By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
the only reason you would start nutting about ‘officially introduced equeations’
Typos aside, your command of English idiom is woeful. Jonas, I dare you to say ‘start nutting’ in public.
Also, I did not mention “official equations” in any way, shape or form. That you think so is merely the result of your complete and utter failure at reading comprehension.
Sweetheart, follow along. I’ll try to do this slowly.
You have now, officially, introduced the speed of the engine as a variable in any equation involving a car.
Meaning that you have officially (formally, openly) introduced a variable. Let’s just put aside the stupidity of doing so in the first place for a second.
In your miserable excuse for a brain, “officially introducing a variable” means “official equations”.
Haha, nobody would be THAT damned dense.
Jonas, at this point, either I and every sentient being on the planet are nutcases… or you are. Everybody understood what I meant EXCEPT FOR YOU. Either everybody else is stupid, or you are.
Care to give me odds?
By the way:
I don’t know, nor do I really care.
Respectively very true, and a very obvious and stupid lie.
When a hand is pushing a box, with a constant force, and it overcomes friction, it starts accelerating ..
Look kid, you claim to have studied six years of physics, but could not spot any of the gross violations of luminous. You derail over the simplest description of an example, start imagining gross stupidities, then blaiming others for your misconceptions, trying to save face by introducing more and more irrelevant things, finally believing to speak for all physics teachers and now the entire world!?
Bacause you imagined different speeds between hand and box?
You are a joke Stu!
I think I’ve figured it out. Jonas’s learning disabilities prevent him from grasping more than two words from any sentence or concept.
I say “bringing up the hand is stupid, because it implies the hand and box speed can be different”.
Gears slowly grind in Jonas’ head, until…
“DIFFERENT SPEED! THAT’S STUPID!”
It latches on to that concept and is unable to let go. No, really. Unable to. Even a year later.
I say “you have officially introduced a stupid variable into the equation”.
Gears grind, and…
“OFFICIAL EQUATION! THAT’S STUPID!”
(Insert “hurr-durr” to taste)
I did not imagine different speeds between hand and box, you moron. GSW implied them. Maybe you can ask one of the friendly orderlies to explain this to you.
Hey Jonas, what does it tell you that not even GSW (who was the one who brought hand speed up), Olaus or any of your other psychotic clowns are standing up for you in this?
Maybe even they see what a dunce you are?
Or do you still think it’s EVERYBODY ELSE that’s not getting it?
Oh, actually, Jonas, you should simply ask the orderly to nut on your hand and your box. Go on.
Yes you say and write a lot of things, all completely irrelevant.
And no, GSW didn’t imply different speeds, you imagined this in spite of explicitly being told the opposite. And you are still harping on this more than a year later. And as you said, you say and write all kind of new things attempting to cover up or explain your initial misconception:
‘officially introducing variables into equations’ is just one of them. Believing to ‘speak for the world’s physics teachers’ is another, and even ‘EVERYBODY ELSE’!?
Claim to have studied six years of physics, can’t see anything wrong with the many times luminous bungled it badly, imagines different speeds when no such thing is said, even the opposite is pointed out to you within minutes, And can’t get over it (or can’t even get it alt all) more than a year later.
You are a joke Stu, and only that. Go back to writing inanities like ‘cupcake’ or ‘sweetheart’ and use your spell checker …
And no, GSW didn’t imply different speeds
By bringing up the hand speed, he did. We KNOW you’re too stupid to understand that, Jonas. Let it go.
‘officially introducing variables into equations’ is just one of them
Ah, you’ve backed off “official equations”. You know, if I didn’t know better I’d say there’s hope for you.
And I didn’t introduce variables, officially or otherwise. GSW did originally, and you’re still doing it. What does it tell you that GSW is staying out of this?
can’t see anything wrong with the many times luminous bungled it badly
Name one or admit you’re a liar.
use your spell checker
I don’t need one, you dolt. You do.
A total joke, Stu … nothing else!
Thank you for conceding, Jonas. Until next time, when you hope nobody is paying attention and you try to get the last word in.
Sorry stu, I agree with Jonas, you’re a total joke!
What you have to remember Stu, is that Griselda’s “judgement” amounts to cheering and hugging a snotty rag chock-full of discarded ,moronic, snotty, denier bogies called ‘janama’ on another thread. Our Griselda even gives the current 16 year denier ‘lie-du-jour'[ the nod through. Just as that equal moron Jonarse tried to do.
Also note how the Weasel avoids any eye contact with hands or boxes before skedaddling prior to anyone noticing.
