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
    January 5, 2013

    You can’t even say what is wrong, can you, Joan.

    That’s because any claim with meaning can be understood and if wrong (which you have always and ever will be: it seems a pathology for you, see a shrink) can be proven wrong.

    That’s why you can’t say what is wrong.

    Hell you can’t even explain what you mean when you use words!!!!

  2. #2 Chris O'Neill
    January 5, 2013

    Deadheadz:

    “Or just because there is noise doesn’t mean there is no signal.”

    Nor does it mean there is.

    You’re claiming there is zero signal. 16 years of data does not prove that.

  3. #3 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Joan, you’ve got to be the only entity to score negative IQ on a test!

    For example. even after being given the definition of “analogy” you STILL thought that an analogy was an example!

  4. #4 Chris O'Neill
    January 5, 2013

    Only a wilfully ignorant fool would think the 16-year trend confidence interval (just) encompassing zero means much.

    For the wilfully ignorant fools I can get a 19 YEAR “hiatius”. Try start date 1977 and end date 1996 with GISSTemp. That’ll give you your wet dreams.

  5. #5 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    But the deniers said that it didn’t MATTER what dates you used! That was their SOLE defence against the valid criticism of their claims of “cherry picking” the results.

  6. #6 Jonas N
    January 5, 2013

    Wow …

    Shit, are you the emperor of obvious land?

    Well, it wasn’t obvious to Stu, and still isnt. He has been going on for ages. As have you. And

    “You could see absolutely nothing wrong with luminous long winded attempts at ‘physics’ ”

    Thats because nothing wrong was demonstrated.

    Just like you can’t demonstrate it now.

    Yes, plenty was demnstrated. In detail. And if you couldn’t see that, not even find where it was, that’s a problem you have. But stu couldn’t see anything wrong either. Although he claimed to have studied physics for six years. And now derails on ‘passive mass’ which he apparently cannot use correctly even in the sense he wants to imply.

    And you are wrong about the energetically passive mass … What I mean is the obvious, that it is not a source of energy. Just like CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t …

    Funny that you never manage to get anything correctly in your stupid fervor to fault me with silly word games …

    Especially when you seem to get every other sentence and claim completely wrong.

    This time you got the hand/box thing right. But failed to realize that the blow hit the wrong person.

    Poor sad bunch … but Hey this is Deltoid

  7. #7 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “Well, it wasn’t obvious to Stu”

    You just made that up, Joan.

  8. #8 Jonas N
    January 5, 2013

    Chris O’Neill

    The data is the data. That’s correct. It does not depend on exactly how I describe it (mathematically). It is still the empirical data. And I was saying that it poses a problem for the pet scare hypothesis here, and a growing problem if the data doesn’t change.

    It is possible that you are unaware of this. But that doesn’t change anything. Unawareness seems to be a prerequixite for many regulars here ..

    Some here even seem to mean that emoircal data doesn’t mean much. But probably not all the time, and maybe just due to poor phrasing …

  9. #9 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “Yes, plenty was demnstrated. In detail. And if you couldn’t see that, not even find where it was, that’s a problem you have”

    Well you’ve demonstrated that you’re unable to find where it was.

    Indeed you’ve never been able to demonstrate where it was, not for several years.

    That’s a problem you have, Joan: you can’t find your imaginary posts because you have to post here in the real world.

    This has been demonstrated.

    In detail.

    For years.

    Epic.

    Fail.

    Joan.

  10. #10 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “The data is the data. That’s correct”

    That is also content free.

    “And I was saying that it poses a problem for the pet scare hypothesis here”

    Yes, you definitely keep on saying that, despite it being wrong, it being demonstated in equisite detail why you’re wrong and even you yourself are unable to define what problem it could pose.

    Indeed, all you DO is say it.

    But the problem is, you’re making it up.

  11. #11 Jonas N
    January 5, 2013

    Wow, No, I don’t need to make things up. That’s your, Jeff’s, chek’s and Stu’s department.

    He thought the statement was so ambiguous he started lamenting about different speeds hand/box and still does a year and a half later. And threw in ‘dependet variables’ and officially introduced equations’ too. Just like he now wants to lament about an old and rather philosophical meaning of passive wrt to a mass.

    There is no need to, but his needs are obviously very different than dealing with anything relevant. Very likely due to personal issues. Just as I said: Nothing of any relevande here …

  12. #12 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “And you are wrong about the energetically passive mass … What I mean is the obvious,”

    I take it you’re egg shaped and sit on walls a lot, Joan?

