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 Stu
    December 14, 2012

    I think Jonas has been drinking anti-freeze again.

    Behold:

    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 ..

    Shnookems, you are trying to take a steaming dump on well-established science. Science explained in thousands of papers. You have yet failed to mention a single one that has issues, nor those issues for that matter.

    If you were to dispute gravity, the burden of proof would be on you, would it not?

    This shaky climate science is so easy to disprove, all you need to do is grab one, just one paper and dissect it for us. You can post your analysis here, or anywhere else of your choosing. You could even choose to have your analysis published in a scientific publication. Heck, if your stuff is good enough, you should send it right to the Nobel foundation. I mean, you are smarter than everyone else, aren’t you? Why not cash in a cool million by writing up something you’ve figured out so decisively? You have oodles of proof, right?

    .. therefore Jonas must be stupid too.

    – channeling sadlyno –

    IT IS ALL PROJECTION.

    We are aware of all internet memes.

    Jonas, you are dense as a post. You have demonstrably failed to absorb any new knowledge for at least two years, and almost certainly longer for an order of magnitude before that.

    And has not asked the right questions. Or isn’t allowed to ask them, etc”

    Yes, let’s all pretend that we are all as dense as you and have no concept of the pathetic distraction tactic of JAQing off.

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

    I actually did not expect you to show this much Sterno-induced brain damage. But hey, we can all be surprised, right?

    $100, Jonas. One paper, one refutation. Go for it.

  2. #2 Jonas N
    December 14, 2012

    Stu, I don’t think you’ve ever said or contributed anythingrelevant or of substance to any relevant topic or discussion. However, you did try at one point:

    It was over a hand pushing a box and were ranting over different speeds for them. You derailed over three weeks (or more?) over what you must have believed was a major cock-up of physics. You kept lamenting over things that only existed in your head, even after it was pointed out to you that the opposite had been explained to you only minutes after you got it wrong the first time.

    That was the one time you felt like arguing a point!

    And you had studied physics for six years Stu, and could see nothing wrong with luminous ramblings.

    Yeah right …

    And you think you can teach me anything, Stu?

    But I’m glad that you now are aware that wheels and enging will follow the truck …

    A year ago, you had a three week hissy-fit over the opposite.

  3. #3 Jonas N
    December 14, 2012

    And I see Lionel A is back at the ‘weather is climate, and climate is caused by man’-meme

    And Jeff is back in his padded zone, yelling if IPCC says so, then it’s science …

  4. #4 GSW
    December 15, 2012

    @Jonas

    Have you had a chance to look thru the AR5 second order draft yet? I see the “attribution” statement’s been upgraded to “extremely likely”. (chap 10 I think)
    ;)

  5. #5 Jonas N
    December 15, 2012

    Not in any detail GSW,

    But Lionel will not be happy about what they have to say about extreme weather, neither frequency nor severuty ..

    It’s better to just ‘feel the truth’, saves a lot of time too.

    And I noticed the beefed up ‘certainty’. Jeff has already and preemitively declared that one isn’t allowed to inquire about the science behind it. I wonder why ..

    More funny is that several pro-climate hysterics felt the need to go out and comment in apparently some damage control effort ..

    Everybody expects the IIPCC to beef up the alarmism and scare, especially in the wording between the
    assessed science’. But they also know that won’t get away as easily as they did up til 2001 ..

    Funny too is all the stuff they chose not to address, or references they ‘omitted’. But really, given what they’ve promised in earlier reports, and both the activism among (some of) their proponents, and the people who are watching them, paying attention to the details and point out weaknesses and inconsistencies …

    What can they do? They are where they wanted to be? But reality outside has moved on, both temperature wise and policy relevance. Their earlier predictions just look more and more rediculous, especially the promises of ‘all the heat in the pipeline’ and ‘it’s only going to get worse from here’ ..

    But hey, what can they do?

  6. #6 Olaus Petri
    December 15, 2012

    What can the white heterosexual middleaged males do, the ones that invended “science is settled”, “elders of exxon against climate cience” and “right wing conspiracies”? Well, they can be offended big time! ;-)

  7. #7 GSW
    December 15, 2012

    @Jonas

    Judith Curry has this on the AR5 document leak,

    “I’ve downloaded the SPM and a few of the chapters. The extreme overconfidence of many of their conclusions is bewildering. More on this in future posts.”

    Bewildering indeed. Obviously as intrigued as the rest of us.

  8. #8 chek
    December 15, 2012

    “More funny is that several pro-climate hysterics felt the need to go out and comment in apparently some damage control effort .”

    Not half as funny as the crankosphere believing there is any damage.
    Another kunatic with an agenda braying to the world about his poor reading comprehension is indeed damaging. But not to the IPCC, just the cranks.

  9. #9 Stu
    December 15, 2012

    A year ago, you had a three week hissy-fit over the opposite.

    Obvious and stupid lie. Cut back on the Sterno Jonas, it’s getting a bit embarrassing now.

  10. #10 chek
    December 15, 2012

    Judith Curry has this on the AR5 document leak “The extreme overconfidence of many of their conclusions is bewildering.”

    Not bewildering at all, As someone with personal experience of Judy’s views, uninformed, unaware and unwilling to take responsibility sums her up pretty aptly.

    To you cranks, she’s a valuable asset (she has a real job! A real job everybody!) but as far as science or scientific research goes, she’s a liability who’s publication impact is meagre. And that’s being kind..

  11. #11 chek
    December 15, 2012

    “Obvious and stupid lie.”

    WB Stu.
    OASL’s are still the denier currency of choice, even when there is a choice.