Another water tight proof of the existance of a right wing fossil fuel illuminati obstructing climate science:
Hyuck! Hyuck! Because it’s not like – dur Hyuck! Hyuck! – that anymore than four people Hyuck! Hyuck! will see the T-shirt as produced and promoted by williwatts.
I mean wow – a wholeJosh cartoon calendar. Presumably twelve attempts (please God not 365) by Josh to be ‘funny’. But, regardless, you hapless deniers are expected to find the unfunny, piss-poor cartoon artist ‘Josh’, funny. By order!
That many – including me – would rather receive a Christmas greeting card from a life-serving paedophile than Wiili Watts and his pop-culture grifters is neither here nor there with regard to connections with right wing front groups, so much as an ebola-type dread of the creeping stupidity involved in the whole process.
Hate to tell you this chek, but the funny thing is that Mann believes that the calendar was a proof of a well funded conspiracy..
And Josh is funny, because he makes fun of you, ergo an unscientific cult.
I wasn’t expecting comprehension from you, Putrid.
chek, thank you for siding with Stu’s nuttery ..
Who imagined different speeds among hand/box, even years after his nonsense was pointed out
Who couldn’t see anythin wrong with luminous physics,
Who couldn’t even find where I pointed those out
Who claimed to have studied physics for six years
And who spends his time at inventing more of the same nuttery
What an utter joke …
Who imagined different speeds among hand/box,
Obvious and stupid lie,
Who couldn’t see anythin wrong with luminous physics,
Neither could you.
Who couldn’t even find where I pointed those out
Oh do tell Jonas. Where?
Who claimed to have studied physics for six years
Are you now so desperately jealous of this that you are questioning it out of general principle, you fool?
I both saw them, pointed them out, and explained how it should be done .. you Stu, missed all of this and are still
Nothing but an poor laughable joke … totally irrelevant
So Jonarse, I think we can all agree at this juncture that your * ahem * career trial on the English language denier gravy train circuit hasn’t gone well. Deary me no, not well at all.
But if ever you need a character reference detailing your achievements in stupidity, arrogance, willingness to hitch to any old denier bandwagon no matter how ephemeral and of course your stubbornness, well this thread will always be here.
These are your assertions, and this while you consequently have been siding with the most stupid comments and commenter here, failing almost every time to even address the pertinent issues.
And you are just one of them, chek.
I reckon, you too were totally unable to identify anything wrong with the many attempts various others have tried? Even cheering them on while they made complete and utter fools out of themselves ..
But you probably take comfort in ‘knowing, for certain’ that the human caused climate catastrophy is stadily on its way, don’t you!?
Jonarse, it has probably escaped your attention that you’ve been attempting (and failing) to argue science without having any science.
There is your complete and utter fool, in the mirror looking back at you. Stadily.
chek, whatever you’ve been doing here has been so far from science, it’s funny you even bring this up. Generally, you people have been doing everything but keep on topic even on the simpler matters. Very few have even approached discussing any science ..
And I think whatever you have tried is about the best you can muster …
I both saw them
I love the smell of schizophrenia in the morning.
pointed them out, and explained how it should be done
Oh, I must have missed that. What page is that on again?
chek, whatever you’ve been doing here has been so far from science
How would you know, Jonas? What are your scientific credentials? So far, all you’ve demonstrated that you don’t grasp English, math or physics. Why do you even think you are qualified to begin to discuss science?
Oh, I must have missed that. What page is that on again?
Of course you missed them. That would be right there where you started halucinating about different speeds among hand and box, and the pages before and after. You where right there, Stu, cluelessly puffing the usual inanities. Of course you missed all that …
.. in spite of ‘having studied physics for six years’!?
A claim likely as accurate as all your others, Stu. What an utter joke …
GSW, sorry for a bit late answer
Wyvern named two references, but checking them, they were actually three:
Stott et al:
Observational Constraints on Past Attributable Warming and Predictions of Future
Global Warming, and
Allen and Stott
Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting, part I: theory, and
<a href="Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting, part II: application to general circulation models
If he returns, I would first ask him if he really has read the references he put up here, and really understood them.
His debating very quickly approached the usual warmist MO, attacking and distracting from the topic, also with the usual pseudo-arguments of appeals to authority and majority, demands for ‘a better explanation’ and unfortunaly the typic deafness to what is actually said.
And I’m really curious about why he so much needed to refer to what others (in some detail must have) told him about me and the debate here. (I think his many owngoals and strawmen partly were due to his strange preconcpetions)
But these where the papers he pushed for, at least ..
