P.O. Box 98199
Washington, DC 20090-8199
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
Politics are dirty, have always been. Jeffs (and others) claimed that milions were flowing to skeptical voices secretly …
Jeffs (and others) claimed that milions were flowing to skeptical voices secretly …
Well they were correct.
But then arguing with you is like trying to nail a jelly to the wall. You duck and dive and weave around every bit of evidence placed in front of you.
Al Gore is a politician. Who received several awards for his mockumentary on dangerous climate change caused by ‘climate pollution’.
He is a joke in this debate. By every standard. And he is a coward and dishonest too. But as I said, I don’t hold Gore against you. I wouldn’t even have expected anyone trying to defend his drivel (but apparently there were).
Wha’ts your point? I pointed out that many among you obsess about Monckton. And what a joke his counterpart is on your side. But I must revise that. Nowadays, Gore unsuccessfully tries to engage children scoring points in an online debunk-by-cut’n'paste-ready-phrases-game.
Not even your own side takes Gore seriously or wants him anywhere near. Well, at least not anybody with some remaining sense and integrity …
No Jeff wasn’t correct, and he couldn’t present äny millions either. Neither can Gore, Oreskes, Mann, and those others who incessantly speak about those ‘well founded organized and orhestrated attacks on ..’ what they want to portray as ‘climate science’.
The real science community, which involves quite a few more than that self selected cirkle, has much more diverse and nuanced views on the topic of climate science that what you can pick up at SkSc or DeSmogBlog …
In short: Anybody claiming anything is even closer to ‘settled science’ is not part of the science.
I have opened the Trenberth-link. It’s not very good. But he probaly states the things you would like to beleive in. Albeit even he is careful not to overstate his case. However, the case he is trying to make is just that: A tentative case he wants to make. And it’s extremely thin. Already in the beginning he mostly needs to rely on modelling of the effects. Furhter he wants to apply his reverted version of a null hypothesesis to his arguments, he essentially gives away what he wants to accomplish. He wants to argue that others should prove that any certain event was not affected by any human part of any climate change.
Sorry, Lionel. He certainly shares your views. But demonstrating any such specific attribution he cannot do. And he even states so, ie that your:
” part of Sandy can be attributed to human CO2 emissions for reasons explained up thread “-attempt
is wonglly phrased. Now, I don’t expect you to understand that or why it is so. And the fact that you try to put in a “reinforced by Trenberth and also a study of the physical science” once again shows that you rather spout words that you hope sound convincing than have the capacity to convince using reality based arguments.
By now, you should have understood that appeals to claimed authorities on your own side don’t really cut it. Especially when they don’t even claim what you ar trying to get across ..
The point is Jonarse is that deniers like you and all the rest have nothing to say, apart from griping about your imaginings of what science is, bitching and slandering real scientists, the attempted smearing of anyone who agrees with them or defers to their expertise, and inventing phantom ranks of imaginary ‘silent majority’ scientist who of course agree with you but are otherwise unknown except to the stupid and gullible that activists like you prey on .
That’s what you do because you have nothing. No science and not even a coherent counter argument.
I see you are pretending to be cocky in the December thread. Along with several of those who have been cocky too before, about that AR4-claim and its alleged base on proper science.
No problem with me. I don’t expect much more from the regulars here. But if you don’t want to be laughed at för exactly the same reasons, you need to dp far better than that.
Bernard J really really really wants to hope that there si proper science behind his beliefs (and so do many others). But non of them can produce any. In their case, mostly because they couldn’t read science either. So they really don’t know. But for sure, some of them have at least attempted to find this or similar claims in the (then) published litterature. And failed. So all they have still is only hope, that somebody else has seen it and knows …
Look Lionel, you are not in the best of positions here. Linking to DesmogBlog, to Idiot-Tracker and SkSc, referring to Gelbsan and Oreskes etc, while trying to pass off as a seasoned professional.
Aligning yourself with Bernard J on this matter surely won’t help you. And any proper science for that claim, you most certainly haven’t seen. Meaning: You too are hoping it to be valid in blind faith …
But he probaly states the things you would like to beleive in
No he most definitely makes statements that support the fact that Sandy was linked to global warming. No probably about it.
Also, I understand these facts it is not a belief system, that is for the dog-watchers like you.
As for ‘settled science’ of course in the wider context the science is not settled and nobody claims it is. What is claimed, correctly, is that enough science of climate is understood to know that we are conducting a very dangerous experiment by burning as much fossil fuel as we can.
And its not all about models, but I suppose you are an expert on those too. What sort of models are you referring to? Do you even know how models are constructed, and run. Hint, much understood physics is used for parametrization and constructing the equations at the heart of models.
Can you state supply me with some of the essential constants and how they are derived? That means state them btw.
If you cannot, or will not, understand that is your tough!
What most of you here are arguing has nothing to do with science. And almost everythin to do with faith and religion.
I don’t even know what particular part you are attacking in your latest comment. But it would suffice that you finally (almost six years later) show me that there was proper and solid science on which the IPCC built their most prominent claim upon.
That’s all. Just show it if it exists. Consult as many ‘climate scientists’ in the world trying to help you as you please. But present it without further deflection.
But if you can’t, you just can’t. And neither can Bernard, Jeff, nor Lionel and all the others. Or any climate sicentist in the world. Regardless if ew use the narrow selfselected defintion or include real scientists too.
That’s all there is to it.I Don’t even blame you for not fininding it. I am far mor inquisitive than you ever were, and I have never seen or found anything even getting close to such science. The only difference is that I don’t accept claims on pure faith.
Which scientists would I be smearing BTW? When I say that no such science exists? Because it is the other way around. No scientists have put their name behind such a specific claim, and also shown how they arrived at it .. None!
The silent majoiryt? Really? That would be your side, who regularly claim to speak for ‘the scientific community’, as Jeff for instance.
The whole idea, of the existance of such a unified community, and that it would take a common stance on such a unresoved issue, by it self is ludicrous … And is only forwarded by a small number of named voices … most of which btw know very little about the matter.
Yes he probably makes statements that ‘support’ the idea. And I even think he truly belives the existance of a connection.
But that was never the questions. From early on, I acknowledged that many on your side would like to believe such things.
But I asked if you (and Jeff, and others) thought that one can make such an attribution. Which is something very different.
I already know what people belive on your side Lionel, That’s why I ask to see the science.
Re: Models, I have said plenty about those. I am not opposed at all to them. But in ‘climate science’ models substitute reality far to often, and are used for arguments presented on your side. Models which have almost no predictive skills …
But if you were the seasoned professional you claimed to be, you’d of course know that already!
Yes Jonarse, your routine goes down well with the anti-intellectuals your denier base cultivates Professional scientists and those in related fields are over-reliant on models, or are over-reaching or are seeing things that aren’t there or otherwise just plain wrong one way or another that’s never actually specified or quantified – in your untrained, uneducated and unprofessional view.
But then, that’s all you can do when you’re a nobody playing the fostering doubt game without having any viable counter argument. And without that crucial ingredient, you’re a nobody from nowhere with nothing.
How many times have you tried calling me ‘jonarse’ by now? And who do think is the anti-intellectual?
