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 12, 2012

    “But by now, essentially everybody knows that those AR4 claims where pulled out of a hat”

    Wrong again.

  2. #2 Jonas N
    December 12, 2012

    No need to chek … none of these papers make any such claim based on demonstrated science. You are delusional or/and in denial ..

    And we both know that you are guessing blindly, that you are completely, utterly uncapable of reading any real science dealing with qunatified specifics.

    I’d say you are an idiot too … like your buddy Wow. Making claims that even the IPCC never made, and saying it is in the science you have neither read nor would understand. And idiot making idiotic statements.

  3. #3 Wow
    December 12, 2012

    ” none of these papers make any such claim based on demonstrated science”

    That isn’t what you demanded.

    You demanded the science behind the AR4 claim.

  4. #4 Jonas N
    December 12, 2012

    Wow, you truly are a full blown idiot .. In lack even of the most basic reading skills. And chek and Jeffie think you are a valuable addition to their ‘skillsets’

    :-)

  5. #5 Wow
    December 12, 2012

    And yet another incorrect declaration from Joan.

  6. #6 chek
    December 13, 2012

    Well Jonarse, on the one hand we have you, the delusional eccentric nobody with his unreliable claims and an accompanying gaggle of likeminded airheads full of nonsense declarations of what the science ‘should be’ but no actual technical proficiency demonstrated at all, anywhere, ever.

    And on the other the IPCC report consisting of the peer reviewed work from a list of leading, published scientists in their field longer than a giraffe’s necktie.

    Only a complete lunatic wouild hesitate to choose which group had more credibility. But that’s the audience you’ll settle for aint it, Jonarse. You’ll find them awaiting you over at Watts’ and Montford’s sites.

  7. #7 GSW
    December 13, 2012

    @All

    I think we are getting there on confronting reality. We have two so far (Lionel+chek) “opting out”. Jeff’s a no show, probably off defending polar bears somewhere against the combined forces of Wellington and the Heartland Institute.

    By default ,our concensus position is;;

    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]

    I think that by default we all agree these are true; no empirical evidence forthcoming after some considerable period of time.

    It’s time for honesty here I think.

  8. #8 chek
    December 13, 2012

    And the honest position is that you and your troll collective have achieved nothing apart from demonstrating your total lack of understanding and reading ability.

  9. #9 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    GSW

    In all fairness, Jeffie is aware of what that 90% AR4 certainty is worth, and also why and how it came about. Almost at least. But cannot say this more openly to the rest here …

    And too wants to turn this, me being correct, to somehow still being my fault.

  10. #10 GSW
    December 13, 2012

    @All

    For those late to the discussion (and without a closed mind), Judith Curry has a good summary of the “difficulties” with the AR4 attribution claim here;

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/24/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-iii/

    “Therefore the confidence in #7[AR4 attribution] should not exceed 40%, and possibly not exceed 25%, which is the premise with the lowest confidence level. With a confidence level in the range 25-40%, IPCC’s conclusion would be plausible (not “very likely”)”

    and;

    “From this analysis, it seems that the AR4’s assessment of confidence at the very likely (90-99%) level cannot be objectively justified, even if the word “most” is interpreted to imply a number that is only slightly greater than 50%. A heavy dose of expert judgment is required to come up with “very likely” confidence.”

    From the summary;

    “It is concluded that the IPCC needs logic police, in addition to uncertainty cops and statistics sentries”

    Judith Curry is a climate scientist, Chair of of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and frequently attacked for broaching the problems with the IPCC’s case in a frank and open manner.

    There is no empirical evidence for AR4 attribution, refusal to accept this makes you just another victim of “Groupthink”.

  11. #11 GSW
    December 13, 2012

    @jonas

    ” But cannot say this more openly to the rest here …”

    Yes jonas, Groupthink symptoms No. 6;

    “Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. ”

    and No. 8;

    “Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.”

  12. #12 GSW
    December 13, 2012

    @Jonas

    We could probably add symptom No. 7 to that;

    “Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.”

  13. #13 GSW
    December 13, 2012

    @All

    Come on you lot! Lionel and chek are “on record” for “opting out” of reality. What about the rest you?

  14. #14 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    chek, still wrong (but you got one part right)

    There are no scientists who made said claim and put their names behind it on a publications. There is no peer reviewed science anywhere making those claims. None! The authority you try to project nowhere made this claim. Instead it is made by a much smaller political body and was put in the SPM, and without having any support in the AR4 reports (not released yet at the time)

    But you are right that it is all ablout belief (imagined “credibility”) for those who cling to it.

    And the matter is still the simplest possible:

    Either it’s in there, and everybody can find it, read it, scrutinize it … or it’s not.

    Your pinning your thinning and despairing hopes to that somewhere (deep in that ‘forrest’) that gem is still to be found. although none of your ‘scientists’ ever refers to it as existent. Or that your ignorant band of faithers can remain ignorant and deny reality based on the drivel you’ve tried here for 1½ years, and have believed in blind faith for almost six …

  15. #15 chek
    December 13, 2012

    “Judith Curry is a climate scientist, Chair of of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and frequently attacked for broaching the problems with the IPCC’s case in a frank and open manner.”

    And that’s a blogpost.

  16. #16 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    GSW

    In all fairness, Jeffie has put his understanding of those claimed AR4 levels in writing. He posts many purely idiotic things in between, but he has actually said fully sensible things about this on several occasions. And in stark contrast to what the morons here wish to believe.You can ridicule him for a long list of stupidities he has commited here, but I am actually not blaming him for not publicly denouncing the other faithers here I can however remind of that they and he have incompatible ‘stories’ on the matter …

    Given that he has invested so much emotion on his side being the righteous one, and me being the moron, his admissions there cannot have come easily. And yes, he probably wants to shield the rest from this realisation.

    I think he is worth some credit for this, especially since almost nothing else he has tried is …

  17. #17 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    GSW, thanks for finding that Curry comment. I think my point has been glaringly self evident (No published papers in AR4 make those claims), but she actually opines about what would be more reasonable levels …

  18. #18 Wow
    December 13, 2012

    Still busy saying nothing, Joan.

    Whining continuously is something a two-year-old does.

  19. #19 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    contd.

    Funny how chek immedeately reverses into full denial mode: If the obvious hasn’t been published in a peer reviewed climate paper, he is allowed to deny it. While having argued here, that the claim itself does’t have to be found in he peer reviewed literature, that it can be imagined hovering in the cloud above the long list of all of the references ..

    You can’t make these guys up …

    :-)

  20. #20 GSW
    December 13, 2012

    @Jonas,

    “GSW, thanks for finding that Curry comment.”

    Not a problem Jonas. As you say, it’s been nearly 6 years now and the dubious nature of the statement well and truly “outed”. Not made it thru to the alarmist blogs yet though, Groupthink censorship at it’s finest.
    ;)

  21. #21 Wow
    December 13, 2012

    You know what Joan reminds me of: the PHB in Dilbert.