Confused, paranoid, shallow and projecting like a lighthouse. But through sheer repetition you’ve come up with a good epitaph for the Jonarse thread epitomising denial at its most uninformed and obtuse.
“What a joke”
And very early on, chek, I said that those who feel the need to talk about ‘deniers’ and such never have anything at all to contribute … and nobody has so far faulted that observation.
More funny is that so many really have tried their hardest to donfirm it, although that wasn’t their intention.
Sorry Jonas, bit pushed for time at the moment. A belated Merry Christmas to you!. I’ve looked thru the papers, quite interesting I though, don’t know if wyvern (was it ihim) has read them.
Step in the right direction at least, (rather than abuse) something actually quoted. Will go back and have a re read.
Perhaps in the meantime, Wyvern could have a little think about what they actually say, why they are relevant etc, we could have some fun in the New Year.
Best wishes to you again Jonas!
Yes, GSW, for a while Wyvern tried to give the impression that his interest in the matter was the actual science. However, this impression started to erode quickly after he displayed the very usual MO of the warmist believers, trying to attack the messenger and quickly switching to even insults.
There were many gaping holes and scientifically questionable statements in his arguments. And even ignoring them, he seemed to mean that a ‘climate sensitivity’ of ~3 simply had to be accepted since so many publications (seemingly) argue those levels, even empirically he said!?
And that both (relative) forcings and feedbacks could be established by paleontologists!?
But upon rereading, I noted that Wyvern never claimed to have read those papers, just asked if I had. And another very strange thing was his repeated reference to that others (and in some detail) had told him what ‘I was about’ and that he more seemed to take a swing at something like a mental picture of one of those here not capable of arguing their case or dealing with and answering simple and justifie questions.
As he said in his last comment, he said he will prove me wrong on every instance (where he attacked strawmen), but was not as certain to return….
Best wishes too ..
Oh dear, step back — Jonas is going to do science again.
Spot on and something for all the alarmistic culprits on Deltoid to try to get a grasp of.
”I would say that the qualities that make a good scientist are, in no particular order:
• An undying curiosity about how the world works in all of its aspects.
• A broad scientific education, formal and/or informal, covering a range of fields.
• A willingness to be shown to be one hundred percent wrong in the full glare of the scientific public eye.
• A trust in your own gut scientific instincts, even (particularly?) when they do not agree with revealed scientific wisdom.
• What I can only describe as a “nose for bad numbers”.
• A willingness to render another person’s life work entirely worthless.
• A mistrust of anyone’s calculations, particularly your own, combined with a willingness to do the grunt work necessary to replicate or falsify anyone’s calculations.
• The ability to quickly research and assimilate new data, facts, and evidence, particularly when they are contrary to your own cherished ideas.
• A willingness to be surprised, whether in public or not.
• A mistrust of the established experts and the consensus view.
• An ability to infer unsuspected connections between what seem to be unconnected facts.
• A certain blind stubbornness and perseverance that gets you through the inevitable errors, bad roads, and barren periods.”
“I both saw them, pointed them out, and explained how it should be done .. you Stu, missed all of this and are still”
Another evidence-less claim by Joan.
Well roger me sideways. PantieZ is now quoting WilliWatts’ resident male massuer – chapter and verse, if you please – as an ‘authority’ on the scientific.
And then they wonder why they’re not taken seriously.
chek, now, be a good little boy and read my post again. And then again. And then yet again for so many times untill you understand what it really means. Then, maybe, you will understand what real science is all about. And perhaps, which I doubt, you will understand that real, proper science hasn’t a squat to do with arm waving, aka concensus, nor with pal review. It doesn’t matter the least if 100000 scientists with 100000 pal reviewed papers have reached a concensus that says all of swans in the world are white. It takes only one black swan to demolish the white swan hypotesis.
It’s unbelievable to have to point out such basics to the so called scientific chreme de la chreme here on deltoid.
16 years without any increase in average temperature. Deal with it!
Oh boy oh boy, Eschenbach? The guy that wrote this?
When I was younger, I read in several places that the moonlight doesn’t influence the weather. What the sources said was that it was just too weak to affect the temperature. Heck, you can find people making that claim today. There was no scientific evidence for a detectable effect of moonlight on temperature until 1995, when an article in Science magazine called “Influence of Lunar Phase on Daily Global Temperatures” (paywalled, as usual) said that their comparison with lower tropospheric temperatures showed a temperature difference between full moon and new moon of 0.02°C.