I have asked you, all the others, and those you refer to as ‘professional scientists’ for the basis of the most prominent claim by the IPCC AR4 .. and you guys come up with repsonses like ‘jonars’ or ‘denialist’ ..
There really isn’t that much to add, is there?
And mind you, I’m not fostering doubt here. I’m pointing out the bleeding obvious. Doubt is the natural state of good science, and it’s not even necessary here.
And of course, we have people on your side trying to write books about ‘doubt’ no longer being essential in the quest for improved knowledge, that today proper trust in bureaucratic constructed ‘authorities’ suffices ..
Well call me old fashioned, but I still would like to see the evidence before the veridct is decided.
And also, those who decide on the veridict and think the evidence may (or may not) come in later … they don’t really convince me. About anything.
Re: Models, I have said plenty about those.
But nothing that made any sense or indicated that you understood their function, varied depending upon the model, or anything else about them.
Once again you skated around direct questions. You have nothing just like the one interviewed here being a Wendy Wright of climate science. Note how polite the recipient of her tripe was.
You will know be know as Wendy, leader of the Wendy Club from here on in.
You will now be known as Wendy, leader of the Wendy Club from here on in. Arthritic finger trouble this damp evening.
I don’t think you’ve read even a fraction of this thread. So stop telling what I have not ever said. Most of you are all about attacking strawmen when you think you are talking ti ‘deniers’, while already that term indicates that you not really are with the program …
I have no clue why you bring up some Wendy now? Sounds as disconnected as ‘dog watch’ earlier. But you where on the Oreseks/Gore/Gelspan believer side before .. weren’t you?
Jonarse, calling you out for being a particularly stupid arse – so stupid it has become ingrained in your name now – is not anti-intellectual. It’s public recognition of your role as an arse spraeding arseyness wherever you go in what you like to imagine is the continuation of the fine tradition of scepticism, but in your case it isn’t, it’s merely being an arse.
Real anti-intellectualism is exemplified by those – like you and your little support posse (chuckle) attempting to denigrate, say, zoology as ‘farming’, or that ‘alarmists’ “want” disasters to happen by predicting them. That’s real stupid-arse stuff that insults the intellect.
To Jonarse’s list of arse attributes I should of course add the cumulative impacts of the freely provided list of AR4 Chapter 9 papers demonstrating the human impact on climate leading to the >90% (really >95%) probability claim.agreed by the world’s leading climate scientists, none of which he has any specific disagreement with (he hasn’t read any of them, except when he suddenly decides he has).
Jonarse just ‘doubts’ it..Which is good enough for paid up shilldom everywhere, but laughable elsewhere.
Some of you seemingly pride themselves for finding the AR4 WG9 references. And hope that their existence somehow make the point none of you can make, or even dare to approach.
It’s quite enterteining. You, Bernard, Wow, point frantically at tht list, claim ‘it must be in there, somwhere’ and pretend that your ‘finding that list for me’ somehow shows how ‘intellectual’ you all are.
It’s all very cute. And the contorsions you go through (and the vocabulary you use) to redifine reality is endearing … But won’t fly.
Before you handle or at least look at reality, you’re still in denial
Yep, that’s your one and only riff but it doesn’t work because it’s an argument from ignorance.
Which is why you punt it to the stupid and deluded and ignorant, and have never taken it anywhere it would make an impact if it were true.
Wrong again chek, it’s definitely not my ‘only riff’
But it’s one so simple that even you and your cohorts can understand it, if you only let go clinging to the denial-faith, that thescience none of you (or anybody else) has never seen …
.. after all is in there, well hidden and disguised as something else, in that long list.
And no, the calim was 90% certainty, definitely not 95%. And as we know, IPCC-90% means just nothing more than asking the claimant one extra time: ‘Are you sure?’
However, in this case, not even a named cliamant ….
Here is a good illustration of your own desperation. You say:
“Which is why you punt it to the stupid and deluded and ignorant, and have never taken it anywhere it would make an impact if it were true”
First, you demonstrate that it’s only blind faith on your behalf, that you really don’t know (and propably never have encountered anybody who knows either). Secondly, you demonstrate that this place is not capable of even addressing the obvious and very simple question: Is there a reference to that claim? And thirdly, as so many others here, you want to invent (fabricate) what I have done and have not.
It also shows how desperately you want my observation to be untrue. Just because it matters, and you know why.
But as I said, only blind faithers, or disingeneous activists make this claim nowadays. And actively chose denial and to remain ignorant after this has been pointed out to them.
BTW, I don’t think all readers here are ” stupid and deluded and ignorant”, but I think that those who actually understand the matter (and are on your side of the climatescare belief) will keep quite about this. Since it hardly furthers that belief if discussed openly …
That’s not an answer Jonarse, you’re just riffing again.
The fact is your riff only works on lamebrain deniers and you’ve got nowhere else to go with it . Not even your handful of sceptic scientists (Spencer/Lindzen/Curry/) will touch it because arguments from ignorance would make them look bad.
You weren’t asking anything, so there is no need to ‘answer’ anything either. Instead I was once more explaining the landscape to you, whcih you still seem to deny and avoid through the weirdest constructs of why you should remain ignorant.
The latest attempt was to claim to speak for Curry and Lindzen!? What an utter joke you are. Do you really think that? Full blown mythomaniac? Jeff thinks he speaks for ‘the scientific community’ which already as a concept is idiotic in its absurdity.
The problem is that there aren’t even any scientists (no non-skeptics either) who’ve put their name scientifically behind such that AR4 claim.
And although, you and the Jeff-Bernards of the world more than anything would like it to be differently … you have not found any such names or publication(s). And nobody you know and ask has either … it’s just repetition of ‘but there is a long list of references’
As I said, chek, you are still in denial. And your lame attempts to make me responsible for that, or for the lack of proper science is just laughable!
You, here, where you all pretend that ‘the peer reviewed science’ is the gold standard of truth … have no clue. Or worse, and by now: Are in full denial!
“Instead I was once more explaining the landscape to you,”
That would be geography, Joan.
Try to stick with the program, and don’t bring in side issues to cloud the fact that you’re incompetent.
December 9, 2012
‘pig’ and ‘dolt’ are not arguments either. ”
Joan, Loinal was just letting you know the facts. The facts are not an agument, the argument is supported by facts.
The fact is you’re a dipshit. Dolt. Moron. Denier.
“As I said, chek, you are still in denial. ”
And as we’ve said, you’re wrong.
Wow … pulling out ‘facts’ again from between his ears … What’s new?
Still getting it wrong, Jonas.
When will you ever make a correct statement?
PS your brain is between your ears.
Yours? Anyone’s guess.
It’s a fact Jonas is wrong.
And when he says “pulling facts from your ears” he may mean “wrong” but in fact he is, yet again, wrong in that attribution.
Indeed he has two states: wrong and wrong.
Wow … have you found any references yet, establishing that AR4 claim? Or is it still only between your ears that you can imagine there (metaphorically) is a car with specified performance among the many pieces of scrap metal that all we others both easily can find and see and identify?
Oh dear Wow, your really quite good car analogy didn’t work so I don’t think he’s ever going to see the forest by examining individual trees either.