  22. #22 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    GSW, I’ve probably said this before but up till 2007 I thought that the climate alarmism was of course overblown by the media, the NGOs and other activists, and exploited by politicians (of all kind) ..

    .. but that it had some scientific foundation which (if you checked the literature) was not nearly as severe as it sounded publicly(*).

    However, it was this AR4 claim that made it fully clear to me that also the science part had been corrupted (politics have always been). This statement stood out as so obviously unscientific that any real scientist must have reacted strongly. And the fact that it not only slipped through but became the centerpiece of the AR4 message showed that this was about something entirely different than ‘the best science available, summarized by the best eperts in the field’.

    The corruption had been going on longer than that, but until that moment I was prepared to give the IPCC process the benifit of the doubt, and assumed that the occasional cock-ups, the sloppy science (Mann etc) and the zealotry was what anybody should expect from a large bureaucratic organisation.

    Others were on this earlier, but after Gores AIT, that AR4 SPM, and the unravelling of Mann’s stick, the activism essentially exploded (in slow-motion) in their faces. Still does. And the warring we see now (arctic summer ice, weather events, glaciers and polar bears etc) are the aftermath of the stupidity embarked upon when that UN body tried to convince the world that the climate not only can be affected by man, but also can (and must be) controlled ..

    What we see now is the fighting over the political wreckage and monies and power to get access to. Science has left that building (and I feel a bit sorry for all those decent ‘climate scientisst’ who never were part of the corruption and only did their job)

    (*) Too a large extent, this is still true. Much of the work is decent and honest, and only spun a bit towards alarmism in the phrasing and discussions etc.

  23. #23 chek
    December 13, 2012

    “Funny how chek immedeately reverses into full denial mode”

    No it isn’t – it’s what any rational person would do.

    Curry’s most recently famed for not beng able to substantiate her work or let it be subjected to the scrutiny of perr review, hence her two-bit assertions via blogposts, rather than submitting considered work for peer review by fellow experts who would recognise the unsupported crap she spouts lately.

    You morons would be horrified if the IPCC behaved in the same way, but because you like what you hear from Curry, you buy it wholesale. Just like morons.

  24. #24 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    chek …

    That’s the whole point: That infamous IPCC AR4 SPM claim is not published anywhere in the peer reviewed literature, it is worded into the summary text ..

    Your full denial mode reversal is what a moron would do. The rational person would check the claim (not chek!) or would have checked it at the latest when it is being questioned.

    You truly are a full blown moron. You don’t even see when your scoring own goal after own goal. Well, others can …

  25. #25 chek
    December 13, 2012

    As you’ve previously admitted to not reading any of the references in AR$ Ch 9, and clearly don’t comprehend what a ‘summary’ is, all you can do is bang out your one riff.

    At least your rabble finds it catchy, although with airheads like those….

  26. #26 Wow
    December 13, 2012

    “Funny how chek immedeately reverses into full denial mode”

    Well where’s the science that backs up Curry’s statements, then?

  27. #27 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    I see that Jeff and Bernard J are continuing to lie about how they ‘demolished’ me, by exchanging strawmen trophies filled with their usual backwards reasoning: ‘If Jonas doesn’t do what we demand of him, our beliefs must be true..and thus he is proven wrong’ or something similar ..

    Of course it is all nonsense. Those nutters cannot get one opposing position correct, not even if you repeat it endlessly.

    Their own depiction of the ‘denier moron’ they want to believe in more than anything in the world, is permanently etched into their retina and working memory and is the only thing they can see clearly. Reality, and coping with it, is only a nuisance for them and detracts from that wonderfully simple and clear (engraved) picture.

    If you want to see true denialism, it suffices to see the contortions of the believers and the faithers when confronted even with simpler pieces of (easily chackable) information.

    Bernard still argues, somehow, that I should prove (to him, of all morons) that the said claim is not in a random list of his choice.

    Jeff asks if I have asked climate scientists the same question, and I have answered affirmative, I have even done so in his presence (here). But the nutter goes back to his retina engraved image. Full denial mode ..

    But what can you expect? Early on, he thought my questions were about Michael Mann at least three times (with me correcting him) before even understanding that simple fact (that they were not)

    Retina engraved …

    And one more character, jp, joins in and too rather wants to maintain the activist narrative, and deny the obvious.

    It’s simply astounding that so many of them claiming to have both the science and the scientists (*) on their side, some even claiming to be scientists themselves, totally derail when you ask them to show the actual science on which their claims are supposedly based.

    Anybody in science, not understanding why this both is necessary, and why this is the reasonable question to ask, has abandoned science already ..

    (*) It is usually a good indicator that it’s not abouit science anymore, when people make claims about either what ‘the science’ or ‘the scientists’ shows or say (believing that this is one and also well defined single position), or even worse, when the claim to speak for them or an (supposedly equally single well aligned) ‘scienentific community’. Such terms may be used in more colloquial use, but the moment it is made a center part of the argument, it reveals either ignorance or activism or both.

  28. #28 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    chek you idiot .. making nonsens up Jeffie-style:

    “As you’ve previously admitted to not reading any of the references in AR$ Ch 9″

    proven wrong in this very thread. Both the ‘admittance’ and the ‘not reading’

    You are truly and idiot, chek!

  29. #29 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    Wow .. where is the science that backs up the official UN-IPCC statements?

    You know the official assessment by of the best science by the world’s best experts!?

    Sorry if you haven’t caught on to what the question was yet. (It’s been up there for some time now, Wow)

    Curry speaks and argues for herself. I’m sorry Wow, but she uses difficult words and often sentences much longer than three words … I don’t think I can help you very much over there, but you are of course free to ask

  30. #30 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    Re: Judith Curry

    It’s funny that she ask and touches upon the exact same questions I’ve been raising here for som time now. And one of your reverred ‘cliamte scientists’ too …

    It must bugger you maddeningly …

    Those questions were not allowed to be asked, was the meme here for the longest time …

    ;-)

  31. #31 GSW
    December 13, 2012

    @Jonas

    “I see that Jeff and Bernard J are continuing to lie about how they ‘demolished’ me”

    Indeed jonas, they do appear to have a lot to say on other threads (where they are safe), rewriting history, but they daren’t say it here, you might speak back!
    ;)
    Very brave aren’t they!

  32. #32 Wow
    December 13, 2012

    These two trolls GSW and Joan brought to you by the letters

    MT

  33. #33 Wow
    December 13, 2012

    Well where’s the science that backs up Curry’s statements, then?

  34. #34 Jeff Harvey
    December 13, 2012

    “Those nutters”

    Look in the mirror, Jonas. What do you see? A: A nutter.

    You haven’t told us the names of the well known climate scientists you have exchanged comments with. Tell us. I wait with baited breath.

    You didn’t answer my point about whether or not you’ve used your esteemed brilliance to write a paper for a scientific journal, whether you’ve applied to attend a major conference to give a lecture, or whether Deltoid and a few denial blogs are the extent of your unrivalled greatness.

    Have you? Come on smart-ass, tell us?