  12. #12 Wow
    December 15, 2012

    Olap, how can you be of any purpose in discussing climate when you refuse to even think about how you would determine whether the climate has warmed or not.

    Yet, despite not knowing even IF it has warmed, you still “believe” there’s warming, just “believe” that it isn’t anthropogenic.

    Climate believer?

    That would be you, Olap.

  13. #13 Lionel A
    December 15, 2012

    But Lionel will not be happy about what they have to say about extreme weather, neither frequency nor severuty ..

    Now let us see the WHOLE of that on which you are forming your opinion. Don’t go all Plimer on us and take bits out of context and skew them to suit your purpose unless of course you wish to join the ranks of obfuscaters (and that is the polite version) with David Irving.

    Put up or shut up. Evasions and rhetoric will be ignored, as before.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    December 15, 2012

    “yelling”

    You are such an twerp, Jonas. The only person who probably breaks keys when typing is you. You are an insignificant nothing as far as I am concerned. I’d be a bit concerned if you had some sort of scientific pedigree and influence, but as it is you are trapped in your own little teeny weeny corner of the blogosphere. With a few equally dim witted fans to bolster your bloated ego.

    As for the IPCC, they interpret the scientific evidence. So yes, given the fact that the document is comprehensive, then yes, it certainly is based on the science.

  15. #15 GSW
    December 16, 2012

    @Jonas

    Had more of a look at chap 10, the ellevation to Defcon 2, “very likely” to “extremely likely” doesn’t rely on any relevant new science. At best they’ve just found more circular arguments. E.g CO2 can cause some warming, warming melts some ice, if some ice melts it must be because of CO2.

    Side note, co-ordinating lead author is Nathan Bindoff, don’t know much about him other than he’s not one of the more vocal advocates. Found this,

    https://rmdb.research.utas.edu.au/public/rmdb?indiv_detail_warp_trans+936

    Research funding in the Total Cash column is reported to be about $92million since 1994. Not bad for a second tier player.

  16. #16 Wow
    December 16, 2012

    How would you know? You don’t know what science is.

    PS Seen the quarterly reports for Exxon recently?

  17. #17 chek
    December 16, 2012

    It’s perfectly simple Griselda (and if you’re not about perfectly oversimplifying you’re about nothing at all): all you have to do is effectively refute the papers the chapter is derived from, It doesn’t take a genius to understand that more data over a longer period wasn’t going to bring in any good news in the wake of the last five years of climate related global disasters.

    However given your guru Jonarse (and the rest of the clownosphere’s) inability at simple reading tasks let alone competency in comprehension regarding the AR5 leaked chapters, that’s never going to happen. Not ever.

  18. #18 chek
    December 16, 2012

    “doesn’t rely on any relevant new science.”

    I stopped counting at a hundred new peer reviewed papers published since 2008 before attributing yet another casual, stupid, obvious and easily found out lie by Griselda.

    “At best they’ve just found more circular arguments”

    Another stupid and unsupported assertion from a know-nothing denier.

  19. #19 GSW
    December 16, 2012

    @chek

    “I stopped counting at a hundred new peer reviewed papers published since 2008″

    That’s come as something of a surprise chek, I’d always had you down as a bit of moron, but now you claim you can count? WOW!

    No chance you would ever get as far as reading them to see if they were relevant or not, never mind, “small steps” I suspose. Please report back when you’ve got the hang of “Janet and John”.
    ;)

  20. #20 Jonas N
    December 16, 2012

    Jeff .. you’ve been telling me that I’m a ‘significant nothing’ for 1½ years. And still you haven’t been able to land one single blow, and instead been swinging wildly at your own fantasies about me.

    As I’ve said, I know far more about science than you. You never seem to have been close to any real science.

    And you still argue that you should take whatever the IPCC puts in its report on pure faith. Although you already know that I at least want to see the alleged science behind it. And if it can’t be produced, I’d call BS on it.

    In contrast to you, I know what it takes to ascertain something, a cause for example, in a comples dynamic and non-linear system to the 99% level.

    And can (almost) give you my word already now, that this hasn’t been done, and instead are we fed another piece of opinion, by those who selfselected to opine about it. And opinions, not even expert opinions, aren’t science, especially when the purpose is to influence policy and claimed in the SPM, not based on the WG science assessment. (but yoy might see this wording change to obtain ‘higher agreement’ between SPM and WG1-chapters)

    Here is what Jeff hopes to be ‘the science’:

    “It is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s”

    And at the bottom of the SPM page it states:

    “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute”

    But really, it is funny how you can have a mock ‘review process’ with the reservation that later incoming publications (in press) may alter the content after the review deadline.

    What are these guys thinking this is?

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    December 16, 2012

    “As I’ve said, I know far more about science than you. You never seem to have been close to any real science”

    If we were to take a poll of the world’s scientists in response to that very question, there would be on big loser.

    Guess who. It isn’t me. Essentially, I am a professional scientist who has the training and background to prove it. You only have comments on a blog, a tiny number of blowhard supporters, no professional qualifications, except for your bloated ego and your own assertions.

    Truth is, Mr. Ego, you can go and jump in the lake. Put me together in any scientific venue with you and we’ll see who the real scientist is. Until then, bugger off and play with yourself.

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    December 16, 2012

    PS.

    Jonas, to refine your comment, I will confirm that you are, in the world of science, an insignificant nothing.

    Hope that clears things up for you.

  23. #23 GSW
    December 16, 2012

    @jeff

    “If we were to take a poll of the world’s scientists in response to that very question, there would be on big loser.”

    On the other hand, if you were to take a math or physics paper for 12 yr olds, I think you’d be quickly disowned.

