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 18, 2012

    Is that because you’re playing to the moron deniers, Joan?

  2. #2 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wow, you should have explained the obvious to Stu before he derailed. Now he has made an utter fool about himself, forced to lie about his physcis-studies, and is still in denial of the obvious.

  3. #3 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wow, as I said, I appreciate that you, chek and Stu are repeating all the nonsens you spout. Occasionally, Jeff brings up you guys in to demonstrate how many here side with him. That’s a Double Bonus for me …

  4. #4 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Wow, you should have explained the obvious to Stu before he derailed.”

    No, it wasn’t Stu who derailed it. That is why he asked:

    “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.”

    Yet again, you talk of yourself but pretend the villain is someone else.

    Is it a compulsion?

  5. #5 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “I appreciate that you, chek and Stu are repeating all the nonsens you spout.”

    a) Just because you don’t understand doesn’t mean it’s nonsense.

    b) Apparently you don’t since when you get the answers you childishly demand, you go off on a segue then whine, bitch and moan about how everyone else is an idiot.

  6. #6 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    PS learn to spell.

  7. #7 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wow, it was answered. Repeatedly … And Stu stu still derailed, still is in denial it seems ..

    I’m no part of his nonsense, but admit finding it entertaining. Also that Jeff felt the need to side wuth you guys … It’s like a compusion. And you couldn’t even see that I contradicted luminous. Hillarious too if true …

  8. #8 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Wow, it was answered. Repeatedly ”

    No, it was repeated, repeatedly.

    “And Stu stu still derailed”

    No, he continued to ask why you deniers derailed it (and I ask you why you didn’t complain about GSW derailing “the issue”).

    “I’m no part of his nonsense”

    Really? So someone else was posting as you here:

    “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,…”"

    Is lying as necessary to you as breathing is to normal humans?

  9. #9 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    I seem to have yet more lying tripe from Joan. When it claims: “I’m no part of his nonsense”

    He must be forgetting:

    “Jonas N
    October 6, 2011

    No, luminous b

    You’ve got it wrong. And of course I know Newton’s laws. Much better than you here trying .. I don’t even know what…. “

  10. #10 Olaus Petri
    December 18, 2012

    Its always fun when white men like Wow, Jeff, Lionel, chek etc get hurt by reality. “Angry” doesn’t cut it. :-)

  11. #11 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Olap, why are you here when you don’t even know how to measure temperatures?

  12. #12 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    PS what other than your own insanity makes you claim “get hurt by reality.”?

    What reality are you claiming?

  13. #13 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wow .. I’ll explain it once more for you (because it is so hillarioulsy funny):

    The discussion was about friction, sliding boxes, hands pushing it. Nothing even the least complicated about it. Kindergarten Stu(ff) ..

    Stu lost it over the hand/box speeds (as you seem to have done too)m albeit it being explained to him repeatedly. See the quotes above.

    For weeks he (alone) went on about different speeds between hand and box. All by his own. Here (page 16 in this thread) is one example :

    “Christ on a crutch, you witless little cheerleader. It’s amazing you even dare show your face here after you spent days saying that when you push an object, the hand pushing it can have a different velocity than the object.”

    All by his frikking own, Wow! The guys became a nutcase … and he is not alone, I promise you!

    Did you get it this time? If not, read again. Or ask me to repost it. I can put the various quotes in the same comment if that helps (can’t shorten the length of the sentences, though, Wow)

    :-)

  14. #14 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “The discussion was about friction”

    So when you whined:
    “Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    chek ..

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

    You wanted him to stay on the topic of friction?

  15. #15 Olaus Petri
    December 18, 2012

    Like I said: Angry doesn’t cut it, mr. Monsoon paper. :-)

  16. #16 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “The discussion was about friction, sliding boxes, hands pushing it. Nothing even the least complicated about it. Kindergarten Stu(ff)”

    Yup, stuff you haven’t understood (and it’s not kindergarden stuff by the way. If you’d ever gone to school you’d know that).

    “Stu lost it over the hand/box speeds ”

    No, all he lost was understanding what the hell it had to do with anything.

    “For weeks he (alone) went on about different speeds between hand and box.”

    No, that again would be you and the slug horde. You kept going on about it.

    “Here (page 16 in this thread) is one example :…”

    Yes, someone asking why YOU are going on about different speeds for hands and boxes.

    Like I say, you’re always talking about yourself, but pretending the faults are done by everyone else.

  17. #17 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Angry doesn’t cut it”

    And birds of a feather flock together.

    A stitch in time saves nine.

    Many a mickle make a muckle.

    However, like everything you’ve tried since you had to run off to avoid answering my really simple question, they are irrelevant to anything.

    This is a theme with you deniers.

  18. #18 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “All by his frikking own”

    Yes, all by his frikking own, apart from you saying for days that the speed of the hand is different from the box, he brought up why you kept saying it.

    Obviously, Stu must be mind controlling you and doing time travel.

  19. #19 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    The chronology of this “issue” in normal linear time goes like this:

    Joan: Talks about hands pushing boxes.
    Joan: Insists their idiocy is correct.
    Stu: Asks how joan can show their face after their insistence about hands/boxes/acceleration.