Between you and evreyone, I think he could, but it’s his one hit riff on the bobblehead circuit that earns him that great following he’s got..
So chek ..
You also think there is a car in there, among the parts, and with a very specific performance, but that this claim does not have to be detailed anyhere in particular. And the asserted magnitudes are the results of ‘seeing the bigger picture, the car among all the parts, and its performance’!?
Is that your position now? Only the emporor can see the clothes?
Thing is chek, had there been any such specifics, or only claimes to what they show, we could have moved on to the next step: Examining them, to se what they are actually worth.
But since none of you even knows of an attempt to establish said specifics, we can’t really scrutinize that work has been done, and to see if it holds water.
We need to ‘trust’ dignitaries like the IPCC or those anonymous people signing off the SPM that among all this rubble is a finely tuned car which can do things nobody else in the world manages (determine such certainties)
Sorry chekky-chap, this is not how it works in science. Especially not if you want to claim this is the best assessment available, from the best experts there are, undergoing the most elaborate peer-review ever devised ..
As long as you can’t show it … you are still only and blindly repeating it in faith.
“But since none of you even knows of an attempt to establish said specifics, we can’t really scrutinize that work has been done, and to see if it holds water”.
The specifics are in the papers listed that Chapter 9 is based on.
“Sorry chekky-chap, this is not how it works in science.”
Well it’s not like you’d actually know, or your opinion has any value, with you not actually being a scientist and having to rely on your fantasy idea of how it works. Like most deniers in fact.
No chek, they are not!
If they were, somebody would have seen/found them by now, and one could scrutinize how the established that 90% certainty.
Before you present such work, you are just guessing and hoping blindly. In desperate .. I wouldn’t even call it faith anymore since your arguments are shifting and drifting … now it’s a forrest … and the trees somehow.
But no, real science works exactly in the way I describe it: Specific claims are presented together with how one arrived at them.
Your incessant denialist/deniar-ramblings are just idiotic .. have been the entire time. As have many of your other methods …
You”re really just talking rubbish now Jonarse. The attribution of greater than 90% is supported by the work in Chapter 9, and likely will produce a figure with greater confidence based on more recent dataand aa longer period in AR5.
Cranks and deniers will never be convinced, nor have you produced anything of value by way of data to counter the estimation.
Other than naysaying and phoney ‘arguments’ about what you ‘believe’ science to be or should be, you had and still have nothing at all.
Chek … show me that proper science, or admit (what you already know). There is no such science to be found. A bit of handwaiving in chapter 9, but no references.
You guys have for 1½ years been trying to evade the obvious. That you had and still have no clue …
And most of you seem patently unable to deal with real science, don’t even know what the scientific method is. On the most basic of levels, chek. Like not just inventing facts and numbers ..
All that trash talk you’ve been spewing doesn’t change any of this. And deep down you know it. You just can’t handle it …
Do yourself a favour, and a favour for everyone else around here, by watching this from start to finish:
Tyndall Lecture: GC43I. Successful Predictions
You do realise the significance of the name Tyndall I suppose. If not then the book mentioned towards the end ‘The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast‘ by David Archer (Editor), Ray Pierrehumbert (Editor) will help you out.
You will hear something about the development and use of models and how disparities between model projections and recorded data were tackled and reconciled. Science is always on going as studies supply answers but pose other questions. As I wrote no body this side of the argument agrees that all the science is settled just enough of it to know that, ‘Houston, we have a problem’, and so will Houston as the seas continue to rise.
Now, no more prevaricating, or dodging of direct questions or asking of wrong questions which are hallmarks of the errant denier. Try learning something for once for it takes longer than a dog-watch (and I did explain to you what that was about so don’t play dumb) of attention to get the bigger picture.
Actually Lionel, I tried to watch that yesterday and stopped. The images of Lindzen and then, Christie and Spencer with the a big red stamp of Wrong over the top was pretty bad. It’s one thing having a bit of a “rough and tumble”, name calling on a blog, but at a fall meeting of the AGU? Pierrehumbert doesn’t seem to be able to tell the difference.
It’s easy to think of a few on the Alarmist side who have been wrong, Hansens forecasts from twenty years ago for example. But he didn’t get the same “Treatment”, so pretty bad IMO. Crossed a line on professional courtesy there, says more about Pierrhumbert than the individuals he had a go at.
Facts always bother you, don’t they Griselda?
Lindzen was wrong about his ‘iris’ fantasy, and Christie & Spencer’s work was a disaster until RSS found what they were doing wrong and put it right.
Describing them as ‘wrong’is being professionally kind; incompetent and/or misleading to cater to their political/religious views might well be closer to the truth
…and no, you can’t say the same about Jim Hansen, despite what your echoing sewers lead you to believe.
It’s OK chek, I know you don’t understand the point being made, why should you?
It’s OK Griselda, I understand you don’t understand your tone trolling is meaningless and factually incorrect.
Pierrehumbert doesn’t seem to be able to tell the difference.
Tell the difference between what exactly. Another example of woolly thinking from you.
As for Lindzen, Spencer and Christie the deserved those labels, why because they are still being wrong when speaking to lay audiences or in places where they are not challenged on the spot like they should be.
Indeed Lindzen is bordering on the territory of ‘Not Even Wrong’ as he tries to still push the message that climate sensitivity is low. There is next to no signal coming out of his noise.
In addition take note you of The Wendy Club, as you watch that Tyndall lecture presentation note the diagram that resembles the shape seen in reds here:
2012 Is The Hottest, Most Extreme Year In U.S. History,
the resemblance struck me as soon as I saw that slide in the lecture.
chek, Christy and SPencer corrected anad improved their analysis along the way, when they learnt more. I have no clue where you gor ‘disaster’ from, but it certainly does not reflect reality. It is probably the same stupid stuff you pick up at your activist sites.
Spencer and Christy improving their results is common practice in real science. The denial of problems of any kind is the opposite.
If you were interested in disasters, there are plenty on your side. And I don’t mean honest mistakes that were promptly corrected.
Lionel, the problem for you is that there is essentially no emprical support for a high sensitivity. True, there are those who wish for it, model it. But the empirical support is scarce and of low quality. You wouldn’t know that of course, since your method is to read what you want to hear and then to believe in it.
You earlier claimed to be a seasoned professional, but your arguments mostly are of the level: My dad is stronger than yours, I know, he told me so …
Right Jonarse, so you not only deny denial exists, and deny organised funded denial exists, but you also now deny history.
Wow you really are aiming to be the denier’s denier aren’t you?
Well, when you’ve finished congratulating yourself on creating your very own space-time continuum where everything’s just lovely for you and your whacko beliefs to live happily ever afte together, you might like to look up Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel (of RSS), and perhaps recall thatyour lies are easily found out, you incorrigibly stupid wazzuck.
chek, the obvious denial visible is you guys arguing there is proper science which nobody has seen or can name ..
With respect to RSS, it is true that Wentz discovered a calculation error which subsequently was corrected. This is how proper science works. It definitely was no major error, much less a disaster. But one term had the wron sign.
It is you nutters who scram ‘disaster’ over such things. And defend Mann’s and other’s shenaningans to the bitter end.