    Aren’t you the one that can’t read the climate science primary literature because it has sums and equals signs in it?

    You never even had a go. You were just aware they contained stuff and there was a lot stuff. Hardly a basis on which to argue anything.

  24. #24 chek
    December 16, 2012

    “No chance you would ever get as far as reading them to see if they were relevant or not”

    Well it’s a given that you’re too incompetent to assess their relevancy, so the authors’ decision to include them is good enough for me. They, unlike you, actually know their subject.

  25. #25 chek
    December 16, 2012

    “Hardly a basis on which to argue anything.”

    .. says the sickening, sychophant smilie face pedlar after buildng a whole house of straw populated by an entire straw extended family.

    You couldn’t make it up as Murdoch’s finest used to say, before doing just that.

  26. #26 chek
    December 16, 2012

    ” “It is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s”
    And at the bottom of the SPM page it states:
    “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute” ”

    …and that’s how we know you’re a moron Jonarse.

    Thanks, for a clearer more concise example than most could show so economically. Why, it’s almost as if you’re not only too stupid to realise context matters, but don’t care if there’s the slimmest of slim chances some moron (or specifically the three already accompanying you) even stupider than you might be taken in by it.

    Nor do we expect any consistency with regard to the cases of Rawles and Gleick, although Gleick of course hadn’t entered into any voluntary and freely given confidentiality agreements.

    The other clincher is and most notably is once you step out of your safe zone riff, your complete inability to resist jumping on any old bandwagon du jour that trundles past even when a cursory glance makes plain its wheels are already coming off even as you type. I hate to be ageist sonny, but you really are an old fool.

  27. #27 Stu
    December 16, 2012

    No chance you would ever get as far as reading them to see if they were relevant or not,

    But you have, right? You’ve read those new papers, right? As has Jonas.

    Name one.

  28. #28 Lionel A
    December 16, 2012

    What are these guys thinking this is?

    That’s easy Jonas ‘Wendy’ N. this is a silly side show, one of your making.

    Now don’t go crying that I have taken your words out of context, ‘pot-kettle-black’ and all that.

    The more you wibble the worse you appear.

  29. #29 Stu
    December 16, 2012

    And again:

    As I’ve said, I know far more about science than you. You never seem to have been close to any real science.

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    I’ve never seen such a blatant, glaring, pathological inferiority complex on display for so long. Most would have figured out how sad they look about a year ago.

    So yes, +1 for sickening cognitive dissonance and delusion, -1000 for being boring.

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    December 16, 2012

    “Aren’t you the one that can’t read the climate science primary literature because it has sums and equals signs in it?”

    Funny thing is, gormless, its your idol who hasn’t yet proved that he’s read a single peer-reviewed climate science paper in his life. I have linked to quite a few; Bernard, Lionel, Chek and Wow have linked to many more. Jonas has summarily dismissed all of them without even a cursory look.

    The fact is that you both are a couple of arrogant hypocrites. I get attacked continually for showing that I am a scientist; your idol continually bleats about his superior scientific knowledge and education without any evidence ever being procured, except on his own word. We have a word for that: megalomania. You ought to look it up.

  31. #31 Jonas N
    December 17, 2012

    Stu, seems you are in denial again. One person was ranting for several weeks about hand and box and different speeds. Only one!

    But I confess, I prompted you to go on and also start again later because it was so hilarious ..

    All the time while it both was the most obvious thing (that nobody would claim anything but the obvious) and that your misconception(?) had been pointed out within minutes..

    But all those problems and even the conflating ‘physics studying’ with cereal packages etc .. were caused by them ‘evil deniers’ too, weren’t they?

    ;-)

    And Stu informs me that he chuckles in other threads together with his chuckle-chums

    Chek on the other hand, linked to the same Wipi-page twice, claiming they were two different ones even after I told him the second time. Meanwhile Jeff tries to redefine history again ….

    “[Jonas] who hasn’t yet proved that he’s read a single peer-reviewed climate science paper in his life … has summarily dismissed all of them without even a cursory look. ”

    It truly is stupidity beyond belief. 1½ years after the this started Jeff still doesn’t know what it is about. He is madly shouting at his retina ingraved fantasies …

  32. #32 Jonas N
    December 17, 2012

    Jeff …

    “I get attacked continually for showing that I am a scientist”

    You get attacked for showing that you are unable to behave like a scientist. I think I’ve clarified that 100 times by now. And I would ad ‘unable to behave like an adult’ too

  33. #33 Stu
    December 17, 2012

    One person was ranting for several weeks about hand and box and different speeds.

    One person brought it up (not me), and one person ranted about how absolutely, ravingly stupid that person was (me).

    But keep on maintaining your delusions, cupcake. It speaks volumes about your reading comprehension that you still cannot or refuse to properly process a blog comment. It instills oodles of confidence in you being able to comprehend climate change papers.

    By the way, you still haven’t read a single one, have you. If you had, you could just name it, refute it and cash in on my $100.

    Each time you ignore that challenge you confirm you are nothing more than a lying little weasel with an inferiority complex the size of lake Vänern.

    You get attacked for showing that you are unable to behave like a scientist.

    …as judged by a random, agenda-driven, highly delusional, willfully dyslexic pathological liar with a Napoleon complex on a blog. Who hasn’t read a single scientific paper in his entire miserable existence and does not have a single scientific credential.

    I’m sure he is crushed.

    And I would ad ‘unable to behave like an adult’ too

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    Again.

    Holy canoli the necessary increases in cognitive dissonance are making you more pathetic by the minute.

    Jonas, here’s a hint: adults don’t whine.