    Joan thinks that this is proof Stu started this and Joan never was part of it (which you’ll note that Joan has accepted without comment that they HAVE lied and now quietly contradicts themselves).

  20. #20 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Marvelous Wow, now you too make the same idiotic claim as Stu did back then. I’ll even quote it for for everyone to see (and find more easily). You said:

    “[Me:]“For weeks he (alone) went on about different speeds between hand and box.”

    [Wow:]No, that again would be you and the slug horde. You kept going on about it.”

    In total denial too? In denial of what you correctly identified as the opposite statement just minutes ago:

    And Stu wasn’t asking, he was making stupid (strawman) claims, see above.

    “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.”

    But Stu isn’t alone anymore among the idiots. I just wish Jeffie would come back and weigh in on your side …

    :-)

  21. #21 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Marvelous Wow, now you too make the same idiotic claim as Stu did back then.”

    Yes, people do tend to agree on the truth. Lies are unbounded, so there are so very many of them.

    “[Me:]“For weeks he (alone) went on about different speeds between hand and box.”

    [Wow:]No, that again would be you and the slug horde. You kept going on about it.”

    Yes.

    “Jonas N
    October 6, 2011

    No, luminous b

    You’ve got it wrong. And of course I know Newton’s laws. Much better than you here trying .. I don’t even know what…. “
    l by his own. Here (page 16 in this thread) is one example :

    (which is dated October 19, 2011)

    Now in REALITY, 6th October 2011 came BEFORE 19th October, 2011.

    Indeed, the difference was 14 days, near enough.

  22. #22 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “And Stu wasn’t asking, he was making stupid (strawman) claims, see above.

    “Sorry stu it’s a physics thing. Keeping it simple for you, if you apply a greater force …”"

    No, you’re quoting yourself (maybe GSW) there, definitely not Stu.

    How can YOUR statement be a statement from someone else unless you’re claiming mind control by that other?

  23. #23 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    I do realise that subtraction of numbers in the range 0-99 are a little beyond you, Joan, but you really should have asked a grown-up to help before you displayed your ignorance for all the world to (potentially) see.

  24. #24 Stu
    December 18, 2012

    I am SHOCKED. Jonas quotes dishonestly.

    Again, you pathetic, lying little weasel, this is what started it:

    GSW, October 16, 2011

    [...]

    If it was a matchbox on a table, and the applied force was your hand, then to apply a greater force than F friction, your hand would have to move quicker (accelerate) across the table also. If it moves at constant velocity you are only applying F friction.

    (Emphasis added)

    We went back and forth a bit, until…

    Stu, October 16, 2011

    [...]

    The velocity of the hand, when pushing a box, is completely irrelevant since it is (by definition) always the same as the box, therefore a dependent variable, and therefore completely irrelevant.

    But do go on, do tell why hand velocity is important and why you brought it up. I can’t wait. Maybe we can also discuss the velocity of the dust on the box and the air in the box?

    After THAT, you STILL went on about it for weeks (when one simple “well, that’s not how it was meant, sheesh” could have ended it). That final quote (“keep pace with the matchbox”, thank you for bolding it) shows you don’t know a single farking thing about physics. No wonder you’re still carping on my having six years of basic physics under your belt; I doubt you made it through two.

    It’s absolutely pathetic.

  25. #25 chek
    December 18, 2012

    It wouldn’t be that the sudden fortuitous yet irrelevant appearance by Jizzhead Putrid was designed to temporarily unbalance the thread’s stupidometer in the hope of making Jonarse’s mental contortions seem more believable, somehow?

    Hey Putrid – forget Wow’s trend question for the moment; what’s a temperature?

  26. #26 Olaus Petri
    December 18, 2012

    Cheekie, you are a true major ass(et) to this site. Wrt temps, in contrast to Jeff, I preferr using thermometers. What about you?

  27. #27 chek
    December 18, 2012

    Thermometers, eh? I’ts my understanding that deniers have a knee-jerk distrust of proxies of any kind.

    But unsurprisingly, you avoided the simplest question. Jonarse certainly has rubbed off on you, hasn’t he.

  28. #28 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    So how would you measure a trend in temperatures with a thermometer, Olap?

    (why does it feel like I’m a teacher in playschool with Olap Dog here?)

  29. #29 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Thermometers, eh? I’ts my understanding that deniers have a knee-jerk distrust of proxies of any kind. ”

    Oh, no, they love proxies like

    a) Wine records in Roman Britain pre 7th C.
    b) Dead animals in permafrost.
    c) Illustrations of rivers frozen
    d) Viking settlers freezing to death

    They also have a love-hate relationship with ice cores. They hate them when they tell the temperature but love them when they indicate that CO2 rises after the seas have warmed.

  30. #30 Stu
    December 18, 2012

    Wow: I know, right? It truly feels like educating the short bus. Remedial math, remedial English…

  31. #31 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    I’m afraid it’s more like irremediable maths/english/science/reading…

  32. #32 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    So Wow, you finally found an instance where I told luminous he got it wrong? Marvelous, you were in denial about that too for quite some time.

    Your quote now, however (from Oct 6, on page 13) does not allude to any hands and boxes and pushing. It deals with how luminous bungled his laws of motion. Explicitly!

    Are you that incompetent? Or that dishonest?