    You won’t. Any more than you’ll tell us your day job. Because the answers are these: No paper in preparation. No intention tgo attend a conference, let alone to speak at one. And yes, Deltoid and BH and one or two others is the extent of your foray into the academic world.

    If I am correct in these assumptions (and its up to you to prove me wrong), then yes, you have been demolished. Crushed. Chewed up and spat out with the proverbial garbage. Simply because you haven’t got the guts to take your frankly stupid ideas to the bigger, badder world.

    One day you will melt away from Deltoid like the Arctic ice is doing so now, but in your case it will be a relief to be free of what is in my opinion an egotistical, narcissistic, deluded crank with delusions of grandeur.

    Your pet ape can defend you all you like but the truth is that you clowns are an intellectually bankrupt little island. If you both think you are so clever then get off of your scared little backsides and take your supposed wisdom to the real world. Leave us at Deltoid in peace.

  35. #35 chek
    December 13, 2012

    “proven wrong in this very thread. Both the ‘admittance’ and the ‘not reading’ ”

    Your meds must be affecting your short term memory Jonarse. Although actually you’ve contradicted yourself so many times now, you should be very, very specific about what you have read.

  36. #36 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    chek .. as I just said, you are just an idiot .. approaching Wow level

  37. #37 chek
    December 13, 2012

    Great answer Jonarse, and as worthless as your claims. It’s not like anybody can’t revisit the last few pages to gain an insight into your dishonesty, oh no.

  38. #38 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    As I said, you are an idiot, and very likely a dishonest one at that …

  39. #39 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    Jeff ..

    You are the nutter. Sorry to say that, but there is no other way of describing you. But you inadvertently grouped Deltoid with what you call ‘denier blogs’

    And that you are not paying attention is quite obvious. But the degree of your sloppiness is truly amazing. It is unbecoming any real scientist (which you are not, and I am more and more questioning the (soft variety-) scientist label as well).

    Here at Deltoid, in your (commenting) presence, I posed the exact same question to a namned IPCC-approved climate scientist, and even received an attempt at an answer and a reference (which however didn’t contain said claims).

    I have asked the same question at RC, with several of your ‘heros’ and that question is erased (which is their preferred way to argue the strength of their own position)

    At the most prominent climate blog (in Sweden, and sceptic) (one of) the most prominent swedish climate scientist comments quite regularly. He is pretty much on track with the IPCC version of the science, but on the lower part of the climate sensitivity span (I think). He is actually the only one who gave an answer which I found fully acceptable

    I haven’t asked Judith Curry (and maybe I should have, haven’t been commenting much on her blog) but she askes the very same questions and makes the very same points I have been making for the same 1½ years you (and your cohorts) have been doing your worst to avoid them.

    But your whole question is moot, Jeff. And as (an alleged) scientist you should understand that, understood that long long ago!

    My question is the most obvious one to be asked, in response to those claims. The most obvious question imaginable by a scientist:

    ‘So that’s what you claim? Let me see the data and your calculations, let me see how you arrived at that conculsion .. ‘

    Whether it is me, Judith Curry, or any other scientist who is asking is irrelevant. It’s the one sensible question to ask!

    Another quite reasonable (follow up) question would be to ask why so few among you and the scientists on your side haven’t raised the same question. Curry is quite late to that party too. Or why it is that you feel the need to fight all kinds of wars to not reveal your science, to avoid dealing with even the simplest aspects of reality? You should ask yourself here at Deltoid why the most obvious little details result in 1½ intellectual derailing of not only you, but a major part of this blog!

    Your problem, Jeff, is and always has been that you are fighting against reality. You want it to be something very different than it is! (Your many fact-fabrications are just one part of it). Why the heck would you otherwise spend 1½ years to get away from the most obvious scientific question regarding that claim (and additionally making a total horse’s arse out of yourself while trying)?

    Why are you fighting reality Jeff?

    The “demolished. Crushed. Chewed up and spat out with the proverbial garbage” is still only in your fantasy jeff, and before you stop and consistently stop to imagining things you will never get better. Maybe it’s already too late …

  40. #40 chek
    December 13, 2012

    “The “demolished. Crushed. Chewed up and spat out with the proverbial garbage” is still only in your fantasy jeff,”

    Nope, that’s your reality Jonarse. Your amateur whacko version of reference-free science with your self-invented ‘conditions’ and poorly formed rhetoric hasn’t gained a micrometer of traction here or anywhere else.

    All you can do is repeat, repeat and repeat some more hoping for a different outcome. Which is of course Einstein’s definition of insanity – also a diagnosis which wouldn’t surprise all that many here.

  41. #41 Jeff Harvey
    December 13, 2012

    Jonas,

    You still have not answered my other questions. But no need; the answer is clearly NO to all of them. At least that is clear.

    So its a 77 year old researcher (Bengtsson) and Judith ‘double agent’ Curry. Gee, you really have the bases covered there. But then again, that’s in keeping with you. Cite two names and that’s the world of climate science. Pretty pathetic, really.

    I’d also like to ask you where you get all of this free time to prattle off lengthy and tedious replies here on Deltoid. Do you actually have a life? Or is this it?

    You are one sad, git.

  42. #42 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    chek – you idiot, have you already forgotten that it is you and the IPCC that does not have any reference(s) for its most prominent claims?

  43. #43 Lionel A
    December 13, 2012

    Some more history for the dog-watch only Wendy Club, one with an apposite title : Nothin’ but Noise

    Now note who prompted that piece, yes arch brownlasher [1] Patrick J Michaels, well know for his involvement with Western Fuels (look that one up you history challenged twits). Don’t believe me then watch this:

    Pat Michaels admits: ’40 percent’ of funding comes from big oil.. There you heard it yourself, from the horses (asses) mouth. Consider that Western Fuels was a coal shifting operation and it is clear that Michaels’ hands are as black as black with the filth.

    Michaels’ recent behaviour suggests that he hasn’t changed any for he is still penning BS articles in places such as Forbes and the WSJ.

    If you read the Ehrlichs’ book you will realise how Michaels has helped the world sustain a course directed over the ecological cliff, never mind the fiscal. For that he will be remembered as will Lindzen and the others in that troop the list being too long, with only a few one-time scientists, to include here.

    [1] A term used, by Anne H. Ehrlich in that excellent must read if have not already book co-authored with her husband Paul ‘Betrayal of Science and Reason’ (1996 HB, 1998 PB) to describe those perverting science so as to earn their cheques from the fossil fuel lobby (FFL). Michaels is mentioned here too, as are Lindzen and Singer. Now I may just treat you to snippets that reveal how much time we have lost because of twerps such as this Wendy Club.

  44. #44 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    Jeff …

    “a 77 year old researcher (Bengtsson) and Judith ‘double agent’ Curry”

    Well, I see you are bringing out the heavy artillery here /Sarc off.

    And you are again fighting reality. In vain.

    “Cite two names and that’s the world of climate science. Pretty pathetic, really”

    Are you so totally in denial? Firstly, I’ve asked many more. Secondly, if it’s me or anyone else asking is irrelevant. The question itself is the most relevant and obvious to ask, when presetend with such a claim.