  34. #34 Jonas N
    December 17, 2012

    Stu … in utter denial. Or worse, feeling the necessity to lie about your own actions: Only you went on and on about hand and box at different speeds … And it was hilarious, Stu-I-studied-six-years-of-physics-and-can-see-nothing-with-luminous-calculations. Your chuckle-chum Wow couldn
    ‘t even find where I said that luminous was wrong, poor thing. But I understand why it’s sensitive …

    :-)

    “Each time you ignore that challenge you confirm ..”

    Ah, and there comes the Jeffie-style logic. And Bernard-style proof. And you probably still haven’t figured out why your idiotic question you kept obsessing about, what percentage of climate scientists bla bla … .. why that was equally stupid.

    Well, Stu (I-studied-six-years-of-physics) I guess there isn’t all that much you have figured out yet, and that’s why you keep posting your stupidities …

    And are you aware of that Jeff essentially (in one of his very few, non-dim moments) had pulled the carpet from underneath that AR4 claim. He doesn’t think it is real science either … just a trumped up number by people he would like to label scientists

  35. #35 Stu
    December 17, 2012

    Stu … in utter denial.

    Of course.

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    Or worse, feeling the necessity to lie about your own actions: Only you went on and on about hand and box at different speeds …

    I went on and on how moronic it was for one of your bootlickers (GSW, I think it was) to bring it up. But you know this already. You’re just lying through your teeth, trying to get the last line in and hoping that people happening upon this thread don’t go back and check for themselves.

    Everyone who has been following that particular subtopic knows you’re lying, Jonas. You’re a bad joke.

    Stu-I-studied-six-years-of-physics-and-can-see-nothing-with-luminous-calculations.

    Oh sweetheart, you’re STILL not over that?

    Why are you blaming everyone but yourself for being unable to hack even high-school physics? We weren’t there, cupcake. You’ should be angry with yourself, not us.

    And you probably still haven’t figured out why your idiotic question you kept obsessing about, what percentage of climate scientists bla bla … .. why that was equally stupid.

    Really? Weren’t you the one carping about “real” science?

    Yeah, I thought that was you.

    So how is asking you what percentage of climate scientists you consider “real” scientists a stupid question?

    It’s not, cupcake — it’s just a question you can’t answer without implicitly admitting you’re a lying sack of crap, and you’re (barely) smart enough to do that. Therefore, any question you don’t like, or can’t answer, or don’t want to answer is magically “stupid”, just like any science you don’t like is magically “not real”.

    These are things that are obvious to everyone, probably even you in your more lucid moments. I point them out merely in the hopes you will seek professional help for your mental illnesses.

    Stu (I-studied-six-years-of-physics)

    Good thing you’re not still obsessing over that, sweetheart. Yikes.

    I guess there isn’t all that much you have figured out yet

    I guess not. I guess maybe someone with your towering intellect should teach me a lesson and discuss one paper that person has read. And refute it. And make me pay that genius $100 for my stupidity.

    Should be easy for you, right, Jonas? Aren’t you the smartest person here? You keep saying so. Piece of cake, right?

    Or would this be another instance where answering such a simple question would truly reveal you to be the pathetic lying little weasel you’ve been so far?

    And are you aware of that Jeff essentially (in one of his very few, non-dim moments) had pulled the carpet from underneath that AR4 claim.

    Only in your tiny, fevered little mind sweetheart.

    He doesn’t think it is real science either … just a trumped up number by people he would like to label scientists

    Only in your tiny, diseased little place you call a brain.

    By the way, you whine about my carping on GSW’s inane comment for a few weeks yet see no problem with whining about a single phrase in the AR4 for a year and a half?

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    Especially singe you’ve failed to address a single underlying paper, like the cowardly hypocritical douchecanoe you are.

  36. #36 Wow
    December 17, 2012

    “It truly is stupidity beyond belief. 1½ years after the this started Jeff still doesn’t know what it is about.”

    It’s pretty obvious that you don’t, joan.

  37. #37 Stu
    December 17, 2012

    Oh hai, look who was spot-on. Sorry, I had to look it up. I’ll try to be more accurate in my description of Jonas’ mental illnesses from here on out:

    meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a (mg-l-mn-, -mny)
    n.
    1. A psychopathological condition in which delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence predominate.
    2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

  38. #38 Stu
    December 17, 2012

    As a random aside, this probably applies as well.

  39. #39 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Funny Stu, you talk about ‘it’s all projection’ while it was you and only you who imagined some hand an box at different speeds. And did so and derailed about it for three weeks. In spite your misconception being pointed out in minutes. It’s all projection Stu …

    And denial. And lying too possibly, Stu.

    Studied six years of physics (allegedly) and you lose the plot right away .. Yeah right Stu.

    But you now once more dream that there is real science behind that AR4 claim? Why then hasn’t any one of you produced it?

    Have you noticed the long list (and short) that Bernard and Wow and chek point at? Hoping it’s in there.

    ” By the way, you whine about my carping on GSW’s inane comment for a few weeks yet see no problem with whining about a single phrase in the AR4 for a year and a half?”

    You really don’t know? After all this time? Ok, I’ll repeat it once more:

    Because the IPCC made this claim, and alleged to be based on science. GSW never made any that stupid claim you obsessed about.

    Why I bring it up? Because you guys derail over both. Can’t handle neither that AR4 claim’s non-existing science, nor that you swing at pure nonsense in your infantile fantasies about your opponents. And lie about how much physics you studied … And about what you said.

    Sure Stu .. only when you fantasize about the climate scare, you get it right.Blindy. Sure ..

