Jonas Thread

By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    December 30, 2012

    “The fact is that the worlds average temperature hasn’t risen the past 16 years.”

    Wrong. It’s changed every year in the past 16 years.

  2. #2 pentaxZ
    December 31, 2012

    So lying and making things up again, wow?

    “Hamburgs december temperature is “accidental” has hardly the same meaning as “When a city accidently has some warm weather in december”. You really have problems with your reading comprehension.

    “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.”

    In other words, you blame AGW for the weater in Hamburg. Your’e really look desperate. And yet again, no comment on The Russian cold?

    How many people have died in Hamburg due to the warm december weather/climate? How many have died in Russia due to the weather/climate?

    “… it is the natural consequence of a GLOMALLY WARMING CLIMATE”. And of course, you know this for a fact? Based on what, some very expensive computer games and straight lines? What a clown you are.

  3. #3 pentaxZ
    December 31, 2012

    “Wrong. It’s changed every year in the past 16 years.”

    Like it always do. But not in the direction you have wet dreams about.

  4. #4 Skeptic
    December 31, 2012

    does thermometer readings ring a bell?

    Which thermometer readings would these be? Citations please.

  5. #5 Skeptic
    December 31, 2012

    But not in the direction you have wet dreams about.

    Tell me, what is that has “direction”?

  6. #6 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    ““Wrong. It’s changed every year in the past 16 years.”

    Like it always do.”

    So when you claimed there was no temperature change over the past 16 years you now admit you were lying?

  7. #7 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    ““Hamburgs december temperature is “accidental” has hardly the same meaning as “When a city accidently has some warm weather in december””

    So hamburg isn’t a city?

    Why did you bring up Hamburg if you weren’t talking about it?

    Do you have any reason for anything you say, or is it all just bollocks?

  8. #8 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “In other words, you blame AGW for the weater in Hamburg. ”

    In other words, you don’t understand anyone or anything.

    No.

    AGW is CLIMATE CHANGE.

    The change in Hamburg’s weather is due to CHANGING CLIMATE.

  9. #9 Jonas N
    December 31, 2012

    Wow, it seems that you are unaware of what the temperature hiatius for now some 16 years does to the hypothesis if CAGW and the imagined (and wished for) high positive feedbacks allegedly controlled by CO2 ..

    But that is hardly a surprise. On the contrary, I would have expected that …

  10. #10 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    No, Joan, you seem to be unaware that you don’t get a temperature haitus from such a short period.

    Math is not your strong point: even if you pretend it means only one sum.

  11. #11 Skeptic
    January 1, 2013

    the temperature hiatius for now some 16 years

    i.e. warming trend, but not statistically significant, in an out of date record.

    So where, pray tell, is the 16 year (statistically significant) cooling period? These seem to have gone out of fashion in the 1950s.

  12. #12 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    “The change in Hamburg’s weather is due to CHANGING CLIMATE.’

    Then, what is Russias -60°? Weather or climate change?

  13. #13 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    skeptic, dear, the covariance between temperature and CO2 isn’t the same as causality. Ther just happend to covary for some decaades, but that’s hardly proof for anything since the covariance through earths history alwasys has been sporadic at best. Take another look att the pic and study it closly. Perhaps you will get it this time, however I doubt that.

    http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Fig1.png

    “i.e. warming trend, but not statistically significant, in an out of date record.”

    I wonder what excuse you will use 2029, when the real world temperature will differ yet more from the computer game “scenarios”? My guess is that you are so deep in denial that even then a abdicate won’t be a option for you.

  14. #14 Jonas N
    January 1, 2013

    Skeptic

    As I noted above: Many warmists don’t seem to understand why the hiatius is a real (and growing) poblem for their beloved belief in a climate scare ..

    Reala skeptics don’t have that problem. And neither do make definite claims about what the future will be like ..

  15. #15 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    “Many warmists don’t seem to understand why the hiatius is a real (and growing) poblem”

    That’s because unlike you, they know statistics.

    they also know, unlike you deniers, that the climate is affected by many things of which CO2 is a big player.

  16. #16 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    Joan, tampax, all other deniers.

    Here is a question about your morality.

    If, for sake of argument, the IPCC is correct and we are in an AGW situation.

    That means that not reducing CO2 production will cause more and more warming.

