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 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Stu, you couldn’t find anything wrong with luminous ‘physics’, you claimed to have studied physics or six years, and had a major hissy fit over purely imagined things about one of the simplest descriptions of an experiment everyone can do …

    This you had all by your own (although I must admit, I tried to keep you at it and repeaat your stupidities a bit longer)

    Stu .. you have never challenged me or anything I said really. You have tried, that’s true. By demanding a percentage, but not even the hand/box thingie was at me. You derailed over GSWs perfectly clear description. And you found nothing wrong with the many gross violations attempted by luminous … Nuff said

  2. #2 Stu
    December 19, 2012

    That you don’t understand simple physics is already noted.

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    Anyone with any physics in their education is making fun of you, Jonas. Draw your own conclusions.

    Yor misconceptions about other things are noted too.

    Yor?

    Also, I am happy that they are noted, cupcake. Care to point them out and back that notion up?

    Why you derailed over different speeds hand/box only you know.

    Because GSW brought it up. You pathetic, delusional little man.

    Nobody, and let me stress this nobody else was responsible for that.

    Wait, I am responsible for GSW bringing up something stupid now? How did that happen?

    On the contrary, others tried to help you to get it right.

    Does this refer to your weeks-long quest to prove that the hand and box move at the same speed? “It’s a physics thing” again, you moronic turd stuck in a clown shoe?

    You still don’t get it. We know. Sheesh.

    The misunderstanding though is still yours, and only yours!

    Everybody understood what GSW was saying. Everybody understood how stupid it was. Everybody understood my issues with it… except you.

    It’s YOU, Jonas. YOU. You don’t get it. You ARE the joke.

    who allegedly studied six years of physic

    I sense…

    I sense…

    I sense Jonas never had any education in physics.

    CALL ME NOW.

    but still have the most severe difficulties with the smallest things (a hand pushing a box)

    Thank you for showing that you still do not understand what I previously, repeatedly, in very small words tried to explain. Scroll up, cupcake. It’s right there.

    don’t tell me what I understand and don’t

    Oh, but I will. You do not understand basic math. You do not understand basic physics. You do not understand English. And because of that, you do not understand anything more advanced than My Pet Goat.

    Jonas, you are an idiot. And not ha-ha, you’re an idiot; you are a holy crap, is there an institution for people this dense-idiot.

    I am decades ahead of you.

    You do not know what dependent variables are.
    You are too dense to download a spell-checked.
    You are stupid enough to think that if you quote-mine old comments you won’t look like a moron.

    In what way, exactly, are you ahead? Are you a pensioner, precious?

    And you are trying to shift all kinds of goalposts now, Stu.

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    Nobody is interested in why or exactly how you deraild.

    Why should they be? What is “deraild” anyway?

    Oh, do you mean “derailEd”? Oh, ok. This should be good.

    You claimed, several times, that somebody had been going on about different speeds among hand and box.

    I claimed no such thing, you pathetic clownshoe. I claimed that somebody (GSW) brought it up (as quoted and objectively proven, you dolt), and that whilst I was railing against the abject idiocy of bringing hand velocity up in the first place, certain jackwagons (that means you) kept defending the blatantly, jezum-crackers-were-you-dropped-on-the-head-a-lot fallacy of it all.

    While it was only you.

    Obvious and stupid lie. Why do you do this, moron? I dug up the actual quote just now. What in hell makes you think people cannot read?

    Now you say, your issues were with things that weren’t supposed to be in there.

    Obvious and stupid lie. That was my objection from my first post, over a year ago. Why are you blaming others for your failure to comprehend it?

    Well that’s true in the first two instances:

    Oh, oh, be still my beating heart. Jonas is going to try to address an argument. STAND BACK EVERYBODY!

    1) Different speeds of hand/box, nor

    You mean that thing that GSW brought up? Why don’t you ask him why he did, cupcake?

    2) dependent and independet variables

    Yes, yes, yes… we know you have no idea what those terms mean. Not being able to spell them is a bit of a giveaway, Jonas.

    However, you lamented about those things for weeks

    Obvious and stupid lie. It has been pointed out to you, with quotations, links and other documentation that I was not the one to lament about any of it… I was lamenting about the utter stupidity of GSW bringing it up, and of your utter stupidity of defending it.

    Yes, my precious sack of hammers.

    Your continued, pathetic defense of it.

    Nobody else but you brought this up.

    Obvious and stupid lie. You tried this a year ago. You looked like an idiot then for saying this, and you look like one now. I’ve already quoted the specific first instance this was brought up you moron, and it was not me. Who the hell do you think you are fooling? You tried this before and were embarrassed.

    Are you truly incapable of learning?

    Oh. Wait. That would explain a lot about your physics “capabilities”.

    Now, you want to move teh goalposts.

    Jonas, you are so cute. It’s so patently obvious when you learn a new catchphrase. If I recall correctly, there have been three instances in this thread alone where you tried that out.

    saying that the hand velocity wasn’t needed

    There’s a direct quote above that directly shows you are full of crap claiming this. Are you blind, dyslexic or dense as a post?

    and that dependet variables weren’t either.

    So you are admitting you simply do not understand what I am trying to tell you about dependeNt variables. Thank you.

    Did you even make it out of high school? You seem far too dumb to make it past any organized education designed for children over 12.

    Nobody talked about variables or equations

    Wait, so your solution to being caught in a lie is to lie harder? This is pathetic even for you. Holy canoli, I’m glad I’m doing this piecemeal or I wouldn’t have made it past this. Are you serious, turdmuffin? In this entire physics discussion, me saying “the hand pushing the box means hand velocity is irrelevant, moron” was the first mention of variables or equations?

    Wait, I didn’t even mention either.

    Jonas, do you even know the meaning of the words that come out of your mouth?

    that the hands moves quicker when it accelerates a box by pushing it is trivial.

    That the word “hand” is even in that sentence means that even a year later, you still cannot grasp the basic point.

    Only an near-autistic moron would take issues with the obvious.

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    Poor petty misunderstood Stu …

    Funny. Everybody here understands me except you. Draw your own conclusions.

    And luminous many erorors were pointed out in detail.

    Oh do quote your detailed deconstruction of all the “erorors”, sweetheart. I must have missed them.

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

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION. For crying out loud, sweetheart, you still don’t grasp the concept of a dependent variable. Please, do show us the equation for the velocity of the ring on the pushing hand.

    Whoch you confirmed by agreeing with luminous (ie hoping desperatly he got it right).

    See, here’s the fun part. I didn’t explicitly do that, moron. Very few of us did. .We asked you to point out a flaw, and you could not.

    Repeatedly. To this day.

    Almost like all o’ them climate change papers you have “debunked” only in your diseased little mind.

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

    Yeah. You blind. Me Tonto. Me no know English.

    Also, me no have no proof. Me bluster lot. Me bluster all time. Me say you faith. Oog. Me not need arguments.

    Okidoki, moving on…

    Stu, you sound like mediocre schoolboy

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    who has read some new stuff

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    (dependent variables) in a book, or his older brother’s book, and is eager to bring it into a conversation

    Totally! And that would have been a GREAT argument in 1989. You really have no concept of how pathetic you sound, do you Jonas?

    to display his newly aquired vocabulary.

    Hey Jonas? Sweetheart? Even though you’re too damned stupid to download spell-checking software… you really want to make sure that when you diss someone’s vocabulary, you do not misspell the word right in front of it.

    AqCuired. MORON.

    A hand pushing a box, overcoming friction and accelerating it, ie the hand moving quicker (nad quicker) …

    “nad quicker”? What the hell was that supposed to read, Jonas? Are you asking us for sites to quicken your nads?

    Also, thanks for reaffirming you still do not understand physics — by mentioning the hand. Again. Moron.

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

    Precious, we KNOW by now you have a massive inferiority complex about your education, and probably your physics education in particular. You couldn’t mention anything substantively wrong with LB’s posts last year, and you’re not doing it now. Did you do some more research, cupcake?

    I doubt it, since you still don’t know what a dependent variable is.

    Now wow, you don’t understand the first things about even simple physics. You couldn’t spot any of the. [yes, sic, and my irony meter just exploded]

    Derp derp derp Jonas. Sterno is not your friend. Svedka should cut down on the brain damage.

    That you first (and inadvertently?) admitted when you copied one of those instances, when defending another one of the nutter brigade’s acions.

    You do this all the time, Jonas. You do realize that every rational person pictures you jumping up and down in glee at writing this, right? Whilst drooling profusely?

    Would you like to know why?

    Because you JUST SAY THESE THINGS, Jonas. You scroll up to where people say them to you, and you say them back, and you got us good, and…

    Well, no, not really. You don’t even quote people when you do this. You just yell, and drool, and whine, and again make everyone in the thread decide between pity and hatred.

    You’re sad. You are mentally ill. You need medication. This thread now vacillates between cheap entertainment at your expense and an honest-to-God intervention, Jonas.

    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’

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    Could some of you others please contradict me?

    You haven’t made a point yet, cupcake. In 19 months.

  3. #3 Stu
    December 19, 2012

    (I missed quoting one para back there — “Again a display of you blind…”, but things should be fairly obvious)

  4. #4 Stu
    December 19, 2012

    As a random aside, just in case it gets lost, this is how incoherent Jonas gets on Sterno:

    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)

    I’ve read it three times and my head is hurting.

    Jonas, you are insane. Get help.

  5. #5 Wyvern
    December 19, 2012

    You certainly don’t speak for tens of thousands of trained scientists.

    I don’t speak for them, I speak with them. Lots of them. I would figure that I have spoken to hundreds and hundreds and probably thousands of scientists during my career. Our of that number of scientists I’ve spoken to about three or four who disagree with the main stream understanding of the physics, and each of those people had unusual ideas in general about science.

    So if my own experience reflects the numbers that the main stream quotes and if other scientists have similar experiences where is the large group of scientists that you claim agrees with you? And why do so many scientists in my own experience disagree with you?

    Have you ever walked into a university or government department that contains scientists and asked them what they think? Do you go to conferences and speak to professional scientists? Are you a member of any professional bodies or academies of science? There are literally thousands of actual scientists that agree with the physics of global warming. I know that this is distasteful for you but it is true and if you dispute this you should show everyone what your evidence is that supports you.

    Maybe you are new to the discussion

    I’m new to this board but not to the science of climate change. Unless 20 years counts as new.

    the whole issue rests on the magnitude of the warming to be expected, if CO2 really is the main driver of the climate

    CO2 is not the main driver of climate. But it is the main driver of the warming seen over the last century.

    if those large claimed positive feedbacks really are what some hypothesize

    The climate sensitivity and the feedbacks are indicated by a variety of independent studies. If this is the reason why you dispute mankinds contribution to warming what exactly are the studies that you use to make your claim?

    I have been pointing out that the most prominet of the AR4 claims are not anywhere to be found in the publsihed scientific literature.

    I’m new to this board so you will have to be a bit clearer about what claims you are referring to. Are you talking about the certainty levels about climate sensitivity or feedbacks? What literature are you referring to that doesn’t contain the material that you say is missing?

    it is impssible to make even the rather careful attribution (of at least half the warmin since mid 50s) with a 90% certainty

    That’s just silly. The only way to obscure the human influence on warming is to fiddle the figures of forcing and feedback to ridiculous extents. But if you disagree you must have evidence that shows how the warming can be attributed to natural processes instead of to human carbon dioxide, can you show this please?

    I hope that answers you question

    No it doesnt. I asked you what your proof was that contradicts my experience with other scientists and you didnt answer. I asked you if you were a physicist and you didnt answer.

    I was warned before I posted here that you wouldnt answer and I can see that it was a good warning. As other posters here note you make a lot of noise and you write a lot of fluff but you dont seem to ever put any evidence forward that makes your case.

    Can you explain how you know that most working scientists disagree with the ipcc’s summary of the climatology? Can you tell me if you are a physicist or in fact any type of scientist? Can you provide a list of quotes of literature that you disagree with in terms of the claims that you say it makes that is not supported?

  6. #6 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Stu

    You are wrong. Nobody is even attempting to contradict me about any physics. Luminous was trying to establish his own. And failed miserably. You tried to score som point about a hand pushing a box, and failed miserably.