    Why are you fighting reality so desperately?

    “You still have not answered my other questions. But no need; the answer is clearly NO to all of them. At least that is clear”

    Establishing ‘facts’ Jeffie-style again, aren’t we?

    ;-)

  45. #45 Lionel A
    December 13, 2012

    Keeping on track with the Crockford crock perhaps the sensible readers here would like to sign up to this:

    SAVE the ARCTIC

  46. #46 Jeff Harvey
    December 13, 2012

    “I’ve asked many more”

    Who? I am sorry to disappoint you but I don’t think a scintilla you say seriously. Bluff, bluff and more bluff. Tell us: WHO? WHO?! Or do you think that by giving names you’ll get in trouble? Grow up, man!

    And you still haven’t answered my questions, which again tells me your answer is NO, NO, NO etc. Deltoid is where you will remain. That being the case, what the hell do you think you are achieveing here? Sure, you’ve got one other sad little person (GSW) and occassionally a second (Olaus) in your corner. But what do you expect to achieve? Clearly you think you’ve stumbled upon some important and amazing facts that have somehow by some strange reason (or due to a conspiracy) have bypassed the rank and file of the climate science world. If so, why persist here?

    I think we can all figure out the answer to that little nugget….

  47. #47 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    Jeff ..

    Why are you trying to get away from reality? I don’t care whether you believe me or not? I guess a notorious fact fabricator mistrusts anyone!? Have you been telling lies here knowingly Jeff? Because I haven’t. Because I don’t have to.

    But it doesn’t matter whom more I have asked. Anyway, the real scientists (who have not seen that purported science) will not calim that they have (and probably try to avoid the question, because either way it’s embarrassing). Curry is asking the questions.

    And it’s nothing I stumbled across, Jeff! That claim was in the face of everyone who watched TV or read a major newspaper, back in 2007. You know that!

    And still, six years later almost, non of you believers have come up with the scientific(!) source of those claims. None! Not one single one.

    What I have achieved here? I have made it abundandtly and glaringly clear to you and everybody watching that the most prominent AR4 claim by the whole lot of you (who believe in it) is taken in blind faith! Every single one of you!

    Almost none even dared to put forward any reference which purported to contain the scientific basis!

    You have often accused me of “earth shattering” this and that. And been wrong. But the fact that you simply cannot deal with reality is unsurmountable to you ..

    Either dig up any scientific attempts at establishing those claims, or acknowledge that you can’t, that you just chose to believe it. And I think that too has been aptly demonstrated. And all the other places where your side goes on about climate hysteria is equally afraid of reality (and leans very heavily on the delete-button. Tim deletes my comments too, unless I post in a 1½ year old thread ;-) )

  48. #48 GSW
    December 13, 2012

    @Jeff

    “do you think that by giving names you’ll get in trouble”

    I’m curious too, what have peoples names got to do with determining anything? It’s like your obsession with dismissing opinions or evidence on the basis of the smoking habits of a person’s relatives. It seems you wish to put everything on the “Scales of Truth” other than the relevant details.

    It’s just a device to avoid dealing with reality. Your fantasy “Science” is nothing more than escapism fo your prejudices, there’s nothing objective about it. Science is about being objective after all.

  49. #49 chek
    December 13, 2012

    “chek – you idiot, have you already forgotten that it is you and the IPCC that does not have any reference(s) for its most prominent claims?”

    …says Jonarse who admits to not having read the papers referenced in AR4 Ch9 and therefore can’t understand the summary. The word ‘moron’ may well be crediting him with more intelligence than is deserved.

  50. #50 Wow
    December 13, 2012

    “I don’t care whether you believe me or not?”

    Not a question. So why the question mark?

  51. #51 Wow
    December 13, 2012

    I wonder whether the idea (if it can be graced with the label “idea”) is to have deltoid so full of empty crap from the trollific duo that nobody can be bothered to read here any more.

    Close this thread and banhammer the silly fuck.

  52. #52 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    Jeff,

    do you think reavealing the names of the alleged papers/authors for that AR4 claim would get them in trouble?

    :-)

    I think there is a good reason for why nobody will put their name(s) to it.

  53. #53 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    Wow … the signal to noise ratio here would increase drastically if you jusst stopped commenting, same goes for chek. And if Jeff would restrict himself to be on topic, and skip his fantasies and emotional rants, his comments would be 2-3 lines. And if you all abandon defending your ignorance, we could even discusse relevant matters, and quite a few of you move forward slowly. But I’m afraid you are too afraid to let go of your faith …

  54. #54 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    chek .. still fantasizing about non existent science

  55. #55 chek
    December 13, 2012

    “What I have achieved here? I have made it abundandtly and glaringly clear to you and everybody watching that the most prominent AR4 claim by the whole lot of you (who believe in it) is taken in blind faith! Every single one of you! ”

    No Jonarse, what you’ve made clear here is that you’re a noisy little ignoramus who hasn’t a clue about how science works in the real world, or attribution studies.

    If you won’t read the papers previously provided you can read the shorter Cliff Notes versions here and here

    Remember to clamp your lips with your fingers, so they don’t get tired too quickly.

    As for your oft-spouted absolute bollocks about nobody being willing to put their names to the attribution statement, here’s pretty much a who’s who of keading climate scientists either as lead authors, contributing authors and review editors. In addition to the opreviously supplied list of references. It’s at the end of Chapter 9, you illiterate fuckwit.

    “Coordinating Lead Authors: Gabriele C. Hegerl (USA, Germany), Francis W. Zwiers (Canada)

    Lead Authors: Pascale Braconnot (France), Nathan P. Gillett (UK), Yong Luo (China), Jose A. Marengo Orsini (Brazil, Peru), Neville Nicholls (Australia), Joyce E. Penner (USA), Peter A. Stott (UK)

    Contributing Authors: M. Allen (UK), C. Ammann (USA), N. Andronova (USA), R.A. Betts (UK), A. Clement (USA), W.D. Collins (USA), S. Crooks (UK), T.L. Delworth (USA), C. Forest (USA), P. Forster (UK), H. Goosse (Belgium), J.M. Gregory (UK), D. Harvey (Canada), G.S. Jones (UK), F. Joos (Switzerland), J. Kenyon (USA), J. Kettleborough (UK), V. Kharin (Canada), R. Knutti (Switzerland), F.H. Lambert (UK), M. Lavine (USA), T.C.K. Lee (Canada), D. Levinson (USA), V. Masson-Delmotte (France), T. Nozawa (Japan), B. Otto-Bliesner (USA), D. Pierce (USA), S. Power (Australia), D. Rind (USA), L. Rotstayn (Australia), B. D. Santer (USA), C. Senior (UK), D. Sexton (UK), S. Stark (UK), D.A. Stone (UK), S. Tett (UK), P. Thorne (UK), R. van Dorland (The Netherlands), M. Wang (USA), B. Wielicki (USA), T. Wong (USA), L. Xu (USA, China), X. Zhang (Canada), E. Zorita (Germany, Spain)

    Review Editors: David J. Karoly (USA, Australia), Laban Ogallo (Kenya), Serge Planton (France)

    This chapter should be cited as: Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner and P.A. Stott, 2007: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA”

  56. #56 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    chek .. I have achieved exactly that.