    Even if your haitus is true, this will be the case,

    So instead of being able to use this “haitus” to knuckle down and remove the problem before it really hits, you have us sitting around arguing about whether AGW is really happening at all.

    Then this “haitus” stops and we continue. Since this “haitus” is due to a cooler than normal sun, that means all that cooling will be undone and reversed by a sun returning to the opposite end of its cycle.

    At that point, we will be fucked because we will be getting very fast warming.

    How do you deniers square your morality with this scenario?

  17. #17 FrankD
    January 1, 2013

    Jonas N calls out PentaxZ as a fake sceptic? Awesome! This thread just keeps on giving…

  18. #18 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    wow, Russia? Why dodging the question?

  19. #19 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    Oh, wait, it’s called cherry picking.

  20. #20 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    ” the covariance between temperature and CO2 isn’t the same as causality”

    But the vibrotational energy levels of CO2 being in the same energy as the approximately 15um IR wavelengths and nowhere near the 500nm Vis wavelengths IS the causality.

    But you see, you wanted PROOF of the effect.

    And that requires you show the effect.

    Which YOU then turn around and claim is correlation.

    This is because you’re a lying fuckwit who doesn’t give a shit about anyone or anything other than your religious faith in the free market.

  21. #21 Skeptic
    January 1, 2013

    skeptic, dear, the covariance between temperature and CO2 isn’t the same as causality.

    Who suddenly started talking about causality? I wonder why z switched the subject.

    I wonder what excuse you will use 2029, when the real world temperature will differ yet more

    Promises, promises. No answers though.

  22. #22 Skeptic
    January 1, 2013

    Many warmists don’t seem to understand why the hiatius

    I’m sure there are plenty of warmists who understand that there is a hiatus of statistical significance in an out-of-date temperature series.

    is a real (and growing) poblem for

    Since when is an out-of-date data series a problem for anything?

    Looks like no-one will tell me what happened to the (statistically significant) cooling periods.

  23. #23 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    “Looks like no-one will tell me what happened to the (statistically significant) cooling periods.”

    Ah, you must mean the last ice age? Well, it had nothing to do with CO2, that’s for sure.

  24. #24 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    wow, very, very lot of ranting. But yet not a single word about the devastating cold in Russia. Why, why I wonder.

  25. #25 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    “Ah, you must mean the last ice age?”

    You think that the last ice age was in the 1970’s?!?!?!!?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  26. #26 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    tampax, when crying about “ranting” you should have ensured that your entire schtick wasn’t insane ranting.

    Because your whining complaints come across as hollow.

  27. #27 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    ” the devastating cold in Russia. Why, why I wonder.”

    It’s winter and Russia is temperate continental.

    PS prove the cold in russia is devastating. You’re just being alarmist.

    Which is something else you incessantly whinge on about too.

  28. #29 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    And deaths are what you get when it gets to -60C.

    However, without global warming the temperature could have been -70C or lower.

  29. #30 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    Source of tampax’s current whining shitting:

    “Winter temperatures in Russia have gone extreme. The air in some regions of the republic of Yakutia (Siberia) has cooled down to -50 degrees ”

    Yet from the Russians history:

    The coldest inhabited place on Earth is located in Oymyakon, a tiny village in Yakutia, Russian Far East with population of slightly above 500. The lowest temperature registered there was −71.2 °C (−96.2 °F) in 1924.

  30. #31 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    And in any case, isn’t this just you going “Moscow is cold THEREFORE GLOBAL COOLING!!!!”?

    Seems that version is all right for you.

  31. #32 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    Finally, wow. Did it hurt?

    “PS prove the cold in russia is devastating” Well, more than 200 people has died due to the cold.

    Your turn, how many have died in Hamburg due to the warm weather?

    “However, without global warming the temperature could have been -70C or lower.”

    Yeah right, and that’s a fact. Or is it made up in your disillusioned mind, I wonder. You know, something isn’t fact just because you want it to be.

  32. #33 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    Sorry frankd, Jonas hasn’t called me here. I just drop in from time to time to check how your alarmists is getting your asses spanked by Jonas. Between this rare occasions I actually live in the real world, you know, outside computer games, straight line drawings and pseudoscientific places like deltoid. And you know, the world is doing pretty good despite the horrible AGW.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/8789981/glad-tidings/

  33. #34 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    ““PS prove the cold in russia is devastating” Well, more than 200 people has died due to the cold.”