    GSW never brough up any different speeds, those existed in your head. Only. Fail, Nobody else brought anything like that up. Fact is that GSW within minutes corrected your misconception. And still you derailed for three weeks. Still seem to believe sombody else but you brought up the ‘different speeds’. Still didn’t happen. Other than inside your head.

    There is absolutely nothing stupid about a proper description about a hand pushing a box. Nothing. Your issues were (according to your own repeated claims) different speeds among hand and box. Again, only in your head.

    OK, later (once you hopefully? realised how stupid that sounded) you tried with ‘dependent variable’. Equally stupid though.

    Six years of physics, and saw nothing wrong with luminous many attempts. There is no need to even point out how embarassing this is. Regardless of whether you did or didn’t study physics for six years. It’s a total joke. As I ‘ve already said. Only you don’t seem to get even the first part of this.

    Again: Pushing a box is a simple experiment. Correctly described by GSW. And you couldn”t handle it.

    And now, you utter hand-moving-box think you can teach me about math!? I am decades ahead there too! What an utter joke again, stu!

    You still haven’t found any of all the gross violations of luminous, albeit wanting to jump in.

    And yes, you claimed several times idiotic things about hands and boxes at different speeds. Some are copied above. You are in denial now. GSW didn’t bring any such thing up. It appeared only in your head (and later Wow’s). Your “actual quote” does most certainly not contain any ‘different speeds’ those are only in your head. That you cannot read is not, was never other people’s problem.

    This is getting tiresome. You’ve claimed now, many times abd counterfactual, that GSW was going on about different speeds/velocities between hand/box. He hasn’t. You even said quotes were provided. They weren’t! The closest quote was:

    “”

    and there is absolutely nothing there about different speeds between hand and box. Nothing, Stu! Absolutely nothing.

    If you feel that this wasn’t the alleged proof you meant, please provide it instead. A quote and the page will suffice. This now, has become your lifeline. If there is any suh claim (different speeds) I’ll backtrack. But it there isn’t Stu, I will mock you even more than up til now!

    The rest of your post (about ‘dependent variables’) is as empty as the first part. But if you provide substance for the first part, I’ll look at it again.

    But before that: Please provide any cited quote about different speeds among hand/box which you have claimed about four times only in your last comment.

    So Stu, the utterly stupid, will you please show and copy where anybody (other than yourself) brought up the idea that hand and box move att different speeds?

    Because it really is that simple. Not even a child would even think this. But you made it the core of your argument here. In spite of GSW, saying the opposite within minutes of your misconception.

    Please provide the citation and date/page.

    Or expect to be even more ridiculed Stu …

    And in case you really hadn’t noticed: Nobody of the ranters and the nutter birgade has even seen any science establishing that AR4 claim that everybody seems to believe in based on pure faith …

    But even that point probably escaped you. Or worse, you are in denial about that too …

  7. #7 Stu
    December 19, 2012

    Oh Wyvern, you are so naive. All of those scientists you know are just not “real” scientists.

    You see, Jonas has a very definite distinction between “real” and “fake” scientists. Or so he tells us; he never elaborates. So far, it seems “real” equals “agrees with me”. A nice definition to be sure, if you’re a clinically insane, delusional megalomaniac.

    On the other hand, he has an absolute tantrum when anyone asks him what percentage of climate scientists he considers “real” scientists. For some reason (unspecified), that question is “stupid”, and our cupcake refuses to answer it.

    Oh Wyvern, so much to learn…

  8. #8 Stu
    December 19, 2012

    You are wrong. Nobody is even attempting to contradict me about any physics.

    Yes, you are clinically insane. We all know that by now.

    Luminous was trying to establish his own. And failed miserably.

    In which case you should have ample quotes and refutations, right?

    Come on, Jonas. Quote your inanities from back then. I dare you.

    You tried to score som point about a hand pushing a box, and failed miserably.

    No, that was not scoring points, that was pointing out that GSW didn’t know physics from a hole in the ground. And by jumping to his defense EVEN NOW confirms that you don’t, either.

    This remark also confirms that you are too stupid to download a spell-checker. Still. I know it’s too much for you to learn how to spell on your own, given your track record, but really… let’s assume (safely, I reckon) that you are too stupid to figure out a download on your own; don’t you even KNOW someone smart enough to do it for you? Doesn’t Sweden have a Geek Squad type of thing where you could just pay someone to do it for you?

    Have you no shame, sir?

    Is it not worth some of your time, or worth calling a friend, or spending the $50 or so to not continue to look like a moron?

    Are you proud of looking like an idiot, Jonas? You must be. Is there a denialist merit badge for bad spelling I am unaware of?

    GSW never brough up any different speeds,

    Obvious and stupid lie. I just quoted the original post, you twit. Bringing up the hand speed (even if to say they should be equal) is spectacularly moronic. And if it isn’t, he should be dinged for not mentioning that there would be no earthquakes during the experiment, that the density of air would remain constant, and that no black holes would emerge close enough to affect the basic gravity constants.

    Fail, Nobody else brought anything like that up.

    Oh, that’s cute YOU GAIS! IT HAZ LURND “FAIL”!

    Doucecanoe, GSW brought up hand speed. Period. There’s no denying that. Whether it is different or not is totally besides the point. As I have explained to you over and over and over.

    Fact is that GSW within minutes corrected your misconception.

    No, he and you went on and on how obvious it was (you know, a physics thing) that the hand and box had the same velocity.

    Demonstrating vividly how you did not, do not and will never get the point. Which is obvious to mentally challenged bonobos: bringing up the hand velocity was stupid, the entire point and proof that you know nothing about physics.

    Moron.

    And still you derailed for three weeks.

    If by “derail” you mean “drive the point home to the point where even my fridge understands how wrong and dense you are”, yes, you are correct.

    Still seem to believe sombody else but you brought up the ‘different speeds’.

    It was a DIRECT QUOTE, lard-for-brains.

    Still didn’t happen.

    Di-rect-mother-humping-quote. IDIOT.

    Other than inside your head.

    Yes, and inside the head of anyone who can read.

    There is absolutely nothing stupid about a proper description about a hand pushing a box. Nothing.

    You know, most people know to quit when they’re really, really far behind.

    Your issues were (according to your own repeated claims) different speeds among hand and box.

    Herpa derpa derp. No, it was GSW bringing up the hand speed to begin with. As I have stated then, just stated before this pathetic reply, and am restating now.

    Hey, Jonas. Not everyone is as stupid as you are.

    Sorry.

    Live with it.

    OK, later (once you hopefully? realised how stupid that sounded) you tried with ‘dependent variable’. Equally stupid though.

    Same thing. That you don’t know the difference is your problem, not mine. Your inability to parse a sentence does not excuse you from putting forth a good-faith effort to comprehend what people are telling you.

    Six years of physics

    Yes, I know, you never made it past the first semester. I’m sorry Jonas. That’s not really my fault though, is it?

    and saw nothing wrong with luminous many attempts.

    There was? Wow. I’m sorry, I must have missed your incisive and substantive deconstruction of LB’s physics. Please point me to them, Jonas. You had the time to dig for your other embarrassments, why not these?

    There is no need to even point out how embarassing this is.

    Actually, there is. Please do. Go on. I dare you.

    think you can teach me about math!? I am decades ahead there too!

    You’ll forgive me if I don’t take your word for that. You’ve lied about just about everything so far, including knowing physics.

    But do tell, how far ahead are you? How shall we measure it?

    And yes, you claimed several times idiotic things about hands and boxes at different speeds. Some are copied above. You are in denial now. GSW didn’t bring any such thing up.

    Obvious and stupid lie. Direct quote, moron.

    Your “actual quote” does most certainly not contain any ‘different speeds’ those are only in your head.

    It implies that they can be different in the context of the experiment (must move faster also), which is moronic.

    You, sir, cannot read.

    You’ve claimed now, many times abd counterfactual, that GSW was going on about different speeds/velocities between hand/box.

    He implied there could be, by bringing up the hand velocity.

    He hasn’t. You even said quotes were provided. They weren’t!

    Your failure at reading comprehension is not my problem, cupcake.

    The closest quote was: “”and there is absolutely nothing there about different speeds between hand and box. Nothing, Stu! Absolutely nothing.”

    Obvious and stupid lie. I did not quote that. I quoted the actual, original statement by GSW. You’re an idiot.

    If you feel that this wasn’t the alleged proof you meant, please provide it instead.

    I already did. I did so a year ago, and I did so earlier today.

    Moron.

    This now, has become your lifeline. If there is any suh claim (different speeds) I’ll backtrack.

    Go ahead. I’ve provided GSW’s original quote, in context, about the hand having to move faster as well. Which implies the speeds can be different.

    But it there isn’t Stu, I will mock you even more than up til now!

    Oh be still my heart. Go on Jonas, I can’t wait. You complete and utter idiot.

    The rest of your post (about ‘dependent variables’) is as empty as the first part.

    I know. To you. Because you don’t know what it means. Because you sucked at physics in high school and you are too dumb to catch up. We know, Jonas. It’s okay. Shush. No need to embarrass yourself further.

    But if you provide substance for the first part, I’ll look at it again.

    Why? You wouldn’t understand it. You’d look at the sky and discuss the meaning of the word “blue”. For a year and a half. That’s how stubborn and dense you are.

    But before that: Please provide any cited quote about different speeds among hand/box which you have claimed about four times only in your last comment.

    Already did, moron. Just because you don’t like it does not make it any less concrete, valid or relevant.

    You dismiss all science you don’t like as “not real”.

    You dismiss all questions you don’t want to answer as “stupid”.

    The only question remaining is who you think you are fooling with this pathetic little spiel. If you were serious, you’d’ve answered my challenge and collected an easy $100 by now.

    Please provide the citation and date/page.

    I already did, wanker.

    Nobody of the ranters and the nutter birgade has even seen any science establishing that AR4 claim that everybody seems to believe in based on pure faith …

    You are pathetic. We could read every single paper underlying the AR4, slowly, to your face, and you’d still deny it. Just as you are denying GSW brought up hand velocity.

    Pathetic. Little. Lying. Weasel.

  9. #9 Wyvern
    December 19, 2012

    Oh Wyvern, so much to learn…

    Stu, thats apparently so.

    Its a pity that I wont be learning any of it from Jonas …. I was warned before I posted here that he cant support his claims with actual evidence , and that has been proved to be the case.

  10. #10 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    “Stu, you couldn’t find anything wrong with luminous ‘physics’”

    That’s because it wasn’t wrong.

    Finding something that doesn’t exist is either religion or insanity.

    Which is it for you, you moron?

  11. #11 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Wyvern

    So you don’t speak for tens of thousands of active scientists. Good, I would not have believed you had claimed anything like it..

    And I don’t know what you refer to as ‘the main stream physics’ .. if you still are at points 1-4, you aren’t with the discussion yet. But if you say that CO2 isn’t the main driver, you are quite a lot above the bunch I’ve been dealing with here. You say:

    “But it is the main driver of the warming seen over the last century”

    And I’d say that this is the prroffered hypthesis, yes. However not any one that is established or has coped sufficiently with all questions around and objections to it.

    And please, don’t give me the usual rant on ‘climate sensitivity’ you’ve picked up. I haven’t argued that prticular point with you. Nor with any of the others. The issue here has been a different and simpler one: That those who believe in (a high sensitivity) and hope for the high certainty of that AR4 claim, are not able to produce any science to support the most prominent claim made by the IPCC in their AR4.

    Instead, the point has been me asking for any of that, Which has caused many here to completely lose it. I haven’t dispiuted mankinds contribution, I have disputed the high certainty claimed by the IPCC to a specifically stated level of contribution. That it is based on science. And so far, everybody taking the opposite stance, has confirmed my assumption.

    And I’m sorry if you weren’t aware of what those claims were (incidentally, those why you challenged me to begin with). Here it is again:

    Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[8] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations”

    And no, it’s definitely not silly to question that high (claimed) certainty. And the figures of both forcing and feedback (esp the latter) are nowhere close to being decided. There are claims (found in the AR4) to high values, but nowhere established beyond questioning. Essentially all of them rely heavily on both model simulations (based on the same assumptions) and fiddled Bayesian statistics. And this has been the topic here.