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
An undying curiosity about how the world works in all of its aspects.
As opposed to “we don’t know anything” or “I’ve read somewhere it’s been like this before” or “we can’t do anything about it anyway?” I totally agree. Don’t really think it supports the denialist cause though.
A broad scientific education, formal and/or informal, covering a range of fields.
I’m sure Jonas will let us know about his credentials ANY DAY now. As will GSW. And pentaxZ. And Olaus. I’m sure it’ll all be very impressive.
A willingness to be shown to be one hundred percent wrong in the full glare of the scientific public eye.
I present: this thread. I actually commend the deniers for their willingness to be shown to be spectacularly wrong out in the open. Over and over again. Takes a lot of guts.
Or heaping helpings of delusion, but hey. Let’s call it guts, right? I mean, they’re quoting ESCHENBACH now. I mean, someone who is so rigorous as to write
And rather than some imaginary measurement after some but not all parts of the climate have reacted, I use the forcing AFTER all parts of the climate have readjusted to the change.
Ahem. Moving on.
A trust in your own gut scientific instincts
Okay, anyone who even utters the term “gut scientific instincts” does not know what science is. Anyone who does science “by their gut” is liable to sound a lot like Jonas.
even (particularly?) when they do not agree with revealed scientific wisdom.
Ah, yes, the pathetic “we’ll be proven right someday” “you’re just all against me” faux-Galileo martyr claptrap.
When you go against established science (“revealed scientific wisdom” is again, a big hint that the writer has NO FARKING CLUE WHAT SCIENCE IS), you’d better bring the goods. As in: “here is where you are all wrong”. Specifically. With backup. And data. Reproducible data. Tilting a graph, or saying you really don’t like papers does not count.
Jonas, are you listening? Just because you don’t like something does not make it true.
What I can only describe as a “nose for bad numbers”.
Math is not done by the nose. Science is not done by peanut gallery. You either have evidence or you do not. This is exactly the kind of claptrap that allows people incapable of math or physics to delude themselves into thinking they have found something profound. Ask any math or physics professor how many proofs of perpetuum mobilae they receive a year.
A willingness to render another person’s life work entirely worthless.
Willingness is useless. Ability is what counts. Ability, as a matter of fact, is what gets you a Nobel prize. I have oodles of willingness to do lots of things, but I am sufficiently grounded in reality to see that most of those are out of my reach.
(Pathetic snark attempt pre-emption: that does not include seeing through your pathetic spiel, Jonas — sentient slugs can do that).
A mistrust of anyone’s calculations, particularly your own
Yes, this was posted on WUWT. Yes, I need yet another irony meter. Luckily, I buy them in bulk whenever I wade into this quagmire.
combined with a willingness to do the grunt work necessary to replicate or falsify anyone’s calculations.
Awesome. My boy, whenever you and Anthony get around to doing anything of the sort, let us know.
The ability to quickly research and assimilate new data, facts, and evidence
Glad I got a 12-pack this time.
particularly when they are contrary to your own cherished ideas.
Hope I make it through the entire thing before I run out.
Totally. I mean, it’s not like denialists kept going after a Koch brothers-sponsored study showed that global temperatures are going up just like all the warmist conspiracy peoples said they were, right?
A willingness to be surprised, whether in public or not.
Obvious and stupid lie. It’s a well-documented fact that this specific type of pathological delusion DETESTS surprise, DETESTS information and DETESTS re-adjusting its position. Every single quality being anathema to actual science.
Eschenback HATS surprises. So does Watts.
A mistrust of the established experts and the consensus view.
Oh, this is lame. Now the clown is just padding the list. You did the faux-Galileo gambit already, knock it off.
An ability to infer unsuspected connections between what seem to be unconnected facts.
Read: “an ability to come up with conspiracy theories”.
No, really. Same damned thing. I’m shocked, I tell you.
A certain blind stubbornness and perseverance that gets you through the inevitable errors, bad roads, and barren periods.
I love this flash of self-awareness. You can almost hear the last remnants of cogent thinking crying out for help. Reminds me of Jonas’ binge-drinking rants, really. Some of this always seems to leak out.
I think it’s a cry for help.
16 years without any increase in average temperature.
You cannot possibly be serious. That is just abjectly pathetic even for you. Do you actually stand by this?
Awesome. Did I just write
Eschenback HATS surprises.
Yes, yes I did. Time to feed my cows, methinks.
Stu, still only a complete and utter joke … now jumping up and down ranting and halucinating again. What’s new?