    More than that die from car accidents.

  34. #35 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    Oh, and please stop lying. Only 45 deaths.

  35. #36 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    ““However, without global warming the temperature could have been -70C or lower.”

    Yeah right, and that’s a fact. ”

    Yeah, reading is a bit beyond you, isn’t it tampax?

    “Winter temperatures in Russia have gone extreme. The air in some regions of the republic of Yakutia (Siberia) has cooled down to -50 degrees ”

    Yet from the Russians history:

    The coldest inhabited place on Earth is located in Oymyakon, a tiny village in Yakutia, Russian Far East with population of slightly above 500. The lowest temperature registered there was −71.2 °C (−96.2 °F) in 1924.

  36. #37 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    If you want to claim the climate is cooling, you need to show evidence of it.

  37. #38 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    “More than that die from car accidents.” Comprehension problems, have you? The question was: “Your turn, how many have died in Hamburg due to the warm weather?”

    “Only 45 deaths.” Ok, you are of course in title to your opinion, but it doesn’t make it fact.

    “If you want to claim the climate is cooling, you need to show evidence of it.” No, I don’t. I say there is nothing unusual about either the weather or the climate. You foilhats clames there is “unprecedented warming” , ergo you have to prove all realists wrong. And so far, no evidence of that kind has been presented. And no, computer games, straight lines, arm waving, foot stomping, data massaging, hide the decline, lying and pal revieewing are valid as proof. Of course warmistas want to think it is, but that’s just not the case.

    Earth hasn’t warmed the last 16 years, deal with it!

  38. #39 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    “Ok, you are of course in title to your opinion,”

    English.

    Learn it.

    “Earth hasn’t warmed the last 16 years, deal with it!”

    It’s warmed manu times in the last 16 years.

    You even agreed once.

    But you can’t deal with it.

  39. #40 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    many

  40. #41 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    Some enjoyable reading for you. “Manu” articles to read. If you dare.

    http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/OSGWD.htm

  41. #42 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    And again, wow, is the extreme temperatures in Russia weather or climate?

  42. #43 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    “But here again, one of the essential pillars of alarmism appears to be crumbling. Two Canadian researchers have produced the most devastating evidence to date that the hockey stick is bad science. Before I describe their work, I want to make a prediction: the alarmists will cry foul, saying this critique is part of an industry-funded conspiracy. And true to form, they will avoid discussion of substance and engage in personal attacks. ”

    “Remember, the hockey stick shows a relatively stable climate over 900 years, and then a dramatic spike in temperature about 1900, the inference being that man-made emissions are the cause of rising temperatures. So why is the bristlecone pine important? That bristlecone experienced a growth pulse in the Western United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, this growth pulse, as the specialist literature has confirmed, was not attributed to temperature. So using those pines, and only those pines, as a proxy for temperature during this period is questionable at best. Even Mann’s co-author has stated that the bristlecone growth pulse is a “mystery.” Because of these obvious problems, McIntyre and McKitrick appropriately excluded the bristlecone data from their calculations. What did they find? Not the Mann hockey stick, to be sure, but a confirmation of the Medieval Warm Period, which Mann’s work had erased. As the CENSORED folder revealed, Mann and his colleagues never reported results obtained from calculations that excluded the bristlecone data. This appears to be a case of selectively using data—that is, if you don’t like the result, remove the offending data until you get the answer you want. As McIntyre and McKitrick explained, “Imagine the irony of this discovery…Mann accused us of selectively deleting North American proxy series. Now it appeared that he had results that were exactly the same as ours, stuffed away in a folder labeled CENSORED.”