    I am absolutely correct about there being no such energetically passive mass.

    Hell, you can’t even manage to explain what the hell you mean!

    “that it is not a source of energy.”

    Well, like unobtanium then. I.e. if it DID exist, you’d be right.

    Problem with your wild-ass-guesses is that no such material exists.

    “Just like CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t …”

    So you’re saying that the US Air Force were lying when they said that CO2 absorbs IR radiation???

  13. #13 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “to fault me with silly word games …”

    It’s such a problem for you, isn’t it Joan.

    Having to say words and sentences that MEAN something and explaining them if they don’t mean anything.

    Diddums.

  14. #14 Jonas N
    January 5, 2013

    Wow you moron. Not only did I find the, I pointed them out in tetail. And additionally corrected them, showed how it should be done instead.

    But you couldn’t even see this, Of course it must have been impossible for you to see any of the many and often bad violations …

    But that’s you Wow … you just have to live with that. And take my word for it. Or Stu’s for the opposite. And remain a moron …

  15. #15 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “Wow, No, I don’t need to make things up”

    I agree. You don’t *need* to.

    You don’t do anything BUT that, though.

    “different speeds hand/box”

    There you go again! Wibbling on about how the hand and box go at different speeds.

    Why do you continue to believe that this is true, Joan?

    ” And threw in ‘dependet variables’”

    NOW who’s playing silly word games, Joan.

    Naughty naughty.

  16. #16 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    ” Not only did I find the, I pointed them out in tetail.”

    You keep typing so furiously that you forget how to spell.

    And you do so because you think that by typing furiously you will somehow make your lies come true.

    Go on, then, where did you point anything out, in detail.

    If you did, in detail, then you can show them.

    Or are these your heffalumps?

  17. #17 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “But you couldn’t even see this,”

    Yes, I’m unable to see things that never existed, Joan.

    This is a huge problem for you deniers, though.

  18. #18 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    ” Of course it must have been impossible for you to see any of the many and often bad violations … ”

    I’ve seen THOUSANDS, Joan.

    Just from you.

    I’ve not seen any you’ve pointed out, though. Because they don’t exist. You have never done so.

    As has been proven many many times before.

  19. #19 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “And remain a moron …”

    Well, if that’s your goal, then feel free to remain a moron.

  20. #20 Jonas N
    January 5, 2013

    Wow … long sentences just aren’t your thing.

    CO2 is a passive gas, it does not add or substract any energy in the atmosphere …

    But that’s a long sentence too

  21. #21 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Joan, reality isn’t something you’re comfortable with.

    “CO2 is a passive gas, it does not add or substract any energy in the atmosphere … ”

    And that’s just bollocks too.

  22. #22 Jonas N
    January 5, 2013

    As I said Wow .. you could not even see where I pointed them out … Understanding the meaning of simple physical descriptions just isn’t your thing. Either.

  23. #23 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    And you’re still unable to understand simple English, are you, Joan. I.e. this sentence:

    “I’ve not seen any you’ve pointed out, though. Because they don’t exist. You have never done so.”

    Just doesn’t manage to get into your brain, does it.

    Just so tiny, that brain. Tiny winy little head full of the most horrendous rubbish.

  24. #24 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “As I said Wow .. you could not even see where I pointed them out ”

    As I have said, you would need to have done so.

    You still, years later, haven’t managed to do that.

  25. #25 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Understanding the meaning of simple physical descriptions just isn’t your thing.

    You much prefer the stuff you make up.

  26. #26 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Go on, Joan.

    Show everyone where you’ve written all this stuff you claim.

    It doesn’t exist, does it. That’s why you don’t.

  27. #27 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Still trying to find it, Joan? Can’t?

    I guess you’re even more incompetent than you thought!

  28. #28 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Do you know what I think of about Joan here on this thread?

    It’s a lot like the episode of the Simpsons when Bart draws “Insert Brain Here” on the back of Homer’s head. You know, where Homer tries to spin round to read the back of his own head and the entire family laugh at his antics, then as Homer continues his insanity, the family find it no longer funny and disturbing.

    Not only in how dumb Joan is, but also in how his bizarre fantasy ravings have people laughing at him then wondering how sick he is. Then finally being REALLY worried that people like that are allowed out on their own where they can get hurt.