    That there is belief in high certainty (and large feedbacks) is correct, but none of this has been even attemted to be demonstrated. Otherwise, there would have been one or a few references where this could have been found. And almost six years after the fact, none have ever been presented.

    Further, you are wrong that I must prove anything else, just because I ask to see and look at the science and data. That would be a very common warminst diversion. Please don’t repeat it. It has nothing to do with science.

    I am sorry if this didn’t answer your question, and it seems you are not quite aware of what is being discussed. I don’t question your vague description about interactions with others. But I doubt that you have been discussing the science behind that claimed high certianty. The fact that you were unaware of this being the topic, and that you even in your reply are avoiding this, indicates that you haven’t,

    So, I’m afraid that you missed the main point:

    I have been asking for the evidence, for the science behind that main AR4 claim about high certainty (cited above). It is the prudent question to ask for any real scientist, and that’s why I am asking it. The only case I’ve made (wrt thos) is that those who chose to simply believe it, do so in faith. And I would argue that essentially everybody here (who argues the case) does so.

    Finally, you ask “Can you explain how you know that most working scientists disagree with the ipcc’s summary of the climatology”? And the answer is simple: I don’t and I never claimed anything like it (ie it’s a strawman).

    However, it bothers me that there were accomplished scientists who put the above claim in the SPM, and even doing it without properly referency that claim in the main report. And it bothers me too that there seemingly are many others who didn’t ask the same question as I and accept it just on alleged authority.

    Well, finally at last some scientists are starting to ask the same questions. And pointing out the same problems as I have been a long time. But it shouldn’t have taken six years.

    BTW, those shouting and losing it because I ask the proper questions, for demanding to see the evidence, I have less problems with. If they don’t even understand why it needs to be asked, they have nothing to do in the field of science (although I fear, even know, that quite a few have PhDs and claim to be working with science)

    So, to start with: The quote above (from the AR4-SPM) is what I strongly question, and also that there is (was by 2007) any published science even trying to establish the claimed levels.

  12. #12 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    “Nobody is even attempting to contradict me about any physics”

    Hang on, wasn’t luminous and stu both doing that and that your entire rant is about how they and I, contradicting you about physics, don’t understand you?

    You are a moron.

  13. #13 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    “I must have missed your incisive and substantive deconstruction of LB’s physics. Please point me to them, Jonas. You had the time to dig for your other embarrassments, why not these?”

    Heck, it’s the season of good will and all that, we won’t demand the evidence of your assertions you have made. We will allow you to just state now, in new words if you wish, what was wrong with LB’s physics.

    But you never did this before with any question.

    Because you’re a moron.

  14. #14 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    “So, to start with: The quote above (from the AR4-SPM) is what I strongly question,”

    You have nothing to say about what it is, however.

    “and also that there is (was by 2007) any published science even trying to establish the claimed levels”

    You were given a huge list. The very first few alphabetically are:

    AchutaRao, K.M., et al., 2006: Variability of ocean heat uptake: Reconciling observations and models. J. Geophys. Res., 111, C05019.

    Ackerman, A.S., et al., 2000: Reduction of tropical cloudiness by soot. Science, 288, 1042–1047.

    Adams, J.B., M.E. Mann, and C.M. Ammann, 2003: Proxy evidence for an El Nino-like response to volcanic forcing. Nature, 426(6964), 274–278.

    Alexander, L.V., et al., 2006: Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D05109, doi:10.1029/2005JD006290.

    Allan, R.J., and T.J. Ansell, 2006: A new globally-complete monthly historical gridded mean sea level pressure data set (HadSLP2): 1850-2004. J. Clim., 19, 5816–5842.

    Allen, M.R., 2003: Liability for climate change. Nature, 421, 891–892.

    Allen, M.R., and S.F.B. Tett, 1999: Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting. Clim. Dyn., 15, 419–434.

    Allen, M.R., and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419, 224–232.

    Allen, M.R., and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Towards objective probabilistic climate forecasting. Nature, 419, 228–228.

  15. #15 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Wyvern

    Some words of caution. I would (stronlgy) advise against siding with the regular shouters her. They have proven themselves to understand almost nothing even about simpler matters, contradicting themselves, making all kind of nonsens up based on pure fantasy. And (in many cases) to know nothing about science or even understanding simple physics.

    Another observation I’ve made is that all those who use ‘denier’ denialist’ ‘Dunning Kruger’ ‘Creationist’ and the like, never ever have anyhting substantial to contribute. Rather, they are only in it for the shouting contest.

    If you read here for more than a few minutes, I’m sure you’ll understand what I mean

  16. #16 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Wyvern (contd.)

    Other terms which often get thrown around, and not really contain any substance an relevance to the pertinent questions are the alleged ‘consensus’, the alleged IPCC ‘peer review’ process, the number of publications ‘supporting’ whatever stance, or even worse ‘not contradicting’. Further, the academies who repeated claims and wordings directly from the IPCC SPM don’t carry any real weight. Other topics that are irrelevant to the core issues are arctic sea ice, sea levels, glaciers, ocean accidification, freshwater supply, polar bears, biodiversity etc.

    These all may be interesting for other reasons, but not wrt to he core question here: If, and if so how much does CO2 cause the climate to warm

    Or phrased more broadly (than the IPCCs interpretation of their mandate). Why and how does the climate vary and fluctuate, and what are the main causes for it, what controls this, and what limits the fluctuations etc.

    Point is:
    Before one can be quite certain to have very good, empirically supported answers to all thosw questiond (of the second version), it is exceediningly difficult to make definite claims about one particular hypthesis attempting to explain the lasts few decades … especially with high certainty

  17. #17 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Stu,

    I will for now only address one of your claims, the one where I challenged you to provide evidence. (Where GSW allegedly claimed or talked about different speeds hand/box). Unfortunately you didn’t give the qoute, just said it had been posted already. So, to the best of my knowledge it must be this one:

    [GSW:] 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.

    (You gave that one earlier, and the emphasis was yours)

    And there is not one hint about any speeds differing among hand and box. None! And to add insult to injury, GSW, not many minutes after your first ‘query’ about this even clarified further:

    [GSW again:] “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.”

    (emphasis mine)

    Again, explicitly nothing about different speeds between hand and box, instead the exact opposite:

    “Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox”

    This all was within a few minutes, on october 16 ,2011 (“page 15 here) . See! The exact opposite of what you later claimed, and still claim.

    Even the possible misconception of confusing the ‘quicker’ for meaning ‘quicker than the box’ (or something else) was avoided beforehand by clarifying that it meant ‘to accelerate’ (ie to move quicker and quicker)

    It’s all still there to be seen in the link above.

    Sorry Stu, but I can’t help you with reality. How you can construct any alleged differences in speed among hand and box from an explicit statement of the exakt opposite (they have to “keep pace”) is beyond me. Wow, however is fluent with counterfactual claims. Maybe you should ask him for help ..

    (The rest of your post is even worse, so please try to focus on this simplest of things, a quote and page # justifying your derailing and hissy fit about hand and boxes at different speeds. And don’t get too emotional, it just worsens things further for you)

  18. #18 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    I tried to link to page 15, don’t know if that worked out. Here is another try:

    Page 15, October 16, 2012, towards the end of the page

    And if you meant some completely different quite (than the above, you gave yourself, and even highlighted), please tell me, and caopy the relevant parts for me to see. The ones where anybody (except you) makes claims about hand and box at different speeds.

  19. #19 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Wyvern

    Some more comments (since others are trying to confuse you with made up nonsense again)

    I refer to real scientists as those who know about and adhere strictly to the scientific method in their work.

    I most certainly have not made any division of real vs fake scientists. However, I do distingish between hard and soft sciences respectively, and use those terms as they are commonly understood (allthough not all, not even all ‘scientists’ are fully aware of the distinction).

    And I most certainly don’t think or claim or argue that peer reviewed and publsihed means anything more than just that. It doesn’t mean true, valid, checked, verified, to be accepted, or not questioned. I am saying that after publishing, the work still must be evaluated on it’s own merits.

    This too has caused some consternation among people here. Who argue that if it is printed, others therefore must accept (whatever they think are) the claims made therein.

  20. #20 Stu
    December 19, 2012

    And there is not one hint about any speeds differing among hand and box.

    You’re an idiot.

  21. #21 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Good comeback, Stu

    ;-)

    But I have an even better one, a quote by you <a on Oct 19 on the same topic, after having kept harping on ‘dependet variables’ for over a week, directed at GSW:

    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.

    Particularly, note the “you spent days saying that …”

    You surely don’t lack strength i your imaginations, Stu, just a little accuracy …

  22. #22 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    It’s enough for a moron like you.

    Why bother with any more when you’ll pretend you don’t understand, if you even bother reading.

  23. #23 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Again, the link to Stu’s wisdom didn’t work. Here is another try:

    On Oct 19, 2011, (Page 16)

  24. #24 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    Being a moron, you can’t find your own statements.

  25. #25 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    Or indeed GSW’s (earlier) comment:

    GSW
    October 16, 2011

    @stu

    stu, some easy questions for you;

    Did you do physics at school?

    Why do you think the hand velocity is “obviously and completely irrelevant”?

  26. #26 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    But you’re a moron.

  27. #27 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    Joan: “As long as (constant) friction is present, ie as long as the velocity is non-zero (in the same direction) , the loss of velocity of any (equal) period of time will be the same.”

  28. #28 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    I’d explain the problem to you, Joan and the Slug Horde, but you’re just too damn thick to get it.

  29. #29 Lionel A
    December 19, 2012

    These members of the ‘Troll Collective’ or ‘Wendy Club’ may well be suffering from a genetic effect linked to the action of the FOXP2 gene. In Dawkins”The Ancestor’s Tale’ pp. 61-62 Dawkins describes how, ‘A family code-named KE suffers from a strange hereditary defect. Out of approximately 30 family members spread over three generations, about half are normal, but fifteen show a curious linguistic disorder, which seems to affect both speech and understanding. It has been called verbal dyspraxia, and it first show itself as an inability to articulate clearly in childhood….

    The Dyspraxia Foundation has this to ‘say’:

    Developmental dyspraxia is an impairment or immaturity of the organisation of movement. It is an immaturity in the way that the brain processes information, which results in messages not being properly or fully transmitted. The term dyspraxia comes from the word praxis, which means ‘doing, acting’. Dyspraxia affects the planning of what to do and how to do it. It is associated with problems of perception, language and thought.

    Dyspraxia is thought to affect up to ten per cent of the population and up to two per cent severely. Males are four times more likely to be affected than females. Dyspraxia sometimes runs in families. There may be an overlap with related conditions.

    One should of course be careful with labelling somebody as dyspraxic, for childhood language difficulties may be caused by other factors such as a hearing impairment.

    Maybe we should just be kind and disengage with them until such times as they have sought help.

  30. #30 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Lionel

    go easy on Wow, Stu and chek .. I assume what they bring here is their absolute best.

    Meanwhile, here is another gem from Stu (Nov 2, 2011, page 17).

    “Let me ask you outright: when pushing an object with your hand, can your hand have a different velocity than the pushed object? GSW thinks so, and so far you’ve been defending him. That’s why the subject of physics is closed to you”

    The guy is simply amazing in his … ehrm .. ‘creativity’ (for lack of a better word)

  31. #31 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    “GSW thinks so, and so far you’ve been defending him. That’s why the subject of physics is closed to you”

    And you don’t understand what that means, do you, Joan.

    Because you’re a moron.

  32. #32 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Later, same day (Nov 2) same page (#17), Stu is at it again:

    “Yes, by all means take my exasperation at GSW’s insistence that the velocity of the hand can be different than the velocity of the box”

    He really must believe in his own stuff. Still does apparently …

  33. #33 Jonas N
    December 19, 2012

    Here is a double gem for you. Stu (Nov 18, page #18) gets both his misconceptions inte one sentence:

    “GSW argued that when pushing a box, the velocity of the box and the velocity of the hand are independent variables”

    Just making nonsenes up, aren’t we Stu? :-) No wonder you feel so comfortable around these guys …

  34. #34 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    “Stu is at it again:”

    Ah, I get it.

    Your problem is that you are NEVER consistent in your claims and therefore cannot understand how someone else could.

    And that’s why you’re a moron.