Oh hi Jonas. Have you found a climate paper you have read yet? Do you have a critique for it yet? Are you ready to tell us your scientific credentials yet? Are you ready to tell us what “real science” is yet? Are you ready to tell us what percentage of climate scientists are “real scientists” yet?
No Jonarse, they weren’t ranting hullucinations – those were flashes of rationality trying to spark through whatever remains of your intellect.
But of course a crank like you can only empathise with a fellow-travelling crank like Eschenbach, not only but especially after their mendacious, self-serving crankdom is self-revealed in their own worthless words.
So stu and chek, after all that ranting and arm waving, the conclusion is that you don’t understand a rats ass about:
• A certain blind stubbornness and perseverance that gets you through the inevitable errors, bad roads, and barren periods
No news there, to not understand what science is is symptomatic for warmists like you.
stu, what does this pic tell you:
Do you wish to take a swing at HADCruts temp data? Where do ýou se accelerating warming?
No, I’m not joking. You dooms day prophets are big jokes.
Nope! What Stu has produced here has been inane drivel anda uniformed blathering. Nothing else! And on a level which is beyond ignorance bordering pathological stupidity and/or dishonesty.
The guy claims to have studied physics for six years! Doesn’t see anything wrong with the many and sometimes bad violations by luminous. And on top of this claims not to have seen were I pointed these out!
Your comments, chek, are about just as bad although I believe you are slightly better educated (albeit in an irrelevant field).
But as I said, I appreciate the presence and comments of both of you since you empathisize with each other’s stupidities, and even draw out more know-nothings to side with you and even confirm them .. Keep it on!
Joan, have you missed every time I have shown where you are being a moron?
Are you in denial of the fact that you have, many times, been proven moronically wrong?
“stu, what does this pic tell you:”
That you pimp out people who have already decided what the science will say and will cherry pick to ensure this is so.
wow, pleas tell us, where do you se any cherry picking? In your head perhaps?
sceptic, and what do you hope a bunch of straight lines will prove?
Straight trend lines is of course a favourite among alarmist wannabees, simply because it will show you zealots what you want to see. However, the actual temp data (you know, real readings from thermometers in the real world) tells a completely different story.
“what do you hope a bunch of straight lines will prove?”
Well, like the guy said: that you were lying.
The temperature trend is upward.
Remember, YOU were the one saying “16 years without any increase in average temperature” but finding a trend over 16 years shows that there HAS been an increase in average temperature.
As recorded by real thermometers in the real world over the last 16 years.
“pleas tell us, where do you se any cherry picking?”
First of all it’s “please”.
Secondly the beginning of that graph was cherry picked.
Wow, if there is one thing you have shown, it is that you are incapable of having a debate on any level. To me you come across like somebody who can put together three-word-sentences and agree with them or not. And someone who spouts endless amounts of sheer nonsense ..
I am happy you suport Jeff, chel, Stu and the others .. and they you!
Joan, to you anyone who doesn’t immediately agree with you that AGW is false is considered incapable.
All your claims have been merely personal preference and has exactly fuck all to do with science or even reality.
Joan, after all your “evidence” and effort in retrieving Stu’s quotes (out of order, of course, and selected to pretend to support yourself), you seem still incapable of finding any link or evidence of where you claim to have shown luminous wrong.
This is because you have done no such thing.
Hahaha….your’e really funny, wow. Sorry to dissapoint you, but it’s HADCrut data speaking, not me. You obviously like drawing straight lines and clame that they prove something. Sorry pal, they don’t. Data proves things, not straight lines. Well, in your and your likes heads perhaps, but not in the real world. So so, back to your crib and sweet dreams, wow and let the grown ups talk about inportant things.
So why do you think all of these graphs of yours choose to go back 15-16 years, pentax? Why not 10? Why not 30?
Don’t worry, we’ll wait while you think about it.
ah, problem: it doesn’t know how to think.
tampax, the HADCRUT temperature graphs don’t speak. They are a collection of data.
And they go back a lot further.
That’s right: it goes back to 1860.
stew, why don’t go back 100000 years? Or why not 1000000? Think about THAT!
The actual climate scientists do, penny.
But you can’t use the calibrated thermometer before it was invented.
Oh, wow. That’s impressive. Not.
What about unfiddled aka unaltered ice core data from Greenland?
Or perhaps some tree ring data?
Hm, don’t looks good for the “help-we-are-going-to-die-in-flames-gang. Cosy in your heads?