    Here (page 20, top Nov 5, almost 3 weeks later) is my final comment to Stu, after which he calmed down for some time:

    “What GSW said about hand velocity was correct. What you have argued for 2½ weeks has been utter nonsense. And, as you’ve shown, sheer products of your on fantasy, which is afflictied with abundandt ignorance about most of the things.

    And no, that is not anybody else’s responsibility ..

    But going back to the core issue:

    Is there any part of GSWs #1484 which you still don’t understand?

    (You seem to have droped that idiotic ‘different speed of hand/box’ now, since this was only your stupid fantasy which lasted for weeks. Dependent or independet variables are not an issue either)

    What is described contains a box, a hand pushing it, with a force, a velocity, that changes, and a frictional force due to the sliding.

    All very simple things (for anybody having studied physics for a semester).

    Now, you said you hade severe problems with that?

    Can you precisely explain what it is you don’t understand? What you take issue with? (Without involving fantasies about things not in there)?

    Can you?

    Because so far, you haven’t. Instead you have been lamenting like a lunatic about things only existing in your fantasy

    (you do that a lot, I have noticed .. it seems to be almost endemic)”

    Stu’s next retort was about ‘Ritalin subscription’ on Nov7. But a year later he once more tries to rewrite history like a true denier. It is simply amazing!

  33. #33 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Yes Stu, and that description of physics was quite correct. Still is. If your applied forece exceeds frictional force, the box will accelerate, and (to keep up with it) the hand would need to accelerate to, ie move quicker and quicker. Nothing difficult at all.

    To avoind any possibly ambiguity (för the dim witted) the quickening of the hand even was accompanied by an “accelerate”)

    The thereafter imagined different/hand/box/speed was and still is only a something you brought up (or ‘misinterpreted’ if we would interpret it nicely). And of course repeatedly corrected for you several times. As copied above.

    Still your problem Stu, still only yours!

    And truly Stu (of studied-physics-for-six-years-fame), I don’t know why you even started that? Why you pinned your hopes to luminous? He was out of his depth, and if you had understood the least little thing about physics, you would have noticed that quickly. But you didn’t, and instead had a (almost) three-week-hissy-fit about different speeds among hand/box. Which only existed in your own head! As repeatedly demonstrated here again, and back then!

  34. #34 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Yes Stu, and that description of physics was quite correct.”

    Glad you now agree with Stu on what the physics is.

  35. #35 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “So Wow, you finally found an instance where I told luminous he got it wrong?”

    No, I found you talking yet more bollocks that YOU were claiming you never said.

    Something YOU failed to find.

    Despite all your whinges about how everyone else can “just find where I said it before” (and ignoring specifying the “it” into the bargain).

  36. #36 Olaus Petri
    December 18, 2012

    Mosoons man feels like a teacher when he links to papers that contradict his beliefs. Abominable like the snowman, but yet true! Amazing! :-D

  37. #37 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “What GSW said about hand velocity was correct. ”

    What he said was bollocks.

    But you love him, so you defend him.

    Hell, your understanding is no better than his and so therefore you’re willing to believe him without evidence, just by his proclamation.

  38. #38 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “when he links to papers that contradict his beliefs. ”

    My goodness. You think EVERYONE thinks like you. I respect the evidence. I don’t discard it if it doesn’t proclaim “AGW is killing us all”, yet you DO if it doesn’t claim “AGW is a scam!”.

    And trust you not to know what the hell Joan’s demands were.

    Joan didn’t demand a paper that proved AGW.

    Joan demanded the science behind the AR4 report.

    Then again, thinking for the pre-paid like you isn’t really an option, is it.

  39. #39 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    And how can you claim a paper doesn’t support my “beliefs” as you term them when you can’t even work out how to calculate whether something is warming or not?

  40. #40 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Your quote now, however (from Oct 6, on page 13) does not allude to any hands and boxes and pushing.”

    It DOES allude to it. And that isn’t even your first load of bollocks on the situation.

    But you don’t know how to search which is why you demand everyone else do it for you.

    Your comments and history proclaiming just what you are now insisting you have never done are easily retrieved from your thread.

    All you have are claims that have so far 100% been proven lies.

  41. #41 Olaus Petri
    December 18, 2012

    What are you talking about Moosesoon man? You are the one that links to papers that cointradicts your own statements (with the tail in the air). How clever is that?

    So stop blaiming me for your long shortcomings. ;-)

  42. #42 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    I wouldn’t expect someone who doesn’t know how to measure if something is warmer to understand.

  43. #43 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Then again, that last message indicated you continue with the “not knowing what the hell is going on”.

  44. #44 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Ah Stu, and you even (and again) want to blame all that stupid lamenting and obsessing on someone else!?

    “when one simple “well, that’s not how it was meant, sheesh” could have ended it”

    Your problem was and still is: The description is accurate, even emphasized (‘accelerate’, to avoid dimwit confusion) and thereafter explained twice more. And you still kept going on about different speeds, and later dependet variables etc.

    What an utter joke you are Stu! And you accuse me of lying for accurately describing both the physics, then the example, then your misconcecption of it, your derailing, and further stupidities, and now reminding you of all.

    What an utterly pathetic joke Stu!

