently incapable of even getting the skeptic viewpoints correctly.

    All he has is meomorized talkning points he doesn’t really understand. Dividing anything by near zero yields high numbers. 100 times is reasonable considering his fact to nonsens/strawman ratio.

    But I’m sorry to say, your ‘questions’ here sound ike quite boring posturing about something you clearly didn’t assume was a ‘scientific statement’. Why you then need to pretend it was anything else than the obvious, I don’t know. But hey, this is Deltoid and the regulars pretend to be ‘interested’ in about anything else but the relevant and core issues ..

    Regarding ‘Incorrect assumptions’ you get it wrong too. Firstly I was describing my thoughts, my assumptions. Just as I also stated. And correctly! Secondly, posturing people like yourself, rarely ever present what they mean or their objectivs openly and honestly.

    So my assumptions are still the same. Your alleged interest in ‘errorbars for that number 100′, I don’t give one bit for. Its all about the posturing. And this time your pretence was a relative comparison between Monckton (which many here obsess about) and Al Gore which not even I hold against you.

    It is only Lionel who brings up Oreskes, Lancaster, Gelbspan seemingly unaware of that essentailly all these stories revolve around the same few bits of alleged data and allegations. Well, Jeff Harvey is obsessed too with those secret millions constantly flowing towars skepticism, and which never materialize or can be substatiated

    But I agree with GSW, please continue to pretend to be interested in errorbars and stating numbers correctly or even as facts here at Deltoid. Your arguments for this ‘interest’ are entertaining too …

  85. #85 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    ““about 100 times” means exactly that”

    Ah, so GSW was wrong.

    ” Al Gore does not really know that much”

    From his CV:

    After achieving a 1355 (out of 1600) on his SAT, he applied and enrolled in Harvard College.

    he enlisted in the U.S. Army despite his opposition with the Vietnam War. According to Gore, he felt it was his civic duty to serve his country and he ended up in Vietnam in 1971 for the last seven months of his service.

    he was elected to his first term as a Representative in 1976.

    He served in the House until 1984 when he ran for and won a seat in the Senate. Al Gore served as Senator from Tennessee until 1993 when he became the forty-fifth vice president.

    After serving two terms as vice-president under Bill Clinton…

    And he runs a company. Quite a successful one.

    Now, where is YOUR CV, Joan?

  86. #86 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    Meanwhile you have ZERO experience.

    Monckton claims he has cured AIDS and Graves Disease. Claims he’s a member of the House of Lords and claims he was science adviser for Mrs Thatcher (a chemist) as opposed to the reality: he was there to take notes because of his Journalism experience.

    Yes, the same people who bugged the phone of a grieving family to dig up dirt on the dead girl included Monckton.

  87. #87 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    “Regarding ‘Incorrect assumptions’ you get it wrong too. Firstly I was describing my thoughts, my assumptions.”

    Yup, they’re wrong. “Incorrect assumptions”. And you got it wrong there too when you claimed he “get[sic] it wrong too”.

  88. #88 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    “for that number 100′, I don’t give one bit for. Its all about the posturing”

    Indeed, that fiture (and indeed the claim for error bars) is all just posturing.

    Because you’re clueless.

  89. #89 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    “It is only Lionel who brings up Oreskes, Lancaster, Gelbspan seemingly unaware of that essentailly all these stories revolve around the same few bits of alleged data and allegations”

    That’s your allegation.

    Indeed it is all you have: allegation.

    No proof.

    You don’t do proof.

    Because you have no proof.

  90. #90 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    “Dividing anything by near zero yields high numbers.”

    And a stitch in time saves nine.

    However, like your statements, they bear no relation to the claims around.

    Where are these divisions being made?

    Oh, just another assertion. No proof.

  91. #91 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    “So my assumptions are still the same”

    Yup, they’re incorrect.

  92. #92 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    “Firstly I was describing my thoughts, my assumptions. Just as I also stated. And correctly!”

    Moncktonian there.

    Yes, you were correctly stating your statement. The statement and thoughts are incorrect.

    That is correct: your statements are incorrect.

  93. #93 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    “He, like so many others on your side, is patently incapable of even getting the skeptic viewpoints correctly. ”

    This is because they don’t say what their viewpoint is based on.

    When one side is saying “So where’s your evidence for your claim of a worldwide conspiracy?” and you’re saying “Dividing numbers by a small number makes them bigger!!!”, there’s no viewpoint expressed from the deniers.

    Just noise.

  94. #94 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    “All he has is meomorized talkning points”

    He understands them just fine.

    What makes you claim otherwise?

  95. #95 Jonas N
    December 9, 2012

    FrankD, it seems you have a mate who also tries to defend al Gore now …

    :-)

  96. #96 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    And where are you going with that?

    Or are you being pointless again?

  97. #97 Wow
    December 9, 2012

    Problem is, see, Monckton is a paedo.

    Anthony Watts helps groom for him (I mean, just look at that ‘tash! It’s definitely a paedo ‘tash!).

  98. #98 chek
    December 9, 2012

    As expected, the Griselda support personality has been busy.
    And Jonarse, Al Gore is a politician the USA. Not a climate scientist.

  99. #99 Lionel A
    December 9, 2012

    Not evidence of ‘big oil’ buying scientists per se but nonetheless buying the policy makers to sidestep the science, which is just as heinous GOP Energy Chair Received Last-Minute Big Oil Donations After Hinting Oil Subsidies Could End

    The second oldest profession in the world here, corrupt bought politicians, could be hand in hand with the first too and thus compromised. They can be viewed as different sides of the same coin.

    Note post 5 by Ozonator and the reference to working in a dangerous, toxic environment. Don’t I know it! Upton willing to allow ‘favours’ for a mere 5k, shameful. Indeed high class hookers cost more for all-nighters.

  100. #100 Jonas N
    December 9, 2012

    No Lionel,

    ‘pig’ and ‘dolt’ are not arguments either. Neither are statements by Kevin Trenberth. Trenberth btw is hardly the guy who gets to say which questions are right or wrong to ask. He was one of the early IPCC scandals about trying (falsly) attributing weather and storms to AGW. Against those who knew better.

    That things change when things change is a trivial truism. Hwoever, the relevant question, the attempt to make part of Sandy attributed to humans is not.I asked that specific question to see if there were some among your not abadoning knowledge (the insight of its non existence) with faith.

    You too seemed more than anything wanting to see and hoping to believe some kind of human CO2-link to Sandy. And you can’t to that. Listing that there are numerous on your side, will not establish any such attribution.

    Especially since there has not been any discernable trend regarding extreme events like this. Not even heatwaves are worse than corresponding to what one would expect at a slight increase in temperatures.

    The whole ‘extreme weather’ meme is another red herring and essentially independent of what some dream might be caused by CO2 and the tmeperatures.

    And no, Lionel, you cannot do any such attribution. Nobody can. And those who make claims like this are either guessing wildly, lying or just plain incompetent …

Current ye@r *