“But you can’t use the calibrated thermometer before it was invented.”
With calibrated you of course mean fiddled with the cAGW style, meaning that all of the early measurments are calibrated down and all the new are calibrated upwards. And you foilhats call that science? Hillarious!
No, I mean calibrated.
Problem is you are convinced everyone in the world is like you.
Luckily for the human race, people as full of bile and spite are fairly rare, if noisy.
“What about unfiddled aka unaltered ice core data from Greenland?
Really, you are expecting unaltered and unfiddled data from a website called “the climate scam”???? I note they don’t say how they get their values and do not explain the odd gaps in their data set.
And as to the orbital forcings, seeing as the current deviaton is far higher than those forcings and moreover we are expected to be cooler than the 20th Century average if that were the sole driver, I fail to see how you thought that link would help your case.
Or didn’t you know that coupled general circulation models included a CO2 effect and are the reason why we are pretty certain that the warming in the late 20th C is due to human actions?
Everyone in the thread is now dumber for having read that.
Congratulations, you have proven no significant warming before 1855.
I love how all the trend lines stop around 1900.
Good stuff, pentax, good stuff.
With calibrated you of course mean fiddled with the cAGW style, meaning that all of the early measurments are calibrated down and all the new are calibrated upwards.
Totally! THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!
Mommy, the trolls are broken again. Can we please have new ones?
Data proves things, not straight lines.
Yes, really, wow. Of course, when you lack argument, then bite the messenger. Here is another pic from TCS. Perhaps you recognize it? You know, where something is posted doesn’t have a squat to do with where it is produced. But i suppose you’re a bit to juvenile to grasp that.
Oh, man, the models are spot on, aren’t they? The crib is warm and cosy, why don’t you go back there and cuddle with your pillow until you grow up, dear? Perhaps you will have nice, pink dreams about the CO2 monster and feedback angels.
skeptic, your point?
Straight lines proves nothing. A trend is just a maybe possible trend, not a proof. But since you like these lines so much, here is one specially for you. Enjoy!
Straight lines prove your assertion that there has been no increase in temperatures wrong.
But you have a problem with being wrong, don’t you. You just won’t entertain the idea at all. It’s reality that’s wrong in preference to you being wrong.
“Yes, really, wow. Of course, when you lack argument, then bite the messenger”
Do you think this proves me wrong?
If so, since your entire arguments are solely this, why do you do it?
Someone who calls their site climate scam is already predicated toward an answer. A truth you cannot handle therefore you assert that this is merely something “proving” me wrong.
“You know, where something is posted doesn’t have a squat to do with where it is produced.”
You don’t know about editorialising and cherry picking, though, do you.
And you don’t know where that diagram or its data (funny how you complain “Data proves things, not straight lines” but then provide a link to something that has straight lines and appear to think this proves something) is from.
The current GISS anomaly is 0.5 with two previous values over 0.6 but YOUR pic shows less than 0.4.
It also has a spurious and unphysical discontinuity early on.
Apparently this idiot is fitting a second order polynomial then, when it no longer fits, changing to a second second order polynomial. And is patently ridiculous since it has cooling from Pinatubo from BEFORE PINATUBO ERUPTED!
I.e. no data, just curve fitting.
Absolutely no scientific content.
Why is it so very different from this:
which IS taken from the FAR.
Data proves things, not straight lines. ..
Ah yes, straight lines prove something when it’s a (cherry-picked) cooling trend and nothing when it’s a warming trend.
Everything is clear now.
“to you anyone who doesn’t immediately agree with you that AGW is false …”
Still, 1½ years after the fact, you guys are swinging at your phantom picture of a ‘denier’ .. No wonder you never get anywhere.
And it seems that some of you still cherish the dream of luminous getting his physics correct. Some among you even claim to have ‘studied physics for six years’ and start halucinataing about different speeds among hand and box ..
What a bunch of jokes you guys are ..
It seems that you take quite a lot of your beliefs on blind and incompetent faith and dito guessing
Still, 1½ years after the fact, you are still pretending nobody has answered.
Tell me, you haven’t yet shown where Luminous was wrong.
Not in well over a year.
“Do you think this proves me wrong?”
You provide the answer yourself:
“Someone who calls their site climate scam is already predicated toward an answer.” I could say something similar about a site that call themselves sceptical without knowing the meaning of the word. But I won’t.
That’s a nice pic. Funny, not a straight line to be found. And you believe in it. Perhaps there is, how ever doubtful, a hope for you.