    Every time I say I would like to see the real (by 2007) published science on which those claims is based, I get the most stupid replies from the most idiotic commenters here. About almost anything else except this alleged science.

    It’s as simple as that. If there is real science behind it, it’s there for everybody to see. If it’s not there, nobody can see it. It’s really as simple as that.

    That you haven’t seen any is bvious, that Jeff hasn’t is obvious too. Same goes for all the others.

    And the list of chapter authors is equally irrelevant, there is no science in those chapters, it is an alleged assessment of existing science. But there is no reference to that claim in the chapter either, just awkwardly worded footnotes and figure captions etc.

    Before anyone can see, read and check this alleged science, you all take both the claim and its existence on faith.

    In your case that’s obvious, but it’s true for all of you clinging to that claim, or blindly hoping there is som magic tree in the forrest, or a hidden sportscar in the heap of scrap metal, or whatever stupid analogy you want to use.

    You’ve spent 1½ years trying to avoid getting to the core of this, and instead tried to most stupid appeals to constructed authority or to delegitimize the question or who is asking them.

    All of these attempts are utterly stsupid, idiotic. And thoe only reason you guys try this is the obvious. The truth hurts too much. It has to be avoided at al costs …

  57. #57 chek
    December 13, 2012

    Jonarse, it’s perfectly simple to anyone with a functioning brain.

    You – being an ignorant ass – are unable to form a valid opinion because complex science is beyond you. You have no rational choice but to concede the estimation by experts based on the same material made available to you, but illuminated ten-fold by their education, experience and training. There are many examples in the modern woirld where the same situation is true of many fields beyond lay understanding.

    However, with you being an irrational fuckwit unwilling to invest in the necessary education to achieve a similar understanding, you make the irrational ego-driven choice to not accept expert opinion. And then you wind up in la-la cuckoo land with Griselda and Olapdog and PantieZ. That’s your choice, buty please don’t expect to be taken seriously because of it.

    By the by, my estimation is you’re a simple two-bit grifter hoping to make a few dollars out of the denial gravy train. Likely on the same Monckton mailing list as Anders Brevik, also likely loosely connected to the right wing Swedish network dedicated to reversing European socialism that Rove contacted to ensure a (false) indictment was lodged against Assange and probably even murkier stuff than that. But I’d give up that notion, you haven’t got the skills in any shape or form and you’re way out of your depth..

  58. #58 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    It’s just amazing how stupid the attempts are by the faithers. I just followed chek’s first link and it confirms exactly what I have been saying: It says

    “No single study is a “smoking gun.” Nor has any single study or combination of studies undermined the large body of evidence supporting the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming.”

    Meaning: There is no such study that establishes those specific claims. Instead it reflects some combined opinion, and the stronly worded support is that the claim hasn’t been proven wrong by “any single study”.

    It’s the same ‘We have no better explanation’ all over again!

    It goes on to list ‘the lines of evicence’ (incidentally a phrase I’ve seen many times here) and lists treerings(!) and model simulations …

    Most funny is that it relies heavily on a reference [7] with 12 sub-categories. Clicking on these, it returns you to the very same Wikipedia entry you’re already reading!

    You couldn’t make this up. Wikipedia is notoriously unrealiable wrt climate change and AGW, but even when they get to write their own story, they confirm what I’ve been saying here

    Almost as funny is the list of cited phrases a bit further down. It cites various worded phrases which can be taken as expressing belief in said claims. You find wordings like:

    “observed spatial patterns ..are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models … It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities”

    “Our analysis suggests …”

    “.. cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability ..”

    It even lists some propblems with UHA satellite records, as support for the attribution! And names (the journal) Science as the references, but links to Gavin Schmidt and Real Climate (a notorious dishonest blog).

    You couldn’t make this up!

    Even unprovoked, the best argument these guys can make is that I am right, and that the numbers should be accepted on faith. And chek links to this …

    Probably because it also tries his ‘the magic tree is hidden in the forrest, and only the selected can identify it, and aren’t allowed to talk to non-believers’-meme ..

    But hey, thanx chek. I would never have looked at Wikipedia for support for anything wrt climate and AGW. But you made me look. And even your side, when it gets to put out its story uncontested says essentiall what I have been saying all along (and Jeff actually has become aware of):

    That those AR4 claim levels are essentially pulled out of the hat of someone, who isn’t even claimed to have a name …

    Problably your most ‘meaty’ contribution here. Rivaling Wow’s reference to a monsoon-study showing disagreement with GHG-hypothesis based models.

    And chek links to it, hoping that

  59. #59 chek
    December 13, 2012

    As has been said plenty of times before, the science is beyond you and your hick incredulity is not a valid argument.

  60. #60 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    chek .. Science is not about opinions, it is about demonstrating that a hypothesis works, and presenting how this demonstration is carried out. And good science is about testing these hypotheses, trying to falsify them by seeing if the withstand critical tests.

    Again you demonstrate how little you understand of this when you allud to some ‘valid scientific opinion’. You explicitly write that I must “concede the estimation by experts based on the same material made available to [me]”

    Well, chek, but science is not about conceding to the opinions of others. To trust their estimations. Especially when no one made these claims with their estimations presented, how they were arrives at, and their names put behind them.

    The rest of your is just as idiotic as you lowest level.

    Needing to include Breivik reveals what gutter scraping scum you are. And you think a full blown idiot like you can teach me anything? For example with a Wikipedia-link that confirms what I’ve been saying?

    Look chek, I know there are plenty of idiots on your side of the climate hysteria, and many of them are in there for the totally wrong reasons (just look at Jeff). But you and Wow are even better examples for making that point …

    And trust me, you are far from the only ones. Essentially everyone trying to defend this kind of nonsense non-science is on the same level ..

    Wikipedia … ‘we have no better explanation’ …

    Well, at least the IPCC didn’t put it that clearly, chek

  61. #61 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    Yes, chek … idiots trying to declare me ‘incompetent’ come by the dozens. The read Wikipedia, and don’t even understand what’s said there. And spend years trying to make their own own ignorance the basis and even their arguments for their beliefs …

    Simply amazing!

  62. #62 Stu
    December 13, 2012

    So does that mean you’re finally ready to reveal which climate research papers you have actually read, Jonas?

  63. #63 chek
    December 13, 2012

    “‘we have no better explanation’ ”

    That includes you, Jonarse. So given the probability arrived at by the recognised best brains in the world (which obviously doesn’t include you) that’s what RationalWorld will go with.

    That you can’t formulate a better theory than “well maybe not, I don’t know” is why the ignorant and impotent aren’t pursued for their worthless opinions.

    And regarding Breivik? (I noticed you were familiar enough to correct the spelling), let’s just say that over the past 18 months (as you’re fond of reminding us), your monstrous egotism has let some things slip. So let’s nor pretend that your twisted ideology isn’t playing a large part in your reduction of science to some sort of personal pantomime for you.