  29. #29 Jonas N
    January 5, 2013

    No Wow, it isn’t bollocks. Your rantings are though. And you don’t even seem to know what or whom you are swinging at.

    ANd:
    Have you yet managed to explain how the insertion of a (ambient temperature, passive) mass between two bodies of different temperature does not cause the colder of them to get a little cooler? (Receive a little less radiative energy)

    Have you?

  30. #30 Jonas N
    January 5, 2013

    Wow … you couldn’t see it when you were sitting right next to the conversation commenting … of course you can’t find it now.

    Seeing and finding thinsg just aren’t your thing.

    You are better at imagining things, even if the often are mutally contradicting.

  31. #31 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “No Wow, it isn’t bollocks.”

    It’s complete bollocks, Joan. Complete and utter bollocks. Bollocks of the most high order.

    Such a load of bollocks hasn’t been said since some dude sold a sack of magic beans.

    “Have you yet managed to explain how the insertion of a (ambient temperature, passive) mass between two bodies of different temperature does not cause the colder of them to get a little cooler?”

    Yes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

    You haven’t explained what heat is.

  32. #32 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “Wow … you couldn’t see it when you were sitting right next to the conversation commenting ”

    That’s because such a conversation never happened.

    The detailing only happened in your head, Joan.

    That is why you’ve not pointed out this conversation.

    It’s why you’ve never pointed out any place where you pointed out this conversation.

    It’s why you’ve never even pointed out where you pointed out the pointing out.

    Because that conversation never happened.

    It would be so easy for you to prove me wrong if you were right, but you’re absolutely wrong and know it, therefore you avoid ever pointing out where this conversation you insist happened took place.

  33. #33 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “Seeing and finding thinsg just aren’t your thing. ”

    It isn’t yours, for definite.

    After all, you’ve not managed to find it, have you.

  34. #34 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    How come my not being able to find imaginary coversations is a problem with my skills, Joan?

    I say the conversations are imaginary. They never existed. Therefore not finding them is proof they don’t exist. I’m providing the exact thing I need to do to prove my point.

    I find no such event and that proves that no such event happened.

  35. #35 Stu
    January 5, 2013

    He thought the statement was so ambiguous he started lamenting about different speeds hand/box and still does a year and a half later.

    I said the only reason one would say “the hand has to move faster also” is because there is the possibility that there could be a difference. If the speeds — by definition of the experiment — are the same, only a goddamned moron would bring up the hand speed at all. And only an even bigger moron would continue to defend it for years.

    I see you’re getting upset again, Jonas. Your spelling is even worse than normal, which is the usual sign that you need to take a minute to wipe the spittle off your monitor.

    And threw in ‘dependet variables’

    If you’re talking about dependeNt variables, yes, introducing the hand speed (by virtue of mentioning it) is doing exactly that. GSW introduced one for no good reason, and you’re still defending it. Even GSW is staying out of the substance of that particular discussion, sweetheart. Think about that.

    and officially introduced equations’ too.

    Obvious and stupid lie. I said you “officially introduced a variable”. Inbred mules realize that that does not mean “officially introduced equations”. This has been explained to you repeatedly. As usual, you ignore the explanations, wait a few days and say the same stupid thing all over again, hoping against hope that nobody notices.

    You are desperate, dense as a post and pathetic.

    Just like he now wants to lament about an old and rather philosophical meaning of passive wrt to a mass.

    Wait. Really? The commonly scientific definition of “passive mass”, which is 100% about gravity, not old, not philosophical and commonly accepted is now trumped by the new magical Jonas definition of “absorbs all energy, emits none”… oh, wait, it’s the 2001 monolith, isn’t it, Jonas?

    Must be that “real” science you keep talking about and are unable to define. Just as you are unable to define “passive mass”, “analogy”, “dependent variable” and oh so many other things.

    Also, as a random aside, “provide cooling” again proves you have not passed a single physics course in your life. Ever.

  36. #36 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    Heck, Joan’s Unobtanium breaks Kirchoff’s Law:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation

    Which is one he’s never heard of before. It doesn’t appear in the Bible or the denialist talking points.

  37. #37 Stu
    January 5, 2013

    INTERIOR, EVENING:

    Jonas screeches in his mother’s basement:

    “THAT’S NOT WHAT I MEANT!”