BTW, where did you pick up that this should have been a ‘disaster’? Certainly you haven’t checked any details for yourself (as with that infamous AR4 claim), but are repeating hysterics you found on some other screaming activis site? Exaggerating it further.
Again, you accuse me wrongly of lying when it was you who (again) was very ill informed.
BTW, these things have been covered in this thread before, remember? But probably not.
I would like to point out that you once more tried the stupid denier-label which is completely unappropriate for science, even if you disagree, and attempt to use it for those who not blindly accept your version (ie belief) in a fixed narrative.
I would call this practice stupid. Nothing else. But there seems to be a patterns.
BTW, there is no funding of ‘denial’ since this term only exists inside the extremely narrow mindset of activists who cannot argue their case.
BTW have you still not found that tree in the forrest you how established your beliefs?
You just can’t help yourself, can you Jonarse? You don’t need to lie (as you never tired of telling us ~ 2K posts ago) but you do it all the time.
chek, what is it with your screechers?
Can’t argue one single point properly. Not even those cases where your side has a perspective worth discussing or investigating?
Can’t represent you own views in a balanced manner?
Can’t read what the other side actually says, and
Instead must invent the silliest strawmen to attack
Beliefs that a simple calculation error by someone else, somehow strengthens the hypothesis you believe in?
Incessantly scream idiot terms like ‘denialist’ ‘arse’ and the like, as part of an argument for your beliefs? Even thinking it is ‘science’ youäre arguing?
Making stuff up, because you would like it to be true?
Is there any end to what you will try to avoid approaching reality?
Jonarse, there’s no point in arguing with a liar.
Comments rely on the good faith oif those participating – and neither you nor your any of your posse possess that.
In passing, I do wonder how many of the reality based community would recognise your little bowdlerised fable version of the Spencer/RSS saga, as relayed by a crank for cranks.. And all down to one little bitty sign, eh? I’m sure the Griselda personality at least will buy that one.
“Can’t argue one single point properly…..”
chek’s another wow I’m afraid Jonas, can’t actually follow what’s being said. So just flaps around wildy making a noise.
The things you label “lies” are actually problems with your reading and comprehension skills.
chek, the difference between you and me is that I don’t need to fake anything. I don’t need to lie, or make things up, I can easily correct it those time I make a mistake. I don’t think your side’s hypothesis must be wrong because it attracts so many whackos, I evaluate things on their merits.
You and many more on your side on the other hand, see this as a verbal war, where any concession is an unbearable defeat. The obsessive use of the term ‘denier’ clearly indicates that it is a ‘take no prisoners’-approach’.
At the same time when you can’t argue almost any of the points. And you scream that there are references which nobody has ever seen.
This apporach is stupid beyond belief. A immature poorly developed field such as climate science will be open to al kinds of revisions and false alleys along its way. But you guys feel you have to go all in on one early attempt, and seemingly because it failed in so many ways. I would say that now you are the ones in denial ..
Now, obviously you don’t know a lot about climate science, and neither about real science, you don’t even understand let alone recognize a scientific argument. Activist shouting is what you are capable of. And get even angrier when you’re mocked for your ineptitude. You who here (and to some extent even publicly) have the numbers on your side, and who claim to have the science on your side´, the peer reviewed literature.
But when asked where it is, you all lose it .. and start screeching. And hoping the number of other screechers confirms you … or helps and saves you.
in one way they are cute. The have tried so many approaches, labelling with ‘deniers’ ‘arse’ and ‘lier’ is just one of them. Inbetween they have argued all kinds of other positions, why everybody shoud have to accept their faith, but without ever presenting an argumet för why one should. Sometimes, it is that they have a link which repeats their faith. But at the slightests counterquestion, it all falters and derails, and they are back at the stupid labels ..
They among them have slightly different styles, but they all back away before it comes to actually showing the strength of the cards. Now, their understanding of strength varies quite a lot. Some think that insults are strength, other hope that claims by ‘scientists’ make it science, or things stated by activist blogs, or because they can be read in a book, or listened to at a presentation.
But before it comes to any real test, they all back off and revert to that tribal groupthink ..
The most funny part I think is when I need to help them to get their own arguments right, when they don’t even are aware of their own sides best and sharpest arguments, and just spew memorized phrases they hope have anything to do with it …
Jonarse will now babble away to himself via the Griselda plug-in for a while in order to put as much space as possible up to cover his little faux pas.
Coincidentally I was revisiting “Groupthink” earlier. Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink, thought about Deltoids when I read it – there’s a character for every one. See if I can re find it.
8 simple symptoms.
Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
“they don’t even are aware of their own sides best and sharpest arguments”
Yes, I’ve noticed that as well – But it wouldn’t be much fun if we gave them clues as to what they were – a bit like having an argument with yourself.
There is something familiar about cheks debating style though, I’m sure I’ve seen it before.
My god, these two idiots talk a lot, don’t they?
Pity they can only talk bollocks.
The most funny part I think is when I need to help them to get their own arguments right, when they don’t even are aware of their own sides best and sharpest arguments
For example, when they say:
there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years
they could actually have truthfully claimed:
there has been no global warming for almost 16 years
but as we all know, they’re just a bunch of clowns.
GSW: “The x100 is a hypebole and not meant to be taken literally.”
Jonas: “about 100 times” means exactly that”
Jeebus, you’d think your claque could get its story straight on one point as simple as this. GSW, your hero Jonas says his number is to be taken literally, whatever you think. But thanks for playing.
Jonas: “it seems you have a mate who also tries to defend al Gore now …”
You still can’t show where I defended Gore, can you Jonas? If you could, you would. But rather than the smallest “concedo”, you just have to project your own reality. And you expect to be taken seriously?
Jonas: “I don’t need to fake anything. I don’t need to lie, or make things up, I can easily correct it those time I make a mistake. ”
See above. Prove it by doing it. Otherwise, you are self evidently a liar or simply delusional. Pathetic – in the literal sense. “You’re a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.”
Only trying to help, you seemed to be struggling.
Anyway you’ve had answer from the “Man” himself. Please be my guest…
Are these two STILL coming up empty?
Errorbars, or ‘getting the story straight’ on a colloquial figure of speech …
Look chap, if you think I was too flattering on the Lord or too harsh on the Veep, if your ballpark figure is closer to, say 12 .. Why dont’t you just say that?
And still FrankD. I did not claim you defended Al Gore, I said it looks or seems like it .. It still does. Your main motive of course is a different one. but your way of going about it is … ehrm, well … a bit awkward.
And seriously, you demand here on Deltoid, that things are specified, facts clearly stated, estimates accompanied by errorbars or confidence intervals? And you demand straight consistent explanations …
And you yourself fail on these demands …
Gimme a break … Or straighten your act! Empty posturing is getting so old ….
Lionel, the problem for you is that there is essentially no emprical support for a high sensitivity…
I’ll correct that for you, ‘there is no empirical support for the low climate sensitivity favoured by such as Lindzen’. None.
As ever you phrasing is poor, for it left open the value range of ‘high’.
You prove the old adage that ‘one can lead a horse to water but when the horse turns out to be an ass you cannot make it drink’. It has become abundantly clear Jonas that you are too ignorant to realise how ignorant you are, you being in fact wilfully ignorant at that.