  35. #35 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    Joan, here’s a way forward for you.

    Explain why GSW mentioned the velocity of the hand.

  36. #36 chek
    December 19, 2012

    Bercause as Jonarse’s chief fluffer it’s his primary pre-occupation?

    I presume this latest episode recap of the pantomime is so Jonarse can inform Wyvern that he really du kno physix?
    Following this excruciating endgame could actually be quite the guide to what denial entails.

  37. #37 Wyvern
    December 19, 2012

    So you don’t speak for tens of thousands of active scientists. Good, I would not have believed you had claimed anything like it..

    I see what you are doing Jonas. This is the second time that you have repeated the idea that I claimed to “speak for tens of thousands of active scientists” when I did no such thing. You seem to be unaware of the politics of debate so let me inform you that what you are doing is constructing a straw man. Look it up and think about what it means that you can’t address the point but instead have to swipe at nonexistent points.

    And I’m sorry if you weren’t aware of what those claims were (incidentally, those why you challenged me to begin with).

    Jonas since I have been talking to you your posts seem to be all over the place, so I am trying to understand the historical context of this board. It is too long for anyone with a grain of self respect to go back and read from the beginning. I think I now understand where you are coming from, which is really just a continuation of the notion that Judy Curry likes to promote.

    Essentially all of them rely heavily on both model simulations (based on the same assumptions) and fiddled Bayesian statistics. And this has been the topic here.
    That there is belief in high certainty (and large feedbacks) is correct, but none of this has been even attemted to be demonstrated.

    Feedbacks? I thought that you settled on the problem being proof of attribution. Perhaps you should explain again what you want to see, and refer to papers that you say don’t provide what you want to see when scientists say they do contain this material.

    Further, you are wrong that I must prove anything else, just because I ask to see and look at the science and data.

    But you say that you don’t believe models or Bayesian statistics, so you must have already seen “science and data”. Why can’t you refer to the science and data that you have seen?

    And have you considered the paleoclimate data? They give an empirical method of figuring out the relative sizes of different forcings, as well as sensitivity which you don’t seem to be worried about after all.

    I am sorry if this didn’t answer your question, and it seems you are not quite aware of what is being discussed. I don’t question your vague description about interactions with others. But I doubt that you have been discussing the science behind that claimed high certianty. The fact that you were unaware of this being the topic, and that you even in your reply are avoiding this, indicates that you haven’t,

    Thats quite funny. You appear to have been very vague yourself about what you have read and think doesnt explain how the attributions were determined, and from what others have said you have avoided referencing any papers. Have you read Allen and Stott’s “Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting”? Or Stott et als “Observational Constraints on Past Attributable Warming and Predictions of Future Global Warming”? Both use statistics that determine the type of 90% confidence intervals that you say were made up.

    The only case I’ve made (wrt thos) is that those who chose to simply believe it, do so in faith.

    I see your problem. You are assuming that you understand everyone else better than they understand themselves. You are assuming that you know what others do, and how they do it, and because they wont put their work on a plate in front of you you think that its not been done. How do YOU know what real scientists read and calculate and analyze when you cant show anyone that you have ever done anything that resembles science?

    Finally, you ask “Can you explain how you know that most working scientists disagree with the ipcc’s summary of the climatology”? And the answer is simple: I don’t and I never claimed anything like it (ie it’s a strawman).

    Ah so you do know what a straw man is. More curiously my straw man is not ok but yours is? And for what its worth my question is NOT a straw man. You brought up the subject that I couldnt speak for tens of thousands of scientists -or for the hundreds that I know- when I pointed out that these same scientists agree with the ipcc. So by challenging my experience of other scientists you are directly challenging my indication to you that the vast majority agree with the ipcc and therefore you are effectively saying that most working scientists disagree with the ipccs summary of the climatology.

    I can see why the others here think so little of you. You are very good at pretending to be scientific without ever presenting any science at all- when you accuse everyone else of doing exactly that. What are you Jonas- an engineer?

    it bothers me that there were accomplished scientists who put the above claim in the SPM, and even doing it without properly referency that claim in the main report.

    Has it ever occurred to you that the problem is that you dont know where to look or how to find it?

    Well, finally at last some scientists are starting to ask the same questions.

    Which ones? Not the ones who get so much of the physics wrong?

    On the matter of your banning of particular words, if they are backed up with demonstrated validity why should they be avoided? It would be no different to you avoiding science because its reviewed by the ipcc or published by the scientists who you say you have read but which we know nothing about because you wont tell the board.

    Other topics that are irrelevant to the core issues are arctic sea ice, sea levels, glaciers, ocean accidification, freshwater supply, polar bears, biodiversity etc.
    These all may be interesting for other reasons, but not wrt to he core question here:

    You must be joking. Most of these things are indications of the amount of warming that the planet is experiencing, and are proof that warming is occurring. If no known natural forcings can account for changes in these ‘topics’, then what remains -human emissions of the GHG CO2- is very much part of the core question.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Solar-Cycle-Model-fails.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sun-climate-moving-opposite-directions.html

    If, and if so how much does CO2 cause the climate to warm

    Paleo data says about 3 degrees, and is completely separate from models and Bayesian statistics. You don’t seem to address this.

    Why and how does the climate vary and fluctuate, and what are the main causes for it, what controls this, and what limits the fluctuations etc.

    Again you must be joking. There are huge passages in the ipcc reports and there are hundreds of papers that go into great detail describing the causes for climate variation. You truly dont read the literature do you?

    I refer to real scientists as those who know about and adhere strictly to the scientific method in their work.

    Thats a coincidence- Im referring to these scientists myself. Because I work with them, I talk with them, I socialize with them and I even argue with them. I understand them because I am one of them. And I know that they would laugh at you because you are looking at the specks in other peoples eyes while ignoring the log in your own. How many do you know or work with or socialize with?

    A simple question to finish with Jonah ….

    If it is not humans then what forcing is warming the planet- and what is your confidence in your attribution? You must have something in mind given that you dont seem to want to accept that its caused by humans.

  38. #38 Wyvern
    December 20, 2012

    Thats 3 degrees *per doubling of CO2*.

  39. #39 Jonas N
    December 20, 2012

    Sorry Wyvern, but it seems you are the one erecting the strawmen here, and being mislead if you trusted the descriptions of others.

    From your first comment, one could easily get the impression that your views reflected those of tens of thousands more. Especially since you brought up that 97% figure too. I say, none of these approaches will convince.

    And if you truly think I am unaware of “the politics of debate” you must be a total amateur. Especially when it comes to climate debate. Strawmen is the absolute favorite tool among those who don’t like the climate hysteria or policies challenged. Please don’t tell me you’ve never heard the term ‘denier’ before!? You would be lying! And it’s the most simple strawmen there is …

    And yes, I can repeat once more what I’ve been asking for: Proper science that establishes two specified magnitudes in the most prominent AR4 claim:

    That most of the warimg (>50%) very likely (90% confidence) is due to human GHG emissions.

    Two numbers, thrown out for the media and political consupmtion of the entire world. I’d like to see where they come from.

    And no, I don’t need to cite papers which don’t make those claims, not even those who speculate about these levels in the discussion-section. I would like to see how this was arrived at. And nobody I’ve asked has even been close to havin gseen any. I have not seen/heard any scientists making these claims. I have however met an aweful lot of people, both in online discussions, and IRL, who just throw out entire lists and say: Go and find it for your self. Essentially saying: They don’t know, they have no clue! (Which is my contention after many years)

    Look, it’s very simple: People throwing out lists of references they haven’t even read, I cannot and will not take seriously in a scientific debate. Point is that almost nobdy even has claimed to have seen read and understood this alleged science. And the two ones who did, faltered completely when taken to the task ..

    And I have no clue from where you’ve gotten the idea that I “don’t believe models or Bayesian statistics” (that must be another one of your strawmen. On the contrary, I know what models and Bayesian statistics are good for and capable of. That’s why I’m saying that you cant establish high confidence in neither model assumptions, nor how certain your inital guess was using these. I think that would be ovious to anyone dealing with these matters (but whenever I bring this up wrt to IPCC claims or GCM simulation relaibilty) people seem strangely unfamiliar with even the simple aspects of how science works .. and yes, that bothers me. Or increases my skepticism about their claims if you will.

    Those people who claim that the models proves its underlying hypothesis correct, I disregard from thereon.

    Pale-data? No, it doesn’t establish the magnitude of ‘forcings’. At best (and that’s quite a questionmark) they can be reconstructions of past temperatures, not of its causes or the relative contribution among those.

    I have read a couple of papers by Stott and co-workers, even linked one myself here in this thread. And no, the did something different. Essentially an andvanced curfitting procedure (uwing models) where they claimed to get 90% agreement for one specific targeted parameter. And this is something very different than establishing a 90% confidence i what actually caused the same observations.

    And no (spare me another strawman), I don’t assume to understand others better than they do. I ask them first (in contrast to what almost all here, on your side tried)

    “How do YOU know what real scientists read and calculate and analyze when you cant show anyone that you have ever done anything that resembles science?”

    That sounds like Jeffie-style stupidity. Please spare me! the IPCC claims, and is very proud of claiming, to deal with the peer revied literature. If any basis for their claims actually did exist in 2007, they would be there to see for anyone to read. My ability (or lack thereof) to understand it, would not be a factor.

    At the end you return to strawmen (which you’ve tried several of). But I’m missing the point here. I don’t know how many (real) sicentists agree or disagree with that AR4 statement. I will probably never find out. The ‘community’ is very protective about its secrets and dirty laundry ..

    And I don’t know what your aquaintances agree with our not. As I said, belief is not a relevant factor. I did however strongly question your implied statement of of having pointedly and directly addressed exactly those queries I have. And I still doubt thats what your friends ‘agree’ about .. or at least I would how so.

    What others here think of me is completely irrelevant. If I would to put down in writing my assessment of many here, it would be as bad as what the write. And I would have grounds, whereas the don’t ..

    But you are right, I am not presenting that much science ‘at all’, I ma just making many, small, and pointed comments about where the alleged science (or arguing thereof) doesn’t hold water.

    You ask:

    “Has it ever occurred to you that the problem is that you dont know where to look or how to find it?”

    And the answer is No! Because I have been doing exactly that: Asking for it, asking if anyone has seen it. If anyone has read and understood it, and is not taking this claim on faith. And this started long before I asked the same question here.

    Today, I am more wary about all the stupid activist’s diversion tactics. I ask more pointed questions. But they are still the relevant ones. That others, scientists in the field, should have asked lpng before me.

    On baning of words. I am telling you about my assessment of all debaters. These words and terms are not part of a scientific discourse.

  40. #40 Jonas N
    December 20, 2012

    Sorry, that was posted prematurely… Continuation to come

  41. #41 Jonas N
    December 20, 2012

    On nning of words. I am telling you about my assessment of all debaters. These words and terms are not part of a scientific discourse. And I think you are completely missing the point.

    They are used, not only by the fringe activists, and loony blog commenters, but by the core ‘experts’ and proponents of the climate scare. And when they do use such words, you can discard them wrt to any question about finding out about and getting more knowledge about the climate system.

    There are a lot of (ex-)communists on your side. But their existence is not the reason (or a valid argument) for the poor performance of the AGW-hypothesis. Real observations are! Not your your comany. And you might want to pay attention here. Because ‘your company’ (often only implied) is by many made a central part of the argument.

    And no, I am not joking. It has gotten warmer, arctic summer sea ice minimum has decreased. And this says absolutely nothing about what may have caused this, And you then try the old we-have-no-better-explanation gamibit. And even if this is correct, it is not a scientific argument. But you shouldn’t have linked to John Cook’s site. There definitely, science is not the concern.

    Paleo data still doesn’t establish the cause, You’ve got that wrong. And I think you got it wrong if you believe that the climate and how it varies is understood. Very wrong! Not even major events such as glaciations are properly understood.

    ANd I am happy that you socialize with other scientists adhering to the scientific method. The only problem I have then is why you even in this much simpler conversation brought up so many strawmen, and arguments wich are completely counter to the scientific method?

    You end with the same challange as before (which at its core is counter to the scientific method). You demand: Well if you you dont believe it’w CO2 who dunnit, then come up with a better explanation.