  45. #45 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Your problem was and still is: The description is accurate”

    No, our problem was and still is that you’re talking shit and are insisting it’s best beef.

    “even emphasized (‘accelerate’, to avoid dimwit confusion) ”

    Then why is it, after all this emphasising, you’re still a confused dimwit?

    “and thereafter explained twice more.”

    Yes, repeating it doesn’t make it true.

    “And you still kept going on about different speeds”

    Yes, different speeds between the hand and the box indicate how your statements WERE WRONG. However, since you refused (or are unable) to understand, it was repeated.

    “and later dependet variables etc.”

    Yes, nother illustration of your error by showing how your assertions fail under circumstances that your assertions OUGHT to apply.

    The only joke here is Olap, yipping away there irrelevantly.

    You’re not a joke, you’re a failure. You’re a warning sign to others who decide they don’t have to learn something.

  46. #46 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    well Wow, you were the dimwit to claim not even seeing where I told lumunous he got it wrong .. none of the instances .. you possibly still believe he did get it right .. but then again you are a full blown idiot wrt to almost everything you address …

  47. #47 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Sorry, never claimed I didn’t see where you told luminous he got it wrong.

    Never even claimed I didn’t see where you told luminous incorrectly he got it wrong.

    Never happened.

    But then again, you’re pegging well on the 100% complete liar meter.

  48. #48 Stu
    December 18, 2012

    Glad to hear you admit you quote-mined Jonas.

    Oh, wait.

    Here (page 20, top Nov 5, almost 3 weeks later) is my final comment to Stu, after which he calmed down for some time:

    s/calmed down/gave up on a discussion where the other participants were obviously arguing in bad faith

    What GSW said about hand velocity was correct.

    Which was not the point, moron. Hand velocity is not an issue. It should not be mentioned. It is not part of the problem. Since the original premise says “hand pushing box”, the entire concept of the hand can be eliminated.

    Holy tapdancing Jeebus you are a moron. And a pathological liar.

    What you have argued for 2½ weeks has been utter nonsense.

    No, you just did not — and do not, holy hakalela, over a year later — understand my point. Everybody else did. You were STILL arguing that it is really important to know that a car’s engine moves at the same speed as the car.

    And, as you’ve shown, sheer products of your on fantasy, which is afflictied with abundandt ignorance about most of the things.

    The only thing that keeps me coming back for more to this thread is seeing you get all haughty, Jonas. It’s hilarious. Watching the spittle obscure your screen too much to properly spell when accusing others of being ignorant is sweet, juicy irony writ large.

    I also see that me making fun of your pathetic spelling still has not moved you to download any of the myriad free available tools to make you look less like the utter dolt you are.

    That too tells us more about you than any of your feeble attempts at argumentation ever could.

    Is there any part of GSWs #1484 which you still don’t understand?

    I fully understood then and understand now “whoosh, I missed the point”, cupcake. It’s not that hard. Fathoming how you think you have a point, however, is.

    (You seem to have droped that idiotic ‘different speed of hand/box’ now, since this was only your stupid fantasy which lasted for weeks.

    I did no such thing, moron. I stopped mentioning it because I ran the issue into the ground. Sentient slugs would have gotten the point by then. You did not. Draw your own conclusions.

    Dependent or independet variables are not an issue either)

    Thank you for quoting this, showing that even a year later, you STILL DON’T KNOW WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE. Or how to spell them, for that matter.

    What is described contains a box, a hand pushing it

    Again, for those happening upon this thread and unwilling to wallow through all of the past dreck: this is all you need. The hand pushes the box. By definition, the hand will have the same velocity as the box at all times. If it does not, it’s not pushing the box and you’re not doing the experiment anymore. Therefore, the hand, it’s velocity, it’s manicure and the rings on it are all equally irrelevant. BRINGING UP THE HAND AT ALL AFTER YOU SAY IT IS PUSHING THE BOX IS STUPID AND UNNECESSARY.

    All very simple things (for anybody having studied physics for a semester).

    I’m going to assume from now on that that is all you did, and feel it safe to venture you failed at it miserable. As you do at logic, spelling, reading comprehension and sanity.

    Now, you said you hade severe problems with that?

    WHOOOOOOSH

    Can you precisely explain what it is you don’t understand?

    WHOOOOOSH

    What you take issue with?

    WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

    (Without involving fantasies about things not in there)?

    You were then, as you are now by quoting this embarrassment, dense as a very large sack of hammers. My issue was with things that were not supposed to be in there. Things that GSW mentioned, and things you defended being in there. Things that make high-school physics teachers shake their heads slowly in dismay.

    But like I asked you then: please show in the equations for this experiment where the hand velocity shows up as a variable.

    Go on, I’ll wait. I’ll probably wait for a long time though. Just like other reasonable questions you refuse to answer. Just like other challenges you pretend to ignore.

    You’re not fooling anyone, Jonas. Not then, not now.

    Stu’s next retort was about ‘Ritalin subscription’ on Nov7.

    Yes, because you obviously need some to help your learning process. Although it might be a lost cause… thorazine and lithium seem more appropriate by now.

    But a year later he once more tries to rewrite history like a true denier. It is simply amazing!

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    Hey, Jonas, who intentionally omitted the original post in his quoting?