  64. #64 Jonas N
    December 13, 2012

    Stu .. of hand-moving-box-fame …

    Here, the ones I’ve said I read suffice … but you guys don’t even remeber those. Or are in denial

  65. #65 Jonas N
    December 14, 2012

    Oh chek … and now the arguments get even more loony:

    ‘You don’t have a better explanation either .. ‘

    Marvelous. And sorry, I should have anticipated this level of stupidty too. But just now, I didn’t. I didn’t expect Breivik either, although I know the level of nuttery I’m dealing with ..

    But thanks for reminding me

    :-)

    But you see. I never claimed to be the best available science assed by the world leading experts, and put unsuported claims in official reports and releases to be spread and echoed around the world.

    I do however say this: If none of all these experts even can show how these claims are arrived at, and put this in public display, in one of your treasured peer reviewed publications, then I will remind you of that you are just repeating those claims in blind faith based on authority without even names attached to it …

  66. #66 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    You can’t remember what YOU said and whine about us not remembering????

  67. #67 chek
    December 14, 2012

    “unsuported claims ”

    But the claims are supported Jonarse by the chapter’s named authors. The anonymity is just your own little supporting fantasy you added in. Of course, not having the expertise to read or understand the references, you wouldn’t know that.

    And actually doing so would interfere with your riff.

  68. #68 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    You’ll notice everyone that Joan here has managed to say NOTHING about what papers they have read.

    As long as they don’t say anything, they can’t be caught out in a flat-out lie.

    And joan LIKES lying.

  69. #69 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    ” I never claimed to be the best available science assed by the world leading experts”

    Oh dear, you made a mistake, Joan. You made a statement that is a lie:

    Dec 12: “Those qualified to see” can see the forrest, and from that view determine things no one managed to see and claim and demonstrate individually

    Dec 4: And yes, my education is better than yours. Far better. As are my degrees.

    Dec 4: I’ve given enough hints about my professional skills and background that even a fanatic avtivist would get it if he just wanted.

  70. #70 Jonas N
    December 14, 2012

    Ok, a bit amused by chek’s Wikipedia-attempt above, I folloed his second link. Whic lead to the same wikipedia entry …

    My-oh-my …

    You guys really belive in that just repeating the same things more and more often, getting them printed and linked in more places, repeated more times by more unknowing voices ..

    .. that this somehow strengthens the case for those beliefs. That reality bends and bows to the repitition of uttered faith ..

    .. and you guys talk about science!?

    It’s a disgrace. Fortunately, this very nonsense is slowly coming to an end. I don’t know what is going to take its place, but I’m sure some new hysteria will arise, and the same band of activists and their successors will jump on the next bandwagon, and urge us to believe that exactly the same remidies will be required to solve the next upcoming calamity …

    Just as it has been before every time …

  71. #71 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    . <——- Evidence

    0 < ——Joan
    /|\
    |

  72. #72 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    “.. and you guys talk about science!? ”

    No, we talk about science.

    But someone “homeschooled” by the Village Idiot doesn’t know what the hell they’re doing.

  73. #73 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    (by the way, talking of the village idiot, say hi to your dad for me)

  74. #74 chek
    December 14, 2012

    “Ok, a bit amused by chek’s Wikipedia-attempt above, I folloed his second link. Whic lead to the same wikipedia entry ”

    No, it doesn’t Jonarse. They are quite separate. Although I expect in the same way that to a racist all Blacks and Asians look the same, anything vaguely ‘sciency’ seems the same to you.

    And spare us your tired philosophy – although again, it would go down with demands for an encore at Montford’s Home for Confused and Undereducated Misanthropes. But I suspect it’s too late for that and your “reputation” won’t survive your time here.

  75. #75 Jonas N
    December 14, 2012

    Yes chek,

    The IPCC exists, you are correct there
    And it’s reports are written by people, correct again
    And the various chapters are authored by its authors, once more correct
    And these authors have names, tue again
    And alledge to assess the science, also true
    But don’t present or constitute science by themselves
    Instead, they purport to assess published science
    Peer reviewed and in press by 2007, as they proudly announce.
    Which means, available for eveyone to see (who asks)

    Well chek, the little problem is that I have been asking to see this, and I’ve done so for quite some time. And in my opinion others should have done so for more than six years (and possibly have) but nobody seems to be able to answer, or even willing to address this issue. Albeit it being the most prominent AR4 claim.

    If you feel like it, you can restrict your search among all those references, to those who are co-authored by the chapter lead authors. But you still have to provide the science, the published references, with named authors who allegedly claim these levels of attribution and confidence ..

    If you can’t you are just echoing faith (based on opinions, of others) …

  76. #76 Jonas N
    December 14, 2012

    chek .. now it’s racist black and asians looking the same …

    Is there any level too low for you to stoop to?

    “anything vaguely ‘sciency’ ” says chek, after having linked two times to the same Wikipedia entry, but different sub-headings. Which explicitly stated that there is no explicit science underpinning said AR4 claims, that it instead is a ‘considered opinion’ by those selected to opine about it …

    And as its main support cites various sources saying ‘we have no other/better explanation’ and thereafter tries throwing this at me:

    “you can’t formulate a better theory”

    This is the level of ‘science’ with you chek. Wikipedia entries, saying ‘we have no better explanation’ and when challenged retorting “you can’t formulate a better theory” …

    Everything you say, when you get to specifics, confirms my statement, which I made already 1½ years ago here.

    Maybe you should have stuck with the ‘You are an idiot and moron’ meme only if your goal was to co´ver and protect your home turf … idiot county, that is.

  77. #77 Olaus Petri
    December 14, 2012

    Jonas, I believe you finally got the message through. :-)

  78. #78 Jeff Harvey
    December 14, 2012

    “Jonas, I believe you finally got the message through”

    Oh, goofball, he did a l-o-n-g time ago, the message being that he’s an egotistical twerp.

    Its really sad seeing the pathetic little moron wallowing in the mud, writing ridiculously long rants, refusing to read any of the myriad of studies that made up the basis of the summary chapter in IPCC-2007. What is even sadder is that this schmuck thinks that Deltoid is his global platform to spew his vitriol. As I said, before, what a loser.

    Its strange how even his die-hard fab club think its just fine that he can claim things time and time again (i.e. his education is better than ours; he speaks with many scientists etc.) without the need to provide a shred of proof.

    And note how our Swedish sad-sack not only refuses to address these simple questions, which are relevant, but also why he doesn’t take his alleged genius level wisdom elsewhere into the BIG world (where it matters). I have asked if he is writing a peer-reviewed rebuttal. NO ANSWER. I have asked him is he intends to submit a lecture for a conference on climate change. NO ANSWER. And of course NO ANSWER means – you guessed it – NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

    He clearly feels he is on safe ground in one tiny innocuous corner of the blogosphere, where he can be buffered by the sheer lack of people interested in his garbage, and be sure of the support of a few other right wing lunatics.