  40. #40 chek
    December 18, 2012

    No Jonarse, No, no no.
    The science underlying the claim is where it’s always been – itemised in Chapter 9 of AR4.

    The problem – as it’s always been – is your inability to understand the science well enough to understand the attribution. This is something that your quaint and personalised crank definition of ‘the scientific method’ is unable to comprehend.

    But then whoever promised that complex science would be understandable by the stupid? Not the IPCC – they work with what they have, which happen to be the leaders in their field – not cranks with a crush on prettyboy economists out of their depth.

  41. #41 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    chek

    Iäts quite obvious that you are too stupid to understand even the easier bits of both how science works, and what any particular piece actually says. In short “your inability to understand the science well enough to understand the attribution”

    Just look at gems like:

    “all you have to do is effectively refute the papers the chapter is derived from, It doesn’t take a genius to understand that more data over a longer period wasn’t going to bring in any good news in the wake of the last five years of climate related global disasters”,

    ” the authors’ decision to include them is good enough for me” and

    “I stopped counting at a hundred new peer reviewed papers published since 2008″

    As already noted, counting papers may be within your skillset, but you said you didn’t. Reading them, you most certainly did not. FUrther, papers published by 2008 or later cannot have been grounds for a 2007 AR4 claim. But most of all, you (and Jeffie) get it doubly wrong already at the kindergarten-Gore level:

    Specific quantified claims (like the on in question) are neither establish nor bolstered by the number of publications not making any such claims. Get this into your head.

    Lnsting papers you haven’t read, or even counted won’t make you look smarter chek (more like Wow, actually). And there is no need to ‘refute any of those papers’ unless they actually make such claims, and present any science allegedly demonstrating them.

    It’s still science on the absolutely most basic level, chek (and Stu, and others): If there is published science, it can be seen (by 2007) and read, scrutinizzed, questioned etc.

    Oh, not by you guys of course, but by anybody trained in science.

    And specified scienctific claims are not ‘fealt’ by scientists reading (or publishing) larger numbers of papers not dealing with those pecifics (nor by morons, not reading them, merely claiming the ability to count).Scientific claims are not felt, or voted upon, or established in negotiations, and especially not in the SPM summary where they appeared for the first time.

    It really is as simple as that. And you guys completely derail over this simplest of facts. It’s like you all cling desperately to a (now obviously corrupted) bureaucracy, and hoping its internal procedures somehow ensure claims by its officialls, but not made anywhere else. And in lie of published cliams, that it can be replaced by volume and sufficient opinion. It’s quite pathetic.

    But hey, it’s what you have argued for many years now. Willfully displayed ignorance at the very core of your beliefs.

    The funny thing, chel, is that you have spent 1½ here displaying pure idiocy, and elsewhere before that. And still think you can establish any of it by repeating it and claiming that someone else, others, know what you want to be true, but through the same shady unspecified consensus babble as yourself ..

    And that only ‘mentally ill stupid morons and deniers’ would not share your faith. That has pretty much been your argument since the beginning. An argument from blind and stupid ignorance, from which you have claimed to be able to make more judgements by merely guessing them.

    No wonder you’ll get things totally wrong almost everytime … Guessing, based on willfully blind ignorance will do that for you with quite som prescision ..

  42. #42 Wyvern
    December 18, 2012

    If there is published science, it can be seen (by 2007) and read, scrutinizzed, questioned etc.

    Oh, not by you guys of course, but by anybody trained in science.

    Funny…. there are tens of thousands of actual trained scientists who agree with those “guys”. More than 97% if the surveys are any indication.

    In fact I dont know of anyone well-known in science – besides Chris Monckton, Anthony Watts, and Judy Curry – who carry on in the same way as Jonas. Of those four only Curry has any scientific credentials, but she is so waffly in her promotion of ‘uncertainty’ that it is hard to tell what she really believes…. which I suppose is her intention.

    Sp what exactly is the scientific basis for your crusade Jonas?

  43. #43 chek
    December 18, 2012

    But Jonarse, you are a mentally ill moron. A fact easily demonstrated by your five hundred plus word dyslexic rant including quotes unrelated to your one precious riff.

    Looked at in context, my quotes that you take in support of your argument rant are in reply to your bootlicker pet Griselda’s claim that there were no new relevant papers in the attribution chapter of the AR5 leak, and an earlier (quite prescient, as it turns out) comment re the upcoming AR5. And please, don’t even try to imply that your pet simpleton read a single one of the post 2008 papers, because it ain’t gonna be believed.

    Now wipe the spittle off your screen, mop up the drool from your keyboard and try to make one coherent claim regarding any of the papers underlying AR4 Chapter 9.
    Not your quaint ideas about what science should be.
    Not your interpretation of the scientific method.
    Not another disconnected rant about your own brilliance.

    For the first time, some actual point regarding the science.

  44. #44 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wyvern ..

    If you claim that som 97% of some tens of thousands actual trained scientists agree with those guys (the ones here, who rant but cannot read) I would cal BS on that.

    If you would say that some 97% of some tens of thousands actual trained scientists agreeagree with those specified AR4 claims, I would call that BS too.

    Same goes for if you restrict this to some self selected group of ‘climate scientists’ (although the percentage would increase, there are those who agree with those AR4 claims)

    But still, agreement, unanimity, surveys among groups or subgroups etc, is not the way things are decided or facts or science is settled. You should know that.

    And furhter, those 97% agree whowe hear som much about are about some very much different and relaxed claims about global warming than the issue at hand. You should know that too. But then again, you brought up that 97% figure, in the belief that it somehow boosts your beliefs, so on the balance probably you did not ..