    Again, this has nothing to do in science. But is frequent in advocacy. And don’t tell me what I accept or don’t … I am still only asking to see the basis of made claims.

    But I can give you not an answer, but the scientific position opposing the proposed explaining hypthesis. It’s called the null-hypothesis. When you ask ‘what has caused the variation now’, the null hypothesis would be: It varies the same way as it always has done (and which we don’t understand) . The challenge (in real science) is to establish that the null-hypothesis can be ruled out.

    But if you are a scientist, socializing with others, all this would be very familiar to you already. At least you claimed to. So let’s hope that was true. The socializing bit. My counter question to you (and directly related to your claim) would be:

    You do understand what I am saying, don’t you? You are aware of the prundence of adhereing to the scientific method and asking to see the data? And you do understand that I don’t have to provide you with a lot of irrelevant information about other things before the data can be shown. And you also do understand that I don’t have to offer a better and competing hypthesis, in order to have a look at your data and your methods. Or th questions if those explanations really are valid and hold water. All these things are and were obvious to you long before .. Weren’t they? Please confirm!

  42. #42 Stu
    December 20, 2012

    Yep, Jonas is drinking again. That’s what, 15 spelling errors in that last post alone?

  43. #43 Wyvern
    December 20, 2012

    Please don’t tell me you’ve never heard the term ‘denier’ before!? You would be lying! And it’s the most simple strawmen there is …

    Given that I have never said that I have not heard the term ‘denier’ before you are yourself creating a straw man.

    Again.

    I’d like to see where they come from.

    I gave you some papers to read …. don’t you understand the statistics they contain?

    I take it that you are aware that you are creating a straw man because you yourself say that “it’s the most simple strawmen there is”.

    And I have no clue from where you’ve gotten the idea that I “don’t believe models or Bayesian statistics” (that must be another one of your strawmen. On the contrary, I know what models and Bayesian statistics are good for and capable of.

    When you say things like “There are claims (found in the AR4) to high values, but nowhere established beyond questioning. Essentially all of them rely heavily on both model simulations (based on the same assumptions) and fiddled Bayesian statistics.” you are discounting the models and simulations that have been conducted by many scientists.

    This a curious thing to do because you apparently once said that the “numbers are made up, guessed at best”. The fact that there are both models and Bayesian statistics in the literature as well as paleoclimate analysis shows that you are wrong …. and your own dismissal of “model simulations and fiddled Bayesian statistics” -your own words- show that your original claim that the “numbers are made up, guessed at best” is untrue.

    Pale-data? No, it doesn’t establish the magnitude of ‘forcings’.

    Really? That will come as a surprise to many paleoclimatologists.

    Are you a paleoclimatologist?

    I have read a couple of papers by Stott and co-workers, even linked one myself here in this thread. And no, the did something different. Essentially an andvanced curfitting procedure (uwing models) where they claimed to get 90% agreement for one specific targeted parameter. And this is something very different than establishing a 90% confidence i what actually caused the same observations.

    In that case you should be able to start with the first two papers I referred you to and show how the statistics there do not establish 90% confidence ranges.

    I hope that you can be detailed and specific and point to particular equations.

    And by the way I would not call reading “a couple of papers by Stott and co-workers” enough of a basis for making the claims you make.

    And no (spare me another strawman), I don’t assume to understand others better than they do. I ask them first (in contrast to what almost all here, on your side tried)

    I disagree with your claim. You said of those many scientists who accept the mainstream view -whether on this board or elsewhere- that “The only case I’ve made (wrt thos) is that those who chose to simply believe it, do so in faith”.

    To me that is assuming that you know those people better than they do themselves. After all how can you possibly know what motivates their acceptance of the science? In addition I originally said: “You are assuming that you know what others do, and how they do it, and because they wont put their work on a plate in front of you you think that its not been done. How do YOU know what real scientists read and calculate and analyze when you cant show anyone that you have ever done anything that resembles science?” To say that when you also say that all they do is make up the attribution confidences is to contradict your claim that you do no assume what motivates others. It also makes a nonsense of your claim that I am putting up a straw man, because my claim is directly on topic.

    You claim however IS another straw man. You are really good at that arent you?

    the IPCC claims, and is very proud of claiming, to deal with the peer revied literature. If any basis for their claims actually did exist in 2007, they would be there to see for anyone to read. My ability (or lack thereof) to understand it, would not be a factor.

    Your lack of ability to understand it *would* be a factor. If you are too untrained to be able to understand the work how can you demonstrate that there has been no work done? If you are being mendacious in your claims about what was or was not calculated how can you demonstrate that there has been no work done?

    Nothing that you have claimed is a straw man of mine is a straw man. On the other hand you are doing very well in this regard.

    I did however strongly question your implied statement of of having pointedly and directly addressed exactly those queries I have.

    Its your prerogative to question it if you feel inclined to. You would be wrong though.

    And I still doubt thats what your friends ‘agree’ about

    Perhaps if you spoke to real scientists you would know what they discuss and what they agree on and what they accept as current science.

    I ask again. Are you a physicist?

    But you are right, I am not presenting that much science ‘at all’, I ma just making many, small, and pointed comments about where the alleged science (or arguing thereof) doesn’t hold water.

    But you are not making your case with evidence and you are not looking at the evidence that you have been directed to by others. For instance have you analyzed the papers I referred you to?

    In the end this means that all you are doing is shouting from the sidelines as an untrained lay person with no idea what you are saying. Or that you are deliberately trying to create doubt about the science where the scientists themselves have no comparable doubt.

    You ask:

    “Has it ever occurred to you that the problem is that you dont know where to look or how to find it?”

    And the answer is No! Because I have been doing exactly that: Asking for it, asking if anyone has seen it. If anyone has read and understood it, and is not taking this claim on faith.

    And a number of people have told you that they dont take it on faith that they have read the literature and discussed the work with climatologists. But you haven’t shown any inclination to follow up on their responses …. its as though you dont actually want to hear their answers …..

    I ask more pointed questions.

    But you dont listen to the answers and you wont show how you have determined that the confidences werent calculated in the first place.

    On nning of words. I am telling you about my assessment of all debaters. These words and terms are not part of a scientific discourse. And I think you are completely missing the point.

    No I am not.

    If someone denies that CO2 is a GHG they are a denier. If someone denies that CO2 is a increasing because of human emissions they are a denier. If someone denies that the earth is warming they are a denier.

    If someone pretends that they understand science when they have no training in science, and if they believe that they understand science better than real scientists understand it, they are likely to be demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    If someone is creationist they are highly likely to have a very distorted and biased response to science and the results of scientific enquiry.

    Dismissing the arguments of anyone who uses these words especially when they have a valid reason to do so is to simply be avoiding painful truth.

    They are used, not only by the fringe activists, and loony blog commenters, but by the core ‘experts’ and proponents of the climate scare.

    What, like deniers use the terms “fringe activists”, “loony blog commenters”, ‘experts’ in scare-quotes, and “climate scare”?

    There are a lot of (ex-)communists on your side.

    You cant be serious! If you are you are nuts and you are completely unacquainted with scientists, who are mostly very centrist in their political persuasions. If you really believe your claim then you are probably bordering on being prone to conspiratorial thinking.

    Or are you just being ironic?

    And you then try the old we-have-no-better-explanation gamibit.

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. I am saying that no known natural forcing explains warming, and that the known effects of CO2 do. If there are other unknown natural forcings that humans have not discovered how could such a large effect not be recognized? It is inherently contradictory to say that something besides humans is warming the planet but we don’t know what that is. If it is extra heat from beyond the earth we should be able to detect it. If it is something originating from earth we should have recognized that too by now. There have been many silly notions presents by climate change DENIERS but each notion is quickly and definitively refuted. If you know of any that haven’t please list them here.

    It is interesting that you don’t answer this question. If you claim that the human caused emissions of CO2 are not responsible for warming the earth THEN WHAT IS? Why cant you answer this question?

    But you shouldn’t have linked to John Cook’s site. There definitely, science is not the concern.

    Many real scientists would disagree. If you can point to any scientist who says that Skeptical Science is not concerned with science please share. And if you can explain how the science that floods the site is not science please do.

    And if you object to my “speaking for others” about the worth of Skeptical Science go and ask some scientists yourself.

    The only problem I have then is why you even in this much simpler conversation brought up so many strawmen, and arguments wich are completely counter to the scientific method?

    The problem here is your interpretation of what I say not what I said. You are trying to twist things so that you never have to answer a question directly because to do so would be to paint yourself into a corner and to end the chatter on this silly board.

    Paleo data still doesn’t establish the cause, You’ve got that wrong.

    There you go again. Another straw man that you seem to think I am prone to.

    I didn’t say that paleo data ESTABLISH the cause. I said that ” They give an empirical method of figuring out the relative sizes of different forcings”. AN empirical method …. for your benefit that is a method (but not the only method) of using physical evidence to understand the relative contributions of various factors that affect the climate.

    And they do.

    You demand: Well if you you dont believe it’w CO2 who dunnit, then come up with a better explanation.

    Again, this has nothing to do in science.

    It has everything to do with science. You are trying to ignore the science that indicates that CO2 warms the planet. But you dont offer any scientific counter to the physics of GHG warming. In science a central tennet is that a theory is only replaced by another theory that better explains the evidence and data. You are offering NOTHING in your claims that humans are not warming the planet by emitting CO2.

    It’s called the null-hypothesis. It’s called the null-hypothesis. When you ask ‘what has caused the variation now’, the null hypothesis would be: It varies the same way as it always has done (and which we don’t understand) . The challenge (in real science) is to establish that the null-hypothesis can be ruled out.

    As I said before of all know possible forcings no natural ones explain the warming but GHGs do. For your claim to be correct you have to disprove the physics that says that CO2 is a GHG with a sensitivity of about 3 degrees c per doubling AND you have to find a natural forcing that is greater than just about any other forcing except for the sun itself, which inconveniently for you is in a cool phase.

    You are trying to be scientific with your mention of the null hypothesis but doing so leaves you open to completely ignoring scientific parsimony. Your claim requires for there to be a very complicated and highly unlikely series of events occurring- this is not good science and it is not even science at all.

    You do understand what I am saying, don’t you?

    Better than you do I would say.

    You are aware of the prundence of adhereing to the scientific method and asking to see the data?

    Which is why I am asking you to explain your theory after having pointed you to some papers that explain what you say is not explained.

    And you do understand that I don’t have to provide you with a lot of irrelevant information about other things before the data can be shown.

    Saying it doesn’t make it true. You have ignored material that would answer your question and you have provided NOTHING that backs up you claim- either to support your insistance that the work was not done or that there is another forcing that is acting to warm the earth.

    And you also do understand that I don’t have to offer a better and competing hypthesis, in order to have a look at your data and your methods.

    You don’t have to offer a hypothesis unless you want to be scientific. You are not being scientific. And you are being shown the data but you are choosing to ignore it.

    Your original claim is that the ipcc and its climatologists “made up” or “guessed” the attribution confidences. You have been directed to work that shows that there has been a LARGE effort to actually calculate the confidences. So your original claim is wrong. You seem to have tried to avoid this wrongness by claiming then that the scientists did not do the calculations in the right way but you offer no evidence to back this up. That is not being scientific.

    All these things are and were obvious to you long before .. Weren’t they?

    They are obvious to most scientists. That you refuse to go into the matter yourself to discover the work only shows that you are not a scientist.

    I will ask you again. Are you a physicist? Are you a climatologist? Are you any sort of scientist? Are you an engineer?

    Do you talk to real scientists? Do you talk to physicists? Do you ever talk to climatologists?

    If you are trying to be scientific why dont you have to produce anything to support your claims when you are asking scientists to support theirs. And why do you refuse to actually discuss the specific material that is out there?

    I was told before I posted here that I would be wasting my time. I see now that I was told the truth. Really if this notion that you have borrowed from Judy Curry had any credibility why has she not overturned the whole field of climatology and the ipcc process by now? Why? Because its all a distraction from the truth.

    I dont know why I even bothered ….

  44. #44 Jonas N
    misconpetion
    December 20, 2012

    There aremany

  45. #45 Jonas N
    December 20, 2012

    There are so many misconceptions in your post, Wyvern, it is hard to know where to start.