    Yes, that was you. You’re a pathetic little man.

  49. #49 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    ” “What you have argued for 2½ weeks has been utter nonsense.”

    No, you just did not”

    Joan just missed out one word:

    “What you have been arguing *against* for 2½ weeks has been complete and utter rubbish”.

    Now THAT is correct!

  50. #50 Stu
    December 18, 2012

    LURKER/POSTERITY COMMENT

    The reason we harp on this is because it is a microcosm of Jonas’ stupidity, intransigence, delusion and mendacity. Go back to check if you like. He can’t even get this little thing right, nor admit that he was wrong. This is all you need to know about the caliber of the people denying climate change.

  51. #51 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    That’s called denial Wow … plenty of it among you. Stu and chek too, about different things though

  52. #52 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Stu you utter nutcase,

    Your personal issues are of little relevance. That you don’t understand simple physics is already noted. Yor misconceptions about other things are noted too. And you’re being helped. Hen you misunderstand things, they are explained once more. Or twice. Why you derailed over different speeds hand/box only you know. Nobody, and let me stress this nobody else was responsible for that. On the contrary, others tried to help you to get it right.

    “when one simple “well, that’s not how it was meant, sheesh” could have ended it”

    Well Stu, not only did you get that note. It was written on your nose, in plain language! The misunderstanding though is still yours, and only yours!

    And please, you little insecure idiot moron, who allegedly studied six years of physic, but still have the most severe difficulties with the smallest things (a hand pushing a box), don’t tell me what I understand and don’t …

    Get your petty little act together first and catch up with those physics you never understood .. I am decades ahead of you.

    And you are trying to shift all kinds of goalposts now, Stu. Nobody is interested in why or exactly how you deraild. You claimed, several times, that somebody had been going on about different speeds among hand and box. While it was only you. Only you Stu-pid. And even pointed out to you quite quickly, within minutes ..

    Now you say, your issues were with things that weren’t supposed to be in there. Well that’s true in the first two instances: Neither

    1) Different speeds of hand/box, nor
    2) dependent and independet variables

    were in there. However, you lamented about those things for weeks, now over a year. Nobody else but you brought this up.

    Now, you want to move teh goalposts. saying that the hand velocity wasn’t needed, and that dependet variables weren’t either.

    Well Stu, and still: Nobody talked about variables or equations, that the hands moves quicker when it accelerates a box by pushing it is trivial.

    Only an near-autistic moron would take issues with the obvious. And that’s what you did. And it seems that it all was everybody else’s fault.

    Poor petty misunderstood Stu …

    There you go. Feeling a little bit better now?

  53. #53 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “That’s called denial Wow”

    Yes, we know.

    ” plenty of it among you.”

    Yeah, you’re putting it there.

    Odd how you make these lying claims yet are unable to show proof of them.

    Nah, it’s not odd, it’s standard denier 101.

  54. #54 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Joan, you don’t understand physics.

    How does the speed of the hand affect the acceleration of the box whilst being pushed?

    You haven’t ever once managed to answer the question.

    You are unable to now.

    Instead you just whine “Oh, you don’t understand physics”. Except you don’t even understand subtracting 6 from 19.

  55. #55 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Neither:

    1) Different speeds of hand/box, nor
    2) dependent and independet variables

    were in there. ”

    Do you want proof that you’re lying here?

    I can prove it if you want.

    Go on, defend yourself from your lying frigging idiocy if you dare.

    Or are you afraid to acknowledge your lies?

  56. #56 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wow,

    Nov 2, towards the end of page 17:

    [Jonas asked:> So have you found all (or only one of the many) violations of simple physics luminous made while trying to wiggle away from his nonsense?

    [Wow's repsonse:] No.

    Have you?

    No.

    I note that all you can do is ask if anyone else found them. This kind of indicates that you’ve looked and not found them either.

    End of story. Once more in denial Wow.

    And luminous many erorors were pointed out in detail. You guys just are to dim to understand even the simplest physics. Whoch you confirmed by agreeing with luminous (ie hoping desperatly he got it right).

    Again a display of you blind, and emotionally misguided faith …

  57. #57 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Nov 2, towards the end of page 17:”

    Sorry, the only denial there is you denying the answers.

    You claimed there were errors.

    Yet you are unable to actually tell anyone what they are.

    And somehow, you think that YOU being unable to get evidence for your claims are because of MY denial???

    Fruitcake, that’s what you are. Complete loon.

  58. #58 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “And luminous many erorors were pointed out in detail.”

    No they weren’t.

    You spend a lot of posts saying “LB you have this wrong”. However, that is only pointing out an error if your statement “you have this wrong” is correct.

    a) You need to prove it first
    b) it’s a fake claim anyway

  59. #59 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “You guys just are to dim to understand even the simplest physics.”

    No, we understand real physics perfectly fine.

    Its your made up shit we haven’t a clue about.

  60. #60 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Stu, you sound like mediocre schoolboy who has read some new stuff (dependent variables) in a book, or his older brother’s book, and is eager to bring it into a conversation, to display his newly aquired vocabulary. And finally thinks, here is the opportunity. And goes forward ..