    Very interresting indeed.

    http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=236307

  43. #44 pentaxZ
    January 1, 2013

    Another goodie from the same link:

    “What did McKitrick and McIntyre find? In essence, they discovered that Dr. Mann misused an established statistical method called principal components analysis (PCA). As they explained, Mann created a program that “effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns.” In other words, no matter what kind of data one uses, even if it is random and totally meaningless, the Mann method always produces a hockey stick. After conducting some 10,000 data simulations, the result was nearly always the same. “In over 99 percent of cases,” McIntyre and McKitrick wrote, “it produced a hockey stick shaped PCI series.” Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he agrees that Dr. Mann’s statistical method “preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data.” Even to a non-statistician, this looks extremely troubling. But that statistical error is just the beginning. On a public web site where Dr. Mann filed data, McIntyre and McKitrick discovered an intriguing folder titled “BACKTO_1400-CENSORED.” What McIntyre and McKitrick found in the folder was disturbing: Mann’s hockey stick blade was based on a certain type of tree—a bristlecone pine—that, in effect, helped to manufacture the hockey stick.”

    Alarmistic science at it’s best.

  44. #45 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    “In essence, they discovered that Dr. Mann misused an established statistical method called principal components analysis (PCA).”

    One which made no difference to the result.

    Moreover the PCA analysis M&M used boiled down to using 7 measurements.

    Pathetic.

    But they’re not writing for scientists, they’re writing for the credulous idiot.

    I.e. you, tampax.

  45. #46 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    “And again, wow, is the extreme temperatures in Russia weather or climate?”

    Weather.

  46. #47 Skeptic
    January 2, 2013

    “Looks like no-one will tell me what happened to the (statistically significant) cooling periods.”

    Ah, you must mean the last ice age?

    No, I mean what I had already said:

    So where, pray tell, is the 16 year (statistically significant) cooling period? These seem to have gone out of fashion in the 1950s.

    Perhaps you have a memory or reading problem. So, can you tell me? Where, pray tell, is the 16 year (statistically significant) cooling period? These seem to have gone out of fashion in the 1950s. Perhaps you didn’t comprehend what “cooling period” means. Just look at that graph for a while and you might get the idea.

  47. #48 Skeptic
    January 2, 2013

    These seem to have gone out of fashion in the 1950s.

    In case z still doesn’t get it, that period, 1941 to 1957, was, I believe, the last statistically significant 16 year cooling period.

  48. #49 pentaxZ
    January 2, 2013

    skeptic, how come a period between 1941 to 1957 can be statistically significant? Normally you dooms day preachers demands at least 30 years before you dare to draw a straight line. But of course, almost forgot, when it comes to proving AGW, then exeptions from the rules is ok.

  49. #50 pentaxZ
    January 2, 2013

    wow

    “One which made no difference to the result.”

    But of course, when you conduct science like mann:

    “Mann created a program that “effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns.” In other words, no matter what kind of data one uses, even if it is random and totally meaningless, the Mann method always produces a hockey stick. After conducting some 10,000 data simulations, the result was nearly always the same. “In over 99 percent of cases,

    ““And again, wow, is the extreme temperatures in Russia weather or climate?”

    Weather.”

    And do you blame this weather on AGW or not?

  50. #51 pentaxZ
    January 2, 2013

    Here’s something for you believers. Point four specially for skeptic:

    “4)After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. ”

    http://m.climaterealists.com/?id=10842

  51. #52 Skeptic
    January 2, 2013

    skeptic, how come a period between 1941 to 1957 can be statistically significant?

    I’m aware that you’re an ignoramus extraordinaire but I’m using “statistically significant” in its common or garden sense like Phil Jones did, i.e. less than 2.5% likely that the cooling was caused by random variation.

    Now, can you answer the question: why have there been no statistically significant 16-year cooling periods since the 1950s? (As opposed to the statistically significant warming periods which have occupied most of the time since then.)

  52. #53 Skeptic
    January 2, 2013

    global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940

    Statistically insignificant.

  53. #54 pentaxZ
    January 2, 2013

    “Now, can you answer the question: why have there been no statistically significant 16-year cooling periods since the 1950s?”

    “Statistically insignificant.”

    It all depends on how long lines you draw and careful cherry picking of the starting point. Your point being?

    The fact is: the co2 level has risensteadily the last 16 years while the temperature hasn’t risen the least. Deal with it!

  54. #55 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    “It all depends on how long lines you draw and careful cherry picking of the starting point. ”

    Nope, the length of the line and picking the starting point doesn’t make a statistically significant cooling period.

    Our point is that you don’t know stats.

    The fact is CO2 causes warming just like the climate scientsts say.

    Deal with it.

  55. #56 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    ““One which made no difference to the result.”

    But of course, when you conduct science like mann:”

    Indeed.