  38. #38 Jonas N
    January 5, 2013

    Stu, you said

    the only reason one would say “the hand has to move faster also” is because there is the possibility that there could be a difference

    Yes, you made such claims. But that doesn’t make them true. Especially not if it is explained to you just minutes after that this isn’t what is meant. And if it already in the first claim is pointed out that the what is referred to is that thebox acellerates.

    So this things is once more settled. As it was just minutes after you derailed Stu. Get over it. You made a fool of your self. Mostly because you are a fool, and now (and since 1½ years) everybody can read it in plain language.

    Your fantasies about what is implied remin only that. Irrelevant. And even if one accepts them, they were sorted out within minutes.

    If you have anything of calue to say about a passice mass inserted between two, but differently radiating bodies, why don’t you say it. So far you are only once again on a derailing tour …

    And don’t talk to me about ‘scientific’ Stu. You could not see anything wrong with luminous many violations .. you are not able to argue anyting about physics. That’s probably why you try ‘passive mass’ as the next angle. And alsoe get this wrong …

    I would be very surprised if your salary is payed on a voluntary basis, ie if somebody actually pays with his own money for your services …

    Absolutely no value for 1½ years …

  39. #39 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “Yes, you made such claims.”

    Those claims are true.

    At least if you’re conversing with someone who understands (or is supposed to understand) English.

    ” Especially not if it is explained to you just minutes after that this isn’t what is meant. ”

    But BEFORE it is explained that isn’t what’s meant, what then?

    Are you blaming Stu for not being a fortune teller with perfect future vision?

  40. #40 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “If you have anything of calue to say about a passice mass inserted between two,”

    You’re dribbling into your gruel again, Joan.

    “but differently radiating bodies,”

    So they are all radiating.

  41. #41 Wow
    January 5, 2013

    “You could not see anything wrong with luminous many violations ”

    You make that claim, but that doesn’t make them true.

  42. #42 Stu
    January 5, 2013

    For crying out loud Jonas, stop posting drunk.

    “in the first claim is pointed”, “that the what is referred to”, “thebox”, “acellerates”, “remin”, “calue”, “passice”, “anyting “, “alsoe”, “ie”.

    This is ONE SINGLE POST, Jonas. You’re a clown.

    Also, we’ve now had several of these:

    You: Something stupid
    Me: Hey, that’s stupid
    You: No it’s not, because
    Me: Sure, but you still said something stupid
    You: Herp, derp, derp.

    “Passice mass” indeed, Jonas. Sheesh.

  43. #43 Stu
    January 5, 2013

    Ach, that was interpreted as a tag.

    That should be

    You: No it’s not, because [something else entirely]

  44. #44 Jonas N
    January 5, 2013

    Stu … yes … comment about typos … that’s your level.

    A hand pushing a box … Ouch … that’s getting far too physical, too difficult. And a drape between you and a fire, or atmosphere on the moon. Start harping on about dependent variables, and gravity or not. And derailing .. and not ever ever having a point or substantial contribution.

    A total joke, Stu

  45. #45 Jonas N
    January 5, 2013

    Wow .. every single violation of luminous’ physics I pointed out was correct. And you couldn’t even find out where I did ..

    That’s your level of comprehension of physics, Wow. None!

  46. #46 Stu
    January 5, 2013

    Jonas, sweetheart, we know you don’t understand why you are so wrong.

  47. #47 Jonas N
    January 5, 2013

    Funny Stu:

    You: Something stupid : Different speeds
    Me: Hey, that’s stupid : No such thing
    You: No it’s not, because : I imagined this
    Me: Sure, but you still said something stupid
    You: Herp, derp, derp. for 1½ years

    For the first time in more than a year: Almost accurate, you just missed whos imagination was stupid

    And now: Do you think gravity is a factor when some mass is inserted between to bodies radiating at different levels?

    If so, keep harpin on about it for the next 1½ years, and possibly more. I will remind you if you don’t!

  48. #48 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “A hand pushing a box … Ouch … that’s getting far too physical, too difficult.”

    Well we’ll tone back the science detail a little for you, Joan. How’s that? Feel better?

  49. #49 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “Wow .. every single violation of luminous’ physics I pointed out was correct.”

    Actually, mathematically, that would be undefined, rather than “all”.

    You have never pointed out any violation of luminous’ physics.

    Zero isn’t actually “all” of zero.

  50. #50 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “And you couldn’t even find out where I did .. ”

    Did what?

    Nothing.