    You say: “In fact I dont know of anyone well-known in science …”

    Well, Wyvern, since you don’t seem to know what the issue is about, your familiarity with anything doesn’t carry that much weight.

    But you got one part right, that the claimed ‘certainties’ are are a huge problem, as is the science, if it claims it arrived at these.

    So Wyvern, did it? Does ‘the science’ establish these certainty levels or not? And if you include yourself among som loosely defined 97% … would you be able to produce it? Or would we hear the same deraling as from ‘those guys’ who in blind faith believe things, and spout invectives for years if somebody doesn’t share them?

  45. #45 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    chek,

    “make one coherent claim regarding any of the papers underlying AR4 Chapter 9″

    None of them even alleges to establish, by proper science, the quantitative levels made in that AR4 claim.

    PS I have been saying the same thing for over a year, only here. Funny that this still seems to escape you, chek

  46. #46 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Now chek, can you too say one coherent thing about the existence of any proper science, that domonstrates, or only attempts to demonstrate these claimed levels, particularly of the high certainty? …

    Anything that isn’t your repition of your own blind faith, but based on facts that can be checked!? Particularly, a reference that makes exactly those cliams would suffice. (You don’t need to have read it, or understood any of it, only address the combination of the two quantitative levels)

  47. #47 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Now chek, can you too say one coherent thing about the existence of any proper science, that domonstrates, or only attempts to demonstrate these claimed levels, particularly of the high certainty? …

    Anything that isn’t your repition of your own blind faith and tupid rambling of invectives trying to conceal thhis, but based on facts that can be checked!? Particularly, a reference that makes exactly those cliams would suffice. (You don’t need to have read it, or understood any of it, only address the combination of the two quantitative levels)

    Can you, chek?

  48. #48 chek
    December 18, 2012

    I’m not interested in your self-invented definitions of ‘proper science’, Jonarse.

    But if you want to make a dent in the attribution statement, you have to refute the science papers previously and exhaustively listed by Wow and Lionel – which we of course know by now you’re quite unable to do. Hence your endless excuses, prevarications and constructs.

  49. #49 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “attempts to demonstrate these claimed levels, particularly of the high certainty? …”

    You’ve already been given two specifically.

  50. #50 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “If you claim that som 97% of some tens of thousands actual trained scientists agree with those guys (the ones here, who rant but cannot read) I would cal BS on that.”

    And that means nothing. You’re ALWAYS calling “BS” merely because you don’t WANT it to be true.

    “Same goes for if you restrict this to some self selected group of ‘climate scientists’”

    You mean if you only ask Watts, McI and RPSr, several times each?

    No, the number is NOT “self selected”. It was selected from those PUBLISHING about climate science.

    Something you don’t do.

    “But still, agreement, unanimity, surveys among groups or subgroups etc, is not the way things are decided or facts or science is settled.”

    No, but once the science is settled, you get consensus.

  51. #51 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Once the science is settled, you get consensus.

  52. #52 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    chek,

    Of course I didn’t expect you to come up with any other than that moronic drivel you’ve been spouting here. And claiming I should have to ‘refute’ all those papers others have listed which don’t contain any such claims.

    But even this you didn’t get right. I wrote:

    counterfactual sutpidities again. I said:

    “(You don’t need to have read it, or understood any of it, only address the combination of the two quantitative levels)”

    I would do the ‘proper science chek’ for you!

    PS Whatever you believe you know has so far only been a display of your blind faith. Simplest of facts still is that none of you (nor anybody else I’ve ever asked) has even claimed to have seen such science. Only told me about their beliefs

  53. #53 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wow!?

    “You’ve already been given two specifically”

    You are the one who listed two specifically, yes. And one was about monsoon patterns and trends, essentially confirming the more skeptic position that model simulations aren’t doing a very good job …

  54. #54 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    And, yes, if 100% of the papers supported the claim “AGW is causing the climate trend” then one paper saying otherwise would prove it wrong.

    However, the figure is >90%.

    Therefore unless you can find another twenty/thirty-ish papers saying “no change”, then the AR4 claim is correct.

  55. #55 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “essentially confirming the more skeptic position that model simulations aren’t doing a very good job …”

    Essentially you’re lying again.

    The models are NOT INVOLVED in that paper. The paper was about MEASUREMENTS, NOT MODELS.

    Then again, you are only here to lie out your two arses.

  56. #56 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wow …

    Wyvern was pretending to speak for 10s of thousands of scientists about some 97% claim he

    1) apparentlyg didn’t understand, and
    2) is unrelated to the issue here.

    And no, the science about those AR4 (and now soon AR5) attribution claims is as far from settled as it can be. So far there is not even any science presented purporting to establish those levels ..

    The only people who in the face of me asking the obvious and relevant questions, have maintained that there is proper and published science although they have never seen and read any, have been utter morons and idiots (whose idiocy usually hasn’t been limiyed to only this particular topic).

  57. #57 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Wyvern was pretending to speak for 10s of thousands of scientists about some 97% claim”

    Yup, another lie. Really, you’re Monckton, aren’t you. Monckton lied about his “hitler youth” comment despite it was on TV. Really didn’t give a shit that it was easy to spot.

    And neither do you.

    “And no, the science about those AR4 (and now soon AR5) attribution claims is as far from settled as it can be”

    Nope, they aren’t settled, but that is why they were saying “90%+” rather than “99.999%+”.

    And if it were as far from settled as you claim (again, another bare faced lie from you), then the confidence would be 0%.

  58. #58 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “have maintained that there is proper and published science although they have never seen and read any”

    That was you again.

    “have been utter morons and idiots ”

    Yeah, definitely you.