“Someone who calls their site climate scam is already predicated toward an answer.”
that isn’t proving anything. You think stating nothing yet again in the same way is somehow making proof???
“I could say something similar about a site that call themselves sceptical without knowing the meaning of the word.”
Uh, you have to show that they don’t know the meaning of the word first.
Then you need to work out how “skeptical science” predicates a response bias.
It’s pretty easy to see how “climate scam” is going to lead you do a specific manufactured answer: they are hardly going to prove that AGW isn’t a scam, are they.
I guess that’s why you merely repeated yourself and hoped like hell it would mean something the second time said.
Oh yes, I have shown it. All of the many cock-ups. But you need to know the simplest things about physics to understand it. Those who couldn’t see this, not even after I pointed it out, lack even the most basic understanding of natural sciencens …
Even more peculiar are those who publicly defend such stupidities they obviously don’t understand …
Nope you’ve shown nothing despite months and months of badgering you have shown NOWHERE where you show Luminous incorrect.
Even now all you have is “Nuh, uh, I did. I just can’t find where…”
Go on, show us where all this evidence is.
Saying “it exists” isn’t evidence.
So hey, pentax, have you figured out why all of your graphs go back 15-16 years yet?
Oh wait, I missed this Classic Jonas Nugget:
I didn’t know there was competence to be had in faith, Jonas. And please do let us know what “dito” means so we can properly make fun of it as well.
Stu, have you yet found anyone imagining different speeds among hand and box (exept you)?
Or any of luminous’ many cock-ups regarding his ‘physics’
Or only some instances where I pointed them out?
Or did ‘six years of physics studies’ not even get you past getting your units correct?
Well, nobody will then expect much progress in only !½ years. But you managed to imagine more stuff meanwhile. Seemingly you thought blathering about officially introduced dependet variables and equations would somehow conjure up different speeds where none ever where.
And all that nonsense, and egg in your face is your own doing, Stu. Even luminous realized (after some time, and diversion attempts) that his was a lost cause. But was wise enough to withdraw his egg-covered face.
You still don’t know it was egg … neither in his nor your own. Only Wow seems to share you beliefs, although he rarely knows what he means.
Hint: That should indicate something to you. But probably doesn’t.
Wow .. of course you can’t find any of them. Stu couldn’t either. And instead derailed about different speeds and offically introduced dependet variables in equations .. And still doesn’t have the slightest clue.
Isn’t even aware of that some basic skills vastly improves even the guesses you have to make, when you don’t know. Or at least helps you to avoid the most stupid and obvious embarrassments. But of course, without even those, you wouldn’t even have a clue of why and how badly it’s embarrassing
You are a good example too. But hey, that’s why Deltoid is the place for you ….
You do understand english, don’t you? How can you then not understand:
“Straight lines proves nothing. A trend is just a maybe possible trend, not a proof. But since you like these lines so much, here is one specially for you. Enjoy!”
“But since you like these lines so much…”
What’s your problem?
And about cherrypicking, When a city accidently has some warm weather in december, like Hambug, warmistas screams it’s GLOBAL WAAAARMING!! At the same time it’s -60ºC in large areas in Russia and
““Yes, really, wow. Of course, when you lack argument, then bite the messenger”
Do you think this proves me wrong?”
The usual cause for using ad homs and “kill the messenger” is the lack of valid arguments. So yes, it proves you wrong BIG TIMES.
Your logic is somewhat messed up. If one were to point to a link to a pic at, for example, IPCC then you propably would think it would be a valid argument, But if ones link points at the same pic, with the only difference that it is at a sceptical site, then you start rambling about “denier site” and other rubbish, without a singel comment about the pic itself. That kind of behaviour is very warmistas specific. Where is the actual argument?
“The usual cause for using ad homs and “kill the messenger” is the lack of valid arguments. ”
Except it isn’t an ad hom. However you are incapable of knowing what an ad hom is since you only use it as a crutch when you have nothing else to say.
“climate scam” says that the site will look to PROVE a climate scam.
This is no more ad hom than noting that the defence lawyer is looking to get their client off the charges.
The site name shows you need to see more carefully what it says and that it WILL undergo cherry picking.
And with a very small amount of skepticism you can see this is true.
However, you don’t do skeptic, you do denial.
” When a city accidently has some warm weather in december, like Hambug, warmistas screams it’s GLOBAL WAAAARMING!”
Prove it was accidental.
Did god “accidentally” spill some warm on Hamburg?
What do you think will happen in Hamburg if Global warming was real?