    Whe you do science correctly like mann does but those two sweeties M&M didn’t, you get reliable results.

    Glad you agree.

  56. #57 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    “Mann created a program that “effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns.”

    Nope, you made that up.

    You do that when you don’t have any facts on your side.

  57. #58 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    “*Wegman* created a program that “effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns.”

    That may have been the man you were thinking of.

    Remember?

    Ran 100 simulations with noise and picked out the most “hockey stick” like trends and then used that to “prove” Mann had just gotten random data.

    Additionally, you DO realise that you’re showing the lie to many deniers here by denying any warming has taken place.

  58. #59 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    “And do you blame this weather on AGW or not?”

    AGW is to blame for the weather produced by climate that has been changed by AGW.

    Do you think that climate and weather are completely orthogonal???

  59. #60 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    tampax, are you claiming that russia being cold recently is because of global cooling?

  60. #61 Jonas N
    January 2, 2013

    Skeptic, as I noted several times before.

    As I noted above: Many warmists don’t seem to understand why the hiatius is a real (and growing) problem for their beloved belief in a climate scare ..

    Real skeptics don’t have that problem. And neither do make definite claims about what the future will be like ..

    Your response confirmed (explicitly) that you are one of them. That Wow belongs there was obvious almost from the first time I saw him commenting (anything)

    As others have pointed out, when the hiatius is mentioned (even without pointing out the more severe problems it implies for the belief system) the usual warmist-response is to start talking about ‘the trend’ and prefereably longer trends. And thereafter frantically pointing at the trend line instead of the actual temperature data, repeating: ‘Look, look, it’s sloping uppwards ..’

    As I said, most warmist don’t even know what their own side’s argument is, and just randomly fire off phrases and talking points they’ve found in the hope it has some substance content. And that too is probably the reason why so many among you lose it almost immedeately when your phrases are countered by those who understand what skeptical evaluation of scientific claims actually means …

  61. #62 Skeptic
    January 2, 2013

    “Now, can you answer the question: why have there been no statistically significant 16-year cooling periods since the 1950s?”

    It all depends on how long lines you draw and careful cherry picking of the starting point.

    Don’t you know what the word “no” means? It means it doesn’t depend on any cherry-pick. There is no 16-year period since the 1950s with a statistically significant cooling period. You can cherry-pick all you like, you will not find one.

    Your point being?

    The world used to have both warming and cooling periods of 16 years with statistical significance until the 1950s. Since the 1950s, the only thing we’ve had are statistically significant warming periods or periods without statistically significant trend. Why has there been this change?

    The fact is: .. the last 16 years while the temperature hasn’t risen the least.

    You keep asserting this but you never provide a citation. Deal with providing a citation!

  62. #63 Skeptic
    January 2, 2013

    the usual warmist-response is to start talking about ‘the trend’

    I don’t care what “the usual warmist-response” is. I just want to know why an out-of-date data series (HADCRUT3) is a problem for anything? (which is what you’re implying).

    so many among you lose it almost immedeately when your phrases are countered by those who understand what skeptical evaluation of scientific claims actually means …

    The irony.

  63. #64 Jonas N
    January 2, 2013

    As I said, you have no clue why it is a problem and what it is ..

    Do you even know why you try using another series and just one of them, and hope to argue that this makes the problem go away? If you don’t have a clue what it is to begin with?

  64. #65 chek
    January 2, 2013

    “when the hiatius (sic) is mentioned the usual warmist-response is to start talking about ‘the trend’ and prefereably longer trends. And thereafter frantically pointing at the trend line instead of the actual temperature data, repeating : ‘Look, look, it’s sloping uppwards .(sic).”

    Ah yes, the good ol’ “hiatius” the new dog whistle word for cranks, liars and deniers everywhere.

    A word, which contrary to what the aforementioned cranks, liars’n’deniers (who’ve never, ever used it before in their long, long cranky, lying, denying lives) think it means, actually means you’re a single dataset cherrypicking crank, liar’n’denier’ who’s unable to understand the relevance of a ‘trend’ in a time series analysis. Indeed calculating a trend now becomes evidence of warmist hocus-pocus, in moronworld. And to be fair, to those like Jonarse (despite his pretensions), Griselda, PantiesizeZ and Olap it all goes over their heads in much the same way.