    I fully expect a page-length rant from Jonas in response to this containing the usual caveats:

    – Nobody has provided evidence for the attribution claim
    – He’s a lot smarter than anyone else here
    – We are all hysterical and scream a lot
    – We are all hand waving
    – He alone know what real science is
    – Nobody has come close to countering his wonderful arguments in 1½ years
    – Hi opponents make things up all the time and live in idiot-land
    – All our arguments are faith-based

    etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. The record is broken.

    And then watch GSW write a curt response in which he pats is hero on the back whilst dismissing the rest of us as fools for not recognizing the true genius in our midst. Or something along those lines.

    Again, its pathetic.

  79. #79 Olaus Petri
    December 14, 2012

    Jeff, you are making progress. You didn’t mention your CV at all. What will come of this?

  80. #80 Jeff Harvey
    December 14, 2012

    Olaus,

    Jonas has said he is better educated than anyone else here and that he has the relevant expertise to argue his corner.He also says that he has conversed with many climate scientists, and that he has read the relevant literature. As usual he has not provided any proof.

    Strange that he demands proof of the AR4 attribution from us but that he constantly makes remarks in which when he asked for proof he constantly evades and obfuscates. Pretty hypocritical I would say.

    He is therefore not making any progress. What will come of that?

  81. #81 Olaus Petri
    December 14, 2012

    Jeff, not “what will come out of that”, but waht has come out of this. And the answer is plain and simple that Jonas hasn’t only held his corner, he has painted you into one, an a very small one at that. The only thing still preventing you from seeing this is based on pure faith and uncritical thinking.

    As a neutral bystander it is more than obvious that Jonas don’t evade and obfuscate. He stays on topic while you guys start inventing facts and tussle with strawmen instead of dealing with what’s on the table.

  82. #82 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    Olap, now you’re back, maybe you can continue your quest.

    How would you find out whether the temperature has been rising.

  83. #83 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    “Instead, they purport to assess published science”

    Any yet again Joan here makes life up to be convenient for itself.

    WG1 assesses the science.

  84. #84 Jeff Harvey
    December 14, 2012

    “As a neutral bystander it is more than obvious that Jonas don’t evade and obfuscate”

    Bulls***. You arfen’t a neutral bystander.

    Jonas is the king of evasion. He makes a lot of statements (see above) then backtrracks when challenged on them. He’s clearly hardly read a single study that has been listed by Bernard, Lionel and others. His strategy is simple: expect others here to do his work for him.For us to go painstakingly through the summary chapter in IPCC IV and to lay out the science behind the attribution for him.

    This is twisted logic. The last IPCC document is the most peer-reviewed document in scientific history. It went through 12 rounds of internal and 3 rounds of external peer-review. If Jonas thinks he has found a major glitch, then its up to him to go through the reams of literature and point out to us where they are making things up that are not based on science but as forever says on faith.

    But he wo’n’t do that, and that is where the impasse is. We – his opponents, which clearly repesent a massive majority on Deltoid – want him to go through the studies and point out the flaws that make the 90% attribtion figure false and/or unscientific. He, on the other hand, expects us to do his dirty work for him.

    That would be fine if we were the ones countering the conclusions of a document that has been verified and supported by every Academy of Science in every nation on Earth. Of course, when confronted with this salient little fact, your hero then makes up stupid things like saying we don’t know the decisions of these esteemed organizations was reached. That allows him to invalidate their statements on the most flimsy basis. He then expects us to write to every Academy for proof that their conclusions were reached via the rank and file fopinions of their membership. Unless we do that, then he can assert that these stastements are meaningless. And you take this crap seriously? You thibnk that a neutral observer would read that and say, “Old Jonas has a point there”. Get real, man! Only an eel could try and slither from this, and Jonas apparently is covered in slime.

    This is when I began to see Jonas for what he really is: a time wasting clown. Let him go through all of the publications in the summary chapter of IPCC and then use that to discount the 90% figure. Its not ouyr job, given the fact that the 2007 report has been accepted by every major scientific body.

    I have said until I am blue in the face: the 90% figure is a handle for policy makers and the public WHO, RIGHTFULLY OR WRONGFULLY DEMAND HANDLES. If the repoirt had concluded that evidence for the human fingerprint on the recent warming is ‘highly significant’ alone, you can bet your bottom dollar that a journalist, pundit or politician would have griped that this doesn’t say enough. They want numbers! Percentages! So one is provided, and bingo! Its not based on the science! Its not based on the science! The denial lobby is great at this kind of thing. That is why I loathe the lot of them so much. They aren’t interested in sound science but in anything that will defeat the implementation of regulations limiting some corporate activity or the other. In this sense science becomes an area that must be twisted, distorted or mangled in pursuit of a hidden agenda.

    As an aside, I have asked Jonas a billion times why he persistes here, on one small innocuous corner of the blogosphere. If he is so adament of scientific wrong doing, why does ne not get off his butt and go to arenas where he might make a dent? He won’t get anywhere here, and all he does is bang his head against a wall. My take is that he is a big man in a small pond here, and he likes that. Out there, in the big bad world, as I said yesterday, he is a nobody, and his ideas and arguments would be quickly vanquished.

    If you think he can stand his corner in this little venue, then let’s see how well he does in the real scientific world. My guess is that he wouldn’t last a second.

  85. #85 Jonas N
    December 14, 2012

    Jeff, you’re still fabricating your won ‘facts’ …

    I have been asking for the references that establish these claims, and read those few which actially have been given together with the claim that they indeed contain that claim. Every time I’ve done so, they didn’t. Mostly they contained som attemps at ‘attribution’ but never even close to establishing the AR4 specified levels.

    I’ve said this many times, from the startout, and still the moron brigade here tries to frame it as:

    “you’ve previously admitted to not reading any of the references”

    and you your attempts are equally nutty:

    “refusing to read any of the myriad of studies that ”

    I don’t really know why you guys are so defiant wrt reality, but it must be deeply rooted …

    “this schmuck thinks that Deltoid is his global platform ”

    Again, pure invention by Jeffie ..

    Lets take the main claim here, the papers that allegedly make up the basis for those specified AR4 claim levels.

    As I’ve said many times, I’ve read those references put forward here (accompanied with the claim of being it). They were not that many, but at least one ‘cliamte scientist’ offered his best shot (Jeffie stood by, commented, and now denies that fact, and claimes the opposite)

    Earlier, I used to check offered references more eagerly, but since it was the same story every time, ie that those who put it forward hadn’t even read it, and they never contained any such claims (much less, scientific basis for it), I started asksing this beforehand. Bernard J demanded that I list all those paper, but I truly can’t remember all, this is a time span of over half a decade, and most papers were very uniteresting. However, he thinks this (me not providing that list) is his triumphant get out free card. It is very obvious that Bernard is not the kind of guy who understands attribution, or what it takes to establish high certainties. Neither is Jeff of course, and I’m not even blaming any of them for their lack of training. But they don’t stop there. their whole gambit has been:

    ‘Because we are stupid and ignorant, because we haven’t read these papers, because we don’t know anybpdy who really knows or even claims to have seen or done the proper science ..