    Yes, you do attac and aweful lot of strawmen, while at the same time claiming I erect such when I don’t.

    And you seem much more eager to tell me a lot about myself, than arguing the case you say is established. It is a bit strange when so many on your side are so obsessed with the persons rather than arguing the science.

    But I do give one thing, you’ve named two papers, and made a claim that they contain said science. That’s better than almost all others. And I will check them out. But you need cut back on your many accusations. Frankly some of the are just idiotic (*)

    I told you that I in this thread had followed several Stott papers, and suggested one of my own. Because you asked! I have not yet checked if your suggestions are among them since I saw them around midnight. Your: ” you refuse to go into the A totally unwarranted (and wrong) accusation. Unfortunately, there were quite many of those.

    And yes, I stick to my impression that your socializing with other scientists did not delve into the depth of attribution certainty. And I’ll give you my reason for it:

    One doesn’t bring up the alleged opinion of ‘tens of thousands’ of scientists, and even less so the alleged 97% consensus (about somthing totally unrelated) if one is arguing the existence of such science, and the intricacies of ‘fingerprinting’. Those are appeals to something else (about something else).

    And yes, this is how you started here (including my query):

    “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.

    Even giving you some slack for being unfamiliar with exactly what was addressed, or what ‘those guys’ have said, you claim to speak for (the opinions of) thens of thousands.

    Another really really bad strawman(*) was the following:

    your claims that humans are not warming the planet by emitting CO2.”

    After I had just listed the 4-point Al Gore version of the AGW argument, and pointed out I have no difficulties with accepting that.

    You say you are wasting your time, and I partly agree with you. You could have just presented those two references, explained that you think or believe they make or argue the case, even how and why if you want to cinvince.

    Instead however, you wasted your time on writing a long essay bout all kinds of other things. About me, and who I really am(*), and many other irrelevant issues. On several occasions you are just wrong, and others I would object (sometimes strongly) on scientific princple and/or matters and details.

    (*)The whole ‘attac and insult the messenger’-meme escapes me if you want to argue the science (but is extremely common). And your claim to understand “Better than you do I would say” was not so wise after first accusing me for exactly the same. Same goes for all the strawmen and dito-accusations.

  46. #46 Jonas N
    December 20, 2012

    Correcting one paragraph:

    I told you that I in this thread had followed several Stott papers, and suggested one of my own. Because you asked! I have not yet checked if your suggestions are among them since I saw them around midnight. Your: ” That you refuse to go into the matter yourself ..” six (nightly) hours later is nonsense. A totally unwarranted (and wrong) accusation. Unfortunately, there were quite many of those

    PS I.ll get back to you on both issues. The Stott papers (but I need to read them first) and the many attacs you tried. Because, I think there was som really bad and wrong arguing in there. And I still have the feeling that you conflate various issues pertaining to the attribution claims. At least your many arguments around them seem to target quite different issues.

  47. #47 Jonas N
    December 20, 2012

    Also Wyvern, you allude several times to having been told by others what to think here. I find that slightly odd. As an argument, and even more so if those you talk to claim to have firm opinions, and none of them or of those are presented here.

    There have been a few commenters here who have argued rationally and politely, even presenting som papers, or claiming to know and understand such science. But those were very few. And never stayed to argue the actual contents and merits.

    I suspect, your many opinions you felt the need to air about me, might have more to do with those interactions, than what I have actually said here . . .

    In those cases you you’ve drawn upon the regular commenters here, you will not get any substance at all … but lots of the very opposite

  48. #48 Wow
    December 20, 2012

    “I see what you are doing Jonas. This is the second time that you have repeated the idea that I claimed to “speak for tens of thousands of active scientists” when I did no such thing.”

    That’s Joan’s M.O.

    Pretend things that they think OUGHT to have happened have actuall happened.

    Another one is to change the words and ask “Where did I say $NEW_STATEMENT?”.

    But that’s pretty common for deniers.

  49. #49 Wow
    December 20, 2012

    “You are trying to twist things so that you never have to answer a question directly because to do so would be to paint yourself into a corner and to end the chatter on this silly board.”

    Yup, this is the entire Slug Horde’s M.O., though.

  50. #50 Wow
    December 20, 2012

    “Also Wyvern, you allude several times to having been told by others what to think here.”

    Where does he SAY that?

  51. #51 chek
    December 20, 2012

    The money shot of course – Komrades – is:
    “There are a lot of (ex-)communists on your side”.
    The follow up question being, how faithful to Algore are they really?

  52. #52 Lionel A
    December 20, 2012

    Lionel

    go easy on Wow, Stu and chek .. I assume what they bring here is their absolute best.

    No! No! My reference to the ‘Troll Collective’ and ‘Wendy Club’ was to indicate that it is you and your ilk (GWS, Kraken, OP, DDuff and now drongo drops) who may be afflicted with dyspraxia.

    The fact that you did not grasp that is yet more evidence for your affliction as is your continued joist with Wyvern who has done an excellent job of de-constructing your ramblings.

    As Anne Robinson might say:

    Your ideas are distorted, your reading scant [1], your methodology is bankrupt, your locker is empty, You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

    [1] scant, not in the old nautical sense which would make no sense here.

  53. #53 Jonas N
    December 20, 2012

    Lionel A

    That’s how I read it too. The troll collective here .. I never really bothered to find out what you menat by Wnedy club .. but who and which ones are the trolls with sub-zero substance in this ‘discussion’s is pretty obvious.

    I also agree that their reading and methodology. Considering them weak links is almost flattering …since it implies some strength.

  54. #54 Lionel A
    December 20, 2012

    I never really bothered to find out…

    Indeed you haven’t ever bothered to find. Those words, of yours, should be your epitaph.

    You have just provided another data point on your own personal slope of wilful ignorance from maybe dyspraxia.

  55. #55 Stu
    December 20, 2012

    Jonas…

    - Cannot read
    - Cannot spell
    - Has no scientific credentials
    - Has not read a single climate change paper
    - Does not understand physics
    - Has delusions of grandeur

    So yes, Jonas,

    but who and which ones are the trolls with sub-zero substance in this ‘discussion’s is pretty obvious.

    Indeed it is.

  56. #56 Jonas N
    December 20, 2012

    Indeed Stu, and you’ve found other gems inside your head too. Like claims about different speeds between hand and box

    What else might be found in there, pre-tell …

  57. #57 Wow
    December 20, 2012

    Joan, you still haven’t managed to explain why GSW was the first to bring up the velocity of the hand.

  58. #58 Stu
    December 20, 2012

    Wow, it’s a lost cause by now. It’s been quoted to him verbatim over half a dozen times now. HE JUST DOESN’T GET IT. He is just that stupid.

  59. #59 chek
    December 20, 2012

    “What else might be found in there, pre-tell “(sic)

    Another boring, pointless, extraneous and wrong avoidance strategy or two, by the looks of it. In other words – your specialty Jonarse!

  60. #60 Jonas N
    December 20, 2012

    Stu .. so you have found different speeds among hand and box mentioned … quoted a dozen times. Well, probably true but all quotes have been by you …

    And it’s funny. For a year, you were the only one imagining these things. Now Wow has started too, and even chek weighs in ..

    And of course, you are all staunch believers in the upcoming climate catastrophy too ..

    Not a coincidence, I reckon

    ;-)

    I’ll copy the quote you brought up once more. Where you imagined finding different speeds among hand and box. It is so hilarious, it’s unbelievable. Here it is (your emphasis)

    [GSW:] 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 alsoIf it moves at constant velocity you are only applying F friction.

    Stu finds claims of different speeds between hand and box here, even says that everyone can see that.

    As I said, lots of interensting things going on on the inside of that skull … And what’s coning out can be just as funny …

    :-)

  61. #61 Jonas N
    December 20, 2012

    (Well, all came out bold. Stu highlighted what he though were different speeds between hand and box in that quote. Wow is totally in on it, and chek gives hs support too.. Only Jeffie is missing)

  62. #62 Stu
    December 20, 2012

    Attempting to unbold</b because Jonas is too dense to understand HTML.

  63. #63 Stu
    December 20, 2012

    Acknowledging the hilarity of committing a typo in the closing tag there. Edit function, were art thou.

  64. #64 Jonas N
    December 20, 2012

    Stu … I think you say so many utterly stupid things because never get your premises right …

  65. #65 Jonas N
    December 20, 2012

    It would be better if you found anything,anything at all, where you believe that anybody has claimed different speeds among hand and box to start with.

    The best quote (fpr your derailment) I have found I have copied many times by now. And there is no ‘different speeds’ in there … Still, 2½ weeks derailment last year weren’t enough. Here you are still at it, over a year later. And you know, I appreciate it. Now Wow and chek are sideing with you …

    And your attempts at ‘physics’ are even more hilarious …

  66. #66 Stu
    December 20, 2012

    Heck, I’m bored, and I’ll be damned if I let our local derp-muffin feed his pathology by thinking he’s actually gotten the last word in. Dyspraxia does sound more and more likely.

    Stu .. so you have found different speeds among hand and box mentioned … quoted a dozen times.

    Several people have now quoted GSW’s herpa-derpa mention of hand speed right at you Jonas. You still don’t understand what we are trying to tell you.

    That means you are stupid, mentally ill or a liar. Take your pick.

    Well, probably true but all quotes have been by you …

    Obvious and stupid lie. Others have quoted the same damned thing.

    Oh, wait. You mean the quotes are all OF me, right?

    You know, Jonas, for someone smarter than anyone here, for the only person who knows what real science is, for someone decades ahead in physics (what the fark does that even mean, Jonas? can we look forward to your refutation of the Standard Model next?), for someone decades ahead in mathematics… your inability to form a correct sentence is really, really glaring.

    Far be it from me to make fun of someone’s genuine learning disability though. So if you are truly sufficiently dyslexic to still not comprehend what we are trying to tell you (ask any person over 10 in your general vicinity, they’ll be able to help), I sincerely apologize.

    Mind you, even affording you all of that benefit of the doubt and assuming you meant quotes OF me, it’s still not true. I’m just trying to pinpoint your specific pathology now.

    And it’s funny.

    No, not really. Not anymore. You are sick in the head, Jonas. I tend not to find mental illness amusing.

    And of course, you are all staunch believers in the upcoming climate catastrophy too ..

    Oh, we’re past that now, Jonas. You’re incapable of comprehending English, writing English, basic physics and basic math. Until you start some serious medication and remedial education, talking about climate change is WAY, WAY out of your league.

    I’ll copy the quote you brought up once more.

    Thank you for saving me the trouble. Although I do seem to remember that this type of lack of self-censorship is indicative of serious pathopsychology.

    Where you imagined finding different speeds among hand and box.

    When did you lose the ability to absorb knowledge, Jonas? Are you doing a Memento re-enactment?

    It is so hilarious, it’s unbelievable.

    No, again, your mental illness is not funny at all.

    [GSW's stupidity, snipped to the bare minimum]

    your hand would have to move quicker (accelerate) across the table also

    Right. At least it only took us pointing it out a few times for you to find the actual quote, Jonas.

    Stu finds claims of different speeds between hand and box here

    Hand speed is mentioned. Which implies it is a variable. Which is stupid. Which I have been attempting to explain to you in dozens of ways for over a year.

    even says that everyone can see that.

    And everybody does, Jonas. Everybody except you. Even GSW has the good sense to stay out of this one.

    So again, everybody is crazy except for you, right? This seems likely to you? In the dark of night, there are no pangs of “maybe it’s me”?

    How long have you been off your medication, Jonas?

  67. #67 Stu
    December 20, 2012

    Stu … I think you say so many utterly stupid things because never get your premises right …

    BOOOM!

    Sorry, my new heavy-duty irony meter just exploded.

    Hai Jonas, let me explain what a “premise” is.

    A premise is something like “the hand is pushing the box”.

    What follows from that? Well, from that follows that the hand and box will always have the same velocity. If not, you are violating the… wait for it… premise. If the hand and the box do not have the same velocity, the hand is not pushing the box.

    Therefore, saying something like “if the box moves faster, the hand has to move faster also” is monumentally stupid. Not only is it causally wrong, it implicitly calls the premise into question.