    But you then have to explain how your ‘hiatius’ (what a meme-repeating moron you are, Jonarse) manufactured this year’s record Arctic melt, and even Joe Public has heard of that and understands it requires h-e-a-t., not a ‘hiatius’.

  65. #66 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    haitus: temporary halt to a progression.

    Seems the deniers know that AGW is real but want us to do nothing with any serendipitous pause in the catastrophe.

    Anyone know what moral precepts are necessary to make that the “correct moral choice”?

    The only one I have is “I’m all right, jack, fuck you others!!!!”.

    Which isn’t really morality unless you ascribe to Alistair Crowley’s Satanism…

  66. #67 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    “Skeptic, as I noted several times before.”

    And as we’ve all noted several times before, you were wrong all those times as well.

    Do you think that “wrong” wears off if you repeat the same bollocks enough times?

  67. #68 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    “Your turn, how many have died in Hamburg due to the warm weather?”

    30,000 died in europe in the heatwave in 2003.

  68. #69 pentaxZ
    January 2, 2013

    chek, ad homs and name calling, a true losers trademarks. Big mouths with small ears attached to a brain in the size of a peanut. Keep the spirit up, by all means.

  69. #70 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    And that’s why you always use them.

    Along with the continual stream of lies and false accusation that you use to hide the naked truth.

  70. #71 pentaxZ
    January 2, 2013

    Nope, wow, I don’t make anything up. You just don’t see the facts because you religious beliefs in the AGW. McIntyre and McKitrick discovered manns unscientific humbug. And I certainly think they have more science in a pinky nail than you have in your whole body. I understand that it must hurt when one of your prophets is caught with his pants at his ankles. But facts is facts.

    “AGW is to blame for the weather produced by climate that has been changed by AGW.”

    Are you sure? Couldn’t AGW be to blame for the weather to blame for the AGW to blame for the climate to blame for the CO2 to blame for the spaghettimonster at the bottom of the sea to blame for the weather to blame for the AGW to blame for the flying tea pot orbiting Jupiter? I’m sure you have heard about Ockhams razor, but do you understand what it means?

    And there still hasn’t been any golbal warming for the last 16 years. Deal with it.

    “tampax, are you claiming that russia being cold recently is because of global cooling?”

    No, I call it normal weather variations. Both in Hamburg and in Russia. And in the rest of the whole world. And if I understand you correct it’s climate change when it is a little bit warmer somewhere, and weather when it’s a little bit cooler somewhere else. All in the name of the Holy Cause! Defend the CO2-is-the-main-forcing-hypothesis (it isn’t even a theory) to the last drop of blood. Amen!

  71. #72 pentaxZ
    January 2, 2013

    “And that’s why you always use them.

    Along with the continual stream of lies and false accusation that you use to hide the naked truth.”

    Owngoal big time! Hillarious! =)

    wow, you have a brown belt in name calling, chek has the black belt, the undisputed champion. I honestly hasn’t comed across somebody who produce so much word poo with so little actual content. He’s even worse than bernard.

  72. #73 chek
    January 2, 2013

    PantieZ, your moron contingent is out of its depth and as usual using words not understood e.g Jonarse and his “hiatius”. Perhaps it affects his cranial “hiernia”.

    Best stick to what you know like Climatemoron, and climate4stupids and climateconspiracies and the sort of rank intellectual destitution that makes you comfortable with would-be attacks by McIntyre and McKittrick.

    Of course you were told M&M had a valid argument, and you’re thick enough to not know that they don’t, and also stupid enough to believe anything you’ve been told by your preferred source on faith. And after all, all your fellow blogmorons say so.

  73. #74 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “Nope, wow, I don’t make anything up.”

    You make plenty up.

    But maybe most of your idiocies are merely you parroting someone else’s bilge.

  74. #75 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “Owngoal big time! Hillarious! =)”

    Really?

    You didn’t read your own post, then, did you.

  75. #76 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    ““AGW is to blame for the weather produced by climate that has been changed by AGW.”

    Are you sure? ”

    Yup.

  76. #77 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “And there still hasn’t been any golbal warming for the last 16 years. Deal with it.”

    And that still doesn’t mean AGW is not happening. Deal with it.