You think others are posturing and lying when in fact that describes you to a T, if only lying to yourself. This is sad for you are beyond help unless you seek professional help from the psychoanalysts and medics.
One last thought. It has been highlighted yet again, on a nearby thread, how Heartland pays for some scientists to betray their cause as the Crockford-Polar Bear study lemon shows:
Heartland Payments to University of Victoria Professor Susan Crockford Probed.
But of course you, in another fit of empty posturing, will slander that source. Which will be a stark demonstration that it is you that is getting tedious.
With that I leave you to wrestle with yourself in the mud, you empty vessel making so much noise, with no signal apparent.
If you claim there is no empirical evidence for low sensitivity, then you are either extremely ill informed and/or extremely unfamiliar with the topic or just in outright denial ..
I would assume a bit of all those parts, Lionel ..
You can for instance look at the simulations of responses to volcanos, where the models react far more violently than observations. Or you can observe what has happened for the last ~150 years or so, to make simple estimations. And you can do quite a lot more, a bit more detailed work and arguments about why. The high sensitivity, almost always is derived using model simulations to and fitted to very limited constrained datasets.
I watched some of the videos and links you provided, but got bored pretty quick. None of them (afik) addressed the real problemativ issues and questions. It was just a repeat of the saga we hear, it was the usual stuff put out to support the hypthesis, but without really testing it trying to evaluate its consistent usefulness.
You then go on about a lot of invectives that have nothing to do at all with any such topic. Those make you look like the likes of Wow or chek. You at least seem more capable of writing sentences wich form a meaning. I’d suggest you stick to that (and leave the idiotic ranting to those who believe that this is their best argument).
Wrt to Crockford, I don’t even see the point. Firstly it is peanut crumb money, secondly it is from a think tank and to a different field than skepticism of (C)AGW, Thirdly, you have not even come close to establishing that Heartland “pays for some scientists to betray their cause” and neither have you demonstrated that it is a lemon. (And no, neither DeSmogBlog nor Jeff H opinions are valid debunkings). I haven’t even bothered to check out that story, because it again is so irrelevant to the core issues. And it bears all the hallmarks of climate scare activists running amok again over somebody not singing their tune …
And why would anybody do that?
Bring out the ones (on your side) who can argue their position without such displays if infantile spouting and other childish behaviour.
That goes for you (of course) but also for those whom you would like to portray as serious debaters of your sides version.
And No. DeSmogBlog most certainly is not among them. The very link you provided demonstrates this almost immediately. as I said, those who feel that the need to label others as ‘denialists’ etc are most definitely not the source of any knowledge or balanced or even one-sided but objective information.
It’s once more shouting feast littered with:
“climate denying Heartland Spinstitute”
“on the denier dole at Heartland”
” has a history of denying climate science”
” speaker for its anti-science International Climate Science Coalition”
Well, you call this ‘a soruce’!? Well, I think these guys are idiots, and cannot believe that any seasoned professional would consider what they say to be taken seriously.
No sorry Lionel A. This kind of stuff seems to be the main ‘source’ of your understanding about both the debate and the issues (both policy- and science-wise).
No wonder you have to fill your comments with that much activist lingo and misconceptions.
“And no, neither DeSmogBlog nor Jeff H opinions are valid debunkings”
How the hell would you know? Or are you now an expert on the population ecology of polar bears? Next you’ll be telling me you are revising Stephen Hubble’s Neutral Biodiversity model. Crockford is a pseudo IMHO. She has 19 publications and 49 citations in her career. A pittance. Nowhere in her research resume is there anything close to her doing anything related to the study of large wild quadrupeds. And for a scientist with her lack of pedigree, 750 dollars is not a tiny amount; I could support 3 Masters Projects on it, meaning 3 publications. Of course, Jonarse, you wouldn’t know about any of that, your not being a scientist and having published zippo in your non-scientific career.
You claim not to have seen the video then say that my debunking is invalid. Bullshit. My debunking is categorical. There’s nothing about recruitment, temporal lag effects or per capita fitness. End of story. And the fact that Crockford speaks at a shindig funded by two fossil-fuel funded shindigs is the clincher. If she had any common sense she’d distance herself from their stinking money and affiliation.
I now try and refrain from writing into a thread dedicated to a full blown nincompoop. But that arrogant noncompoop tends to cross the line all the time. Listen J: you can’t stand in a room with me when it comes to science. And especially anything realted to ecology. Stick with basket weaving or whatever it is you do. And by defending the Heartland Institute, all you do is make yourselof look even more like a right wing loony than you already do to most posters here.
Man, however obvious you make it they still can’t help themselves walking straight into it
Jonas then: “about 100 times” means exactly that”
Jonas now: “… on a colloquial figure of speech …”
Now Jonas can’t even agree with himself! LOL!
“Why dont’t you just say that? ”
Why would I say that when not saying it means I get watch you turn yourself inside out trying to both deny it and defend it. Too funny!
Jonas:”And you demand straight consistent explanations … And you yourself fail on these demands … Gimme a break … Or straighten your act! Empty posturing is getting so old ”
Says the guy who has nothing on Deltoid but 18 months of inconsistency and empty posturing. It’s like he’s looking in a mirror and doesn’t recognise himself! Even birds can do that, Jonas, even birds. Christ, it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
No, I tell a lie, it is funny. You’re completely hopeless Jonas…do continue…
my italics bad..hopefully this will fix.
I know that you cannot keep one argument straight in your head. I know this from empirical observations over 1½ hear now. You know: Empirical evidence! That you, in your compulsive desire to denigrate those who not blindly share your beliefs, make essentially every logical fallacy in the book. You who feel compelled to spout ‘denier’ ‘idiot’ ‘moron’ ‘mentally insane’ etc almost every time you inhale, and you do inhale a lot ..
What I was saying is that Lionel can’t use you as an authoritative source for anything about those he calls ‘deniers’
Essentially what I’m saying is that you are patently incapable of keeping your head straight and level. (And I have 1½ years of data to back this up, Jeff).
I am not an “expert on the population ecology of polar bears”, and have neither claimed to be. I even pointed out that I haven’t bothered to delve into the matter. But neither is Lionel and I pointed out that his ‘debunking’ which he too seemed extraordinarily sure of was based on extremely one sided activist sources (which didn’t even address that issue). Regarding your ‘debunking’ I have not seen that (nor what you are debunking) but again it sounded like you attacked all kinds of other things not really central (as with Lomborg).
And again, you start rambling with your CV, it seems to be a pissing contest to you, as you so aptly described it in one of your earliest comments to me. But the only skunk in the room is the CV-pissant …
Regarding the science: I am standing in the room with you. and explaining the basics to you. On the very simplest matters to start with. Like not inventing ‘facts’ because thei fit your story.
Mind you, it’s you who mostly stays or sneaks away. And when you are here (or are shouting from you padded zone) you are hardly ever debating anything wrt to science. It’s mostly shouting, angry feet stämping, and ridiculous CV-waiving.
As I said, mostly you cannot even get what others say correctly. Not even after being reminded repeatedly.
And you seem to be totally forgetting that it’s the nutters who are obsessed with Heartland. They state openly what they do, and do it. No need to defend anything there. But apparently enough to make a lot of you lose badly.