    Geeh what a joke you are. A hand pushing a box, overcoming friction and accelerating it, ie the hand moving quicker (nad quicker) …

    What absolute moron would feel he needs to take issues with that, and more than a year later even defend his hissy fit? What stupidity must lie behind even thinking that would be a smart way of showing off?

    On top of that, someone claiming to have studied physics for six years, and who didn’t spot anything wrong with luminous’ ramblings!?

  61. #61 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Projecting again, Joan?

    Sad little sack of crap, you.

  62. #62 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “A hand pushing a box, overcoming friction and accelerating it, ie the hand moving quicker ”

    Making up the argument to fit your current needs again, I see.

  63. #63 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Now wow, you don’t understand the first things about even simple physics. You couldn’t spot any of the. That you first (and inadvertently?) admitted when you copied one of those instances, when defending another one of the nutter brigade’s acions.

    Thaat’s the thing kid. Once you start lying, you have to remember every falsehood, and avoid contradicting it for all future, while ensnaring you and only further limiting your possible ways to ‘argue’ …

    Pathetic bunch!

  64. #64 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    How do you manage to say that?

    Really.

    Completely fummoxed.

    It’s absolutely patently obvious you are incorrect, yet still you say it as if somehow repeating it makes it true.

    Are you five years old or something?

    “You couldn’t spot any of the.”

    Any of the what?

    You never pointed anything out. Just claimed they had been. This is different, but language isn’t something you do, is it.

  65. #65 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Wow

    “Making up the argument to fit your current needs again, I see”

    Nope, you being in denial once more. Even Stu understood it was about a ha d pushing a box, overcoming friction and thereafter accelerating ..

    His beef was:

    1) That the hand and box don’t have different speeds (true, and he only imagined that anybody else siad the opposite. Severl times)
    2) That this statement should involve ‘dependent variables’ somehow, that hand and box have the same speed (see above)
    3) That someonde should have pointed out what was meant (It was, several times)
    4) That this multiple misconception proves a lot of things (denialism, lack of physics understanding, unfamiliarity with dependent variables, lying and mental illness etc) All stupid and wrong fantasies. As were his original issues with a hand pushing a box sliding on the ground ..

    More denial Wow, to cover up previous denial? Or why else?

  66. #66 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Still making things up?

    You claim and claim, but never evidence is seen.

  67. #67 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “1) That the hand and box don’t have different speeds (true, and he only imagined that anybody else siad the opposite. Severl times)”

    No, GSW said that many many times.

  68. #68 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “2) That this statement should involve ‘dependent variables’ somehow,”

    No, though you don’t know anything and may have shoehorned that into your head rather than try and work out what he was talking about.

    “that hand and box have the same speed (see above)”

    Which you just agreed was true.

    You insisted your list was showing where Stu/LB (you keep changing what you’re on about) was wrong. Yet here you are proving me right and you wrong.

  69. #69 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “3) That someonde should have pointed out what was meant (It was, several times)”

    Made that up again, haven’t you.

  70. #70 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “4) That this multiple misconception proves a lot of things ”

    Was that what Stu/LB was having problems with?

    Or was it just that you’re talking bollocks, still are, always have and never will do other than?

  71. #71 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    My bad, you couldn’t spot any of the grooss errors, Wow. Said so yourself.

    And I know, there were several long sentences, some using difficult words, like physics and acceleration. Sorry about that Wow … Can’t really help you with that. And I see many areas you could use a hand …

  72. #72 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “(denialism,”

    You are a denier.

    “lack of physics understanding,”

    You don’t know the first thing about science.

    “unfamiliarity with dependent variables,”

    You haven’t a clue what they are.

    “lying”

    Yes, you do lie all the time.

    “and mental illness etc)”

    Yup, you are mad. Only the psychotically insane could do as you have done for years.

    One only wonders what you think you’re doing.

  73. #73 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “My bad, you couldn’t spot any of the grooss errors, Wow. Said so yourself. ”

    Yes, I actually require something to exist before I can spot its existence.

    You don’t seem to want to limit yourself to existence and reality, however.

    Problem for you is that nobody wishes to share in your delusion.

  74. #74 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Mind you, I think I know what Joan is.

    12 years old.

  75. #75 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    Nope Wow, still n idiotic denial
    1)Only Stu was going on about different speeds among hand/box
    2) His ‘dependent variable’ alsoe only existed in his own head. The ‘need’ for one was only in his head.
    3) And yes, wanted to make others responsible for his many misconceptions, still tries
    4) His logic is amlost as poor as yours
    5) Luminous bungled the physics, big time. Stu, did too, but mostly invented his own strawman about different speeds hand/box.
    6) You didn’t even know what was being discussed. In neither of the cases luminous and Stu ..
    7) and you are in denial

    PS Monckton isn’t 12 years old. But you of course have seperate and parallell universes for your facts. Sometimes it seems you have a new one for every statement. And those times you actually are in agreement with some previous invented ‘fact’ it is pure coincidence. What do you think you are in every one of them?

  76. #76 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Just remember Joan here is named after the Two-faced god of doorways:

    Joan earlier: “I’m no part of his nonsense”

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

  77. #77 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “1)Only Stu was going on about different speeds among hand/box”

    No he wasn’t. GSW went banging on about it. Mind you, you have trouble enough finding what YOU said, never mind someone else’s statements.