  77. #78 Skeptic
    January 3, 2013

    As I said, you have no clue why it is a problem and what it is ..

    You would say that, wouldn’t you?

    If you don’t have a clue what it is to begin with?

    The irony.

    Anyone who knows anything knows that starting a trend with a record and unusually warm year will lack statistically significant warming for quite a few years into the future. So you can keep playing your childish games for a long time but sooner or later you will be out on your arse. I can predict your game for you. i.e. no datasets currently show statistically significant warming since the beginning of 1998. This will most likely continue after this year, 2013, but will most likely end with the passing of 2014.

    So enjoy your childish (and intellectually dishonest) distraction campaign wile it lasts. You’ve got perhaps 2 years.

  78. #79 Skeptic
    January 3, 2013

    I’m sure you have heard about Ockhams razor, but do you understand what it means?

    z seems to think this means you choose not the simplest, but no explanation for the past 40 years warming.

    I still haven’t received any citation for no “golbal warming for the last 16 years”, specifically one that doesn’t involve a “straight line”. I’m beginning to think he’s making it up.

  79. #80 pentaxZ
    January 3, 2013

    check, escaped from the crib again? Perhaps lost your bite? Have you got anything substantial at all to put forvard other than your ordinary cli-fi rantings?

  80. #81 pentaxZ
    January 3, 2013

    skeptic
    “no datasets currently show statistically significant warming since the beginning of 1998″

    So there it is. Did it hur much to admit that?

    “This will most likely continue after this year, 2013, but will most likely end with the passing of 2014.”

    Of course, because you have seen this happend in your crystal ball. Or?

  81. #82 pentaxZ
    January 3, 2013

    “I’m sure you have heard about Ockhams razor, but do you understand what it means?

    z seems to think this means you choose not the simplest, but no explanation for the past 40 years warming.”

    Yeah sure. The most probable and simplest explanation. And that’s of course spells natural variation. No cAGW church needed, nor any cli-fi crap.

  82. #83 pentaxZ
    January 3, 2013

    “but will most likely end with the passing of 2014.”

    I would really hope so, for the sake of mankind. You hope it because it may perhaps save your precious computer games, which so far hasn’t got anything at all right.

    The propability for that to come tru is however very slim.

  83. #84 Skeptic
    January 3, 2013

    I still haven’t received any citation for no “golbal warming for the last 16 years”,

    skeptic
    “no datasets currently show statistically significant warming since the beginning of 1998″

    So there it is. Did it hur much to admit that?

    z subtracts 1998 from 2013 and gets 16.

    Braindead.

  84. #85 pentaxZ
    January 3, 2013

    Big difference. I do recall someone telling me that careful selection of the starting point wasn’t a big deal.

    Wonder who’s the braindead here.

  85. #86 pentaxZ
    January 3, 2013

    The truth is simple, the lie complicated. Of all of the anthropogenic CO2 we have released into the atmpsphere from 1750, a third has ben released the last 16 years. And yet, during this 16 year period, we have no warming what so ever. One must be a really, really hard core believer in the cAGW church to not see the non existing cause-and-effect between CO2 and AGW. Cli-Fi is what it is.

    There hasn’t been any warming the last 16 years. Deal with it!

  86. #87 Jonas N
    January 3, 2013

    chek

    you are just frothing from the mouth … and to no avail. Screaming and even repeating ‘liar’n’denier’ etc will not reduce the problem for you. And probably not help you in any other way either.

    And you pathetic attempts to keep your own phantom image of the ‘liar’n’denier’ is just that. Pathetic!

    And it’s hilarious that you chek, who have not been able to properly formulate any relevant argument at all, especially not any qhich requires quantified comparisions, think you can properly evaluate Michael Manns ‘reconstructions’ and dismiss criticism.

    To me this shows who is in real denial. Or rather navigating in blind faith, hop and emotion …

  87. #88 Jonas N
    January 3, 2013

    Skeptic

    It seems that you too are desperately trying to work your way around the observed hiatus, and what it implies for your pet-hypthesis.

    You try using one dataset, diskissing others, try a different interval, calculate a non-neagtive trend and cling to the sign, try different wordings of similar arguments ..