And finally Jeff, those millions secretly funnelled to ‘climate deniers’, where are they? Is this yet another display of you being absolutely terrible with handling numbers?
I realize, here at Deltoid, the simplest things can be unsurmountably difficult. You tried to argue that my statement should be presented scientifially correct and with error margins, or understood in such way:
“C’mon, J – as a scientist – how did you derive the figure of 100 times”
“Please provide evidence for your assertion”
“What are the error margins?”
“If this is just your opinion, surely you should have been explicit about that”
Now I can see two (mutually exclusive) possibilites here:
1) The person asking believes that every word spoken/written here is to be taken as a scientifically full and correct presentation of the topic, and that ‘knowledgable’ is a scientifically well defined measurable scalar quantity, and that ‘about 100 times’ means a derived number. And is incapable of recignizing colloquial language on a blog. Or
2) He does not hold such beliefs, and is aware of how discussions on blogs go. But still felt he had to push exactly that …
It’s either one or the other, Frank. Neither of them is very impressive …
Forbet the my damned CV, will you Jonas?!!! I was just saying that you disagree with me for the sake of it. If I say its sunny you’ll say its rainiing. If I say its warm you say its cold. If I say polar bears are white you’ll say they aren’t. And so it goes.
Crockfords talk was poor in my opinion. Why would she, of all people, delve into this issue unless there was some alterior incentive? Bjorn Lomborg suggested a few years ago that polar bears are under no threat because they would, in his opinion, ‘adapt to a reduction in sea ice by becoming more terrestrial, like their brown bear cousins’. Seriously, he said this. I am sure because I would argue that its nonsense you would opt to agree with him. But of course we are talking about a highly K-selected species at the end of the food chain with a very slow genetic turnover. Perhaps house flies could adapt in a century or two but a large, long-lived quadruped with very long generation times? Forget it.
This is the garabge that is spewed out endlessly by the think tank brigade and from denier sites. And you appear to go along with it. But my CV has nothinbg to do with it. However, I am trained in population ecology and that should matter, whether or not you like to know it. As for funding, how much do you think the PR industry, the think tanks and the astroturf groups are worth? Ever hear of Edward Bernays? Knbow anythign about Burson-Marstellar, Hill-Knowlton, Porter-Novelli, Ketchum, Shandwick, Edelman, et al? How much these companies are worth? Who many of their most important clients are? What about the hundreds of libertartian think tanks? Who funds them? Why?
What’s seriously annoying is that you don’t appear to know anything about lobbying, the history of PR, and the underlying motives for hiring third parties. Thsi enables you to forever play dumb with the facts with respect to corporate agendas. The “I don’t know, therefore its all nonsense” approach.
Corporations are legally obliged to maximize profits for their shareholders. Failure to do so will have seriious repercussions for them. They see the imposition of regulations as a profound threat to the way that they do business. Therefore, they see investing large sums in influencing public policy decisions as a good investment. This explains why huge sums are invested through multiple channels in anti-environmental PR.
But I am sick of saying this. I’ve read volumes on the damned subject over the past 20 years. What we see in reality is the tip of a disinformation iceberg. You don’t believe it. TOUGH. Frankly, Jonas, I don’t really give a damn what you think. If you feel that the fossil fuel lobby is tirelessly looking for the truth and is open and honest in tis dealings and does not influence policy decision making, then goodie for you. You can live in your myopic world. But I don’t.
Your reading skills are extremely poor, and combined with at the same time imagining (fabricating) things out of thin air, just because you want them to be i a certain way ..
.. make you a terrible debater, and an extremely unreliable source of anything, be it just information or reference to som science, or a book you’ve read or video you’ve seen.
What I said, and what I’ll say again is that no one should take your word for anything about how bad a person or his/her work is when you at the same time want to lable them as ‘denier’ or any of your endless smears about such ..
I have here 1½ years of data to support my observation that you are not capable of correctly respresenting others and what they say and claim. Not!
This is different from saying that everything you say therfore also must be wrong. That would be unscientific. But using and heavily relying on data known to be corrupted would also be ..
You say that her talk was poor in your opinion. And I believe you. You have been very consistent about where your opinions land when describing non-alarmists/activists. And extremly inconsistent with the facts (and fabrications) on the way to get there, Jeff. That’s what I’m saying.
Maybe here talk was poor (haven’t seen it), maybe it had som points and others were qestionable. However, I would never take your sole word for it, but instead assume it was yet another emotional knee-jerk reaction. Particularly since you again felt it necessary bring up your CV and her’s too. And then you start about ‘some alterior incentive’ which is your second meme. But again only on one side of the debate.
It’s good that you are trained in population ecology (I am not), but very strange that you then spend 1½ year telling me both what and who I am, am not, and how wrong I must be on anything else. While not addressing what I say, and instead inventing all kinds of stuff. The impression Jeff, is that you aren’t really trained at behaving like a scientist. Here, you for certain haven’t. Almost never.
Wrt to lobbying I think you are very ill informed. Of course there is plenty of lobbying, but industry and capitalism is not interested in libertarian policy. And lobbying is directed at those in power. And from both sides. Your argument here wrt climate science is extremely weak. I would say that there is far more lobbying affirming the ‘needs for climate investments’ than for the no-need version.
You go on about the disinformation, but can never present any of that. All you do is shout that somebody not agreeing with your (often very narrow minded) narrative therefor must be, not only dead wrong, but a lying shill for paid illicit interests, or something similar. It’s just a very immature understanding of people. And of course a vew which is applied extremely onesided to the issue. With almost total blindness towards the other side.
And I really don’t understand what it is with your constant and massive strawmen-production?
“If you feel that the fossil fuel lobby is tirelessly looking for the truth and is open and honest in tis dealings and does not influence policy decision making …”
Who makes up this stuff for you? I expect industries trying to make money from producing and selling their products. And look after their interests in general. And of course having opinions about policies that affect them.
“tirelessly looking for the truth and is open and honest in …”
What drivel is this Jeff? Who has ever believed that lobbying is about something else? WHich part of politics is it you don’t understand? Do you really believe that one side is pure as driven snow, and all the dirt is on the other side Jeff?
And still, this has nothing to do with what is being debated here (when some of you actually do debate). The fossil industry doesn’t have a dog in the climate fight, they will profit from many stupid descisions. And when it comes to actual policy descisions, your side of the trench is the baddie … those banks who want to administrate carbon trading, or receive subsidies for windfarms, solar, etc. Because receiving money that way is so much easier than earning it by selling something worth its price ..
Finally: Whenever you use ‘denier’ or ‘anti-science’ or even ‘anti-environmantal’ as part of your argument, you display that you have no better arguments. It’s only stupid labelling of things you don’t like. And there is so much you don’t like Jeff … and don’t understand.
I even think there is a connection
You write in your padded zone that:
“I am sick of the mega-troll” referring to me.
Well, I would rather call mosts of those trolling on your side the trolls. You included. Just look at their language (your’s included)
But you also write that this AR4 90% figure was essentially something made up for ‘policy makers’ and “I said, the figure is purely to give the public and especially policymakers some kind of estimate”
And you are (very likely) correct that some would have liked that number to be even higher. You say it was ‘sceptics’ who held them back, and if so that would have been the scientifically prudent way or at least direction to pull in.