    This is not about me saying the speeds are different, you abject moron. It is about the hand even being mentioned. Only an idiot without a single semester of physics (i.e., you) would either entertain that misconception or not see the stupidity of the original mention.

    And for fark’s sake, you idiot, download spell-check software. Your increasingly frantic frothing rants are painful enough as is without you misspelling more than one word a sentence on average.

  68. #68 Wow
    December 20, 2012

    “It would be better if you found anything,anything at all, where you believe that anybody has claimed different speeds among hand and box to start with. ”

    It would be better to ask why you keep claiming the hand moves at a different speed to the box, Joan.

    Your last forty posts have all proclaimed the hand moving at a different speed to the box.

    Why do you keep mentioning the hand going faster than the box, Joan?

    You keep talking about the hand moving faster than the box.

    Why?

  69. #69 Wow
    December 20, 2012

    “different speeds between hand and box”

    Why do you say that, Joan?

    Why do you say that there’s “different speeds between hand and box”?

  70. #70 Wow
    December 20, 2012

    Do you want me to find more quotes of you saying that there’s “different speeds between the hand and the box”, Joan?

  71. #71 Stu
    December 20, 2012

    POSTERITY:

    What we are debating here is GSW’s original post, which by simple substitution is

    If the car accelerates and moves faster, it’s engine would have to move quicker (accelerate) also

    100% equivalent. A year later, Jonas is still defending this statement. And daring people to say who brought up differing car-engine speeds.

  72. #72 Stu
    December 20, 2012

    Also VERY notable: every time this thread springs back to life, Jonas’ cheerleaders swoop in instantly with completely content-free, school yard level support. As soon as Jonas gets called on being dense as a post and/or a liar, they swoop back out. Only to lurk, and hope nobody will notice, until next time, when they will SO have the last word, too.

  73. #73 Jonas N
    December 21, 2012

    Stu, try a little bit harder:

    If the car accelerates and moves faster, it’s engine would have to move quicker (accelerate) also

    For instance, try to replace the ‘also’ with a synonym like ‘too‘:

    If the car accelerates and moves faster, it’s engine would have to move quicker (accelerate) [too]

    Better?

  74. #74 Jonas N
    December 21, 2012

    To help you Stu, things were clarified even further, only minutes later:

    Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox in order to apply further constant force, therefore your hand needs to accelerate as well

    In your (excellent) analogy that would be instead:

    Yourv [engine] needs to keep pace with the [car] in order to apply further constant [torque] therefore your [engine] needs to accelerate as well

    Better still? Did you notice the “keep pace with” this time? Did you notice that another synonym for ‘also’ is ‘as well’?

    PS Wow: long sentences, some tricky words as well/too/also….

  75. #75 Stu
    December 21, 2012

    Yes, Jonas, you still don’t get it. The sentence “bringing up the hand at all is stupid” is just too much for you.

    The.

    Hand.

    Is.

    Irrelevant.

    Therefore, saying

    Your hand needs to keep pace

    Is stupid. The word HAND is stupid.

    Oh, wait. Holy crap. Embarrassing yourself with the synonym gambit is not enough.

    JONAS. READ WHAT YOU JUST ACTUALLY WROTE.

    Yourv [engine] needs to keep pace with the [car] in order to apply further constant [torque] therefore your [engine] needs to accelerate as well

    The point is THAT THE ENGINE IS BY DEFINITION ATTACHED TO THE CAR.

    You have no self-awareness, do you. You complete, utter and pathetic moron.

    Here:

    Just like when you say “I am pushing this box with my hand”, THE HAND IS BY DEFINITION GOING TO MOVE AT THE SAME SPEED. It will, by definition (being a car, hand pushing box) always move at the same speed.

    You have now, officially, introduced the speed of the engine as a variable in any equation involving a car. Physics teachers world-wide are looking for rope to hang themselves.

  76. #76 Wyvern
    December 21, 2012

    Also Wyvern, you allude several times to having been told by others what to think here.

    Thats utter rubbish. I do my own thinking based on the best evidence. You are grossly twisting matters as you always seem to do and I challenge you to show where I said that I was told what to think.

    On another matter it seems that your poster girl Judy Curry has been caught with her knickers down. Perhaps you should ride to her rescue and present your science -if it actually exists- in her defense. I realize that you claim that Skeptical Science presents no science so now is your chance to improve the level of conversation over there:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/italian-flag-curry.html

  77. #77 Wyvern
    December 21, 2012

    Also Wyvern, you allude several times to having been told by others what to think here.

    Thats utter rubbish. I do my own thinking based on the best evidence. You are grossly twisting matters as you always seem to do and I challenge you to show where I said that I was told what to think.

    On another matter it seems that your poster girl Judy Curry has been caught with her knickers down. Perhaps you should ride to her rescue and present your science -if it actually exists- in her defense. I realize that you claim that Skeptical Science presents no science so now is your chance to improve the level of conversation over there:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/italian-flag-curry.html

  78. #78 chek
    December 21, 2012

    Abstract concepts like ‘premise’ and implicit are beyond Jonarse’s comprehension. Instead we’re treated to an insight into bizarer-o-world.

    In which minute inertial differences must be accounted for in the description. The maximum compression of rubber mounts for example must be applied before the steering column begins moving momentarily later, essentially a discreet object flying in formation.

    Or there’s the possibility that the bolts securing the engine had been loosened (perhaps by an ex-communist. Who knows?) and produced an equal and opposite reactionwhen forward thrust was applied.

    Or as suggested earlier, by the effect horizon of a local singularity pulling the engine off into oblivion without, baffling as it may seem, affecting the car.

    To be a true physics is to know and account for these things, every second of everyday.

  79. #79 Stu
    December 21, 2012

    chek, thanks for the laugh. That was eerily like my professor’s introductory lecture on including only sensible things in calculations. This was on the very, very hard-core “materials & strengths” course.

  80. #80 Jonas N
    December 21, 2012

    Wyvern

    I wouln’td start talking about ‘twisting matters’ after that Mega strawmen you pulled earlier today.Especially not if it was a product of your ‘own thinking’ ..

    And meybe not the best phrasing, but yes, you several times alluded to what impressions others had given you about what’s going on here.

    If you think for yourself, why would you feel the need to refer other’s opinions to me? Furhter why would you bring up the alleged opinions of tens of thousands of scientists. Or that some that 97% agree on something else.

    On the topic of twisting matters: Where did I ever make Curry my poster girl?

    Are you just yet another warmist who cannot play by the same rules as he demands that the other side always must? Are you yet another one of those, who is blind to his own argument if it were apllied generally, ie used in both directions? If the answer is ‘No’, then please stop the silly wordgames. And the childish non-logic deduction attempts.

  81. #81 Stu
    December 21, 2012

    Iwouln’td] [that Mega strawmen] [meybe] [Furhter] [warmist] [apllied]

    Still hell-bent on not being taken seriously I see, Jonas.

    Also, why are you trying to talk about climate science again? You’re not allowed to. You do not understand the language climate science reports are written in. You do not understand math. You do not understand physics. You are dense as a post. You are a pathological liar.

    Fix those things first, and maybe. Just maybe.

  82. #82 Jonas N
    December 21, 2012

    chek,
    The bizzarro world is one not so bright commenter imagining there were claims about ‘difference in speed between hand and box’ .. and still does so over a year later!

    Even acfer the opposite was explicitly pointed out to him.

    Even more bizzaro was his notion that this description ov very simple physics, was about dependet variables, and official equations. The bizzaro world is all the stupid stuff errected upon that nonsense. And even worse bizzarro world is that a bunch more start claiming equally stupid things. Even if the purpose most was about helping a poor guy in dire need of diversion with some of that …

    The poor dork is now screaming it was stupid to explain the obvious to him, because it was so obvious … and that’s why heard the exact opposite to the obvious. Or something like that …

    Please continue Stu, Wow, and welcome chek, to this bizzaro-box-physics of luminous,Stu and Wow. I still hop Jeffie will join you too (and I think he as well sided with luminous in the idiocy-physics that seem popular among warmists here)

  83. #83 ianam
    December 21, 2012

    I was told before I posted here that I would be wasting my time.

    Wyvern, not just Jonas but this entire thread is pathological. Do yourself a favor and quit it.

  84. #84 Jonas N
    December 21, 2012

    Stu, I was absolutely serious

    Wyvern himself, who hade been quibbing a lot about strawmen, falsly many times, tried a Mega-strawman himself, telling my what my position was, after I just hade told him the opposite.

    Very embarrassing (if this was his own thinking) and also embarassing if this built on the false description by someone. else, and he took a swing at it ..

    But quite typical.

    And it is me explaining the simplest physics to you guys, who have a hard time understanding even the concept of a hand bushing a box, sliding over the floor ..

    You (several now) who imagine the most stupid things and have a year long hissy fit over ‘hands and box at different speeds’ and trying to defend this utter nonsense with even more about dependet variables and official equations, neither ever mentioned or needed for understanding:

    The simplest example of a hand pushing a box, sliding over the floor.

  85. #85 Jonas N
    December 21, 2012

    Wyvern, I think ianam just said the most sensible thing I’ve ever seen him saying

    This thread is pathological. Explaining things to warmists here is on such a low level it surly must sound stupid to anyone from outside,

    Justs think of the fact that it specifically must be pointed out that:

    When a hand pushes a box, sliding over the flor, it must have the same speed as the box.!

    Just think of this needing to be spelled out in plain text to some here. Who then go on and have a year long (still lasting) hissy fit about:

    Hands and box moving at differnet speeds!?

    You cant makte tese guys up!

    But even for you, I think your best bet would be to leave silently. You declined quite quickly after a (in comparison) reasonable start. Scored a couple of (unchallenged!) own goals, and starting to sound angry and touchy and piling up various unfounded accusations ..

    If this is indicative of the strength of your argument … ianam’s advice may be your best option.

    I can tell you that while ianam was around, he certainly helped me making a similar argument about how these debates usually go. A little bit like Wow now (and Stu and chek too, of course).

    But I hope you stick around. :-) Independet of whether you start arguing the facts and their merits, of if it will be more down that road you seem to be headed …

  86. #86 Stu
    December 21, 2012

    (3 different spellings of bizarro,which just exploded another irony meter)
    [acfer] [dependet] [errected] [warmists] [ov] [hade] [quibbing] [falsly] [hade] [embarassing] [bushing] [dependet] [surly] [Justs] [flor] [differnet] [makte] [tese] [Independet]

    Jonas, Sterno is not your friend.

    Okay, that was for fun. Let’s see if I can figure out what the damned clown shoe was actually trying to say.

    The bizzarro world is one not so bright commenter imagining there were claims about ‘difference in speed between hand and box’

    Do you even read our attempts at explaining this to you anymore, Jonas? We use small words. We go slow. We go out of our way to leave you graceful ways to extricate yourself from the discussion and maintain at least a token amount of dignity.

    When you can’t see the sky anymore Jonas… stop digging.

    Even acfer the opposite was explicitly pointed out to him.

    Ah, yes, okay. We can now officially add the word “opposite” to the list of terms you have no concept of. But do derp on Jonas, derp on.

    Even more bizzaro was his notion that this description ov very simple physics, was about dependet variables, and official equations.

    “Official equations”? What the hell are you talking about? Jonas, do the orderlies know you are playing on the Interwebs again? Have you been hiding the thorazine under your tongue?

    Even if the purpose most was about helping a poor guy in dire need of diversion with some of that …

    I’ll take Subconscious Cries For Help for $400, Alex.

    and that’s why heard the exact opposite to the obvious. Or something like that …

    Yeah, something like that.

    Or no, not at all. What the hell, Jonas. My dog makes more sense than you do recently.

    I still hop Jeffie will join you too

    Yes, hop on, Jonas. Hop straight to dispensary AND TAKE YOUR DAMNED MEDS.

    Stu, I was absolutely serious

    No, no you weren’t. I’m sure you intended to be, but holy hakalela were you not serious. You’ were not even close.

    Wyvern himself, who hade been quibbing a lot about strawmen, falsly many times

    Uh-huh. Well, I’m sure he’ll get right back on that once he figures out what “falsly quibbing” means.

    Hey Jonas. Have you figured out what “spell check” means?

    tried a Mega-strawman himself,

    Did you draw one during arts and crafts this morning Jonas? Did the orderlies let you before the meds kicked in?