  51. #51 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “Almost accurate, you just missed whos imagination was stupid”

    That would be yours, Joan.

  52. #52 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “Do you think gravity is a factor when some mass is inserted between to bodies radiating at different levels?”

    Why do you think it needs to be asked?

  53. #53 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    Tell us, Joan, what makes the two radiating bodies radiate?

  54. #54 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    Joan, VERY simple question for you.

    What causes the earth to radiate, do you think?

  55. #55 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    I guess Joan can’t answer that one and will wait until Stu or someone else comes along and try to hide their ignorance of the physics.

  56. #56 Chris O'Neill
    January 6, 2013

    And I was saying that it poses a problem for the pet scare hypothesis here

    Your meaningless claims pose a problem for nothing. 16 years of data just shows we don’t know the previous trend has changed. Big deal.

  57. #57 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    Chris O’Neill

    What’s meaningless on this blog is something very different than me pointing out, or explaining obvious things, Or things that should be obvious to anybody who has studied some basic physics or (on a lsigtly hugher level) understands what science is about and how it’s done and works.

    You too start taking about the ‘previous trend’ instead. And seem at least a little bit aware of the problem. But are still willing to downplay it … or hoping that the future will come to the rescue

  58. #58 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    Wow .. you are just boring … and blindly rambling and making nonsense up … and that’s boring too.

    You only value is in defining the level of this blog. But even I must confess you are at the lower end.

  59. #59 Chris O'Neill
    January 6, 2013

    me pointing out, or explaining obvious things, Or things that should be obvious to anybody who has studied some basic physics or (on a lsigtly hugher level) understands what science is about and how it’s done and works.

    What a strawman.

    You too start taking about

    I start talking about something because you’re talking about nothing.

    the problem

    What problem? A “hiatius” in what?

  60. #60 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    Chris O’Neill

    The problem is with the hypothesis …. You do know what a hypothesis is? You do understand what empirical observations are or might be for a hypthesis ..

    And no, I didn’t start talking about the previous trend. I did however point out, that many on your side are very eager to switch to it or some ‘long term trend’. As did you

    And I assure you, it certainly is not me who is the source of meaningless quibbling (although I admit to sometimes respond to it, thereby keeping it coming)

    You too had a long stretch of meaningless pouting, I remember.

    :-)

  61. #61 chek
    January 6, 2013

    The only hypothesis in trouble that I can see Jonarse, is your carefully undefined nonsense relating to short periods of time.

    And you still cannot manipulate your ‘hiatius’ to explain how we saw record ice melt in the Arctic this past summer in the sixteenth year of ‘hiatiusing’.

    File under another crock from a crank repeating Monckton memes he doesn’t understand.

  62. #62 Olaus Petri
    January 6, 2013

    The new prediction from MetOffice shows that Austrialis carbon will be effective:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

    :-)

  63. #63 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    ” and blindly rambling and making nonsense up”

    How can I make up the question “What makes the earth radiate”???

    How can make up “What do you mean by passive mass”???

    Looks like I called it 100%: you cannot and will not answer any questions about science. Because you’re faking it all.

  64. #64 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “What’s meaningless on this blog is something very different than me pointing out, or explaining obvious things”

    Agreed.

    Meaningless things are things like your claim “a haitus is a problem”. Or “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas” or “a mass cools things”.

  65. #65 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “The problem is with the hypothesis …. You do know what a hypothesis is? You do understand what empirical observations are or might be for a hypthesis .”

    Go on, you were saying what the hypothesis’ problem was.

    You failed to finish.

    What is the problem with the hypothesis?

  66. #66 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    Olap, since you don’t know (and have blankly ADMITTED you don’t know) how to find a temperature trend, how do you think you have interpreted the Met Office’s statements correctly?

  67. #67 Olaus Petri
    January 6, 2013

    Wow, so you don’t think that Australia’s carbon tax has anything to do with the new prediction? ;-)

  68. #68 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    So Olap, you agree that you don’t know if you’re reading the statement right or wrong :-P

  69. #69 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    Heck, I can help you out right now.

    You haven’t a clue what the forecast is saying.

  70. #70 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    Olap, do you agree that there will be an even higher temperatures over the next decade? ;-)

  71. #71 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    chek

    The only hypothesis in trouble that I can see Jonarse, is your carefully undefined nonsense relating to short periods of time.