    “(whose idiocy usually hasn’t been limiyed to only this particular topic).”

    Yup, you all right.

  59. #59 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wow … Yes, that paper contained many sentences longer than three words … It’s undertandable if you didn’t understand all of them …

  60. #60 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    chek, Jeff and all you other guys ..

    Have you noticed that your chuckle-chum Wow believes I am Monckton? Lets see if you guys can establish this (beyond doubt, with a very-likely certainty) based on consensus!?

    ;-)

  61. #61 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    What on earth are you wibbling on about now?

    I know I said stuff that is

    a) correct
    b) reasoned
    and
    c) doesn’t agree with you

    therefore you refuse to acknowledge it.

    The claim was 90%+ confidence AGW was affecting the climate.

    One of the two papers you were given were showing that measurements of monsoon frequency hadn’t been shown to be increasing.

    This

    a) doesn’t disprove AR4
    b) doesn’t invalidate the models
    c) doesn’t agree with you

    so therefore you haven’t read it. Despite one of the authors’ names being Watts.

  62. #62 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Have you noticed that your chuckle-chum Wow believes I am Monckton?”

    Care to prove you aren’t?

  63. #63 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    No Wow, I don’t care to prove I am not ..

    :-)

  64. #64 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Then stop complaining.

    Oh, you don’t do that, do you. You just whine and whinge for years at a time and then when you get anything concrete jump over to the next non-sequitur and blame everyone else for your insanity.

  65. #65 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Wyvern was pretending to speak for 10s of thousands of scientists about some 97% claim”

    Yup, another lie.

    But rather than demonstrate me wrong (which would be a good trick, since it’s true), you go off on a tangent.

    You’re a liar, Joan.

    A flat-out bare-faced and psychotic liar.

    Precisely like Lord Monkfish. Who goes to Australia because of the stop-over in Thailand for the same reasons as Garry Glitter did.

  66. #66 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Anything concrete, Wow!?

    You mean any scientific publications (by 2007) that acctually do, or only attempt to establish those by the AR4 SPM claimed attribution- and confidence levels !?

    Nope, haven’t seen anything concrete at all. Only idiotic ranting and waffle and wowble ..

  67. #67 chek
    December 18, 2012

    “Have you noticed that your chuckle-chum Wow believes I am Monckton?”

    One lying denier is the same as another. Who cares what the difference is?

    “Nope, haven’t seen anything concrete at all. Only idiotic ranting and waffle”

    Yup, that’s ALL we’ve ever had from you. You seem to seriously believe your – heh – logic and rhetoric alone will suffice. And you still haven’t given up banging your head against that wall.

  68. #68 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Anything concrete, Wow!?”

    Yes.

  69. #69 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “You mean any scientific publications (by 2007) that acctually do, or only attempt to establish those by the AR4 SPM claimed attribution- and confidence levels !? ”

    And yes, I do mean scientific publications that actually do attempt to establish the AR4 claims.

  70. #70 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    chek …

    One or some papers which establish or attempt to etablish said AR4 claims and levels will suffice ..

    You, and quite a few more idiots, have tried to avoid the most simple and basic rquirement in science for 1½ years …

    And instead produced utter drivel and nonsens, and idiotic rants, interspersed with attempted infantile invectives in the vain hope of getting away from the issue, and the obvious fact that you are all taking these things in blind faith ..

    Every single one of your comments underlines that you are defending your faith and belief system, and nothing else …

  71. #71 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “One or some papers which establish or attempt to etablish said AR4 claims and levels will suffice .. ”

    You’ve already been given two of them.

  72. #72 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “And instead produced utter drivel and nonsens, and idiotic rants, interspersed with attempted infantile invectives in the vain hope of getting away from the issue”

    That’s you.

    “and the obvious fact that you are all taking these things in blind faith .. ”

    Nope, you again.

  73. #73 Olaus Petri
    December 18, 2012

    Wow, are you referring to your monsoon paper again? :-D

  74. #74 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Your point?

  75. #75 chek
    December 18, 2012

    “One or some papers which establish or attempt to etablish said AR4 claims and levels will suffice .. ”

    So after all this time, you need someone to tell you how to use the Chapter 9 .pdf?
    Actually, I can believe that.

  76. #76 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Oh, and this is still waiting on your answer. So far all you’ve done is proclaim you don’t know how to do it (though this doesn’t stop you believing for no apparent reason that the climate has warmed).

    How do you go about finding out whether the temperature has warmed?

  77. #77 Olaus Petri
    December 18, 2012

    My point Wow? That you don’t have a clue, which you demonstraded all by yourself with the monsoon paper. Hilarious for us, but embarrising for you and the rest of the climate scare clergy.

  78. #78 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    chek ..

    I have been able to read chapter 9 all the time, or to assess the list of references given there. If you truly believe anything else your are beyond idiotic in your deluded own fantasyworld engraved on the inside of your eyballs and skull ..

    And all your comments here still paint you as an utter idiot, chek!

  79. #79 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wow … you too are taking those AR4-claims in blind faith. But in yoru case, I am almost willing to give you the benifit of the doubt. Meaning that you aren’t even aware of not ever having seen the science you hope exists …

    And unfortunately, you are not alone. And the probablity that I am Christopher Monckton is either 0 or 1. Nothing inbetween is possible. And you don’t know which .. again, you can only guess. And try to establish consensus in replacements of facts with your buddies …

    Good luck!

    ;-)

  80. #80 Stu
    December 18, 2012

    Funny Stu, you talk about ‘it’s all projection’ while it was you and only you who imagined some hand an box at different speeds.