    And it is me explaining the simplest physics to you guys

    You, sir, wouldn’t recognize physics if it teabagged you for a month.

    who have a hard time understanding even the concept of a hand bushing a box, sliding over the floor ..

    Again bringing up the hand, again demonstrating that you are incapable of grasping the basic point. Again demonstrating you’re clinically insane, and very, very stupid to boot.

    You (several now) who imagine the most stupid things

    I know, Jonas. IT’S EVERYBODY ELSE THAT’S CRAZY, right?

    Right, Jonas? We’re all nuts except for you, right?

    Does your room have a view?

    and have a year long hissy fit

    Whoa, Jonas. It was weeks, now it’s a year? If you’re going to lie through your teeth, couldn’t you wait at least a page or two? It’s a lot less embarrassing that way.

    (Do note, there’s two r’s and two s’s in that big word).

    over ‘hands and box at different speeds’

    I know, right? It’s absolutely brain-damaged to bring that up. I’m sure you’ve privately e-mailed GSW to that effect.

    and trying to defend this utter nonsense with even more about dependet variables and official equations

    Please stop using terms you do not know the meaning of. You don’t know what a dependent variable is. And WHAT THE HELL is an “official equation”? Where did you come up with that, cupcake?

    Is “official” equal to “bad”? Is that it? I’m genuinely curious.

    The simplest example of a hand pushing a box, sliding over the floor.

    And after “pushing”, the hand should never, ever be mentioned again. Unless of course you failed every single physics course you ever entered. It’s okay Jonas, nobody’s perfect. Take me for example: I never made it through any economics classes. They seemed asinine and way too full of wishful thinking and behavioral psychology.

    So what was it that flunked you out of physics, Jonas? Couldn’t let go of the influence of the Milky Way’s central black hole on g?

    This thread is pathological.

    Sure is. That’s why you were explicitly confined to it.

    Explaining things to warmists here is on such a low level it surly must sound stupid to anyone from outside,

    Oh yes, it certainly does. Just not in the way your megalomania makes you think it does.

    Justs think of the fact that it specifically must be pointed out that: When a hand pushes a box, sliding over the flor, it must have the same speed as the box.!

    *boggle* *headdesk* *boggle*

    Hey Jonas, that loud whooshing sound? Yes, that is still the point, and yes, it is still way, way over your head.

    You cant makte tese guys up!

    This can stand alone.

    But even for you, I think your best bet would be to leave silently.

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    You declined quite quickly after a (in comparison) reasonable start. Scored a couple of (unchallenged!) own goals

    Wait, Jonas, stop. You’re trying to do climate change again, aren’t you? You’re not allowed to. You’re too farking stupid. You don’t understand the language, the math or the physics. Stop it. You’re making everybody’s head hurt.

    and starting to sound angry and touchy and piling up various unfounded accusations ..

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    If this is indicative of the strength of your argument …

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    But I hope you stick around.

    You just told him to go. Are you insane, a liar, or both?

  87. #87 Jonas N
    December 21, 2012

    Stu

    Doesn’t matter how much you try. Different speeds among hand and box existed in only yours (and later Wow’) imagination.

    Only you know why you felt the need to invent so obvious nonsens (even yuou acknowledged how stupid even the idea was: So stupid that even mentioning it was stupid, according to you9.

    Still you went on, and still go on about somthing that existed only in your heard.

    Also the stuff about ‘dependent variables’ is silly and only you bring it up.

    Why? I don’t know. Probably to divert from the above cock-up.

    And you didn’t (and still don’t) see anything wrong with luminous’ physics. And claimed you studied physics for six years. But totally lose it already for a simple 1D example (-experiment) about motion. And claim to speak for all others, and even physics teachers.

    What a joke you are, Stu.

    Stay with your spelling errors, at least there you can find some consolation for all your failures and total lack of substance here.

    Sorry, should have said ‘relevant substance’, after all you do point out spelling errors correctly sometimes ….

  88. #88 Wyvern
    December 21, 2012

    Are you just yet another warmist who cannot play by the same rules as he demands that the other side always must?

    No. I am a scientist asking for your evidence just as you ask others for the same thing. You have offered nothing.

    Are you yet another one of those, who is blind to his own argument if it were apllied generally, ie used in both directions?

    No. I question my understanding of the literature all the time and I have colleagues who are very enthusiastic in doing the same thing. That’s how science works. You wont participate by putting forward your own evidence so you should not be surprised when people dismiss you as an idiot.

    If the answer is ‘No’, then please stop the silly wordgames.

    There are no word games. But I can see that you struggle with the English language so it might be that you dont understand what I am saying.

    And the childish non-logic deduction attempts.

    Oh the irony ….

    On the topic of twisting matters: Where did I ever make Curry my poster girl?

    You dont understand metaphors do you? If you are too stupid to understand the point I am too impatient to explain it to you.

    Wyvern himself, who hade been quibbing a lot about strawmen, falsly many times, tried a Mega-strawman himself, telling my what my position was, after I just hade told him the opposite.

    Heres a challenge for you. List the straw men that you think I have presented. I will prove that they are not. And then I will list some of your own straw men for the funniness of it.

    This thread is pathological. Explaining things to warmists here is on such a low level it surly must sound stupid to anyone from outside,

    You are explaining nothing but you ARE posting on a ‘low level’. You have no evidence and no structured case, just the same unsubstantiated claim that you keep repeating over and over without support and in ignorance of a whole body of work.

    So yes it would seem stupid from the outside. Having walked in here its also stupid from the inside. You make it so.

    But even for you, I think your best bet would be to leave silently. You declined quite quickly after a (in comparison) reasonable start. Scored a couple of (unchallenged!) own goals, and starting to sound angry and touchy and piling up various unfounded accusations ..

    Huh? ‘Unfounded’? The truth is that you dont handle valid criticism well and you dont have any response to the points made. You are wading in sour grapes and you are sounding like a spoilt brat. To be blunt about it you sound like you have been drinking your sorrows away because your coherence has gone south and you keep playing the same 3 or 4 scripted responses over and over and over.

    You are impotent Jonas. You have nothing to use to contradict the mainstream understanding except your unsubstantiated claim. You are a loser. And you must know it because your disintegrating English indicates a desperation or a rashness that must be rotting in your belly. Get used to that feeling Jonas. Its the realization that you are wrong.

    If you want me to treat you like a grown up then start acting like one. If you want to have a discussion about science then start offering some scientific content. Otherwise I will listen to the advice of those who tell me to stop wasting my time with what was humorously described as a ‘one trick pony whose only trick is to shit on his feet’.

    I *might* talk to you next year if I bother checking this board after my holidays- and if you have managed to achieve a school kids ability to be logical and scientific.

  89. #89 Jonas N
    December 21, 2012

    As obvious after a year of failre about the simplest matter, your understanding of language is exceedingly poor (and you are allowed to blame my typus for that, as a get-out ticket)

    I hoped Wyvern would stick around, while I too think quietly leaving is his(!) best opition.

    You see once again, you imagine contradictions where there aren’t any!

  90. #90 Jonas N
    December 21, 2012

    Stu, since you asked, the ‘offical equations’ refer to the nonsense you tried above pretending to speak for ‘the physics teachers of the world’:

    You have now, officially, introduced the speed of the engine as a variable in any equation involving a car. Physics teachers world-wide are looking for rope to hang themselves.

    There are no offically introduced equations, Stu (other than in your head). It’s about a hand pushing a box, accelerating it as it overcomes friction ..

    You should know that by now. And of all the small words you need to understand, ‘difference’ is the longest. The others are ‘hand’, ‘box’ and the term ‘bewteen’ or ‘among them’ ..

    You still haven’t found any such suggested ‘differences’, only obvious claims to the opposite, after your incredulous question.

    OK, Wow, has found the same, i gather he is included in the ‘we’ you try to imply. Is he? Cause any physics teachers most certainly aren’t …

  91. #91 Jonas N
    December 21, 2012

    Wyvern,

    If you are a scientist, thats good. Would you then please also start behaving like one, and cut down on the strawmen and dumb accusations? And also the unscientific arguments. Please?

    Quit nonsense like “You dont understand metaphors do you? ” after you (even wrongly) nitpick wordings like ‘speak for tens of thousands of scientists’. Just stop that nonsense and start behaving like a sicentist! Can you?

    You demand: “List the straw men that you think I have presented” and I already have. The worst was this Mega-one, about me:

    “your claims that humans are not warming the planet by emitting CO2.”

    The one you you tried, is my hones opinion:

    This thread is pathological. Explaining things to warmists here is on such a low level it surly must sound stupid to anyone from outside,

    For instance, the simplest 1D physics example imaginable, the laws of motion. And no Wyvern, it definitely is not me who is making this look stupid.

    I’d say that your quite lenthy (albeit complaying about ‘wasting your time’) rants about others stuff looks more stupid. Ad do you accusations and now, attempted insults.

    I will have a look at those two references you menitioned, but you need to up your game considerably, if you don’t want me to reply to the meny stupid rants (you’ve now tried) in kind.

    And don’t talk about ‘treating others and behaving like grown ups’ if you cant behave like one. You claimed to be a scientist (others have claimed that too here) .

    If that’s true, then act like one. Deal with what is claimed, not your imaginations. Rember, this whole business started by me asking for the evidence …

    You have offered some purported evidence (I have not checekd yet), very few others have done so before (and been wrong). And I am a bit worried about your claims too, since you seemd to conflate several different claimed high levels (of 90%).

    More specifically, in the on-topic parts (of your lengthy comments) you have been talking as far as I can see, about other things than the certainty of the attribution. But that was just my hunch, could be you just being unfamiliar with the relevant terms …

  92. #92 Wow
    December 21, 2012

    Joan, you’re talking about there being a “difference between the hand and box” again!!!!

    Are you nuts?

    THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!

    Why do you keep posting that statement, that there’s a “difference betweenm hand and box”????

  93. #93 Wow
    December 21, 2012

    YOU’RE DOING IT AGAIN!!!

    ” Different speeds among hand and box exist”

    Why do you say this?

    Do you think that a hand moving a box is going at a different speed to the box it is moving???

    Are you so insane you don’t understand this is wrong????

  94. #94 GSW
    December 21, 2012

    @Jonas, Wyvern

    Just trying to get upto speed. Did Wyvern post links to a couple of papers that were relevant? can someone repost if they know where they are?

    TIA

  95. #95 Won't put my name because this thread is too stupid
    December 21, 2012

    This is truly one of the most pathetic threads I have ever seen. You are all pathetic, trolls and entrolled alike.

  96. #96 Wow
    December 21, 2012

    Given you detest links, even if they’re to Nature’s website (which you insist is an alarmist site and not reliable), no links were given, the name of the paper and the author was given.

    And, rather than demand we do your work for you, just go and look at Wyvern’s posts to find them.

    Or are you incapable of that?

  97. #97 Stu
    December 21, 2012

    Stu, since you asked, the ‘offical equations’ refer to the nonsense you tried above pretending to speak for ‘the physics teachers of the world’:

    “You have now, officially, introduced the speed of the engine as a variable in any equation involving a car. Physics teachers world-wide are looking for rope to hang themselves.”

    There are no offically introduced equations

    No, because that’s not what I said, moron. It’s a single sentence, and you completely misunderstood it. Par for the course, I guess.

    How do you survive? I hope the orderlies keep you away from stairs and sharp objects.

  98. #98 Stu
    December 21, 2012

    This is truly one of the most pathetic threads I have ever seen. You are all pathetic, trolls and entrolled alike.

    Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

  99. #99 FrankD
    December 21, 2012

    “There are a lot of (ex-)communists on your side”.
    Chek, I called this last week:
    ” I predict cockroaches by Christmas. :-)”

    “Deal with what is claimed, not your imaginations” – Sage words from Jonas. But if he followed his own advice, this thread would only be half as funny.

    Enjoy your white wine in the sun, one and all.

  100. #100 Jonas N
    December 21, 2012

    Stu .. the only reason you would start nutting about ‘officially introduced equeations’, about ‘independet variables’ or ‘different speeds’ is if you are a total nutcase. If you truly are, or chose to be .. I don’t know, nor do I really care.