But you completely lose it again (scientifically) when you say that this number (90%) was arrived at and based on the degree of (self selected) consensus.
Certainties, or error margins, or confidence intervals about an observation and about what may have caused it are never, I repeat never established this way!
The nmber of agreeing voices/opinions/experts is something completely different than evaluating statistical claims of confidence.
It seems that your first part is fairly correct (the expert opinion, in a negotioation with others), but you are wrong if you think that “anybody could see that”
And you are very wrong when subscribing to chek’s or Bernard’s version of ‘its in there, but it just can’t be seen’ and nobody has to have seen it …’. Again, that would be anti-science.
You want to settle this by just proclaiming: “But the 90% figure IS … based on a a summary of the hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in support of AGW. End of bloody story! ”
Again, you display how little real scientist there is in you. You argue, that if only sufficiently many agree, or publish various studies not disagreeing with the hypthesis, this strengthens the hypothesis, and increases the certainty of its claims!
That’s scientific trash Jeff. Activist PR-lingo, yes. But not anywhere near any real science. And you are way out of your leage here. And moreover, you should know this by now!
I seem to recall not many months the New Zealand Crank Science Coalition put up a foaming crank similar to Jonarse here, puffed up with righteous indignation about what science was and how it should be done.
After ascertaining there was neither professional experience or qualification or relevant education the judge told the self-appointed ‘expert’ to take a walk as his ‘evidence’ (such as it was – the usual denier tripe) was inadmissible.
I expect the denial dens failed to report how unimpressed the rest of the world is with ten-a-penny amateur super-scientist cranks.
thanx for sharing, chek ..
But if I really was that crank, then surely you would have come up with something, anything better than telling me what you blindly believe is established by those whom you blindly believe are the only experts allowed to say anything … and even expect to be accepted as ‘truth’ without presenting the data or the work ..
Ah, but you HAVE been presented with the data AND the work in that long list of papers that Chapter 9 is based on, kindly provided by the IPCC and refreshed for you very, very recently by Wow and Lionel..
You sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting ‘la la la no data or work’, doesn’t alter the fact you’re a moron who will not bother reading them, or – more to the point – understand them.
chek, there have been numerous types on your side who’ve said: ‘But there are references, a long list of them’. And have hoped that this settles anything, even tried triumphantly ‘.. but yoyr were too stupid to find them’ (or that this gets them of the hook for some time, in a debate).
We’ve been over this. Unless there is real science establishing, or at least attempting to establish those specified levels, unless there exists such published science, it doesn’t exist.
Now chek, scientific publishing, and referencing, is done for a certain purpose; So hat it can be found!
Simple as that! If it exists (existed in 2007) it can be found. The only tiny little detail would be to actually find it. And I have been looking and asking. And haven’t found any of it. Neither has any single body on your side. None!
The assertions by you and others, that is in there (without knowing, without having actually seen read and preferably understood too) mean absolutely zip. Its just brainless chatter (and unsubstantiated belief in unnamed authority).
And that’s what you, wow, Bernard, and a whole lot of others have shouted here for 1½. Your beliefs and emotions.
The whole excecise of reposting long lists you haven’t read is nonsense. I have read quite a few of them, glanced through more. None of the ones pointed out to me have been even close. Haven’t even made that claim. You and Bernad counterfactually claiming the opposite doesn’t change it. It just shows your desperation.
And the fact that I wouldn’t understand real science when I read it, compared to the lot of you whose ‘strongest argument’ seems to be ‘Jonarse’ and the like is just laughable.
Your last comment once more demonstrated that this is your belief:
“but you HAVE been presented with the data AND the work in that long list of papers that Chapter 9 is based on, kindly provided by the IPCC”
Thing is still: No one knows were those specific AR4 claims came from. Certainly not any of those who try to mouth off here, and just as you say:
“sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting ‘la la la [it's all there] data [and] work’”
FYIO I will not be discussing anything with you:
BBC Earth The Climate Wars 1 of 3 Battle Begins.
Note one early take home point is that when new data came in Schneider changed his mind – good science by a good scientist.
Schneider never changed his mind! He always thought the planet was screwed! The only thing that changed were his reasons for thinking it. Perfectly happy switching between screwed Scenario A to screwed Scenario C, the “We’re OK” Scenario B was never an option for him. What a good scientist, whatever the evidence (or lack of) he “knows” it’s bad.
You stick to your riff Jonarse, after all it’s all you know and all you’ve got. It’ll maybe be good for a support cabaret gig at Montford’s incensed retirees’ shack every once in a while.
“I have here 1½ years of data”
Yawn. Jonas the bore. Note how his posts are becoming more and more like polemical rants.
Before you bust an artery, Jonas, sit down and pour yourself a stiff drink. Chek has you figured out completely. You come across as a mouth foaming, rabid nutter. Well done.
As far as corporate lobbying is concerned, its no use discussing this with you. You know even less about this than about most other subjects, and that’s saying a lot. You camouflage your rank ignorance in verbosity. I’m not wasting any more valuable time watching you writhe in the quicksand over this one.
Bye Jeff, again. Don’t bother coming back to this thread until you have some empirical evidence to present. You’ll be missed.
Sorry chaps, if I could summarize where we are upto;
We’ve arrived at the conclusion that there is no empirical evidence behind the Sandy attribution claim.[At least as far as anybody here is aware]
We’ve arrived at the conclusion that there is no empirical evidence behind the AR4 attribution claim.[At least as far as anybody here is aware]
But you guys go around trumpeting these things as undeniable fact! The Science says etc… when it does no such thing!
It’s “Faither’s” that believe without evidence. Read the 8 symptoms of Groupthink again – it’s you lot to a Tee.
Ah, Jonas’ little ego wart. The empirical evidence was presented in the lists provided by Bernard, Chek and Lionel. Guess you and your hero can’t read. I have yet to see much of anything from his Royal Highness except lengthy rants about how much he understands science better than anyone else and thus deserves reverential respect. As Chek said, a one riff man; AR4/90%. A broken record. I prefer heavy thrash metal riffs which have some ooomph.
Of the smidgeons of data you have contributed, some was embarrassingly made up from the top of your head (the amphibian stuff) and the other garbage – like Crockford’s wretched lecture – I suspect you gleaned from Climate Depot or some other abominable site. Truth is your ‘science’ is even more of an embarrassment than your hero’s – if indeed that is possible.
“how much he understands science better than anyone else”
He understands it better than you jeff, as does my daughter’s hamster.
It seems that chek’s argument now is:
‘I and all the others on my side have now denied the non-existence of any proper science establishing those two most prominent specified (quantified) AR4 claims for so long, you reminding me/us/everybody of that non-existence is an old boring riff …
Jeff tries something similar but more wrt to his own fact and strawman fabrications … He’s done it for 1½ years, so why shouldn’t he continue?
And there is more of the nonsense: ‘chek has figured me out … ‘ and that’s a new reason why the IPCC in 2007 was allowed to just make numbers up.
Other versions have been:’ I speak for Lindzen, Curry and Spencer .. and they all think you’re embarrassing’.