    Well, I am talking about the instrumental record. You know: empirical observations. They most certainly aren’t the hypothesis.

    But yes, the observations are growing problem for the per scare hypothesis here. I didn’t really expect you to understand how and why. Not even after I explained it. I more expect you to share your profound insights on som ‘Jonarse’ or Monckton or start gpoin on about arctic sea ice instead.

  72. #72 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    Wow .. you are probably the most meaningless commenter here. But you can’t quite relax, there is competition for that price …

  73. #73 chek
    January 6, 2013

    So Jonarse, it should then be easy for you to explain how the instrumental record fits into the bigger picture which includes record arctic melt in the sixteenth year of your ‘hiatius’.

    But of course you can’t do that without losing your slippery evasivenessm which is the hallmark of the lying denier.

  74. #74 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    Wow … but here is som praise for you. You got one detail right actually (probably only by chance, but still):

    I haven’t i detail what problem the observations are causing for the hypothesis. Just hinted …

    And I think those a little smarter than the aboslute bottomfeeders here, those who know a little something about science, aboutwhat a hypothesis, what for and how it is used etc … shouldunderstand and be aware of this.

    But I don’t expect those (on your side) who do tell you openly. And here, I would be very suprised if any of you understand.

    And BTW, I’ve explained it in quite som detail earlier. But I wouln’t expect you to have understood anything then either, not even to find where afterwards … those just aren’t your things.

    :-)

  75. #75 chek
    January 6, 2013

    “Wow .. you are probably the most meaningless commenter here”.

    You’ll find that you make by far the majority of meaningless comments here Jonarse. And quite a few of those don’t even manage to struggle across into unintelligibility barrier.

  76. #76 chek
    January 6, 2013

    “And here, I would be very suprised if any of you understand”.

    Climate science is generally well understood by many here.

    Understanding your gnomish, non sequiturial and often dessicated thinking processes, not so much.

  77. #77 chek
    January 6, 2013

    *from* unintelligibility.

  78. #78 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    chek ..

    arctic sea ice is a diversion from the only really central question. I have never really bothered to bother about it …

    And the notion that the temperature record should be secondary tho ‘the bigger picture’ which supposedly is about arctic summer ice ..

    .. is just what I expect from someone how feels that ‘denier’ and stupid name calling somhow strengtens his position.

    As I’ve said many times: Thosw who have these needs, never have anything of substance to contribute. They are shouters from the sideline of a game they don’t understand, not even know what the field is ..

  79. #79 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    chek

    Climate science is generally well understood by many here

    Ah yes, chek. Many here think copying and repeating talking points bare reaching SkSc-level is ‘understanding climate science’ or even believing that the phrases and offered there are the science ..

    But most here don’t even reach up to that level. And as I’ve said many times. Those who feel the need to label others as ‘deniers’ most certainy don’t understand science.

    Look chek, almost non of you here has been able to argue even their own position with any accuracy. Heck most of you are patently incapable of behaving like adults. You are one of them.

    And yes, I can judge the scientific merits when they exist, and als point out the problems and gaping holes, which many try to cover with armwaving and more words …

    And those here who have managed to argue their stance and stuck to actual science and proper arguments have been extremely rare and few …

    You claim is absolutely laughable, chek

    I wonder why you would make such stupid assertions?
    Heck, I forgot. That’s the only think you manage to do … Sorry

  80. #80 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    chek .. it is good of you to defend über-moronic commenter Wow here … as I’ve said, that’s his best contribution here. That he gets others here to side with him even draw support …

    That’s the level here chek. And you say many here ‘understand climate science’ …

    How cute …

  81. #81 chek
    January 6, 2013

    “I wonder why you would make such stupid assertions?”

    The ‘stupid assertion’ here Jonarse is your carefully undefined ‘hiatius’ that indicates you want to salami slice and cherry pick and ignore data which are inconvenient to the latest in a long string of lying denier narratives.

    So where did that mysterious heat come from to give record Arctic melt in the sixteenth year of your alleged ‘hiatius’? That you have no answer and no context is a strong indication you’re parroting somebody else’s tripe (Monkton in this case) that you don’t understand.

  82. #82 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    chek .. as I*ve already pointed out several times:

    There is nothing ‘carefully selected’ about the empirical data. The problem is with the hypothesis. And if things don’t change very drastically, these problems will increase rapidly.