    “2) His ‘dependent variable’ alsoe only existed in his own head.”

    No, they really exist.

    “3) And yes, wanted to make others responsible for his many misconceptions”

    No, he was not under any misconceptions, therefore apportioning blame for the nonexistent was not desired.

    “4) His logic is amlost as poor as yours”

    Since you make shit up, this too is made up and completely expected.

    “5) Luminous bungled the physics, big time.”

    So you continue to claim, but all you have is your claim that this happened.

    You are wrong.

    “Stu, did too, but mostly invented his own strawman about different speeds hand/box.”

    See above: GSW started that.

    “6) You didn’t even know what was being discussed. In neither of the cases luminous and Stu ..”

    Because you were taling about Stu then started demanding attention to LB.

    NOBODY (not even you) know what you’re discussing.

    You are made of metasyntatic variables.

    “7) and you are in denial”

    Another claim with only contrary evidence behind it.

  78. #78 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    I notice you are making a total idiot out of yourself also in the sea level thread, Wow … what a surprise.

    And I really appreciate both you and Jeffie, who likes to point out how many in here agree with him and that he even admits you are one of them … Just wonderful

  79. #79 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    This fuckwit really is tiresome.

  80. #80 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “I notice you are making a total idiot out of yourself also in the sea level thread,”

    Yeah, that imagination of yours is impenetrable.

    Do you ever leave your imagination?

    PS do you think 150 people have managed to sink the entire North American continent? Glittery ballsack thinks so.

  81. #81 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Has anyone got any evidence that a 12-year-old posting as JonasN is false?

    Anything at all?

    Because it’s the only reason I have for this idiot to do as they do.

  82. #82 chek
    December 18, 2012

    It’s very likely truer than you mean. As with spanky dildo on the sea level thread, like children they want to believe despite the evidence. And in order to do so, either the evidence is false (spanky’s route) or isn’t there (Jonarse’ route).The one thing they can’t do is refute it.

    But despite having their brain sacs displaced by an even larger .22 pellet direct hit apiece, it’ll take the nervous systems of both a while to register their hosts are gone..

  83. #83 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    But like children, they can’t concentrate on anything. Don’t have good communication skills. Have no CV or experience. And have plenty of time to annoy grown ups (and if teenaged have a superiority complex that some never grow out of).

  84. #84 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    More idiocy from Wow emulating a poorly programmed spam-bot. Responses to

    1) No he wasn’t. GSW went banging on about it. Mind you,
    Nope, just your fantasy
    2) No, they really exist.
    Yes, dependent variables exist, completely unnecessay here. Only Stu lamented about them. Made them even a major point
    3) No, he was not under any misconceptions, therefore apportioning blame for the nonexistent was not desired.
    Stu was under so many misconceptions, you’d normally feel sorry for the sucker. You are even worse
    4) Since you make shit up, this too is made up and completely expected.
    I don’t, you do, Stu does, Jeff does, chek too
    5) So you continue to claim, but all you have is your claim that this happened.
    Both claimed so, and in detail described how and where. And the correct way. You missed all of these
    5 contd) See above: GSW started that.
    Still wrong
    6) Because you were taling about Stu then started demanding attention to LB. NOBODY (not even you) know what you’re discussing.
    As I said, you had and have no clue. Never had
    7) Another claim with only contrary evidence behind it
    Nope, you are making counterfactual claims. Even about your own previous claims

    But that’s you Wow .. and you have found you perfect place here. And as I said, I am really happy you get some appreciation for your efforts here.

  85. #85 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    You seem even more confused than before.

    Are you saying it WAS GSW doing it or that it was your fantasy?

    “Yes, dependent variables exist, completely unnecessay here”

    Except you claimed they didn’t exist.

    “Stu was under so many misconceptions”

    Nope, he was not under any misconception, except in so far as he thought talking to you would help you understand. In that he was dead wrong.

    But maybe you’d like to point out one of his misconceptions and where he made it.

  86. #86 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Oh, hang on, you don’t do evidence, do you.

    Just proclaim a truth that everyone else is supposed to believe.

    Sad sack of crap, you.

  87. #87 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Joan, you’re a moron.

  88. #88 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    chek, thanx for siding with Wow here. I

    Re: “like children they want to believe despite the evidence”

    That would be the science behind that Ar4 claim you have never seen, just desperately and in blind faith (still) hope is in there somehow.

    Among your trees, and Wows heap of scrap metal parts. Or Wow thinks is a monsoon-pattern paper …

  89. #89 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Joan, you are a moron.

  90. #90 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    More invention and denial from you Wow …

    Among the stupid commenters here, with absolutely no signal among the noise, I think you are the worst. There have been other utter idiots commenting here, but not as much nonsense as you.

    The extent of über-stupid claims you’ve made rivals the fact-invention of Jeffie. The latter however, sometimes managed to make some reasonable statments, vaguely on topic, in the early part of his posts. Before his emotions got hte better of him, and he angrily started to shake his CV at me once more, and then went off on another ‘fact’ fabrication tirade about me ..

    You don’t even do the insults and fact inventing very well, your number of own goals by far exceeds the number of your posts … and those are many and short

    Quite a feat, I’d say …

    :-)

  91. #91 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Joan you are a moron.