Completely laughable! For me stating the obvious: They all are just blind believers …
Jeff tries once more the obviously false: “You know even less about this than about most other subjects, and that’s saying a lot”
Jeff. who says he teaches classes where he spouts his invented nonsense (about me, he promised). They guy is all about inventing his own world, where he holds all the truths and his CV is the proof of all of them …
Sounds more than a little bit wacko to me ..
Jeff, now your being and idiot. Bernard, chek and wow have not read those lister papers and certainly not claimed those specified levels were established in any spcific one of them. they’re just blowing smoke. Louminous B and Martin Vermeer at least specified some references, which however not made any such claims based on any presented work.
How you can call no-show ‘evidence’ is beyond me. Only ignorant activists try such things. Certainly no scientists, and I don’t even have to restrict myself to the ´’real’ variety among them.
Your claim that long lists wich do not contain any ‘evidence’ are the evidence is beyond the stupid. But unfortunately, it’s what you are about. Nonsens sputtering whenever you don’t have a clue .. which is essentially every time you stray outside your field (inside, I haven’t checked yet, but I don’t expect higher standards from you there)
Actually no, Griselda. What we’re seeing here is the pathological state of denialism which intently focuses on single aspects and hopes the bigger picture will go away.
Thus by way of analogy, you bray that cancer cannot be linked to any single cigarette, as Sandy can’t be attributed to AGW and there is no formula for attribution.
But actually the conditions that caused Sandy can be shown to be what is predicted in a warming world, along with all the other extreme weather events we’ve experienced globally this past decade. And the particular subjects covered by the papers in AR4 Ch9 in aggregate can lead to a high degree of statistical probability.Though not necessarily to any old Tom, Dick or self-proclaimed expert such as you and Jonarse.
But you morons just keep your attention on that one proverbial tree. It isn’t changing much at all. But Burnham Wood is coming to burn down your castle.
“But actually the conditions that caused Sandy can be shown to be what is predicted in a warming world”
Ah, I see were you’ve gone wrong. The conditions that caused Sandy are “consistent” with a non warmed world also. Therefore it is not evidence of anything. Hope that helps.
“He’s done it for 1½ years, so why shouldn’t he continue”
Gee Mr. one riff, you are obsessed with that figure. Is it your age? And don’t flatter yourself, Jonas. I wouldn’t break wind at a lecture I give in discussing an anonymous entity like you. You see, nobody worth anything has ever heard of you. Your shrinking fan base here is down to 1.5. a figure you seem ever so fond of.
Then this from super-schmuck: “He understands it better than you jeff, as does my daughter’s hamster”.
According to who? You? N=1? Ha! That’s a hoot. With your lack of acumen and insidious logic? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Your hero has no pudding; no papers, no lectures, no nothing. Just vacuous rants on a little blog.
Try harder, man! You can do better than that!
Tell us all you can about the many,many1000 mile diameter superstorms that have hit the Eastern Seaboard in late October that you’re implying like the reflexively ignorant twat you are Griselda. And keep focussing on that single event just as I predicted your mental condition would dictate.
chek, you talk about ‘the bigger picture’, and that’s another one of your sides memes. Essentially it says: OK, we don’t really know that much about anything, but everything we don’t know points in our direction, and whenever we see anything, it confirms all of the above …that anything goes.
I don’t need to call this ‘denialism’, its just weirdo relgion. But it seems to be a very important part of your lifes ..
Just as you say: Many repetions of something non-established can lead to a high degree of established certainty ..
Itäs wacko-science, if anybody claims this as a scientist. And fortunately only nutters really try this. Unfortunately, some of them have PhD:s and even waive them in reinforcement …
I thought you’d gone, ego bruised, never to return.
“Your hero has no pudding; no papers, no lectures, no nothing.”
No pudding? You have had an odd education in the sciences. Anyway, with Christmas coming up, how do you know he has “no pudding”?
Jeff .. In any scientific debate I would crush you. Completely! You have no idea at all what science is about. How things are established and knowledge moves forward. None!
That a (non-) fact inventing fabricator even starts mouting off about logic is a total farce.
And Jeff, you’ve been given so many hints not to continue making a fool of yourself, its amazing that you try even harder …
But I guess thatäs who you are. Look at the ones here who have sided with you. You even bring them (and their numbers) up as support. Characters who can write ‘Jonarse’ many many times. But only repeat their blind beliefs. Or spout nonsense in small incoherent bursts like Wow. Or Lionel who gets his facts from DeSmogBlog who are worse than you lot. What’s that? N=3?
Well if you are that many, why don’t yuu prove me wrong on the most basic topic I’ve been chasing you about: That AR4 claim. Instead of just repeating your fairy tales about the hidden trassure nobobdy has ever seen, and that everybody who has (as you are certain about) made a wow never to reveal to anyon otside the trusted circle … Which you apparently don’t belong to.
The idea of something nobody can point at being ‘the evidence’ is nothing more than the emporors non-existing clothes ..
Jeff you ferrocious CV-waiving PhD, claiming to be a ‘scientist’ ..
I also wonder how you established your oft repeated claim that I have no pudding? And all the other versions of the same story you’ve tried? How did you establish that?
I have been whipping your ass around here, wrt to what real science says, can say and cannot. And making shreds of many of your claims, often by only pointing to your won words.
You look like a little schoolboy to me, who is angry and emotional, but cannot show that his claims are correct. On the contrary, he is so angry because he has been proven wrong so many times and so definitely ..
How did you establish all those claims you’ve made about me, failed schoolyard bully Jeff?
You’ve definitely got a pudding then Jonas? Good. Jeff had me concerned you were going to be puddingless over Christmas. Glad that’s sorted, we can all rest easy now.
Jonarse, before your meds overdose fully kicks in, I’ll remind you that neither you nor your plug-ins have yet provided one scintilla of evidence for any single one of your increasingly grandiose and self-aggrandising claims.
The only thing that you’ve made at all plain is that you aren’t fit to lick the boots of the most junior faculty assistant’s assistant intern that contributed in their small and humble way to AR4. At least they achieved something, as opposed the the incredibly obese big fat zero that epitomises your life so far..
chek, your are borderline-Jeffie now with your fantasies. Either it’s in there. And everyone can look at it, or we have the nutters brigade claiming that the eating of the forrest is in the trees, or the high performance car is in blindly swallowning the scrap metal cars ..
And you seemt to argue now, that all those other publications (which don’t establish said AR¤ claims) have avhieved something, in contrast to me!?
And you established this how? By Jeffie-style borderline introspection?
You all .. all of you who proudly have proclaimed things like ‘science on your side’ and back to the ‘peer reviewed litterature’ and ‘scientific community’ and ‘consensus’ and all that ..
… you have after 1½ years of searching or hoping that somebody else will, found and come up with …
About the most prominent claim made by the IPCC in 2007. Zero! Nilch! Nada! And this, according to your own grandiose logic, is my fault some 5½ years later.
Congratulations! Your logic is truly innovative and new .. never before seen by humanity.
And you now pretend to be a boot licking expert too, chek? Really?
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Past time for more thread.
Sorry it’s late, I blame the carbon tax!
Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.