    The funny things is that you here (many of you) somehow want it (or even believe it ) to be with how the record is described exactly …

    It isn’t! But I notice that you often think that ‘the science’ is the choice of words used to describe or label things. That the words themselves settle things. And not how things realate to actual reality …

    Unfort
    unately I’ve seen it many times. And not only as low level blogs with heavy moderation, but also as the weight of the argument more officially and (again unfortunately) even by those labelled ‘climate scientists’

    But if you are avoiding reality, if your purpose in the end is not measured by how it holds up compared to reality, it’s not science.

    Regarding your ‘strong indication’ wrt to a question you would rather talk about, that’s again total nonsense as an argument …

    The stupidity of your arguments is just astonishing. A hint would be: You reveal less ignorance by continuing your lare ‘Jonarse lying denier’- tripe

  83. #83 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “There is nothing ‘carefully selected’ about the empirical data.”

    So you agree with the data.

    Good.

    Now stop cherry picking when you’re going to start working out trends.

  84. #84 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “The problem is with the hypothesis”

    What problem?

  85. #85 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “But most here don’t even reach up to that level.”

    Like I said to another rectal-cranial-inversion troll, since you have you head shoved up your arse, you see everything upside-down.

    You’re too dumb to read, too thick to think. And convinced you’re not the ignorant donkey you are.

  86. #86 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “I haven’t i detail what problem the observations are causing for the hypothesis. Just hinted …”

    Nope, you’ve avoided.

    Like everything.

    There’s no problem with AGW.

    Your assertion is incorrect.

    Deal with it.

  87. #87 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “But yes, the observations are growing problem for the per scare hypothesis here.”

    Yes, your scare hypothesis is in serious trouble, Joan.

  88. #88 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “And I think those a little smarter than the aboslute bottomfeeders here, those who know a little something about science, aboutwhat a hypothesis, what for and how it is used etc … shouldunderstand and be aware of this. ”

    We do.

    However, you’re so stupid you can’t even think.

  89. #89 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “I didn’t really expect you to understand how and why”

    That’s because you’ve never said what it was.

    Not even hinting at it.

  90. #90 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    The end is nigh for Joan.

    The empirical data is devastating to his scare hypothesis.

  91. #91 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    chek .. you just claimed:

    you make by far the majority of meaningless comments here Jonarse

    in an attempt to defend Wow …

    As I just pointed out, reality is rarely ever a part of the argument. And precision just isn’t your thing… probably even counting is difficult. And numbers in science, or worse even, dealing with statistics, and quantifications and comparisions … that’s just way to far above your head. Isn’t it.

    Funny, it’s a treat many of you scare-screamers have in common

    re just saying that I was responsible for

  92. #92 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    Wrong Wow …

    That’s because you’ve never said what it was.

    Not even hinting at it.

    I both hinted it pretty bluntly here recently, and described and explained it in quite som detail earlier.

    But you wouldn’t know that, As you’ve told us many times: You are unable to find anything. And not even when i’äs right in front of you, you manage to read and understand what it says ..

    Hence you endless clueless meaningless incoherent ramblings …

    But Jeff Harvey thinks your existence and support strengthens his fantasies … I find that very cute

  93. #93 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “I both hinted it pretty bluntly here recently,”

    there’s your problem, then. you think “hinted” means “didn’t say”.

    That’s OK, we all know you’re too stupid to know what words mean. That’s why we keep telling you about your bad spelling.

    So far you’ve been too stupid to learn.

  94. #94 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “As I just pointed out, reality is rarely ever a part of the argument”

    I think Joan has just told everyone here what the problem is.

    However, Joan is far too stupid to know it.

    Here’s a hint, Joan. You have a devastating problem.

  95. #95 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “And not even when i’äs right in front of you,”

    You’ve had enough hints so far to work out the problem here for you.

  96. #96 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    Poor Joan, too stupid to understand what he’s saying.

  97. #97 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    ” you manage to read and understand what it says .. ”

    Thank you joan for saying out loud that I manage to read and understand what it says.

  98. #98 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    Long sentence, i know, Wow …

    I’ll try to help you a little:

    And not even when it’s right in front of you, [do] you manage to read and understand what it says ..

  99. #99 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    So you still can’t see the problem, Joan?

    Even when it’s right there on the same page!

  100. #100 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    And I agree, if it isn’t written down, I can’t read it. That’s because reality is where I live. You live elsewhere.

    Poor little Joan, too dumb to read.

Current ye@r *