    .. therefore Jonas must be stupid too. And cannot have read or understood anything. And knows as little as we. And has not asked the right questions. Or isn’t allowed to ask them, etc’

    It’s all quite pathetic. As I said, if that claim is in there (in the publications), it was there in 2007 and can be found and seen by anybod who wants to.

    (Idiot reality-denier) chek of course cannot either read such science, but twice tried the same Wikipedia entry that pretty much said exactly what I have been saying all along, and even appended a bunch of quotes, phrases (supposedly supporting the ‘attribution, but really only) demonstrating how handwaivingly these claims are made. Essentially:

    ‘We really believe in this, amd we have no better explanation ..’

    Well, that’s proably true, but it doesn’t constitute science. And this is where where you’ve been since 2007 it seems.

    And Jeff’s 1½ years attempts of making this about something (almost anything) else are just pathetic. As are his attempts at putting me down ony any other issue .. truky pathetic. And failures, consistently.

  86. #86 Jonas N
    December 14, 2012

    Jeff .. one thing you got right. That 90% figure is not science, it’s for political anad journalistic consumption

    All the other, all that I ‘have to do’ according to you is just evasion, smokescreeen. And I would be very very suprised if this claim was in there while the reports were going through review.

    Jeff goes on trying to prop the AR4 with more appeals to authority, but again, these are all words, and no substance. If those claimed levels were demonstrated in the science, one only would have to point them out, but instead we gett (here) 1½ years of idiotic drivel. I am glad that Judith Curry finally asks the same questions … they should have been raised long before. And by those who allegedly vetted that AR4 report … (if they ever got to see this before)

  87. #87 chek
    December 14, 2012

    So to condense – Jonarse read some unspecified papers, imagines them to be the same story everytime (beyond his comprehension? Who knows, he doesn’t specify) skims two wiki pages so quickly they merge into one, then complaining there’s no science, cranks out his riff one more time.

    You destroy yourself on the rocks of your own stupidity Jonarse.

  88. #88 Jonas N
    December 14, 2012

    chek ..

    The condensation is, you guys have no clue, and you have all been taken this claim on faith, believing somebody else has checked its veracity

    And it’s amaing beyond belief that you link to the same Wikipedia-entry, only at different locations on the same page, and believe that they were two different entries. Especially after I point this out to you …

    But learning is slow, isn’t chek, approaching non existent …

  89. #89 Jonas N
    December 14, 2012

    Its a pity you can’t direct-link to the many priceless attempts by the nutter brigade, and they aren’t numbered any longer either (and previously, the numbering could quitely change weeks later, when Tim decided to delete some comments, making the reading very difficult).

    However, chek twofold link to the same Wikipedia page is above, Dec 13, where he says:

    “No Jonarse, what you’ve made clear here is that you’re a noisy little ignoramus who hasn’t a clue about how science works in the real world, or attribution studies.

    If you won’t read the papers previously provided you can read the shorter Cliff Notes versions here and here”

    You can’t make these guys up even if you tried. He even wanted to make a point of me spelling Breivik correctly …

    What a bunch of loons …

  90. #90 Jeff Harvey
    December 14, 2012

    Here’s a proposal. For every post by one of us, Jonas makes about a dozen. And many of those go on and on. He clearly wants to have the last word, and has clearly shown that, as far he is concerned, Deltoid is it. There will be no publications or lectures or conferences where he will share his ‘wisdom’ with the assembled scientists. Yes, Deltoid is his final stop. His continued refusal to answer this question is his answer. No. Deltoid is my world he says; this is my thread and I’ll cry if I want to!

    So take it away, Mr. know-it-all. Have your final lengthy rant then leave us all here in peace.

  91. #91 Jeff Harvey
    December 14, 2012

    One last point, then the floor (rant) is yours, brain-boy. You wrote above, “therefore Jonas must be stupid too”

    You got that right.

  92. #92 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    There is nothing to what Joan wants to do.

    The claims of wanting science are rejected (if, for example, you give a link to a website like “nature”, it’s suspect, alarmist even).

    Claims of wanting to inform people of his facts fall flat because no actual evidence is given to support any alternative view.

    There is no point to the posts joan makes other than to be a dickhead in public.

  93. #93 Jonas N
    December 14, 2012

    Jeff … Thank you for confirming the level of your ‘logic’ and that my description of it was accurate. I’ll give you the whole thing again, for clarity. I summarized the core of your combined ‘arguments’ as:

    “Because we are stupid and ignorant, because we haven’t read these papers, because we don’t know anybpdy who really knows or even claims to have seen or done the proper science ..

    .. therefore Jonas must be stupid too. And cannot have read or understood anything. And knows as little as we. And has not asked the right questions. Or isn’t allowed to ask them, etc”

    I actully didn’t expect you to confirm this as clearly.

  94. #94 Jeff Harvey
    December 14, 2012

    Applause! Applause! Only a mini-rant!

    FYI and also for GSW: more water heaped on the denial machine. Um. What was GSW saying a little while back about the ‘climate change scare’ going in reverse?

    http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-science-doubters-world-warming-080143113.html

  95. #95 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    I win.

  96. #96 Jonas N
    December 14, 2012

    Jeff, do you not read what you write yourself? Often two thirds of your comments are various versions of CV-shaking and ‘fact fabrication’ about your imagined demons/enemies. The last third sometimes vaguely addresses the topic, but more often than not gets the facts wrong or barks madly at som strawmen ..

    I guess, this too somehow must be my fault!?

  97. #97 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    Just had a thought.

    Is Joan here ACTUALLY a pen-name of Monckton?

    Certainly writes like him. i.e. completely barking mad.

  98. #98 Lionel A
    December 14, 2012

    Is Joan here ACTUALLY a pen-name of Monckton?

    Not probable, no Latin thrown about. Besides even Monckton is more literate than this twerp. We have seen so much incoherent, repetitive if incoherence can be, drivel from his direction, enough to make a post-modernist weep.

    Another Dire tribe in one…two…

  99. #99 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    Remember, Monckton’s brain is rotting from Graves. When was the last time you saw him using latin? And note: he wasn’t even very good at it.

    His last attempt was to dress up in a dress and pretend to be a delegate from an arab country or somesuch.

    Monckton has DEFINITELY degenerated.

    And Joan here has degenerated too: their spelling and avoidance were never this bad early on in the thread.

  100. #100 Stu
    December 14, 2012

    Stu .. of hand-moving-box-fame …

    Oh precious, please keep bringing that up. You’re and GSW are not just a running joke on every other thread that has ever mentioned that particular episode… you’ve started a local meme.

    (Man, I really hope when I start my truck and drive off in a minute or two that my wheels will follow. I have it on good authority my engine will, though).

    Here, the ones I’ve said I read suffice …

    Name one climate paper that you have read, with your own, substantive critique, and I will send you $100. Don’t you want to make money off of rubes like me, Jonas?

Current ye@r *