    Still an obvious and stupid lie. Again, if you can’t even discuss something as simple as that rationally and honestly, why on Earth do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

  81. #81 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    chek ..

    You are repeating your diversion-beliefs totally irrelevant for the issue. And I think it is the most funny thing, to see how shallow your understanding and knowledge of the issue is.

    Jeff Harvey, only slightly more skilled than Wow and you, too tries to argue in some backward way that this lack of proper attribution science, is the fault of some (very few) skeptics ..

    His claim is just as moronic as yours … But at least he has stopped claiming it, even says some (partially) sensible things about it.

    It seems, you aren’t anywhere close to that anytime soon.But hey, you’ve tried the same tactic for little over 1½ years now. Maybe, by the time of any AR14 or so, even you’ll get the memo …

    :-)

  82. #82 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “My point Wow? That you don’t have a clue”

    And the “evidence” for this is what? That a paper says monsoon frequency hasn’t provably changed is used to illustrate the science behind the AR4 claim that it’s extremely likely that climate change and very likely that most of that change is due to human effects?

    How do you draw that conclusion?

    Or is it the usual bollocks of “I deny AGW, therefore anyone supporting it must be talking crap”?

  83. #83 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “you don’t have a clue”

    Rather amusing coming from someone who doesn’t even know how to determine a trend…

  84. #84 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “I have been able to read chapter 9 all the time”

    You haven’t though.

    Because you don’t understand science.

    “If you truly believe anything else ”

    No, we totally believe you’ve been ABLE to.

    We know you neither have read them, nor are capable of understanding them.

  85. #85 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “you too are taking those AR4-claims in blind faith”

    Nope, because unlike you, I read the science for AR4 Ch9.

  86. #86 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “You are repeating your diversion-beliefs totally irrelevant for the issue.”

    What issue?

    The issue that you have been claiming that there is no science supporting the AR4 claim?

    He’s spot on there.

  87. #87 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “But hey, you’ve tried the same tactic for little over 1½ years now”

    Yeah, for 18 months or more you’ve been ignoring the science.

    We don’t expect any change other than your disappearance (hence why you won’t identify yourself or your capabilities: plausible deniability “It wasn’t me wot said that”) by AR14.

  88. #88 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Olap, how would you go about determining the change in temperature?

    Or are you merely taking it on faith that there IS warming?

  89. #89 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Stu

    There was one Stu(-pid person) only who lamented about hand and pushed box at different speeds. Even in spite of being corrected only minutes after his first failure, even several times. Its all on page 15 of this thread. This quote:

    “Sorry stu it’s a physics thing. Keeping it simple for you, if you apply a greater force than F friction, the matchbox will accelerate. Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox in order to apply further constant force, therefore your hand needs to accelerate as well. If your hand is left behind as it were – then your not pushing anymore and F applied = 0.”

    and also this gem:

    “No, I didn’t “do” physics at school. I merely studied it for 6 years.”

    And you were siding with empty physics-blusterer ‘luminous’ back then.

    And do you think I care the least about whether or not you take me seriously, Stu? Of handmoving-box-fame? Of studied-six-years-of-physics-fame?

    C’mon

    For three weeks you were lamenting about different speeds among hand and box. Or let me correct that, now it’s more like 1½ years you’ve stuck to that particular idiocy!

    Keep at it, Stu …

    :-)

  90. #90 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Its all on page 15 of this thread. This quote:…”

    He’s correct.

    Or do you think that a hand doesn’t have to touch something to push it along?

    You are a complete moron, Joan. Complete.

  91. #91 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Stu: “Still haven’t answered me though: what the hell does the velocity of the hand have to do with it? You brought it up. It’s a simple question. Answer it.”

    None of you answered, though, did you.

  92. #92 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wow, claims “Nope, because unlike you, I read the science for AR4 Ch9″

    And is unable to come up with it wrt to his beleived claim. Links to a monsoon-pattern paper istead.

    QED

  93. #93 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    And you were whining about everyone going on about irrelevant stuff compared to “the issue”…

  94. #94 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “And is unable to come up with it wrt to his beleived claim”

    No, no belief necessary.

    You were given TWO papers underpinning the AR4 claim.

    The AR4 claim is not SOLELY from those two papers, though you continue to demand that it must.

    Reality, however, doesn’t give a shit about what you want.

  95. #95 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    You claim you are smart and better at science than Jeff.

    And you’re unable to come up with any evidence wrt your believed claim.

  96. #96 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wow, I copy it once more for you (emphasis mine):

    “Sorry stu it’s a physics thing. Keeping it simple for you, if you apply a greater force than F friction, the matchbox will accelerate. Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox in order to apply further constant force, therefore your hand needs to accelerate as well. If your hand is left behind as it were – then your not pushing anymore and F applied = 0.”

    You need to ask Stu, though, why he obsessed (and still obsesses) about the speed of the hand. His question was (and still is) as stupid as what you produce Wow …

    But please keep at it, you too!

  97. #97 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox”

    And what does that have to do with anything?

    Can’t you stop with the irrelevancies?

  98. #98 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    But if you WANT to talk about stuff not relevant to “the issue”, if you’re pushing WITH your hand, your hand IS accelerating.

    It’s how hands push: they apply force and move if the stiction is less than the force applied with the hand.

  99. #99 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Sorry ’bout the bungled quote, I hope any non-moron can figure out where it ends (Hint: It was posted just minutes earlier)

  100. #100 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “But please keep at it, you too!”

    “Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    chek ..

    You are repeating your diversion-beliefs totally irrelevant for the issue”

    Do you withdraw your complaint now?

    Or is honesty totally beyond you?