  92. #92 Jonas N
    December 18, 2012

    As I said … no signal just noise. And zip understanding of anything else you’ve ‘addressed’ either …

    Zip!

    Could some of you others please contradict me? That you believe there is one valid argument among the Wow-noise? Somewhere?

  93. #93 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    You’re a moron, Joan.

  94. #94 Wyvern
    December 18, 2012

    Jonas, others have pointed out before that you are all talk and no substance. What is your proof to contradict my experience with other scientists?

    I’m a chemist. No one in my department disputes the science of AGW. None of the physicists who I work or mix with with dispute it and neither do the biologists I know. Even most of our geologists are OK with the science although some have trouble admitting it. Things get muddier when you talk to the engineers and the economists but thats hardly surprising. My colleagues seem to have the same experience as I do when we go to conferences. So the numbers even from my own experience support what I said and dont support you.

    Show us why all of the scientists who publish in the scores of journals that cover various fields relating to global warming are not actually believing what they print. Please show us how you know that proper scientists do not accept the basic principles that physicists tell us underpin climate change.

    Are you a physicist?

  95. #95 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Oh, you’ll rile him with your waving your CV, Wyvern.

    He doesn’t have one (he’s a moron, and you don’t get a good CV from that).

  96. #96 Stu
    December 18, 2012

    Oh goody, Jonas is drunk again.

    How can I tell, you ask?

    It’s when his poor spelling gets even worse. And again, note that he could avoid this easily by downloading any of the many freely available spell-checking applications around. Must be the spittle preventing him from proof-reading.

    Of course, none of that would help with his Sterno-fueled idiomatic embarrassments:

    (Greatest hits of just today)

    [s already noted] [Hen you misunderstand] [[six years of physic (yes, Jonas, call me Miss Cleo)] [deraild] [independet ] [teh] [dependet]

    Oh whatever, that was just one post.

    POSTERITY/LURKER: Whenever he is challenged, Jonas has a fit and goes off into a megolamaniacal rant, with spelling going off the rails immediately. This is how denialists react when called on their lunacy, be it climate-related or not.

    If I get bored later, I’ll react to Jonas’ arguments (such as they are).

  97. #97 Stu
    December 18, 2012

    Are you a physicist?

    God help us all if he is.

  98. #98 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Wyvern

    Maybe you shouldn’t rely all that much on what others say here (That’s a sublte hint … )

    I repeat. You certainly don’t speak for tens of thousands of trained scientists. Generally, I’d be very cautious about those who pretend to respresent many more, and what they claim.

    Furhter, I extremely much doubt that you have discussed the high level of certainty expressed in that AR4 claim with so many others. Probably not at all, but maybe repeated it since you’ve heard it before, as have many others ..

    Another giveaway was that claim about 97% agreeing. But I already said that.

    Maybe you are new to the discussion, and have missed the pertinent points (others aren’t but miss every single one of them). You talk about the ‘science of AGW’ and again it is a very vague definition. The usual argument goes like.

    1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
    2) We are prodicing it by burning fossil fuels
    3) Its content in the atmosphere is rising, and
    4) it is getting warmer, while
    5) point one through three would agree with point four ..

    Alas … and it is getting warmer (or at least has been)

    So far I am completely with you in the argument. These points are sometimes referred to as ‘the basic physical principles underpinning climate change’ (but that would already be an overstatement)

    But here is merely where it first starts. Those so keen on shouting ‘denier’ really want to believe that skeptical individuals deny exactly the above points, prefereably all of them.

    (You can see countless attempts at exactly that in only this thread. It doesn’t matter how often you clearly state otherwise, the envisioned ‘denier’ and what he is like is engraved in their retina, also their mental ones)

    If your colleagues and aquaintaces agree with those points above, I have no real quarrel with them. I am with them so far, agreeing without reservation on the four points.

    But the whole issue rests on the magnitude of the warming to be expected, if CO2 really is the main driver of the climate, and (inherently) if those large claimed positive feedbacks really are what some hypothesize ..

    That part is very much in question, the scarse publications attempting to establish these high levels are very shaky and their empirical foundation even more so.

    But I think you too actually miss the point I am making. I have not claimed that the numbers share my view, and not yours (especielly if it is as uncontroversial as points 1-4 above), and further, I have not claimed that all of the scientists who publish in the field don’t believe what they print. Far from it.

    On the contrary, I have been pointing out that the most prominet of the AR4 claims are not anywhere to be found in the publsihed scientific literature. Nobody has published anything even attempting to establish these high degree och certainty levels, and put their name to it.

    And this again goes back to the previous query: Without those very large alledged feedbacks (which are nowhere close to established) it is impssible to make even the rather careful attribution (of at least half the warmin since mid 50s) with a 90% certainty.

    That is my point. And the other is that nobody even claims this. Other than the IPCC in the SPM, which definitely is not science ..

    It was later repeated in the AR4 WG1 reports, but without any references to published science, but rather more obfuscating wording, footnotes, figure captions and tables ..

    I hope that answers you question

  99. #99 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    Tou’re a moron, Joan.

  100. #100 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    Temperature change is now more than you would get from a 2C per doubling of CO2. And energy in is still greater than energy out.

    So you are, true to form, being a moron.