    And the hiatus is still the very same problem. Apparently on wich you aren’t even aware of or understand. I’ve explained it in some detail more than once. But the only responses were of the mothfrothing kind like chek and wow can produce. Or completely avoiding the issue and going on about something else (usually home made straw-fantasies)

  88. #89 chek
    January 3, 2013

    No Jonarse, what’s actually funny is you liars’n’deniers warbling about your carefully constructed ‘hiatius’ in the face of greater Arctic melt year on year until this year’s record low.

  89. #90 Jonas N
    January 3, 2013

    chek …

    No, it is not carefully constructed … it is a growing problem for you guys and your pet-scare-hypothesis. And as I just told ‘skeptic’ here, it is the same problem regardless of how you slice or dice it. And as it looks, you don’t even know how or why.

    But you want to talk about arctic sea ice instad. Of course …

  90. #91 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “it is a growing problem for you guys and your pet-scare-hypothesis.”

    But it just happens to accord with YOUR pet-scare-hypothesis.

    Oddly unskeptical of this “convenient” manufactured problem, aren;t you.

    Anyway, this is all old hat and your assertions were made in the 15 years since 1998. Indeed such idiocy could have been managed many many times in the past by any credulous idiot that wished to pretend that there was no problem.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

  91. #92 Jonas N
    January 3, 2013

    Wow … even if I wrote my hypothesis about what is discussed many times again, you wouldn’t know what my stance is or what I hypothesize about regarding the various issues ..

    Understanding what is claimed just istn’t your thing.

    And you don’t have the slightest clue what this (non-) “manufactured problem” is for your pet-scare, Not even after I have explained it several times. As I said:

    Understanding just isn’t your thing …

  92. #93 Jonas N
    January 3, 2013

    And you post a SkSc graph drawing exactly that long straight upward sloping line I already mentioned before is the preferred warmist diversion.

    Let me even point out to you that it the hiatus extends for another decade, SkSc could make a similar graph, and drawing one long straight red line through all the data, and this line would still slope upwards (just slightly less) and you would/could still point at it and say: ‘But but! The trend is upwards .. ‘

    Still failing to see what your problem is (meaning ‘your problems are’!)

  93. #94 chek
    January 3, 2013

    The problem here Jonarse is that you’ve suddenly decided (for the benefit of your meme du jour and your accompanying circus troupe only) that you don’t like trends and have decided that they’ll be abolished once Moronworld is established.

    PantiesizeZ may well believe that ‘drawing one long straight red line through all the data’ is how it’s done. But of course that’s not what is done – as illustrated here

    But thanks for clarifying that you’re just as much of a moron as PantieZ, and you’re continuing to avoid where all that arctic ice melting heat magically appeared from in the (chuckle) sixteenth year of your ‘hiatius’. And all those nose diving previous years, of course.

  94. #95 pentaxZ
    January 3, 2013
  95. #96 chek
    January 3, 2013

    PantiesizeZ is quoting steven goddard as as “authority”.
    What a gimp! And PantieZ is worse!

  96. #97 Skeptic
    January 3, 2013

    “no datasets currently show statistically significant warming since the beginning of 1998. This will most likely continue after this year, 2013, but will most likely end with the passing of 2014.”

    I would really hope so, for the sake of mankind.

    So you hope there will be statistically significant warming from 1998 to 2014 inclusive for the sake of mankind because of what? That psychopaths like you will stop whining that there’s no warming?

  97. #99 Jonas N
    January 3, 2013

    Absolute nonsense chek .. as always

    What I say is that when the temperature doesn’t follow the predictions of the pet-scare-hypothesis, the warmists start pointing at the trend instead .. for obvious reasons. Not knowing or understanding the significance of what they are saying (or avoiding). Not even after this is pointed out (usually)

    Nowhere have I said that trends should be abolished, and why would I even say such a thing. No, the difference is that I know what value can be extracted from a calculated trend. And seemingly many others don’t. And instead attempt to derive substance from a calculated trend which is not justified by the real data.

    But that wasn’t even my point here. Rather this was that many of you aren’t even aware of how and why the hiatus poses a real (and growing) problem for the scare you so eagerly want to believe in. Not even after I repeatedly explained it ..

  98. #100 Skeptic
    January 3, 2013

    Big difference.

    I’m glad you admit your “16 years” was a lie. No doubt you’ll refrain from saying “16 years” from now on, if you’re honest that is.

Current ye@r *