Do you think if Global Warming was real that Hamburg would get hotter and break temperature records?
If not, why not?
Seems the only screaming you do is when your ideology gets reamed by the truth.
Weird arseholes these deniers.
The cry and moan about some real world evidence of global warming and then when given one go all pissy and scream “warmistas screams its global warming”.
Really, they demand evidence and then when given it say that it is alarmism or some shite.
You don’t want evidence do you. Because evidence can only show you are wrong.
“Prove it was accidental.”
Why should I? You claim It’s proof for AGW, not I. You have the burden of proof, not I. In fact, I don’t make any claim at all about it being out of the ordinary, you do. And what about the -60ºC in Russia? Some 200+ dead people because of the cold and no comment from you?
“What do you think will happen in Hamburg if Global warming was real?”
Pretty much nothing alarming at all. Earlier spring and later autum. None has died because it’s 20ºC in december. In fact, I would suppose accidents due to slippery roads and sidewalks should have decreased significantly. What’s the alarm? You can’t blame one single death on the 20ºC in december. On the other hand, what -60ºC does for the death rate is indisputable. 200+ dead so far.
I persoanlly hope for a warmer world. A warmer world is a better world. In all aspects. Unfortunately all signs are pointing at the opposite direction. The CAGW church is pretty much out in the cold, exept for some minor places like this site. And although it’s nice that your side is losing, it’s not a good thing for the world in general.
“The site name shows you need to see more carefully what it says and that it WILL undergo cherry picking.”
There is a BIG difference between alarmistic and (true) sceptic sites. You know what it is? I have not yet come across a alarmistic site where censorship is the main tool for “winning” debates, under the presumption to keep the debate “scientific”. Anyone questioning the cause is censored. The sceptic sites allow anyone to speak their mind. Of course they too have some moderation, but that’s mainly to keep the language civilised and avoid ad homs. No one hardly ever screams out that a person should be banned because of their arguments, wich regularely is the case at alarimistic sites. How long did it for example take you nutcases to scream to Tim to ban Jonas from Deltoid? He simply asked a question to which you didn’t have a relevant answer. Easier then just to ban him. That’s the losers way.
““Prove it was accidental.”
Why should I?”
Because you’re saying it was accidental.
Or don’t you do proof, just assertion?
Straight lines proves nothing.
Ok, where does your proof of
“You claim It’s proof for AGW, not I”
Nope, I don’t claim it is proof for AGW.
I claim that AGW will cause Hamburg to have hotter weather.
What do you think? (or, indeed, do you think at all?)
You claim it’s alarmism.
Prove your case.
You claim it is accidental.
You claim you haven’t said anything.
I see proof of that.
You also claim that Hambourg is resistant to warming.
skeptic, does thermometer readings ring a bell?
They don’t measure trends, though.
wow, lying and making things up again? You are welcome to point out where I claim Hamburgs december temperature is “accidental”. Which part of ” I don’t make any claim at all about it being out of the ordinary” do you not understand?
“Nope, I don’t claim it is proof for AGW.
I claim that AGW will cause Hamburg to have hotter weather.”
Wow, that’s a difference. Trouble with your thinking process? You blame Hamburgs weather on AGW, therefore, naturally in the grown up world, you have the burden of proof since you say it’s not normal. And you want me to prove you wrong? For real? But of course, at sites like this all normal things are upside down.
And still, not a word about the -60ºC and 200+ dead in Russia? I wonder why that is? Oh wait, it’s not compatible with the CAGW hypothesis. That’s it.
“They don’t measure trends, though.”
Of course they don’t, has anyone clamed that?
The fact is that the worlds average temperature hasn’t risen the past 16 years. The last 7-8 it has even descended a bit. That’s what the thermometers show. That’s empirical data. But of course, a long enough straight line will make the hiatus to vanish. That.s of course the reason why warmistas love those straight lines. For you it’s the magic wand which makes the inconvenient truth to go away.
“Of course they don’t, has anyone clamed that? ”
“You are welcome to point out where I claim Hamburgs december temperature is “accidental”.”
I didn’t know you weren’t reading your own posts, nor that I needed permission to show you it.
But here you are:
“You blame Hamburgs weather on AGW”
No I didn’t.
But you can’t read. Not even your own posts. So what’s the suprise?
I blame the CHANGE in Hamburg’s climate with CLIMATE CHANGE.
And when Hamburg is getting a warmer climate, it is the natural consequence of a GLOMALLY WARMING CLIMATE.
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Let’s skip straight to January.
Past time for more thread.